[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) presented the first report of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to continue and complete consideration and examination of the Indian Act, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Should we not have an opportunity to see the report before we pass it?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The report was read by the Clerk Assistant.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: We couldn't hear it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 59, respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Pinard.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops) :: * Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire whether the government is aware of the decision taken last night by the students of the university of Toronto when, in a debate in which the leader of the opposition participated, they voted in favour of the establishment of a Progressive Conservative government at Ottawa.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: If my hon. friends opposite wish to have a reply, I would say that the students of Toronto, as I remember them, have always been very courteous. No doubt they intended their action as a mark of courtesy to the leader of the opposition.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Speak to the Minister
of Trade and Commerce about that.



WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It is rather supplementary to a question asked the other day by the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). Has consideration been given by the government, in the interests of convenience on the part of holders of war savings certificates, to the cashing of these certificates at local post offices? A number of representations have been received.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: The question has been brought to my attention by a good many members, including the hon. member for Peterborough West, the member for Lake Centre, and a number of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house. The whole matter is being looked into, and I will try to make a statement in the course of a few days.



PRICES-QUESTION OF ENSURING SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
for 1949
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received communications from western Canadian beef producers and feeders that prices for finished beef are falling, apparently owing to the meat packing companies' lack of interest in bidding for finished beef? Secondly, will the minister tell the house what measures he proposes to take to protect beef feeders from losses on their 1947-48 operations, and thus to safeguard beef supplies for Canadian consumers for the year 1949?


Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the question put by the hon. member for Lethbridge. The question-will receive due consideration and an answer will be given.


Mr. KNOWLES:: He should be a minister.
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell



SHIPMENTS TO UNITED STATES-SHORTAGE OP U.S. DOLLARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I [DOT]would like to ask the acting minister of agriculture whether any further consideration has been given to lifting the embargo on Canadian cattle going into the United States, in view -of the shortage of American dollars?


Robert McCubbin: That question, too, will be given consideration.


William Earl Rowe: We did not hear the answer.


Robert McCubbin: I said that that matter [DOT]will also be given consideration.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: Might I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture this question:	Has he been
*coached by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Agriculture or both?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister received any representations from the Manitoba teachers society, or teachers' organizations in other provinces, in connection with deductions from taxable income of expenses incurred while taking summer school courses? If so, is the minister prepared to give consideration to their request?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: I have received no notice of the *question, and have no recollection of any representations having been made. I shall inquire and will give an answer later.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I sent notice of the question this morning.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, Eebruary 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion 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. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I had begun to speak yesterday on the question of inflation, which seems to me a danger to our economy perhaps second only to that of the atomic bomb, and much more immediate. I pointed out the tremendous increase during the last eight years in the quantity of our money. I pointed out how that arose naturally during the war. I pointed out that the increase in money was not accompanied by any corresponding increase in goods. I pointed out further that that condition had been accentuated by the policy followed subsequent to the war, which I thought-[DOT]


James Horace King: Order. I dislike having to interrupt the hon. member, but I must point out to hon. members that there is so much noise in the chamber that it is disagreeable to the member who has the floor and, I am sure, to everyone ivho is trying to listen to what he is saying.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might say to hon. members that they had better listen now because it gets much duller as it goes on. This is the best- part.
I just w-anted to add that I had pointed out yesterday my belief, and the belief I have no doubt of everyone who reflects upon it, that notwithstanding the fact that this matter is of enormous importance, the government when recently putting before the house the question of high prices had entirely neglected this question of inflation; and I quoted the remark of an American writer to the effect that inflation was the crime and the government was the criminal, adding that our government was seeking to implicate other criminals so as to draw attention away from itself.
I wish to go on now and point out to you and to the house why I think that the policy pursued since 1945 has been wrong; why I think it is doing serious damage now, and, further, why I think that unless steps are taken to correct it there is more damage to be expected.
The diagnosis of 1945 was wrong. I said yesterday that I thought there was an excuse for the government, when coming to the end of the war. to believe that they might be faced with depressed conditions, and I did not think of blaming them for not realizing that they would be faced with a boom. But one can blame them, and blame them severely, for having continued for three years in their failure to recognize that what we are having now is a boom condition. The diagnosticians prescribed the wrong medicine. The condition which they foresaw and prescribed for was a

The. Address-Mr. Macdonnell
condition of anaemia, whereas what we have had has been a fever. In plain words, they used artificial means to keep down the rate of interest and keep up the supply of money.
What are they doing now? They are confusing or trying to confuse the people of the country by leading them off on a wild-goose chase in the committee. As a matter of fact the proceedings of the committee have indicated already that it is a wild-goose chase. I think the government's own officials have given enough evidence to show the nature of this foolish proceeding which the government of Canada has embarked upon.
In case anyone suggests that I am putting forward some wild idea that we should wreck the economy of the country in order to bring down prices, may I say this. I notice the governor of the Bank of Canada the other day made the statement that he did not want to burn the house down in order to cook his pig. He has been reading Charles Lamb, I presume. I do not want to burn the house down either to cook the pig, but temperate, gradual means should be taken, and there is no sign, or precious little sign, of the government doing that in any way, shape or form.
Let us now deal with the question of low interest. Some people seem to think that if you talk about interest you are touching some sacred thing and that you will arouse every person in this country against you. I am not afraid of that. What is interest? What does artificially low interest mean? It is interest which is kept down by artificial means. It gives us easy money. What do we mean by easy money? Just what we say-lots of money, money easy to get, money easy to spend, encouraging people to borrow whether it is wise for them to borrow or not, so that the money can be spent.
In a moment I shall quote from an authority suggesting that perhaps a good deal of money has been spent incautiously, that some of the chickens may come home to roost. What is the remedy for this? What is the remedy which has been tested by the generations? It is that when we get into boom times the rate of interest should be allowed to rise gradually and naturally. As I say, that is a remedy which has been tested by the wisdom of men for generations. What has happened here? Our government has undertaken to set it at naught. What I say is that if one undertakes to set at naught the tried and tested results of experience, if one undertakes to say that he knows more than all other men know, then he must be right. One cannot afford to come back later on and say: We thought we knew more than everybody else, but now we find that we .<Io not.


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Was it not the rise in the interest rates that immediately precipitated the great depression of 1929?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall not try to answer that in a hurry, because there were a great many conditions that arose there. My hon. friend and I can discuss that at some other time; I have only twenty minutes left.
Let me come back to what I was saying. A rising interest rate is the corrective which has been recognized for generations. It has been set at naught, and what has happened? We have got into the deadly spiral. There are four well-recognized stages, you might say, in the deadly spiral. First of all, prices go up, and1 labour naturally asks for increased wages. Profits being good and demand being good, employers are inclined not to demur to such a request, and increases will be given to labour. As 85 per cent of costs consist of wages or services paid to other people who are self-employed, then prices go up. There is another turn in the spiral. But owing to the abundant means of payment, and the fact that prices are still soaring, these goods can be sold and so you have the deadly spiral which we are in the midst of now. In this atmosphere, expansion is in the air. This is in the psychology of boom; and if we go on allowing the psychology of boom to continue undisturbed), uncontrolled and uncorrected, we all know what will happen. We get a bust; and the longer it goes, the worse is the bust. What I charge against the government is that they are now refusing to allow the proper correctives to work, that they are stimulating and intensifying the situation and making certain that we shall have a bust. The government may say: Oh, we are not making these expenditures; private individuals are making these expenditures. In the main that is true. But what I charge is that the government is creating the wrong atmosphere. The government, by its credit policy, should not be making it easy for these people to go on expanding.
The other day a competent authority, Mr. Dobson, the president of the Bank of Montreal, stated as follows:
Much construction is going forward now at costs so high that only continuous prosperity at present levels can make it pay.
In other words, unless we go on and on, and up and up, some of these chickens will
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell

come home to roost. We are all on the merry-go-round. I say that the ordinary correctives have been denied to the economy. The government has prevented1 them by its financial policy. I do not think we ought to believe for one minute that we are necessarily at the end of the roadi yet. Doctor James of McGill, who is a well recognized authority in the field of finance and incidentally I think was chosen by this government as one authority on its planning commission during the war, says this: "Tremendous forces for potential inflation still exist". That statement was made a couple of days ago. He says those forces still exist. In other words, if we go on at this rate the boom will turn into a bust. Some people seem to think we are on a verge of a bust now. Indeed I heard someone say the other day, "Is that not just the Prime Minister's luck? We are going to get a break in prices and1 he is going to be saved". What I say is this: if we have a break in prices even now it will cause enough disturbance and the government even now will have the responsibility because for three years we have had this wrong inflationary financial policy forced upon us.
I have already said that I believe that up to 1945 this expansionist policy was justified, or at any rate there was a great deal of reason for it, and that we certainly should not come back and try to criticize it. It is since that time that the mistake has been made. Lest anyone should say I am overlooking the fact that the classic corrective of higher interest does cause certain distress, let me say that I am not overlooking that at all. I know it caused certain distress and I know that in the community of today we must take care of that distress. We must see that by allowing what Keynes called the classic medicine to work, we do not disregard those whom it affects. But what I say is if we are to have a bust or anything like a bust because of this policy, twenty times as much distress will be caused as would have been caused by allowing the natural corrective of rising interest rates to work.
Whatever possessed the government, which is .pleased with itself and which occasionally has won praise even from others, to get into this situation, I think, like a good many other things, it can be traced to the war mentality. We had order in council government during the war; and what we should remember is that order in council government does not really mean order in council government; it means minister government. It means that the minister gets endorsement of the cabinet, but naturally the minister must make his own

decision. Therefore we come back to the Department of Finance which for years has had virtually unlimited power and unlimited money. When we came to the end of the war I think it was extremely difficult for them to understand that new circumstances had arisen, and they carried their war controls into peace controls. It is interesting to observe that the war controls on other things have been diminished and in some cases done away with; but the war controls on money are practically the same as they were. Indeed we know that since 1946 they have in certain cases been increased. How long is this going on? Is it going on for ever?
I come now to what is the key or the root of the whole matter, namely, the control of money, of its use and of its supply which goes on through the interest rate. It is another case of arbitrary power which I spoke about the other evening. As a matter of fact, while many people may escape the arbitrary power of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, nobody escapes the arbitrary power of the Department of Finance. It touches everybody. So we are especially interested in tliis power. The low rate of interest is owing to the fact that the Bank of Canada, by buying bonds in the market, keeps this rate of interest artificially low. They support the market for long-term Dominion of Canada bonds at a price of about S102 when these same bonds are selling in the United States at a discount of about sixteen points below par. I understand that in the United States these bonds are called orphan bonds. Incidentally, this discount is partly due to the utter unreality of the situation here. The truth is that the market for Dominion of Canada bonds in Canada is a sham. The only real buyer on balance is the Bank of Canada. I say it is a sham while the bank persists in maintaining this artificial situation. Those who ordinarily establish the rate, the dealers -and let us bear in mind that they are the very dealers who placed in the hands of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who bought in good faith huge amounts of bonds during the war-now1, because of the arbitrary action of the government, have no basis on which they can form a judgment as to the true value of the securities in order to advise their clients.
In other words, as I say, the bond market is a sham, with the Bank of Canada on balance being the only real buyer. How are the dealers to know, under these artificial conditions, when the Bank of Canada is going to take another step, as it did a month ago, to disrupt the market? The step they took a month

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
ago, when they partly withdrew support, caused the market to fall some two points, which is a violent disruption in ordinary times,
I suppose the worst since September, 1939, or perhaps June, 1940. Now as a matter of fact everything is confused; no one knows what the bank is going to do. I noticed that at the annual meeting the other day the governor spoke of what they had done; nevertheless he indicated there was still to be some support. So apparently they allowed this little breath of reality to blow' in upon the situation, but now again we are to have support, though no one knows to what extent. In other words the value of bonds in Canada at the present time does not depend, as it always has in the past and as it must again some day in the future, upon the judgment of hundreds of thousands of people buying and selling-[DOT] because after all there is safety in a multitude of judgments; now it depends upon the judgment of the Department of Finance, the same judgment that made the decision in June, 1916, which so many people now regard as disastrous.
Of course, here as elsewhere one control leads to another. When the bank begins to control the price of Dominion of Canada bonds it finds it cannot stop there but has to step out, so that now, in the case of other financing, the Dominion of Canada has to come to the rescue. Just the other day I am told that in connection with a certain large issue of some
S35.000.000 the dealers found, as they are finding in many eases, that there were not enough buyers unless Dominion of Canada bonds could be turned in as the purchase price. So what happened in this case was that fifty to seventy-five per cent of the buyers handed to the dealers as their purchase price Dominion of Canada bonds. The dealers then turned around and sold them, and to whom? They were sold to the only real buyer, the Bank of Canada. So we have reached the point where the Bank of Canada is now not merely underwriting Dominion of Canada bonds but other bonds as well.
It is high time, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada asked themselves how long this is to go on. How' long is the department going to dam back the waters? The longer the flood is held back the greater will be the break; and there will be a break some day, a break which will bring tremendous unsettlement with it if no steps are taken to let it come gradually. In the interests of common sense I appeal to the Minister of Finance to begin to let nature take its course.
My time is running out, and I want to say-just a word about the effect of this low interest rate. Of course it strikes a body blow at everyone trying to look after himself, everyone who is trying to save money against his old age. It strikes a body blow against those paying their money to insurance companies. I sometimes wonder whether it is possible that the official mind gets to the point where it does not want independent people, people who think for themselves. I do not know whether it is possible for them to get to the point 'where they want as many people as possible dependent on the government. Sometimes one almost thinks that must be so.
A moment ago I said that in a multitude of opinions there is wisdom. That is the only way we ever got on. Is there any reason to believe that in one department of government there is enough ability to set itself up against or rather substitute itself for, the common capacity for judgment of those who act together, who proceed by trial and error, making mistakes here and being corrected by other people there and eventually arriving at what is a sound view? That is the only way we can progress, as I suggest it is the only way we have progressed thus far. For what reason do they believe they are always right? They caused a great disturbance a month ago by what they did then. I am not going to go over again the disturbance caused in June 1946 by their embargoes and taxes and penalties and permits, and now our subjection to the decrees of the minister of reconstruction.
I have argued that this peril of inflation is something we cannot disregard. In other countries it has produced indescribable unsettlement; or perhaps "unsettlement" is not strong enough, so I would say it has produced indescribable distress. I said yesterday we here have regarded inflation as something which happened in funny foreign countries, something which could not happen here. Well, I see no reason why it cannot happen here if we do the things which made it happen elsewhere. There is no reason to think that if we act in time we cannot prevent it, but I see no action being taken by the government with that in view. Perhaps I should not say that; some action is being taken. The government has redeemed certain bonds in the last year, but I see no action worthy of the name being mentioned to deal with this situation. Do not let us provide a complete cushion for ourselves by just saying we cannot do anything because of the United States. I know the influence of the United States upon us is very great; nevertheless I was interested to read that after the first war one brave little country, as it was then and I hope still is, that is Czechoslovakia, managed
The Address-Mr. McCuaig

to preserve its currency by proper measures taken within that country itself, even though it was surrounded by a sea of inflation.
What we need now is wise action by the government, and also moderation and selfrestraint on the part of all, because if everyone, capital, labour, agriculture and so on, seeks his own immediate advantage-and I underline the "immediate"-I think there is incredible trouble waiting for us all. I have said more than once that I believe that so far the government has largely failed, and that it is now engaged in obscuring the issue. Someone wonders whether they are hoping that, a semidepression is at hand to cure the situation. But I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this problem faces us; that I believe we are now on the wrong track; that what we are doing is utterly unreal, and I call upon the government to bring forth real remedies in time.


Mr. D. J. McCUAIG (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the speech from the throne is looked upon as a forecast of government policy and future economic trends. In the present speech from the throne I see no fundamental change from government policy in any other session of this parliament, or any change from the pre-war economy of Canada. It is my opinion that a definite national policy should be on the way, and that the Liberal party has fallen down in the exercise of the powers the people of Canada have placed in its hands. If anything, greed and dissension are more prevalent now than at any other time. The new order the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has spoken of, for which many laid down their lives, is nowhere in sight. The very spirit that spelled the doom of three powerful regimes in the past eight years still prevails and is becoming more intensified every day on this continent of North America, as the austerity program, the McCann income tax witch hunt, as I call it, and the Prime Minister's resolution will testify. The almighty dollar is still uppermost in the minds of men. It takes first place. The greatest of God's handiwork, men, women and children, take second place. Eighty-five per cent of the people of Canada, including the workers and the producers, those who produce the goods which keep us alive, the workers in our mines and forests and factories who make everything we wear and everything we have around us, those who serve the public and look after our needs, get but a small share of that great common heritage available for the use of all mankind. The eighty-five per cent found in those three classes are the salt of the earth; the nation's strength is measured by their welfare.

It w'ould appear to me that the two great world wars, with all their sacrifice of lives and property, have availed nothing and taught us nothing. But one thing is sure, that we are more enslaved to the great national debt and to the almighty dollar than we ever were before in our lives. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the ever-increasing burden of taxation upon the working people violate eve ry aspect of comm: n interest among men.
It is becoming more apparent to me as time goes by that, if it has the welfare of the people at heart, the government will have to regard seriously the fact that the present economic policy does not take care of the interests of the majority of the Canadian people, and that the men who own and control our natural resources, our transportation systems and our financial structure hold the destinies of every soul in Canada in the hollows of their hands. These people defy government, and something will have to be done about it. With them, scarcity, lower costs and higher prices come first; the needs of the people second. They turn the key in the lock and they defy the government, as they did in connection with wartime contracts-costs plus five per cent. The British Columbia legislature had a taste of this when a ceiling was placed on the price of oil products. The oil concerns cut off supplies and sat back. There is no longer such a thing as competition among those big fellows. They are a brotherhood of exploiters, taking all that the traffic will bear, all the time. They defy governments and get away with it.
The things I see happening around me every day while sitting in parliament almost lead me to believe that the government ministers are part and parcel of the racket. Or perhaps they belong to the same school and do not know any better. Their world is a world of flat-top desks, adding machines and typewriters. They never rub shoulders with the realities of life and simply do not realize the struggles of the home builder or the very important part he plays in the building of the nation.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Why don't you stop reading the manuscript written by Dave Lewis?


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: If you wish to say something, get up and try it.


Mr. BENTLEY:: It is smarter than anything you ever did.


John Ewen Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that if the hon. member is going to abuse cabinet ministers and members on this side of the house, he should at least do it

The Address-Mr. McCuaig
from his own thoughts and not from a prepared manuscript such as he has been reading since he began to speak.


Mr. FRASER:: The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) read all of his yesterday.


John Ewen Sinclair: Why did you not object, then?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Did you see the Minister of Mines and Resources reading his speech yesterday?


John Ewen Sinclair: Why did you not object?


Thomas John Bentley: Fine sports over there!


James Horace King: I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it is against the rules of the house to read his speech.


Mr. HOMUTH:: He is using copious notes.


Duncan John McCuaig: I thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall do the best I can.


James Horace King: Order; I must call the attention of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) to the fact that neither is it in order to smoke in the chamber.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I humbly apologize. I wanted to speak to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) before going to a committee meeting, and had forgotten that I was smoking. I assure Your Honour my breach of the rules was inadvertent.


Duncan John McCuaig: Good homes and healthy families are the foundation of the nation. Can any man stand in parliament and say that we are not far behind in these things? Hon. members of the C.C.F. have repeatedly asked the government to continue wartime economies, or at least until such time as parity is reached between production and wages. The more scientific method has never been even attempted by the government. The whole economy of Canada has been thrown back into the lap of monopolistic institutions. The government should have known better. Those institutions have used this privilege both before and during the war, and parliament is well aware of what has gone on since that time. Those institutions-


John Ewen Sinclair: You lost your place, did you?


Duncan John McCuaig: No one knows this better than the Prime Minister, who has said this:
The war has shown us that the way of monopoly, of unrestricted power, is a way that leads to destruction, desolation and death.
Those are the Prime Minister's words as they appear in his speech delivered before the convention of the American Federation of Labor at Toronto on October 9, 1942.
The Prime Minister said this further, as reported in the press:
I do not believe you can settle the labour question, the question of the relation of capital and labour, until you give the man who invests his life in industry the same say in control as you give the man who invests his money.
Those are the Prime Minister's words as reported in the Regina Leader-Post of October 10. 1935. The Prime Minister knows the score. And if all the things he had in mind are contained in his resolution of January, 1948, I shall be one of the most pleased men in parliament.
Let me repeat that if ever Canada is to become a prosperous and wealthy country, a more equitable distribution of wealth will have to be made. Certainly we do not have that equitable distribution in Canada today. The best evidence of this is found in the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), as they appear in his budget address of 1947. This was what the minister said:
The exemption levels established last year are high enough to exempt completely from tax more than half the people earning incomes in Canada.
This is on the basis of $750 for a single man and $1,500 for a married man. If this shows anything it is that more than half the people of Canada, our producers, our workers and those who provide service for the public, are getting less than $750 a year. Over half of our population of workers are receiving less than the minimum required for personal and living expenses in 1944, according to the Toronto Welfare Council. In that year they *set the figure at $1,850 and today it is close to $2,300. There is nothing left to build houses, to educate children and to provide for old age. The moment a married man gets above that figure it is taxed away from him. He can never build a modern house on what is left of $1,500; it is all taken up by his living expenses. It is only by our people having good homes and good health that we can become a nation with economic security.
I earnestly ask the government to raise the income tax exemptions to $1,000 for a single person and $2,500 for a married person. I am sure that if that question was put to the people's representatives in this parliament it would be carried on all sides. When it comes to a real issue like this, democracy does not work. Parliament is powerless.
I should like to deal now with agriculture, the most important industry' in Canada. The weal or woe of agriculture affects every industry and every person in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has taken a lot of credit for the wheat agreements,
The Address-Mr. McCuaig

and I am willing to let him have all the credit he deserves for what he put into the four-year agreement with the United Kingdom and the five-year agreement between the producers and the government. For a long time the producers, through their organizations, have been asking for stabilized prices for farm products and that the wheat board should market all grain. In my opinion the stabilized wheat price that has been provided carries with it too great a sacrifice in price. It amounts to a direct tax on the farmers or the wheat growers amounting to millions of dollars.
I claim to be a practical farmer; I am not a speech maker. I learned the hard way. As I say, agriculture is the most important industry in Canada but it has never been treated as such. The government's attitude toward the farmer, the tiller of the soil, has been one of contempt and discrimination.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Protection and subsidies.


An hon. MEMBER:: No margarine.


Duncan John McCuaig: I leave all that to hon. gentlemen over there. In the depression of the early thirties agriculture took the worst beating of any industry or business in Canada. I am speaking mainly of Saskatchewan, of which I know the most. Wheat went down to 19 cents a bushel for No. 1 at the local shipping point.


Mr. GRANT:: That was the Tories.


Duncan John McCuaig: What about 1935 and 1936 when the Liberals were in power? The price received for coarse grains would not pay the cost of harvesting, threshing and hauling, to say nothing of operating costs, repairs and depreciation. In 1936 and 1937 there was no market for stock. The government bought carloads, even trainloads at one and two cents per pound and shipped them to the packers and later on the public paid plenty for that stuff. The farmers' co-operative abattoir at Saskatoon was bypassed, it got none of that business. I contend that the government discriminated against that co-operative and was responsible in a large measure for its going under. The government's friends, the packers, did very well, but under that kind of economy the farmers went broke and were faced with an ever-increasing burden of debt. I should like to put on the record the details of how the government came to the aid of Canada's

No. 1 industry. I have in my hand a food schedule which reads as follows:
Bureau of Labour and Public Welfare
Food Schedule
Local Improvement Districts Rural Municipalities Villages
Maximum food allowance for one month
1			 $ 6.40
2 3	persons 			 10.30 	 12.40
4>
14.50
			 16.50
6			 18.50
			 20.50
8			 22.50
0			 24.50
10 11 12			 26.50
			 28.00
	persons 			 29.50
That is dated September 1, 1936. The amount provided for 20 persons is $38.40 or $1,922 per person per month. Then there is another statement which is underlined and which reads:
Important
Instructions to secretary-treasurer
1.	If applicant has meat, deduct 15 per cent; dairy products 10 per cent; vegetables 10 per cent.
2.	Secretaries should carefully check prices charged by merchants to see that only fair and just prices are being charged for commodities provided under food schedule.
We had short crops in 1936 and 1937. According to the dominion bureau of statistics in 1936, crop district 3 yielded 4-4 bushels per acre while crop district 4 yielded 1-2 bushels per acre. In 1937 crop district 3 yielded 0-2 bushels per acre and crop district 4, 0-1 bushels per acre. There were practically no crops in those districts in those two years. There were conditions existing in those years over which the farmer had no control, but his expenses went on just the same. In the spring of 1938 the farmers had to get seed to sow their crop. The wheat board still had wheat in the local elevators. It was government wheat, bought at low prices, and it could have been supplied to municipalities for seed at cost, plus handling charges. But that was too simple a way to do business. The wheat board and the grain exchange could function in 1938, the wheat board taking delivery of wheat when the price dropped 'below 70 cents f.o.b. the lakehead. That would be 50 cents at the local point. Naturally the grain exchange operated only when wheat went above 70 cents at the lakehead; but the two

The Address-JUr. McCuaig
short crops started gamblers speculating and in February and March, 1938, wheat went up to 81.40 on the Winnipeg grain exchange, and the farmers had to pay 81.42 for their 1938 seed. It was purely a speculative market. I would1 say it was a deal between the government and the gamblers to impoverish a little more the already down and broke farmers, be-ause in June, 1938, before some of that seed was even up, wheat was back in the 50's at the local points.
I should like to make this observation. In 1942 a delegation of 400 farmers came to Ottawa with a petition signed by 185,000 farmers asking the government to raise the price of wheat from 70 cents at the lakehead to $1. The government saw fit to raise the price to only 90 cents; and it stayed at 90 cents until September 27, 1943, and then wheat went up. On the open market and on the Winnipeg grain exchange it went up to 81.35. Then the government stepped in and closed the Winnipeg grain exchange and put a ceiling price of 81.25 a bushel on wheat. I want to make this point. In 1938 when the farmers had to buy seed, in other words were in the market to buy wheat, wheat went up to 81.45 on the Winnipeg grain exchange. The government went along with them. They did1 not put a ceiling price on then. The government went along with the grain exchange and charged the farmers 81.42 for the seed.
In 1943, as I said, wheat went up to 31.35, and for the first time the farmers had a chance to make something on their wheat, but the government put a ceiling on it. That is the way the government dealt with the farmers.
Hon. members have heard about the 1938 wheat scandal. When the C.C.F. got into power in Saskatchewan the first thing they did was to cancel on their own responsibility 50 per cent of the 1938 seed debt, knowing, as they did, the practical side of this business and the ordeal that the farmers had come through, and they asked the federal government to cancel the other 50 per cent. Did the federal government do that? No, they did not. They held on to the last cent with five per cent interest, and are still trying to collect, and have collected up to now, 100 per cent on this seed grain debt. Let me say further that this same government are still holding out for a 1914 seed grain debt on grain that was delivered from 1914 to 1923. Ninety per cent of the original recipients have gone, but they are still trying to squeeze it out of somebody else.
Compare this treatment with the hand-outs given to the big fellows, the manufacturers, 5849-89
transportation companies and finance companies, steel subsidies of millions of dollars, coal subsidies, aluminum subsidies, oil subsidies, farm machineiy subsidies, and so forth. The manufacturers of farm machinery were permitted to raise their prices 12i per cent at a time when their financial statements showed that they were making good money. A subsidy of 8400,000 was given to the people who had a monopoly on bathtubs and toilet fixtures; a 860,000,000 loan to the C.P.R. was guaranteed by the government; subsidies were given to the gold mines and millions of dollars were given to the financial institutions through the issuing of currency privileges. The wheat deal was made with the same kind of discrimination, absolutely without soul, and I would say without human consideration. First the government took approximately 320 million bushels of wheat through the wheat board and sold it to the Canadian domestic trade for 81.25 a bushel, or 30 cents a bushel under the export price of 81.55.
If Canadian consumers should have cheap wheat then let all of Canada pay for it, and not make it a direct tax on the producer, which actually amounted to 8300 on every 1,000 bushels of the 320 million bushels sold to the domestic users in Canada, who are the millers, the feeders and the distillers. The same thing can be said with regard to the deal with the United Kingdom. In the years 1946 and 1947 the government sold 160 million bushels in each year, or a total of 320 million bushels, to the United Kingdom at a price of $1.55 a bushel. This was well over $1 a bushel below the world price, because the world price had risen to $3.35 a bushel on the outside markets. If the United Kingdom was to have cheap wheat, again I say that all of Canada should provide it. It should not be a direct tax on the farmer and the wheat grower who pays all other taxes, a direct tax of $1,000 on every thousand bushels sold to the United Kingdom. What do you call that?-confiscation, taking it directly from the farmers? We hear about dictatorship in Russia. What would you call this?
I want to go back to the income tax business. I have reviewed the low prices and the crop failures through the thirties, and the discrimination in wheat prices. The farmer piled up a debt of operating costs and depreciation, losses on farm machinery, car and truck, unpaid interest on bank borrowings and mortgages, insurance, oil bills, store bills, doctors and hospitals, and back taxes. He got a crop in 1942. The proceeds of that crop have long been spent. It was not his money.
The Address-Mr. McCuaig

It was trust money 'belonging to the men who trusted him and carried him over the bad years, through bad conditions over which he had no control. But what happens? When he sells his 1942 crop he is told that he can deduct only the current operatiug expenses for income tax purposes; that none of his previous losses, operating losses, depreciation, or any other expenses of the low crop and the low price years can be carried forward.
I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to make a statement on the floor of this house to justify such a policy towards the farmer. I would ask him to name any other industry in Canada which has been dealt with in the same way.
Then the Minister of National Revenue comes along with his income tax guide and income tax form. I contend that not ten per cent of the farmers can fill out this form without help. I. object to such questions. In plain farmers' language it means this: "How much money have you in your pocket? How much have you hidden away? What kind of stocks and bonds have you? Name them."
I have received letters from many farmers. I have here a letter from a farmer in my own constituency. It is first-hand evidence and I would like to read it:
Dear Sir:
No doubt you have already seen the new income tax forms T-l prairie farmers 1947, and if not it will do you good to have a look at one soon. Most farmers thought that the old forms were complicated enough, but that was before the minister came out with this new masterpiece incorporating a quiz contest and a nightmare.
They require a complete opening and closing inventory for the year 1947. This information was not required before this and very few farmers if any will be able to go back a year and give an accurate and correct account of all grains on hand and the disposition thereof for the full year, including the exact numbers of bushels used for seed, feed, etc., number of bushels on hand at beginning and end of year, and it asks you to place a valuation on it all. I would suggest that the farmers engage the services of a teacup reader to determine what will be required of us next year so that we will not be again caught in a similar predicament, and perhaps a crystal gazer will be able to tell us too what amounts of grains we will require for seed and feed out of grains on hand. It wants to have you state separately the number of bushels of grain held for sale and for seed, and place a value on it. This will be rather tricky, as five days ago a bushel of barley was worth roughly 15 or 29 per cent more than at present, and what price basis are we to use in valuing it? At present few farmers have completed their seeding plans, largely due to the failure of our government in establishing a stable market for all farm produce, and especially coarse grains, yet the income tax department expects us to state the number of bushels

and the value of it, of all grains we will be using for seed and feed for the entire year ahead, as well as for the past year.
I am surprised that our farm organizations have not taken this up already, as this is one thing that should be corrected and soon.
I am not capable of expressing myself well enough to do this thing justice, but I wish you would do what you can to have this mathematician's nightmare simplified.
This is a sample of the letters I have received. Many farmers are up in the air about the whole approach to the income tax situation as set out in this income tax form, and I hope that something will be done to provide a more workable one. If this procedure gets going in the west it will take more than inspectors to handle it.
On page 6 of "The Farmers' Income Tax Guide", prepared by the Minister of National Revenue, you will find the following questions and answers:
Question:	What is farm income? On what
theory is it worked out?
The answer is:
There is a great mass of laws about income, and an answer which will meet all varieties of cases is not a simple matter. However, in general, it is the difference between the annual receipts from all the work done on the farm and the expenses of doing the work. Personal and living expenses of the farmer's family cannot be included as expenses.
All the work done on the farm! All the garden work, milking cows, feeding calves, feeding pigs, chickens, and a dozen other jobs- all this is done before breakfast and after supper by the farmer and his family. It is not a matter of an eight hour day. It is a matter of putting in the hours that will get the work done, and no allowance is made for this. This shows how impractical the Minister of National Revenue is in making these laws.
The coarse grain received about the same treatment. When sixty per cent or more of the coarse grains were marketed the government took the ceiling off. The grain exchange took over, and overnight these fellows made more money than the farmers did in the whole year. The farmer took it for granted that the government would not change their policy.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Duncan John McCuaig: Have I consent?


William Henry Golding: The hon. member may continue only with the permission of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has it.

The Address-Mr. Jaques


Duncan John McCuaig: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Rosthern this question:	Who is going to reimburse the farmers for this loss on coarse grains? When will it be done, and how?
The stockmen got the same kind of deal. First, without warning, the subsidy was taken off, and then ceilings. The farmers found themselves in a business that did not pay. Young pigs went down to $1 or even fifty cents each. The farmers shipped all their breeding stock, pigs in all conditions, to the market, and as soon as this was done we heard that the price of pork and livestock had gone up, but too late for the farmers to take any advantage of this. It seemed to me that this was an organized deal. According to one report I heard, the abattoirs, the packers, made $10,000,000 on the quantity of stock they had at the old prices.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, during the time at my disposal this afternoon I intend to discuss external affairs, first, because I happen to be a member of the committee on external affairs; second, because the house seldom, if ever, has the opportunity of discussing external affairs; third, because of certain developments which are taking place in the world today, and last, because of a statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) just before this house met after the Christmas adjournment. According to the press report on January 20, the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
The world was in an "appallingly dangerous condition" today. "Let us not speak of having entered upon an era of peace," Mr. King warned, "where all about us are evidences of strife."
Then the day before yesterday the leader of the C.C.F. party directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) in these words, as reported at page 1282 of Hansard:
In view of the grave warning by the Palestine commission to the security council yesterday that " tragic and dangerous precedent" will be established if force or the threat of force is allowed to thwart the decision of the united nations, is the government prepared to accept its share of responsibility in such action as may be taken by the security council wi th the view to averting further bloodshed in Palestine and implementing the assembly decision?
I do not intend to read the answer made by the minister; neither shall I attempt to interpret it. But apparently it has caused speculation in the press. If, as some people seem to think, it means that Canada is to be committed to armed intervention in Palestine, I wish to put on record at this time the fact that I am absolutely opposed to it. May I 5849-89i
refer to a speech that I made in this house two years ago last December. On December 17, 1945, speaking on external affairs, I said, as reported at page 3706 of Hansard:
I have no brief for either Arabs or Jews-
I should have said "Zionists" there.
-but it seems to me that the public hears only the Zionist arguments, never the Arab side of the question. As I have said, I have no brief for either side; my sole concern is to establish the truth, for just as truth and freedom are indivisible, so mutual faith in the given word is the basis of friendship, individual and international. Once that faith is destroyed or even impaired, trust and friendship turn to suspicion and hatred. But instead of historic fact, the Zionists base their case on racial, cultural and commercial superiority. These claims on behalf of a favoured nation and a chosen people are upheld especially by leftists and internationalists, by the very pe iple who denounce racism and nationalism. They also are the people who claim especially to be the world's peacemakers but who, in the face of continued and fatal rioting in Palestine, are going out of their way to embarrass Great Britain in her efforts to maintain peace by encouraging tolerance by both Arab and Jew.
Then a little later on in my speech I said:
Quite recently it was reported that the national leader of the C.C.F. at a public meeting in Washington, "urged the immediate opening of Palestine for Jewish immigration to the fullest possible extent so as to provide a refuge from the terror of their persecutors." In the light of the present critical conditions in Palestine, I would ask the leader of the C.C.F.: Can he assure us in making those demands that he is promoting the interests of world peace? Does he realize that such demands are calculated to embarrass Great Britain and if insisted on may lead to a clash of interests between the British empire, the United States of America and the U.S.S.R.? In the event of war in Palestine and the near east, is he prepared to commit Canadians to active service in such a war? If not, whom would he expect to fight it?
Those are the words I spoke here two years ago last December, I think subsequent events have justified what I then said. The question of partition is the one question which has come before the UNO upon which Russia is in agreement.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: That is not so.


Norman Jaques: I think that is a significant fact. On the other hand the British government-and I am not going to quote the exact words-made it plain enough that they are against partition. They are against the use of force and they are not in agreement with any settlement which involves the use of force. I cannot help wondering why it was that this government should have taken sides against the British government.


Mr. HARTT:: Thirty-three other nations did so.
The Address-Mr. Jaques


Norman Jaques: Well, I may come to that later on. I am making the statement that the British government-who have in all probability forgotten more about Palestine and the near east than all the rest of the nations put together-have refused to be a party to this partition.


Maurice Hartt: Certainly. They wanted Arab oil. It is oil, not Arabs. That is what it means. It is not the principle; it is the oil.


Mr. BROOKS:: The United States wants votes.


Norman Jaques: I do not want to be personal, and I am not making a political speech. I do not even know that I have the agreement of everyone in this corner of the house. I was going to say that it does strike me as odd that the leaders of the C.C.F. were prompt enough to hail the labour victory in Great Britain as a victory for the C.C.F., but why is it that after two years or so of labour government in Great Britain the C.C.F. now are backing the policies of capitalist United States and are opposed to the foreign policies of the labour government of Great Britain? I think that is a good question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Norman Jaques: Well, I have quite a lot to get through, but all right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a very short question. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that there is now before the world a decision taken by the united nations, and that it was in support of this decision that the leader of this group asked his question the other day?


Norman Jaques: Yes, but my point is that before the decision was taken the British had no support, as far as I know, from either the government of this country or the C.C.F. party; and as far as Canadians themselves are concerned, according to a recent Gallup poll, while some fifty per cent of the people expressed no opinion, only nineteen per cent expressed sympathy with the Zionist cause. It was stated in the press that when the minister gave his answer yesterday there was applause from all corners of the house. Well, I wish it to be understood that I did not add to the applause; and I must say it was about the loudest silence I have heard for a long time. It must have been in a comer, because I heard very little of it. I do not wish to pose as an expert on this question, but I intend to put on record opinions which have been published by eminent Jews in the United States. I have been accused of anti-semitism and racial extremism because of my stand

on this Palestine question. So I am going to put on record the statements of two American Zionists one of whom, Albert Kahn, visited this country a year ago and addressed a series of meetings. I take this short quotation from the press of that time. He said "the British in Palestine were worse than the nazis and should be driven into the sea". "Antisemitism and fascism were raging in North America", and "the Jews must look to the Soviet Union for protection through the labour unions". I should say that is a libel on the majority of Jews.
I have here a copy of PM which I bought when I was in New York a year ago, containing an advertisement written by Ben Hecht, who is certainly a nationally known Zionist. I am not going to read it all, but it contains these words:
Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British railroad train sky high, or rob a British bank or let go with your guns and bombs at the British betrayers' and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.
I say that is another libel on the majority of Jews; but certainly Mr. Hecht is a Zionist and a very strong one. That, I should say, is an example of racial extremism. Now I have a page out of National Affairs; I have not the date, but it was some time last summer. It bears a photograph, under which there is the title "U.S. Zionist in action." This Zionist is busy writing on the wall of the British consulate in New York the words "British following the nazis" and then painting the swastika on the building, and this occurred in other cities as well. That is another example, I would say, of racial extremism.
Let me now quote the words of one who was highly respected and eminent among the Jews in the United States, though he is dead now. I refer to the late Henry Morgenthau, senior. In his autobiography "All in a Lifetime", Mr. Morgenthau devoted a chapter to this question of political Zionism. He said:
Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history. I assert that it is wrong in principle and impossible of realization; that it is unsound in its economics, fantastical in its politics, and sterile in its spiritual ideals. . , . The very fervour of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every land, especially for the Jews, those of my own blood and faith, to whom I am bound by every tender tie, impels me to fight with all the greater force against this scheme, which my intelligence tells me can only lead them deeper into the mire of the past, while it professes to be leading them to the heights. Zionism is a surrender, not a solution. It is a retrogression into the blackest error, and not progress toward the light. I will go further, and say that it is a betrayal; it is an eastern European proposal, fathered in this

The Address-Mr. Jaques
country by American Jews, which, if it were to succeed, would cost the Jews of America most that they have gained in liberty,, equality and fraternity.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member say what he is quoting from?


Norman Jaques: I thought I had done so. It was from Mr. Morgenthau's autobiography "All in a Lifetime." I tried to get it in the library but apparently they do not have it, though they promised to get a copy.
Now I come to the opinion of Mr. Benjamin Freedman, who is still living, of course, and who is an eminent Jew in the United States. He wrote an article which was published by the national economic council, incorporated, 350 Fifth avenue, New York; and this letter is dated October 15, 1947. This is what Mr. Freedman says on this question:
The threat of political Zionism to the welfare and security of America is little realized. It is a dangerous mistake to think of it as a localized, Arab-Jewish struggle. There may soon take place in Palestine an explosion that will set off another world war. Every American citizen, every head of a family, all members of Christian churches, every non-Zionist Jew, should be brought to understand that the consequences can be fatally disastrous.
The influence of the Zionist organization reaches into the inner policy-making groups of nearly every government in the world-particularly into the Christian west. This influence causes these groups to adopt pro-Zionist policies which are often in conflict with the reai interests of the peoples they govern.
And further:
This utterly immoral and unjust policy is producing an unanticipated result. An explosion is brewing and, as it approaches. Christian supporters of Zionism in our government

That was the United States government, of course-
-are almost panic-stricken. Yet they fear to reverse their position lest the democratic party be stigmatized by Zionists as "anti-semitic".
Then he adds that the next election is only a year away. Mr. Freedman then goes on to say:
The ability of Zionists to have things their way stems from the organized pressure they can bring upon people who do not agree with them. By holding the threat of being called "anti-semitic" over men engaged in public or business life, they have been able to stifle opposition-even among American Jews such as the writer, who have no interest in forming a Jewish state and wish only to live and die as good Americans. It will take courage for Americans of whatever origin to think these facts through and take public positions upon them. They will be smeared. They will be slandered. Already, Zionists have been able to bring about the economic ruin of many Christians and Jews who have dared challenge
their right to claim Palestine for a national Jewish state. But America and American Christianity stand at a crossroad. The majority must decide whether it will longer submit to being the tool of a small but ruthless and unscrupulous minority of a minority people. The great majority of American Jews also must choose. Will we all acquiesce in the program of political Zionism? Will we follow it out to its inescapable consequences?
If we do, we shall be walking the road to ruin.
I could speak with sympathy and from personal experience as to the truth of what Mr. Freedman says about the smear of antisemitism raised against those who are opposed to the policy of political Zionism. One reason I am speaking here this afternoon is that I have been refused space in the press. Only last week I wrote a broadcast which consisted chiefly of the quotations I have just placed on record. That broadcast was to have been given last Sunday in Edmonton. However I received a letter yesterday to say that the station refused to broadcast it.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is that from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Norman Jaques: I do not know (he inner workings of radio. This was station CJCA in Edmonton, a private station. However, I should think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be even less tolerant,


John Ewen Sinclair: Oh, no.


Norman Jaques: That is my opinion of the C.B.C.


Maurice Hartt: They have a little bit of sanity; they are not all insane.


John Horne Blackmore: Maybe that is why they will not let it go over the air.


Maurice Hartt: Because they are sane.


John Horne Blackmore: Because they know that their bread is buttered on the right side.


Norman Jaques: I am sorry I have to refer to quotations this afternoon, but certain things have already been said or published. The statement to which I shall now refer concerns me personally, so I have no option but to call it to the attention of the house. This was published in an Ottawa paper on December 16, 1947, and states:
Norman Jaques, Social Credit member of parliament for Wetaskiwin, informed that his writings have been banned temporarily from the Canadian Social Crediter, a party newspaper published weekly in Edmonton, said today: "It is exactly what the communists say."
He declined to comment further.
Gordon Taylor, managing editor of the newspaper. official organ of the National Social Credit Association of Canada, said Saturday the ban on Mr. Jaques' writings will remain in effect as long as Mr. Jaques persists in what Mr. Taylor called an "anti-isms" attitude. He referred particularly to what he said wap Mr. Jaques' "anti-semitic attitude".
The Address-Mr. Jaqv.es

I can only suppose there is a misunderstanding there. As I have said before in the house and outside it, my attitude is not one of antisemitism; it is one of anti-political Zionism, because for many years I have seen where it was leading. And the situation today in Palestine and the near east is surely a justification for the stand I have taken in the past.
There are two statements that I should like to quote, which were published in the Canadian . Jewish Chronicle, which a Jewish acquaintance sends to me. One is dated Ottawa, January 9, 1948 and1 reads:
Leaders of the Social Credit party have finally announced a ban on the publication of anti-semitic articles in the organization's official organ, following conferences with Joseph H. Fine, chairman of the public relations committee of the Canadian Jewish congress.
In addition to the ban, party leaders forced the resignation of the editor and assistant editor of the publication, Social Crediter. Chiefly affected by the new policy will be Norman Jaques, Social Credit member of parliament, who has been using the magazine as one of his platforms for anti-semitic propaganda.
I want to say here that is the statement of the editors of the Canadian Jewish Chronicle. It is part of the smear campaign. My other quotation from the Canadian Jewish Chronicle concerns a distinguished man, the Right Hon. Ernest Bevin, minister of foreign affairs in the British labour government. This quotation is dated1 Jerusalem and is from the issue of February 13, 1948. It reads:
The name of Britain's foreign secretary Ernest Bevin has been vigorously cheered of late at meetings of the Mosleyite fascist fringe although the mention of any of his colleagues in the labour cabinet draws equally vigorous boos, Arieh Gelblum, correspondent of the Hebrew- daily Haaretz reports from London. Mr. Gelblum. one of Palestine's most reliable reporters with excellent contacts in Britain, says that intellectuals of the Labour party believe that in the event of a personal defeat in the Labour party, it is possible that the present foreign secretary will bolt his party and become the "fuehrer" of a new British fascist party in uneducated, discontended labour ranks for whom he holds a strong appeal.
According to these circles Bevin possesses some of the prime requisites for becoming the leader of a "nationalist" mass movement. He hates Jews, mocks Labourite intellectuals, some of whom are Jews, and enjoys an ever-growing popularity among those sections of the British labour who share his dislike of the intellectuals. Mr. Gelblum, who has spoken with top leaders of the British Labour party, says that in private conversation Bevin says frankly that he believes in the protocols of Zion, the notorious forgery used by anti-semitic fanatics all over the w-orld as proof of a "Jewish world conspiracy," that Hitler was right as far as the Jews were concerned and that Jewish aspirations for statehood must be destroyed.

I am in good company. That is a fair sample of political Zionist smearing of those who dare to take a stand against their plans. Of course Mr. Bevin does not need me to defend him, but if that is not libel I do not know what is. Is that not calculated to stir up hatred among people?


Mr. LOW:: It is anti-English.


Norman Jaques: It is designed to stir up ill feeling among the people of Canada, the United States and Great Britain. I repeat what Freedman said:
The ability of Zionists to have things their way stems from the organized pressure they can bring upon people who do not agree with them. By holding the threat of being called "antisemitic" over men engaged in public or business life, they have been able to stifle opposition- even among American Jews such as the writer, who have no interest in forming a Jewish state.
Then I should like to quote from the official report of a communist convention which was held in Edmonton a year ago last November, as follows:
Social Credit government and movement cannot be called fascist (anti-communist). But strong pro-fascist (anti-communist) wing of Jaques, Bourcier and some others, who control C.S.C. which carries most vicious type anticommunist. anti-socialist, anti-soviet, and antiJewish propaganda. "We" should find means to bring us to Social Credit rank and file as friends ... We must single out the reactionary pro-fascist group for unrelenting attack, must expose failure of Social Credit government to meet needs of people.
That agrees with the statements of the political Zionists.
And again:
The mayor of Edmonton, H. D. Ainlay, appeared at our opening session, and welcomed delegates to city. Ainlay nominee Civic Dem. Alliance, leftist inclined, or courting L.P.P. for votes, rather surprising he should officially give public blessing to our small party.
It is not surprising at all when you understand that Mr. Ainlay refused to be present at a dinner held by the Canadian Arab league. I quote the words of Mr. Freedman:
Soviet communism will succeed in its attempt' to conquer the world in direct proportion to the support which America gives Zionism. This may sound startling, but it is grimly true.
That is part of a letter to the economic council from whicn I quoted before. The statement that political Zionists have the support of communists in this country and in the United States is endorsed by the fact that the partition is supported by Russia, the first and only proposal that Russia has supported. The reason for that is obvious. If a united nations force is sent to Palestine it will include a Red army. Once the Red

The Address-Mr. J. T. Richard
army is in Palestine I should like to know by whom and how it will be sent back whence it came. What is the good of trying to hold the line in Greece when it is opened wide in Palestine? I would think Palestine is much more important than Greece because it forms a bridge between Europe, Asia and Africa. I I do not wish to say more at this time because I hope the house will have an opportunity to discuss this question before a Canadian army goes there and before we are committed to war. An eminent United States columnist who has had considerable experience, who has a good reputation to maintain, said the other day that Armageddon will start the instant the British leave Palestine. I want to register my complete opposition to this policy to which apparently this country has been committed, and hope that something will be done so that we may avoid the terrible consequences of it.


Walter Edward Harris: Will the hon. member permit a question before he concludes? I ask for the information and not for any wisecracking purposes. He made a statement that our policy was undoubtedly different from British policy. I think he went so far as to say that British policy was in opposition to the decision on Palestine. The reason given by the hon. member was that they said they would have nothing to do with it. My question is: what authority has the hon. member for saying that that is British policy?


Norman Jaques: Well, I have no official authority, of course, only what I have read in the press and in statements made by British ministers in the British house. As I understand it, the British are opposed to partition. They oppose any solution which is not acceptable to both Arab and Zionist, and they would be opposed to any solution which would need the use of force to implement it. That is what I understand.


Walter Edward Harris: I wish the hon. member would quote me one declaration of British policy opposing partition, other than the statement he has just made.


Norman Jaques: I have not the statement with me but I shall be glad to oblige the hon. member at the first opportunity.


Maurice Hartt: May I ask this question: is it not true that it was the British government which submitted the Palestinian question voluntarily to the united nations?


Norman Jaques: I understand that is the fact. I did not deny that. All I said was that they are not willing to take part in the
partition of Palestine, or in any other solution which will need the use of force.


Mr. J. T. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duties as a member from this comer of the house were I not also to offer my most sincere congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address on the excellent manner in which they carried out their duties.
At the outset I should like to remind this house that, whatever so-called privation or hardship we may find at present, we are still in this country living under the most favoured and privileged conditions in the world. It is well to remember, and always to keep in mind this fact, that having gone through the most devastating war in history, in the face of the misery and suffering which exist in Europe and Asia, and will exist for years to come, our problems are not those of a starving nation trying to rebuild its cities and rehabilitate its people in the midst of internal strife and revolution; but rather problems of adjustment of conditions of living to allow us to maintain a standard which has been very high indeed.
There are a number of problems facing us, problems relating to social welfare, wages and prices. I do not want to deal with all these; in particular I shall mention some only briefly and deal more particularly perhaps with conditions in the civil service. However, I should like to say that the present government, mindful of its responsibilities, has done more than any other to promote the social welfare of its people; labour laws, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowances, to name but a few, are social laws sponsored by past Liberal governments. But other projects are waiting completion, and legislation may be introduced on them in the near future. These may include health insurance, assistance to the physically disabled, and amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act to provide proper security at an age below seventy on a contributory basis or otherwise. How soon may, of course, depend on the co-operation of certain provinces. It is well to keep in mind that if Ontario and Quebec had co-operated more elosely in the past few years with other provinces and the federal government, these plans for the improvement of the conditions of living of necessitous or disabled people might now be in effect. The same provinces which are depriving their people at present of the benefits of tax agreements entered into between the federal and seven provincial governments are delaying the whole program of

the Address-Mr. J. T. Richard
advanced social legislation for the whole country. It is high time indeed that something should be done to change the attitude of those provinces.
If I had spoken earlier, Mr. Speaker, I might have said something with regard to prices. However, in view of the fact that this matter is before a committee I shall have to confine my remarks to those of a general nature. The policy of the government, as announced from time to time, has been to allow private enterprise to resume business in the normal course after the war, unfettered by regulations and bounds which tend to discourage the initiative of the individual. But at all times also it has coupled its announcement with a warning that if undue advantage was taken of this relaxation of controls and the public was exploited or made to suffer, these regulations and controls would be reimposed.
Some time ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) announced that this government intended to take action against profiteers. This will greatly relieve the average Canadian wage earner who has had real cause to complain of late of the excessive prices charged for staple commodities in the face of exorbitant profits made by corporations. The government has been patient with these people but must act now. I believe that the prices committee is a step in the right direction.
However, before leaving the question of controls, I should like to bring to the attention of the house conditions which exist with regard to commercial rents. I strongly urge the government to consider its position with respect to commercial rents. If controls are left off altogether at the end of March many of the smaller business people are bound to suffer. At the present time landlords in this very city are asking increases of from 200 to 400 per cent, and those who suffer are not those who are able to pay, but the small businessman, the druggist, the shoemaker, the garage operator and so forth. In view of the fact that it is the tenant of the great number of commercial establishments who will suffer, I strongly urge the government that controls on commercial rents be kept on to a certain extent.
There is no doubt that demands for wage increases are greatly justified in many places, and I sympathize fully with the low-salary workers who must find a way to live under present conditions. The most unfortunate are, of course, those who belong to unorganized groups, whose voice is too faint and weak to be heard. They depend altogether on the good graces of their employer, and it is he who should keep faith with them. The only solution would be to revise the provincial labour

law. The most important questions affecting employer and employee locally are the relations betwen the government and the civil service. The problems are numerous indeed. They not only affect wage increases; they also affect appointments, promotions, superannuation, conditions of work and recreation.
At the beginning of the session I put on the order paper a resolution calling for parliament to institute a special committee which would have power to investigate and discuss these problems and report back to parliament the conditions which they found to exist, and to make recommendations for the benefit of the civil service. I hope this resolution will be reached, and I think the government should look favourably upon it.
One of the reasons which prompted me to present this resolution was the fact that all the problems relating to the civil service are being discussed at different times by different bodies. Pronouncements come from different sources and things are accomplished piecemeal. If one body of men could hear the complaints or the representations on all subjects relating to the civil service, the relations between civil servants and the government; if one body could consider these questions at one time, and if the recommendations could be made all at the same time on all subjects, then I think it would give greater satisfaction and the problems might be solved for at least some time to come.
Let us take, for example, the question of wage increases. Everyone knows there is no more faithful body of employees than the civil servants. The government is altogether dependent upon them and they have not failed in their duty, either in the past or at the present time. During the war they accepted their extra duties without murmur, extra hours of work without pay, and many were frozen in their employment who could have sought much better reward in industry and commerce or even in the armed forces. However, when it comes to increases in wages the civil servant has always been in the same situation. He is always lagging behind industry and commerce. It seems to take a longer time to make adjustments for this class of employees than for any other.
The government has recently made some adjustments in the rates of pay for clerks, typists, stenographers and others, and it is proceeding to make similar recommendations for the other classes in the civil service. This is important in the case of technical personnel, for example, before we lose them.
Canada has been fortunate in keeping such a splendid staff of technical men in its employ,

The Address-Mr. J. T. Richard
on a wage scale which is not comparable with that paid in industry or in the United States. If we want to keep these men and encourage others to come within the service, there should be an immediate adjustment on a greatly increased scale in their rates of pay.
In connection with this matter, certain representations have been made to me by employees who apparently are not considered as coming within the classifications where increases have been granted. It is my understanding that not only in this house but in many departments of government there are employees with salaries within the minima and maxima ranges set out in the statement made in the house on December 19 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and they have not yet received any salary increases. The reason given them on inquiry is that the necessary approval has not yet been authorized by the civil service commission and/or the treasury.
It is further intimated to these employees- and this is what really worries them-that unless such approval is given before March 31 next, the end of the present fiscal year, such increases under the present regulations cannot be effective as of October 1, 1947, the Prime Minister to the contrary notwithstanding, so they say.
These employees have every faith in the promise of the government; but they are fearful that higher officials, sticking to the absolute letter of the present regulations, will not find it possible to comply with the spirit andl the letter of the Prime Minister's statement. I should like to have this question answered: Is it possible to give these employees an assurance that they will get their six months' back pay even if the civil service commission and/or the treasury officers may take longer than March 31 next to secure the necessary approval?
When the reclassification and proper adjustment in wage rates have been made throughout the service there may still be some need for further allowances by way of cost of living bonus if the living index keeps on increasing. That I suggest would be the proper way to satisfy the immediate needs of the employees from time to time. I realize that a bonus, variable in accordance with the living index, might be a hard thing to accomplish, but even if this adjustment were made every six months it would be more satisfactory to all concerned than a system which has been followed in the past whereby adjustments are sometimes made two years after a condition has arisen.
Other problems affecting government employees are those relating to prevailing-5849-90
rate men, such as employees in the printing bureau and the public works department. There again the government has made some adjustments in the rates of pay to follow the general pattern of industry, but it is far from complete at present. Furthermore, in the case of public works employees, the men receive only one week of holidays, and they pay for the other week. In both the printing bureau and the public works department no sick leave is granted at all.
I am going to suggest to the government that a plan of contributory sick leave in which the government would1 contribute half and the employee half should be instituted immediately. I believe this would be welcomed by all employees, and it is only fair that the government should contribute, as is done in ordinary industry, its share for leave of absence on account of sickness for their prevailing^rate employees. There should also be two weeks holidays paid by the government for all employees who are outside the civil service commission.
We have at home here -in this building another class of employees, the employees of the House of Commons. Last year there was brought down a resolution which, if passed, would have had the effect of bringing within the civil service commission, and under the Civil Service Act, all employees of this house. For some reason or other, and no doubt for very good reasons, this resolution was not proceeded with. I urge the government to give an opportunity to all employees of this house to come under the Civil Service Act, so that they may get the benefits of that act. What is happening at the present time is that some employees make certain representations and they receive better pay than others, and this condition should not exist if we wish to maintain a satisfied and efficient staff in this house.


Mr. McIYOR:: Including the stenographers.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The stenographers too. They are all on the same staff. I should not like to let this occasion pass without some reference to superannuated civil servants. No doubt hon. members will recall that last year I was one of those who urged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to make some provision for a cost of living bonus or an increase for superannuated civil servants. I have heard of late that this matter is not at present receiving favourable consideration. However, I do not think the arguments advanced against giving this increase are valid because, as I see it, the government is putting itself in the position of a private concern.
The Address-Mr. J. T. Richard

It is true that an insurance company or any private company may not be in a position to give a cost of living bonus to its pensioners because it is in business to make money. But superannuated civil servants have contributed so much money to the pension fund that the government is in the business of making money out of the superannuation fund. I believe there is a sum of $30,000,000 accumulated there and it will go on increasing.
Since the government is not in the business of making money, I do not see that its argument holds that it should keep in reserve such a huge accumulation of pension money. From these statements, however, it will be more apparent perhaps to everyone how important it is to have a single committee set up to examine all these questions and to make recommendations thereon. I hope the government will give sympathetic consideration to the request I have made for a committee on the civil servants of this government.
In closing, Mr. Speaker-perhaps on another note-I should like to say that one of the greatest objectives at the present time is to instil in the people of this country a proper sense of appreciation of their Canadian citizenship based on mutual understanding and love of their country. It is well for us to do battle elsewhere and shout for the protection and defence of foreign minority rights, but it is more honest and more sincere to apply these principles at home. In one of his last speeches Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a man who understood the value of Christian ideals and the values of the human heart over the materialistic ideals of the common man, when addressing a group of young men in 1919 used these words:
As for you who stand today on the threshold of life, with a long horizon open before you for a long career of usefulness to your native land, if you will permit me, after a long life, I shall remind you that already many problems rise before you:	problems of race division,
problems of creed differences, problems of economic conflict, problems of national duty and national aspiration. Let me tell you that for the solution of these problems yo.u have a safe guide, an unfailing light, if you remember that faith is better than doubt and love is better than hate.
Banish doubt and hate from your life. Let your souls be ever open to the promptings of faith and the gentle influence of brotherly love. Be adamant against the haughty, be gentle and kind to the weak. Let your aim and purpose, in good report or ill, in victory or defeat, be so to live, so to strive, so to serve as to do your part to raise ever higher the standard of life and of living.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: There are two matters, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann);

while he is not in his seat at the moment, I hope he will give careful consideration to both of them.
The first one is in connection with the amendment made last session to the Dominion Succession Duty Act, whereby the rates then in effect were doubled; under this amendment provision is also made whereby, when duty had been paid to a province, the estate would be entitled to a certain rebate from the dominion office. I should like to point out that in Ontario, on estates up to $25,000 which pass to the immediate family, there is no duty payable to the province; and in all estates up to $10,000 where the heirs are collaterals there is no duty. Under the arrangement as it exists under the Dominion Succession Duty Act, with regard to estates up to $25,000 and going to the immediate family, the estate is called upon to pay the dominion succession duty which was doubled a year ago. It appears to me that this is just another example of the estate of the man in moderate circumstances being called upon to pay double taxes to the dominion government. I am sure the minister will agree that this phase of the act is most unfair. It was pointed out to him; representations were made to him at the time the amendment was made, but he did nothing about it. But even now I hope he will reconsider the matter and see that this unjust and unfair discrimination against these small estates is corrected.
The second matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister is an amendment to the Income War Tax Act made last year in regard to taxation of co-operatives, whereby cheese factories for the first time are now required to file income tax returns and will be subject to tax. There has been a considerable difference of opinion among legal experts as to the correct meaning of this amendment, but from the correspondence I had with the minister, I am of the opinion that the ruling of the department will be that cheese factories will be subject to income tax. Because of this change, every cheese factory in the county in which I reside -and I think the same condition applies to all factories in eastern Ontario-are faced with complete re-organization under existing provincial co-operative legislation. A great deal of expense will be incurred. Each company will have to be fully re-organized, with a new charter. It will have to change its system of bookkeeping and accounting and will have to employ an auditor. If the department insists on going on and forcing these factories to make these returns and insists on taxing the profits of the cheese factories, I fear it will simply mean that many cheese factories which

The Address-Mr. G. S. White
today are only able to get by and make a small profit will be forced to close, as a result of which a large amount of milk now going into cheese will go elsewhere. There is the further point that if the cheese factories are to be taxed, the department is then taxing the same money twice, because when the farmer makes his return he must show the total amount of money he receives from the factory.
Recently the cheese producers of Ontario presented a brief to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of National Revenue. I should like to read a few paragraphs from that brief, because it reviews the growth of small cheese factories which are operated on a co-operative basis and sets out certain conditions which affect them today. I quote from t re brief:
The immediate changing of a cheese factory bookkeeping system and the employing of an accountant will have a ruinous effect on farmer-owned cheese factories. In many cases it means the closing of more cheese factories, the safety valve of the dominion's $450,000,000 dairy industry, because at this date the following facts face us:
1.	Temporary competition has caused cheese to fall from the 1945 production of approximately 187,000,000 pounds to the 1947 production of about 115,000,000 pounds or a drop of thirty-eight and a half per cent.
2.	Many cheese factories, while they have been operating efficiently and are making a very high quality cheese (often preferred to the cheese made in larger factories), were built many years ago and are now requiring repairs and replacements of equipment. Such repairs and replacements might not be allowed as operating expense for taxation purpose.
3.	Some cheese factories are in debt from a miscellaneous capital expense, for building a new factory, or from installing refrigerated curing rooms _ as recommended and subsidized by the dominion government. Our understanding is that money retained from earnings for the liquidation of such debt is taxable. Such a practice will discourage cheese factory improvement and cause more cheese factories to close.
4.	If farmer-owned, co-operatively conducted cheese factories have their accounting expenses suddenly changed and greatly increased, as a result of having to make income tax returns, many more factories will close, with possible repercussions within the whole dairy industry.
The gentlemen who presented this brief went over the whole matter thoroughly with the two ministers. At the end of the brief they have this recommendation:
Therefore be it resolved that we. the executive committee of the Ontario cheese producers' association, ask the dominion government for freedom from the necessity of filing income tax returns and from the paying of income tax for the years 1947. 1948 and 1949 for all farmer-owned cheese factories operating on a co-operative basis though not incorporated as such.
I sincerely hope that the minister will review the whole situation, and that he will 5849-90J
not be guilty of any action which will in any way reduce the production of cheese in Ontario.
I see the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) is now here. I should like to point out to him that, in my opinion and in the opinion of many hon. members, it is most regrettable that, though we are now at the end of the fifth week of the session, the veterans affairs committee has not been set up, nor has the minister found it possible to introduce the legislation necessary to increase the basic pension rate. It is true that the Prime Minister made a brief statement in December, which was amplified on Monday of this week; but I am going to suggest to the minister that he recommend that we have a standing committee on veterans affairs, and I hope the minister is listening. If we had a standing committee on veterans affairs this pension legislation could have been dealt with at the December sitting, and probably the legislation would have now been in effect. The minister is a member of a government that saw fit to introduce a budget which imposed taxes the collection of which wras commenced the next day. Apparently that was all right; but the veterans of this country, after waiting for more than twenty years for the increases to which they were certainly entitled, heard an announcement on December 19. Then some two months later, after great pressure was brought to bear upon the Prime Minister and his cabinet, we hear a further announcement and suggestion that it is hoped to introduce the legislation at an early day. The minister must be aware that it is during these hard winter months that the veterans need this increase, though now I doubt if they will get it before the end of April at the very earliest.
Then I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a condition which his predecessor promised to remedy. I refer to those veterans who are in receipt of disability pensions and who are at present attending universities and receiving educational grants as part of their re-establishment credit. I am sure no one will even attempt to argue that a pension for war disability is not given as a matter of right, or that a veteran in receipt of such a pension should not also receive the full educational grant. As I said a moment ago, the former minister of veterans affairs promised to correct this unjust discrimination, but today we find that veterans in receipt of disability pensions are not given the full amount of their educational grants. A veteran who is disabled does not have the same opportunity to earn monej' while attending university or during the summer months, because of his disability; and I think it would be a very
The Address-Mr. G. S. White

good start for the minister if he would see that this petty chiseling on veterans allowances is stopped at once. I believe everyone feels that the fact that a veteran receives a pension should not be used in order to cut down his educational grant.
Under the present administration of the pension board, I feel that in many cases the veteran does not get the benefit of the doubt. On that point I should like to read section 62 of the act:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body .adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
That seems quite plain; yet in actual practice we find that the reverse happens. It seems that in too many cases the pension board will go to extreme lengths to fight the veteran, to raise some doubt or objection. In legal procedure it is well recognized that the accused is always given the benefit of the doubt, and our judges lean backward to see that this is done. The pension board has a large staff of medical experts; it has all the benefits of science and research at its disposal, and all these are on one side against the veteran, who is often called upon to produce new evidence, medical evidence to disprove certain findings of these so-called experts of the pension board. I believe every application submitted by a veteran for a pension should receive the most sympathetic and careful consideration of the board. This pension board should have at heart more of the welfare of the veteran and less of the welfare of the treasury board. Many hon. members can readily recall instances in their own ridings of veterans who have been getting the usual run-around from the pension board, but in which the member was able to get some action from the board as soon as he took up the matter. It has always seemed to me that in such cases the board was quite ready and willing to appease the member in order to prevent these tragic cases from being brought up in the house. As I said before, the granting of a pension is a matter of right; so why should it be necessary for the veteran to have his member of parliament or anyone else take up the matter on his behalf with the pension board?
The pre-enlistment disability is another matter to which the minister might well direct his attention. In view of the fact that a man

who joined the army and was placed in category A-l was given a rigid medical and X-ray examination, it seems only fair to say that any disability incurred after he joined the army should be attributed to war service. But the board does not accept that principle. It goes to great lengths to dig up some incident, some injury or something that happened years before. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he does not think it perfectly fair and reasonable to say that any soldier who passed this careful medical and X-ray examination should have the assurance that any disability incurred would be considered attributable to war service. Yet we find on the pension board many doctors who make certain findings. They are not -positive findings, but they make findings that a disability was due to pre-enlistment causes. I point out to the minister that these findings of the doctors are not positive; they are only opinions, and there is always doubt about them. They are not conclusive in any way.
These opinions and conclusions would never be accepted in any court of law, but they are accepted far too readily by the pension board. Too often they make the ruling that the injury or complaint complained of was not due to war service, but rather that the disability was due to pre-enlistment causes and was not aggravated by war service. I am sure the members of the pension board who coined that glorious phrase must be very proud of it.
The recent regrettable tragedy in Ottawa, wrhen a veteran of the first war shot and killed a medical officer, must have brought home to the pension board a condition which should immediately be remedied; because it must be very difficult for the public of Canada to understand how it is possible for any veteran of world war I to have such an improvement in his disability that his pension could be materially reduced. It was only natural that, with the years passing, the disability would increase; and this principle is recognized in the provisions of the Pension Act; for there are automatic increases in respect of gunshot wounds as a veteran reaches and passes a certain age. I would ask the minister to see that the necessary legislation is introduced to continue all pensions to veterans of world war I at their present rate, and to have the principle of automatic increases applied to all pensions.
In the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to the basic rate of pensions, we see that there was an increase in the monthly allowance from $75 to $87. That was a step in the right direction; but I submit that the increase was totally

The Address-Mr. Herridge
inadequate to cover the increased cost of living of veterans. I would also point out that the increase is years overdue, yet it is made retroactive only to October 1, 1947. Members of this party have often advocated in the house that there should be a general increase of 25 per cent across the board.
I would draw the attention of the minister to the February issue of The Legionary, which was sent to all members. At page 10 we find a short article headed "Proposed increases are not adequate," and from it I should like to read this one short paragraph:
The Legion's idea of an appropriate increase in pensions at this time would be an additional 25 per cent for all beneficiaries under the act.
And in dealing with war veterans allowances they make this recommendation:
Our idea of a new rate for war veterans allowance would be $50 per month for the single person and $85 per month for a married couple.
I trust that the minister will give some further consideration to what the amount of the basic rate will be, and I hope, irrespective of what the Prime Minister said yesterday in connection with submitting this bill to the committee on veterans affairs, that the minister himself will recommend that the bill be submitted to the veterans committee for their study and recommendation.
The table of rates filed by the Prime Minister shows both the old and new rates of pension. If anyone took the trouble to look at those rates he would find there is a material difference in the amount of the basic rate paid to all ranks up to the rank of lieutenant. The basic rate was S900 a year. If one follows up the scale he will find that the highest basic rate for senior officers is $2,700 a year.
My personal belief is that the practice which has been followed of paying pensions based upon rank is entirely wrong and should no longer be tolerated in this country. Two veterans might be farmers, teachers, doctors, clerks or in any other employment, and may have suffered the same disability; but one may be receiving 300 per cent more pension than the other. Both veterans would have to re-establish themselves; they would have to acquire the same training or take the same degree. They would have to meet the same competition in civilian life. They would both have families to support, and there would be absolutely no difference in their situations in civilian life. They may both have suffered the same wounds and the same hardships. Now one of these veterans must suffer this unfair and unjust discrimination; for, after all, a pension is awarded to a veteran as a compensation to him for his decreased earning
capacity, and for the extra expenses he may have in civilian life because of his disability. Why, then, is there this wide difference in the amount of pension between the $900 paid to a private and the $2,700 paid to an officer of higher rank?
If in this practice we are following the custom of some other country, then I say quite frankly the time is long past due when we should stop paying pensions based upon rank. Personally, I cannot think of a single argument in favour of the present practice. I hope that when the committee on veterans affairs is set up it will give careful consideration to and make recommendations concerning this matter to the effect that all pensions to all veterans will be paid at the same basic rate.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish, first of all, to express my disapproval of this disjointed procedure in carrying on the debate in reply to the speech from the throne. This lack of continuity decreases its value to members of the house, and in my opinion must be very confusing to people throughout the country who get their news through the newspapers.
During the time at my disposal I should like to deal with one matter, agricultural credit. Before doing so, however, may I point out that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is in these words:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to use the powers provided by parliament to control prices, and' by their actions have caused alarming increases in the cost of living and a dangerous lowering of the living standards of the Canadian people.
Before proceeding, may I say I heartily agree with the amendment to the amendment and I intend to support it when the vote is taken. But, in addition to the expressions of that amendment, I believe we have to go beyond the confines of administrative measures. I believe that if we are to have a satisfactory standard of living in this country the government will have to take more positive action with regard to production. I am going to refer particularly at this time to agricultural production.
In my reading of the throne speech I saw reference made to the fact that there is an extreme and acute shortage of food. I also found in the Christian Science Monitor of February 17, 1948, the following report from Lake Success:
Shortage of food constitutes the greatest and most urgent problem now confronting the world, the food and agricultural organization reports.

The Address-Mr. Herridge

And it has called upon the economic and social council of the united nations to take the initiative in immediate remedial measures.
During the time at my disposal I intend to deal with the question of the improvement of long-term agricultural credit facilities provided by present legislation. I am choosing this subject because I believe it is closely connected with the need for increased agricultural production and because it is of great concern to the farmers' organizations in my riding in the interior of British Columbia and is also of concern to a large number of worthy young Canadians who want an opportunity to farm but who are prevented by the present unsatisfactory legislation.
When we hear, as I have heard, hon. members from the maritimes speak of the large number of abandoned farms in that part of Canada; when we hear, as we have heard, during debates in this house, of the shortage of food in this country under present restrictions; when we see reports, such as the one I have just read, issued by the food and agricultural organization of the united nations, and when we know that a lairge number of young Canadians are anxious to farm in this country at this time I think we should give serious concern to checking and revising our legislation so far as agricultural credit is concerned.
Agriculture is a unique industry. It produces the raw materials for food, clothing and domestic use, three of the most essential needs of life. We all know that food is man's first need. The daily bread of the race comes from the soil and the farmer is the world's agent of food production. Next to food is clothing. The raw materials for textile industry come from the soil, and a part of the products of those industries may be included in any of the articles with which we furnish our homes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am pleased to hear that I have a supporter on the government side. I hope he supports me later on in my address. Agriculture is a universal industry, and the existence and progress of all society, if we read history correctly, depends absolutely upon it. What is called civilization may be defined as the production of objects not biologically necessary for survival. As I read history, civilization first arose from the introduction of agriculture in the fertile deltas of Egypt and Babylonia. What promotes the welfare of agriculture, without question benefits mankind. The progress of agriculture and the progress of civilization go hand in hand.

In my opinion the provision of low interest long-term rural credits under better conditions than exist today, is necessary for the development of agricultural enterprise in this country, for the development of the agricultural resources of this country, and for the production of the food which we require at home and which is required abroad.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. GREGG:: On a question of privilege, with your permission, Mr. Speaker; this afternoon the hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough (Mr. White) said that my predecessor had failed to correct the complaint of veteran pensioner students in training. I knew that had been corrected by my predecessor, but I could not remember the exact date. It was last June, so that now the veteran pensioner student receives his full personal pension plus his full maintenance grant without any deduction.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When the house rose at six o'clock I was advocating the necessity for a better system of long-term credit for farmers in this country if we were to have the agricultural development that was necessary, if we were to provide the food that is needed in the world for our own people, and if we are going to provide an opportunity for many young Canadians who wish to farm. In that connection I believe I have the support of some hon. members on the government side. When the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was speaking the other day I noted that he was critical of the present restrictive application of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I am quite sure there are a good many other hon. members representing farmers in this house who will agree with much that I have to say this evening.
The number of persons engaged in agriculture represents a very large segment of the population, and I maintain that our industrial structure cannot remain sound unless it is based on agricultural prosperity in Canada. I am not going to deal with short-term credit for farm purposes this evening; that is, the credit which may be required by the farmer to purchase some machinery, finance the production of a crop and so on. I think under the provisions of the Farm Loan Act of 1944 and through the private lending agencies there are fairly satisfactory credit arrangements available in this country at this time.

The Address-Mr. Herridge
But I do want to deal for a few minutes with long-term agricultural credit. Whether we like it or not, if we read history correctly, longterm credit has always been a necessity in the development of agriculture. From very early times, even reaching back into the feudal system, we know that moneylenders have exploited the peasants of central Europe, the peasants of China and of other countries for hundreds of years.
In dealing with this question I think we should be well advised to review some of the credit arrangements that have been made in other countries. It is from the experiments of the past, applied to our own conditions, that we are likely to reach satisfactory conclusions in this matter. The history of agricultural credit in Europe is a long and interesting one. Outside of the agricultural credit supplied by moneylenders, the first real credit schemes financed other than by moneylenders originated in Germany in 1770. These schemes provided for an association of borrowers for the purpose of procuring loans by the issue of bonds secured by mortgages registered collectively against their properties. They had in Germany a combination of cooperative loan banks and mortgage credit banks assisted by state banks. The general principle involved was one of mutual aid by state grants or loans to co-operative credit organizations; and within the limitations of their sphere they were extremely successful. The losses incurred were very small indeed; the good they did was great. Of course they were operating in a stable agricultural economy, in an agricultural economy which was largely developed. They were successful. They were successful because there was a close association of the farmers themselves, farmers' oiganizations and the state agencies that assisted them.
In France there were similar developments. As a matter of fact, in France the credit fonder has been the large lending institution that has lent money to co-operative credit organizations in France, and the stability of the French peasant was largely secured through that type of credit. In Italy, which, as we all know, is a country with very few advantages, not rich in natural resources, there was a tremendous extension of lending institutions. There again there were land credit banks, savings banks, and agricultural societies, in a somewhat different form, a system of state aid to co-operative organizations.
We all know the history of co-operative development in Holland and Denmark, where that type of organization was possibly brought to its highest fruition in modern co-operative
lending institutions. Then we come to the Scandinavian countries, and in passing I want to pay tribute to the Scandinavian people because of the lessons they have taught us all in the development of co-operative organizations. Wherever you find a group of Scandinavian people in any rural community you will find sound farming practice and industrious people. You will also find soundly operated co-operatives and co-operative credit organizations. In Norway and Sweden a study of the history of their co-operative credit, which was a further development of the German system adapted to suit their local conditions, shows us possibly the highest development of the principle of the extension of long-term credit to farmers as a result of co-operation between farmers' organizations and the state.
All these organizations developed on sound lines and, as I said before, reading the history of them very carefully I found that there were very few losses and very few failures. I would say, Mr. Speaker, the lessons we learn in this matter from European experience throughout two or three centuries are: first, that the organization of farmers has been the basis of their success; second, that education has proceeded hand in hand with organization; third, that there was a strong personal supervision of loans by the farmers' organizations, and fourth, that those local and individual efforts were supported by state assistance through low interest loans to farmers' lending organizations.
When we come to Great Britain we have a somewhat different picture because of the different system of land tenure. There, until comparatively recently, land was held by a few landlords, the greater number of farmers being tenants. Development along co-operative lines commenced to some extent in 1901 in England, and in Scotland in 1905, when societies were established somewhat after the Irish pattern promoted by Sir Horace Plunkett in Ireland.
On the whole, long-term agricultural credit in Britain has been considered a field for private investment, and special corporations were organized under government regulation, but without government assistance. Under the provisions of the act passed in July, 1923, power was given the public works loan commission of Great Britain to lend money to associations for the purpose of making advances on farm mortgages at any time within five years after the passing of the act.
The co-operative credit developments in Europe which I have mentioned have not occurred to anything like the same degree in
The Address-Mr. Herridge

Great Britain, and that is largely because of the system of land tenure up to recent times.
In the Union of South Africa, for the purpose of promoting agricultural credit, the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa was established and advances were made to farmers' co-operative and credit organizations and, in some cases, direct to settlers. The history of the lending of money on long terms in South Africa is somewhat spotty, but I would say that, on balance, in the majority of cases it was successful and beneficial.
In New Zealand, for the promotion of agricultural settlement through government support, we find that, as far as the British commonwealth is concerned, arrangements have been worked out in greater detail with respect to the classification of land and the kind of security offered than in any other part of the commonwealth. There has been tremendous development in recent years of state assistance to farmers' lending organizations.
To come to this continent, there was great agitation for farm credit in the United States many years ago, and that resulted finally in the passing of the Federal Farm Loan Act in 1916. The federal farm loan board was then established, and since that time there has been great development of agricultural ' credit under the farm credit adminstration.
During the depression somewhat unusual and drastic measures were taken, not primarily, so far as I read, for the protection of the farmer, but for the protection of investors in organizations lending money to farm organizations or to farmers direct.
As far as Canada is concerned1, credit has been necessary since the earliest days of settlement in this country. I understand that from 1663 to 1750 French settlers were brought out from France and supplied free with tools and food, and ini some cases the King of France actually paid for the clearing of a few acres of land and provided a house and a few simple commodities such as flour until crops were reaped1.
As far as British settlement in Canada is concerned, I understand that, particularly in Halifax, from the earliest days there were grants of land and financial assistance to settlers who, in the first instance, were largely members of disbanded English regiments. In the period in this country between 1763 and 1812 credit was advanced1 to farmers generally by the merchants of the country. From 1812 to 1840 credit was obtained from private sources and from colonization companies. About 1850, loan societies were established for long-term agricultural credit, and most of the capital for these societies, as far as Canada is concerned, came from Britain.

With the accumulation of Canadian capital, Canadian companies commenced operations in the latter part of the last century until in the beginning of this century, Canadian corporations had1 some $116 million invested in farm mortgages in western Canada.
The point I wish to make is this, that without question, the system which has given the greatest success and been the soundest, having worked to the greatest advantage of the farmers themselves and to the country concerned, has been the system in which there was co-operation between the agencies of government and the organs of the people.
Agricultural assistance in this country by the federal government was commenced, as far as I can. find out, about 1876 by assistance to the Manitoba farmers for grasshopper relief. In 1886 there was assistance to the settlers of the Northwest Territories, and that was continued until the formation of the provinces in 1906. From 1909 to 1913 settlement in the west created tremendous demands for capital, and trust companies invested very large sums in western agriculture.
With the commencement of the war in 1914, borrowings from Great Britain ceased1 and there were greatly increased grants to agriculture in the west and in British Columbia.
As far as the provinces are concerned, in the maritimes there were various efforts to assist agriculture. I am speaking particularly of lending to farmers' organizations or to farmers direct. I recognize that much assistance was given through departments of agriculture, universities, and experimental stations, but I am referring especially to credit advanced to farmers or farmers' organizations. In Nova Scotia there was the loan act of 1919 providing loans for thirty years. In 1928 this provincial action ceased in Nova Scotia, and from what I can read there was little success in these schemes.
In New Brunswick there was no farm lending of importance, although there was assistance to British people who settled on the land. I understand that there were about 240 families established by 1926 and in 1929 these loans were refunded under the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Apparently, if one may judge from the large percentage of Scottish people in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, there is little borrowing done. In the latter province, in 1934 legislation was passed which prepared the way for the Canadian Farm Loan Act. This was the first provision for long-term agricultural credit in the history of the provinces.
Quebec, as far as I can read, has been the outstanding province in Canada for the develop-

The Address-Mr. Herridge
ment of co-operative credit societies by the farmers themselves, who from early days have received some assistance from government. I think the province of Quebec, as far as farm loaning organizations are concerned, has come closer to the European experience than any of the other provinces.
As far as Manitoba is concerned, there was a loan credit act in 1917, and there was the Manitoba loan association. Of the difficulties experienced, I am sure the leader of the official opposition knows more than I do.
In Saskatchewan there was the Saskatchewan farm loan act of 1917, but the results were not encouraging. Going west, we find crop failures and less stable agricultural conditions; and the lack of success in Canada, as far as longterm farm credit is concerned, is directly related to the question of the stability of agriculture and the assurance of continuous crops.
In Alberta tnere was the Alberta farm loan act of 1917, and in 1931 the establishment of the Central Alberta Rural Credits Corporation, the purpose of which -was to consolidate and co-ordinate the operations of the credit associations of the province.
British Columbia has a somewhat different history. As a matter of fact, under this system, relatively speaking, that province has an encouraging history as far as assistance to agriculture is concerned. Co-operation has been fostered there since very early days. In 1896 we had the creameries act. In 1898 we had the agricultural credit society act; in 1915 the agricultural act, and in 1917 the land settlement board. Its activities are now very much restricted, and the type of work it was doing has now been largely taken over under the Canadian Farm Loan Act. In addition to that, the government of British Columbia has financed diking and drainage to the extent of $2,500,000. In recent years, as far as federal measures are concerned, from 1917 to 1919 we had the Soldier Settlement Act, the British Farm Settlement Act of 1924, the Canadian farm loan board, which was established in 1929; the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and the Veterans Land Act of 1942.
I now desire to refer to the Veterans Land Act, and I wish to quote from a report of the Canadian farm loan board for the year ended March 31, 1947, at page 3:
Powers and Duties of the Board
The board is a public corporation and an agency of the dominion government organized in 1929 under the Canadian Farm Loan Act for the purpose of administering a system of longterm mortgage credit for farmers on the security of farm lands. In 1934 the act was amended and part II of the act was added to
permit the board to extend intermediate and short-term credit to its long term mortgage borrowers by way of supplementary advances secured by second and chattel mortgages. In 1935 the board was also empowered under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act to make loans to fishermen on the security of real property owned by them.
That outlines the powers and duties of the board. Then, on the same page under the paragraph headed "Terms of Loans" we find this:
Under the Canadian Farm Loan Act the board may make mortgage loans only to farmers whose principal occupation is farming and who are actually occupying and operating, in person or by hired labour, the lands accepted as security for loan. The act does not authorize the making of loans on lands under lease.
I wish to refer later to that clause "whose principal occupation is farming," because I maintain that, as long as a clause like that is in. the act, many of our young Canadians will be prevented from establishing themselves upon farms in this country. On page 4 we find a paragraph headed " Purpose of Loans," which reads:
Loans may be granted to refinance existing farm indebtedness, to purchase livestock and equipment, to make improvements, including the erection of buildings and to pay operating expenses. First mortgage loans may also be made to purchase farm land but second mortgage loans cannot be made for this purpose.
I just want to deal with another paragraph or so. On page 6 there is a paragraph headed "Repayments of Principal of Loans," which reads:
A considerable number of borrowers are taking .advantage of the prepayment privileges previously mentioned in this report by repaying their loans in full before due date. Since inception of operations in 1929, the board has disbursed 27,875 first mortgage loans and of this number over 12,100 have been repaid in full prior to the final instalment due date, while of a total of 8.995 second mortgage loans disbursed over 7,600 have been repaid in full.
Cash repayments of loan principal during the year under review amounted to $3,664,718 as compared with $3,802,455 repaid in the previous fiscal year. Cash repayments of loan principal since inception of operations in 1929 to March 31, 1947, total $34,190,122 against loans disbursed totalling $57,543,717.
My point is this. If we take the total of the loans disbursed we find that the Canadian farm loan, board has been lending annually a sum of a little less than $3,000,000. We talk about an expanding economy and we hear a great deal about industrial expansion. We know of the large investments in industrial expansion caused by accelerated depreciation, special depreciation and so on. But when we examine this report we find that the loans granted by the board are diminishing in
The Address-Mr. Herridge

volume. In 1942-43 total loans were $34,000,000; in 1946-47 that figure is reduced to $22,000,000. At a time when we should be developing our agriculture, and when young men are desiring to go on the land and get going under the Canadian Farm Loan Act, disbursements are decreasing in volume.
I shall not take further time to examine this report except to say that I am not criticising the officials of the Canadian farm loan board. I would say they are operating the act in a conservative and sound way. But I maintain that the act itself is too limited in scope and its application is too restrictive. I criticize the act as not being satisfactory in general and as not being satisfactory in particular. I say it is not satisfactory in general because, according to government figures, the capital invested in agriculture at this time is approximately $5,000 million and the annual production of agriculture is approximately $1,500 million. Yet at the present time we are lending to agriculture, through government channels under this act, only something in the neighbourhood of $3,000,000 a year. I maintain that those figures are sufficient to prove that this act is not providing the flow of credit which is necessary for agricultural expansion in this country.
I said that the act's application was not satisfactoiy in particular. I am now referring to my own experience and my observation of difficulties which have occurred in my own district. This act does not provide the opportunity for a young man to take over forest land and develop the farm because, under the act, his principal occupation must be farming. I shall give one illustration, although I could give several. A young veteran returned from the armed forces. He had not served a year in the Canadian forces, so that he was not entitled to assistance under the Veterans Land Act. He buys 160 acres of good timbered land and signs an agreement for $3,000; he agrees to pay S500 a year. He does that for two years and then finds out that, by making $500 payments, he has but little capital left with which to go on expanding, clearing and doing the things he wants to do to improve the place. So he applies to the Canadian farm loan board for a loan over a period of ten years, to make his payments lighter. In the first place, no official visited the district. The head office in British Columbia is in New Westminster. No one bothered to go and look at the farm. In the second place, he submitted to the board evidence to show that he had a wood contract which provided him with an assured income of $500. He sells other wood besides. In fact he had an assured income of $1,000 a year from wood that he is

cutting from the land he was clearing. He also told them he had a log home. I saw the home myself; I know it well. He had a well-built log bam. He stated all these facts. The people in the district know he is an excellent farmer settled on good land. He has proven that he is making good and is going to make a living, even if he does not have a dollar coming from crops. He has cleared a few acres. He has a few chickens and a few hogs.
His application for a loan was rejected. In the first place, his application was rejected because his principal income did not come from farming. How in the world could it come from farming if you are going to clear a forest farm? Second, reference was made to the fact that his buildings were only log ones; reference was made to his log home, log barn, log chickenhouse, log woodshed and so on. I think that that is a very unsound approach to his application. That young man is a skilled axeman, and I would prefer his log home to many of the jerrybuilt four or five thousand dollar homes I see in the cities. Here we had a capable young Canadian, who had seen service, seeking a loan. If ever there was a good investment for the country that was one. I mentioned that only as one case in my own constituency; yet under the terms of this act, because his principal income was not from agriculture to commence with, his application for a loan was rejected. I might add, however, that his credit was so good and the proposition was so sound that he was able to turn around and obtain the money from other sources, but not every person can do that.
Commencing farming today is different from what it was forty or fifty years ago. Then it was largely a matter of subsistence farming, and a man could take a good number of years to clear and develop his farm. That is not possible today; and I maintain that if we are to provide these young men with the opportunity to farm we must do more in the way of providing low-interest, long-term agricultural credit than we do under the present act. In my opinion if the conservation measures of this government, such as the proposed irrigation work, on the prairies and in British Columbia, the proposed diking in the maritimes and possibly British Columbia, the development that may take place in the Columbia river basin, and so on, are to be successful, they will have to be linked up with a satisfactory scheme of longterm agricultural credit. I believe this will require close co-operation between the dominion and provincial governments and the farm organizations, and also close co-operation

The Address-Mr. Green
between the various agencies of the government itself such as the Department of Finance, the Canadian farm loan board, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Mines and Resources.
While I am on that point, I must say I think there will have to be much greater coordination of departmental activities than there has been in the past. By way of illustration I might mention that I know of the case of a public works official who was proceeding to spend a few hundred dollars to take a dam out of a river. At that time it was pointed out to him that, by the expenditure of another $500 or so to lower the bed of the river by three or four feet at one point, some four thousand acres of agricultural land could be drained. The answer was, "That has nothing to do with the public works department; that belongs to somebody else." So I say we must have more co-ordination between departments, so that a case like this would be brought to the attention of the department concerned, which would be the Department of Mines and Resources, in order that our money may be expended to the best advantage.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I appreciate that very much. I would recommend to hon. members who are interested in this question-and I am sure most hon. members representing farm constituencies are interested in the development of agriculture-that they read the history of agricultural credit in various countries. I think they will agree with me that such an examination indicates that the most successful schemes are those in which the agencies of government are linked with the organizations of the people. The more we can enmesh the people in the administration of their own affairs, the more successful they will be and the more satisfactory will be the results. I believe we must use our potential wealth for these purposes-I would say our social credit, using that expression in its broadest sense. At the present time I believe there is something like $200,000,000 invested in the credit unions of this country. What would be the possibilities under a co-ordinated long-term credit scheme with the co-operation of the federal government, provincial governments and farm organizations with loan societies organized on a regional basis, and with the co-operation of dominion and provincial governments supplying the credit? We can surely all see the possibilities so far ar the expansion of agriculture is concerned.
Therefore in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the matter of long-term agricultural credit be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization, so that it may inquire into the operation of the Canadian Farm Loan Act in order to suggest amendments which will provide ample and satisfactory credit. I maintain that long-term agricultural credit on a satisfactory and co-operative basis, linked to a national natural products marketing act, will bring more security to our farmers, expansion to agriculture, and provide the food that we at home and those abroad so greatly need.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): As Your Honour well knows, a member taking part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne may deal with any subject or with a variety of subjects. This evening I propose to spend most of my time on veterans affairs; but before going on to that question I should like to say a few words about the position in which the people of British Columbia, my native province, now find themselves with regard to representation in the cabinet and also representation in the house.
I must strongly protest against the fact that British Columbia has had no representative in the ministry for a period of about one month. When this session commenced on December 5 of last year we had as our minister the Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie. He was the senior member of the cabinet, having been a member since the election of 1935. He had been made an imperial privy councillor, and was at the head of one of the most important departments of the government, that of veterans affairs. In addition he was house leader on behalf of the government.


John Ewen Sinclair: He led it very well, too.


Mr. GREEN:: Yes, I agree with my hon. friend. Then on January 19 of this year, just one week before the house met again, the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie resigned and was appointed to the senate. That was not an accident; that action was taken deliberately by this government. I suggest that Mr. Mackenzie should have been left in the cabinet until the government was in a position to appoint someone to take his place as the representative of British Columbia. He has been able to carry on. I see that he has been making speeches in British Columbia, and also that he has been making speeches in another place which seem to have involved him in a few beginner's lessons in conduct there. In any event he was obviously able to carry on in this house, and he should have been left here until someone could be appointed to take his place. We have had no
140S
The Address-Mr. Green

representative since, and the interests of British Columbia are not being looked after by reason of the fact that there is not a British Columbia member of the cabinet.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: But we have some good men there.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is not careful I will recommend him.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would sooner go to that other place.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Recommending him and getting him in are two different things.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps that is true. Our province is further removed from Ottawa than any other province. Our economy is not like that of any other province; it is quite different. I think it is impossible for a minister from another province to look after our interests in the cabinet.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And even-


Howard Charles Green: Now, if the hon. member for Fraser Valley will let me make my speech, I shall probably help him out a good deal before I have finished.
Our province is now third in population, having well over a million people. It is also third in production and in the amount of income tax paid. Judged by all tests, it is now one of the big three, the other two being Ontario and Quebec. And, by the way, it is growing more rapidly than any other province.
On the basis of present population it is very much under-represented in the number of members allowed in the House of Commons. I suggest that British Columbia should have two ministers in the federal cabinet; yet we now have none. And, Mr. Speaker, there is talk of an outsider being brought in, if you please. Surely that is a serious reflection on the sitting Liberal members from British Columbia. One of those members, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew), is the senior parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.
Perhaps members from other provinces will have noticed that, regardless of their political affiliations, members from British Columbia work pretty closely together. We have a sort of camaraderie which I believe is unequalled in the membership from any other part of the country. I am sure I speak for members from British Columbia who are not Liberals when I say that we rather resent this slight to the four sitting Liberal members from that province. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, we intend to defeat the four of them in the next general election. We reduced their membership from

ten to five in the last one, and we will finish off the rest of them in 1949, or whenever the election is called. But, meantime, we do not like to see them getting such a raw deal.


Mr. REID:: I will give the hon. member an invitation right now to come into my constituency.


Howard Charles Green: I have a very good one of my own. But, speaking seriously, I think this holding open of British Columbia cabinet representation is done for political purposes, is an attempt to win the by-election in Vancouver Centre; I believe the objective is either to appoint some outsider to the cabinet and then run him in that riding, as was done in the New Brunswick by-election, or to hold out to the electors of Vancouver Centre the inducement that if they elect a Liberal candidate he might be made a member of the cabinet.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You could bring in George Drew; you never can tell.


Howard Charles Green: The holding open of this position is unfair to my province, and I repeat that we should have a cabinet minister, and without further delay.
Then, I protest also against the delay in calling a by-election in the constituency of Yale. The Hon. Grote Stirling represented the people of that riding for nearly a quarter of a century, and represented them in a most conscientious manner. I am sure all members of the house will agree with me when I say that when he resigned on October 4 he did so because he was physically unable to carry on as the representative of his constituency. When he found he could not be in the house; indeed, when he found he could not take part in the activities in his own riding, he resigned at once, something which I am afraid would be done by very few of the rest of us.
In view of that fact, if for no other reason, I should have thought the government would call a by-election at once, so that the people of that constituency could have their representative here during the present session. And that is particularly important during this session, because the question of the cutting down of the imperial preference, and questions connected with the new Geneva treaties, are of the utmost importance to the constituency of Yale.
Primarily it is a fruit district. The preference on apples has been done away with, and that particular fact may well mean disaster to the people of that riding. Furthermore, the tariff on United States apples coming into Canada has been greatly reduced. That, too,

The Address-Mr. Green
affects them seriously. The Geneva treaties affect other fruits, as well, from the sale of which these people live. And it is very important that they have a representative here in the House of Commons when these issues are under debate. Even if the byelection were called at once and the new member were not here until the month of May, he would perhaps have two months of this session in which to serve. I should think that would give him time to take part in the discussions on the preference and on the Geneva treaties. I suggest that in fairness that by-election at least should be called at once, regardless of what may be done in respect of the other constituencies which became vacant at a much later date.
Speaking of veterans affairs, I believe there is great resentment in my province over the way in which the government has been trifling with veteran problems. I have never known resentment among veteran organizations to be as great as it has been in the last few months, caused perhaps by the rise in the cost of living. In any event, that resentment is a fact, and I do not believe I shall be contradicted by any member for British Columbia when I say that.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Would my hon. friend tell me any country in the world that has done better by her veterans than Canada has?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the excuse which is always thrown out by the government in a debate on veterans affairs.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not an excuse at all; it is a fact.


Howard Charles Green: I will tell the minister something. In the first place, Canada's position can be compared only with that of the United States, because other countries, such as Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, are not in a position to do anything like what the United States or Canada can do. In many respects veterans legislation in the United States is very much more favourable to the veterans than is our legislation in Canada. And during the course of my remarks I propose to give one example of that.
I repeat that the government has been trifling and continues to trifle with veteran problems. First of all, I refer to the war veterans allowance. Three days ago, on February 16, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) said that the War Veterans Allowance Act was still under study, but he intimated that there would be further government proposals published or announced within the course of a few days. It is because of
that fact that I speak first about the war veterans allowance. Once an announcement is made in the house, as has been done twice in this session by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), there is very little chance of getting any further improvement. It is then almost impossible to bring about any further alteration.
The final announcement with regard to war veterans allowances has not yet been made. I warn the Minister of Veterans Affairs that now is the time to put up a fight in the cabinet for better treatment of these war veterans allowance recipients. He will have a difficult time to live up to the fighting reputation in the cabinet of the former Minister of Veterans Affairs. Naturally I do not know what goes on in the cabinet, but I believe that on more than one occasion the former minister put up a fight. I believe that if he had not done so there are many amendments to veterans legislation which would never have come before the house. I point out to the present Minister of Veterans Affairs that this is a chance for him to win his spurs. He should get in and fight in the cabinet and see that this war veterans allowance legislation is made what it should be.
The war veterans allowance is simply a burnt-out pension, and that is what it is commonly called. It is paid to the veteran who has seen front-line service at a much earlier age than the 70 years necessary to receive an old age pension. Parliament considered that these veterans had been burnt out by reason of having been exposed to shell-fire, and this legislation followed. I think it has been very beneficial legislation. A few years ago it was extended to cover the widows of veterans who had served in an active theatre of war. There is quite a severe means test and, as hon. members know, the maximum which a single veteran or a widow can get is $30.41 per month.
I am not going to take up time in arguing that that is not enough to live on, because I do not believe there is a member in the house who thinks it is possible for these men or these widows to get along on an allowance of that size. It is interesting to read what happened last year during the debate on old age pensions. I have the Hansards here and hon. members may be interested to check the statements which appear on pages 4744 and 4864. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was being pressed with regard to the adequacy of the old age pension of $30 a month, and finally he admitted that that figure was not enough to live on, that it was
The Address-Mr. Green

only a maintenance grant. Upon being questioned by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Queleh), he replied:
I do not say, and no one says, that $30 a month is enough for a person to live on.
Later on, he explained that that $30 was merely a grant towards maintenance and that the provinces must make up the difference in order to give the persons residing within their boundaries an amount on which to live. He put the responsibility for paying anything in excess of $30 a month upon the provinces. I would point out to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that the veteran is not the responsibility of the province; he is the responsibility of the dominion. That has been admitted time and again. Last year the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) admitted that veterans housing was a responsibility of the dominion. There can be no question that the dominion cannot expect a province to pay an additional amount to the war veterans allowance recipient so that he can live; that responsibility rests with the dominion.
Some of the provinces are paying old age pensioners an additional $10 a month. My own province of British Columbia is doing that, and the situation there is that war veterans are going off war veterans allowance and on to old age pension because they can get between $9 and $10 a month more. It is a shameful situation that veterans of that province have to give up their war veterans allowance and take an old age pension when they and everybody else know that, in reality, they are the responsibility of the dominion government. The minister's own department is cooperating in changes of that kind, is making it easier for these veterans to switch from war veterans allowance to old age pension.
The government took some action when on December 19 the Prime Minister announced that there would be an increase in war veterans allowances, and I quote from his statement as reported on page 490 of Hansard:
The amendment will authorize the war veterans allowance board to grant supplementary allowances up to $10 a month-
It does not say they will get $10 a month; it simply says up to $10 a month.
-in cases of need for veterans and widows who, through age and infirmity, are unable to provide for their own maintenance. The board will be authorized to make the supplementary allowances retroactive to October 1, or to any subsequent date, as the circumstances of individual cases may require.	[DOT]
That applies to both single and married veterans. If a veteran is married he can get only up to $10 a month; he does not get anything extra because he is married. I suggest to the minister that there should have been

an outright addition to the war veterans allowance of at least $10 without any further means test, without the front-line veteran having to go back to the war veterans allowance board for further investigation, without his having to get past a lot of officials before getting a maximum of $10, and he might get only $2 or $3. That was a ridiculous way to meet a great need. These men are in the greatest need of all veterans. With them it is not a matter of the cost of living, it is a matter of the cost of keeping alive. The proposal does not meet their position at all. I repeat that this is a case of trifling with a veterans' problem.
Another example is the increase in pensions. No cost of living bonus was paid to pensioners or to the recipients of war veterans allowance during the war years when the cost of living was going up. Last session various demands were made that these men be paid a cost of living bonus, but nothing was done. The cost of living index has now gone up until it stands at between 145 and 150, based on the 1935-39 period.
There was nothing in the speech from the throne about an increase in pensions. Mention was made that there would be some veterans affairs bills but there was no promise at all of increased pensions. However, protests from the Legion, from the Army and Navy, from the Canadian corps, from the Amputation and other associations, and protests from newspapers right across Canada were so strong that on December 19, the last day of the short session, the Prime Minister announced that there would be an increase in pensions.
It was not a very big increase but it was something; at least it was a start. The basic increase was $10 on a full disability pension of $75, which meant an increase from $75 to $85. There was no increase whatever in the allowance for a wife or for children or for parents. There was an increase of $10 for the widow. The increases were made retroactive to October 1. As all hon. members know, they were quite inadequate. They met with protests from one end of the country to the other, and now we have had a further increase which was announced on February 16, three days ago. But I submit to the house that the figure is still too low. In some cases it means an increase of about sixteen per cent. I do not think in any case it is over twenty per cent. The cost of living has gone up fifty per cent. The Legion, and the National Council of Veterans Associations, which includes the Army and Navy, the Corps, the Paraplegic Association, Canadian Pensioners', Sir Arthur Pearson Association and the War

The Address-Mr. Green
Amputations, both asked for a greater increase. I think the legion asked for an increase of twenty-five per cent right across the board. The increase should have been given. There should not be all this haggling about an increase for the men and the dependents of the men who saved this country. It just does not make sense.
I would point out to the minister that even in Great Britain, hard hit as she is, increases have been granted in many cases up to forty per cent within the last few months. Yes, indeed Canada might very well have made a general increase of twenty-five per cent right across the board. The tragedy of the situation is that, throughout, the government has moved only after terrific pressure, which shows a failure to realize the plight in which the veterans of Canada now find themselves.
The third instance of trifling with veterans' problems is that of the veterans taking vocational and educational training. In December they were refused any increase whatever. Their claims were just brushed aside at that time. Now the married men only are given an increase of $10 a month. I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to correct me if I am wrong in any of these figures. That, I submit, should have been greater. Early in December I received a very good brief from the University of British Columbia branch of the Canadian Legion dealing with this question of an increase in the grants for student veterans. They asked that there be set a minimum over-all increase of $20 a month, which they stated was vitally and urgently needed by all student veterans with unemployable dependents; that is, those with children or wives incapable of working or who support elderly parents. In the brief they submitted figures to show that the average married student was going behind at the rate of $35.67 a month at that time. Their figures were carefully prepared and were accurate. They were taken from the student veterans living in what is known as Little Mountain Camp, a former army camp, where there are several hundred veterans running their camp as a small town, and running it exceptionally well. I am sure that the figures taken by them would be accurate.
This increase of $10 a month is not made retroactive to October 1, as was done with the pensions and the war veterans allowances. For some reason or another it was made retroactive only to January 1. That, again, I suggest is unfair. These men have been in university since September. They have had these expenses for these months. They had
been going behind in each one of these months last year, and this increase should have been made retroactive to October 1.
The single man should not have been left out. A significant statement was given to the press on February 17 by the students of Carle-ton college in Ottawa. Among other things they said:
While the married student is slightly better off, the single vet is still marking time. We feel the government decision is only a half-way measure.
The need for this increase is obvious. In every case the cost of living has gone up for the single man, even though the first claim must, of necessity, be that of the married man. I suggest that the single man should also have had an increase. I point out to the minister and to his associate, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), that in the United States less than a week ago President Truman signed legislation increasing the benefits of two million veterans attending college under the so-called G.I. Bill of Rights, which raised the monthly subsistence allowance for veterans without dependents from $65 to $75; those with one dependent from $90 to $105, and those with two or more dependents from $90 to $120.
This liability to the veterans is not a continuing one. We shall have it for only two or three more years, and I do not believe that the government of Canada could make a finer investment than it is making in helping these young men and women to obtain an education. They will be the leaders of this nation within a very few years, and it is of the utmost importance to Canada that they should receive the very finest training that can be given in Canada. I urge the government to realize the difficulties under which they are working and to make a further increase, so that there may be no doubt that they will all be able to carry through until they obtain their degrees.
Another instance is the difficulty under the Veterans Land Act. There again the government has been trifling with the veteran and his problems. I am not going to go into it in detail, because the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) did that and did it well the other evening. But I endorse his demand that a royal commission be set up in Canada to investigate all these small housing programs. I believe that the government has paid, or has incurred costs for repairs, over and above contract price, up to a figure of something like $3,000,000. I believe also that there has been very little of that collected from contractors; and all the contractors I know who had anything to do with veterans
The Address-Mr. Green

housing were in a position to pay for not completing their contracts. I cannot understand why the government should announce with such enthusiasm that it is going to pay $3,000,000 to make these houses right, and not give one little squeak about making the contractor pay that money. There is no reason at all why the taxpayers of Canada should be saddled with that expense. It should come from the pockets of the contractors. I repeat; a royal commission should be set up without further delay.
The fifth instance of trifling with the veterans' problems has been the treatment meted out by the government to the merchant seamen. They have been the completely forgotten men who took part in the last war. They were regarded by everyone as a fourth arm of the fighting services. Speeches to that effect were made by every cabinet minister from the Prime Minister down, lauding these men for the great things they were doing, and they were doing great things. The casualties in proportion to the numbers in the merchant navy were, I think, higher than in any of the other arms of the services; yet when it comes to the treatment of these men, the pensions, vocational and educational grants and preference in the civil service, they are treated as civilians. We battled that out on the floor of the house here last year. The government refused to include them in the veterans preference. A merchant seaman cannot get a pension unless he was wounded by direct enemy action. He cannot get educational benefits. He cannot get vocational training unless he takes it by way of training in the merchant navy. The merchant seamen are not being given a fair deal, and that is another position which must be remedied.
The final instance is the way that this proposed special committee of the house is being handled. The Prime Minister intimated to me yesterday, in reply to a question I asked, that probably the increases in the pensions would not be referred to the special committee which is to be set up. He said that it would probably be necessary to get that bill through in a hurry so that the veterans could get their money, and that, therefore, it would not perhaps be very wise to have the matter go to the committee.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs knows, and his parliamentary assistant knows very well that each time there has been a special committee set up to deal with veterans affairs it has been given very wide powers. It has been given an opportunity to review the whole field of veterans affairs. The com-

mittee has been as non-partisan as any committee in this house could be. Every member of the committee has considered it a privilege to serve, and the job has been well done. That was particularly true of the committee in 1945 and 1946. The veterans' organizations feel free to go before that committee and make representations, knowing that a fair hearing will be given and that the representations made will receive full consideration.
That, I suggest, is what should be done with the committee of this session. It was promised by the former minister of veterans affairs at page 4893 of Hansard of last year:
We shall have another veterans committee reviewing the whole situation as it did last vear.
He made the same promise in Vancouver in November of last year, and we have always understood that the special committee on veterans affairs would be allowed to review the whole situation and do a proper job.


Mr. TUCKER:: May I ask the hon. member a question? I am as much interested in this matter as he is. Is it not correct that if this bill went through this house and the other house and received the royal assent, these people would get the benefit of the increases much earlier, while that would not preclude us from going into the whole question of pensions, even after this bill had gone through?


Mr. PEARKES:: Why wait?


Howard Charles Green: It might be that these particular amendments could be considered first and the other amendments later. The Canadian Legion and the other soldier organizations have asked that that question be referred to the special committee. Just this week, in fact yesterday, in the Journal the Reverend Sidney E. Lambert, president of the War Amputations of Canada said that his association had asked for an opportunity to appear before the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs on the question.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not think the hon. member got my point. Would it not be desirable to put the bill through at once and the matter could be considered by the veterans committee? They could go into the whole question even if the bill went through.


Howard Charles Green: If, in putting the bill through to provide for the increases announced, the government will say that these increases are only temporary, and that it will give any further increases recommended by the special committee, there might be something in the suggestion.

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart


Walter Adam Tucker: As the hon. member knows, the terms of reference to the committee would enable these pensions to be studied even if this bill did not go through.


Howard Charles Green: I repeat my suggestion. Mind you, if the government is willing to take the recommendation of that committee as to the amount of increase, I think there is a good deal in what the hon. member has said; but I am afraid the position is that the government has made up its mind that it will go thus far and no farther, and it is for that reasofi that it is willing to have the increases referred to the committee.
The committee should have been set up in December. The need existed then as it does now. Certainly it should have been set up at once when the house resumed on January 26, and I say it should now be set up without any further delay and should be given the power to deal with all these questions.
In conclusion, I warn the government that it must face each of these questions and it must face them at this session. There are other problems which I have not the time to deal with tonight, such as the question of preenlistment condition, the question of the benefit of the doubt, the fact that the wife of a veteran of the first war, maTried after the first of May, 1944, can get no allowance, failure to give imperial veterans war veterans allowance, and the need to give more assistance to such groups as the firefighters and auxiliary services, the young women who served in the Canadian Red Cross and the men who served in the ferry command. These are all topics which no doubt will be discussed by the committee and they, too, will have to be met during the present session.
There is this fact always to be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the veterans' problems can never be finally disposed of and put away in a filing cabinet. As long as there remains one veteran of either war alive who needs assistance, veterans affairs must be a main problem for the Canadian parliament.
I think it was a mistake to make such a fuss about getting out a veterans charter in 1946. I said at the time I thought it was unwise to do so, because it gave the idea that everything was settled. We had a charter; there were no new problems that would arise and we could forget about veterans. Actually, this charter was just a revision and a bringing up-to-date of veterans legislation, and a worthwhile work it was too. But the problem will never be settled, and no matter what we do to help out Canada's veterans, we cannot adequately repay them and their dependents for the sacrifices that have been made.


Mr. A. W. STUART (Charlotte):: Some little time has elapsed since the speech from the throne was read on December 6 last. However, I wish to join with those who have taken part in the debate in complimenting the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. In rising to take part in this debate, I do so as one who considers it his duty to express what he believes to be the opinion of the great majority of the people he has the honour to represent.
The matter I wish to discuss in this debate was introduced by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) and the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor). It has to do with the Atlantic seaports. On February 6 the hon. member for St. John-Albert brought to the attention of the house and particularly the Department of Transport the discriminatory attitude which this department had taken with regard to shipping through the ports of Saint John and Halifax. The hon. member for St. John-Albert spoke in this debate, as I say, on February 6, and the following day the Saint John Tele graph-Journal published the greater part of his remarks. The Department of Transport was accused of "bare-faced trickery" and "double dealing" with regard to shipments through the port of Saint John. On February 10 an editorial appeared in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal. I will not quote it all because it is quite lengthy, but I will quote the last paragraph which reads as follows:
It is good to have one of our representatives in parliament speaking out boldly on behalf of our ports and it is to he hoped that other members from the maritime provinces will realize that this issue transcends party lines and will support the vital cause with equal force. If politics is discarded and our spokesmen at Ottawa show a united front on this question the ports of Halifax and Saint John will at last win justice.
I fully realize that the members from New Brunswick and the maritime provinces should endeavour to co-operate in every way possible when a question of benefits to our province or to the maritime provinces is concerned. I regret, however, that I cannot agree with statements made by the hon. member for St. John-Albert or by the senior member for Halifax. If cheaper freight rates can be obtained through Portland, Maine, than through Atlantic seaports the exporter will certainly take advantage of that situation; and in order to divert this traffic from its economic course the Canadian people would be called upon to subsidize Atlantic seaports. It is a well-known fact that the volume of United States goods shipped through Canadian ports is much greater than is that of Canadian

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
goods shipped through United States ports. Much serious thought should be given this extremely important matter before any action is taken by this government that might disrupt the national economic movement of goods between these two great countries. I am convinced that this would be an unpopular move. As has been argued on many occasions by hon. members sitting opposite, it is far better to let things such as this take their natural course than to interfere by substituting some artificial arrangement which at best would be only a temporary measure, not a permanent solution.
I might also add that if the same publicity is given in the press to my remarks as was given to those of the hon. member for St. John-Albert I have nothing to fear as far as my county is concerned. I am confident that I shall be expressing the views of the great majority of the people living in the county of Charlotte.
As hon. members are aware, Saint John is called a national port. We in Charlotte county believe this name should be changed, for this reason. If any Canadian outside the county of St. John makes an application for work at this port, he must pay an enormous fee, even though millions of dollars of Canadian money has gone in to build the port up. A citizen of Canada from outside St. John county must pay that fee. A citizen of St. John county is treated in an entirely different manner. The hon. member for St. John-Albert pointed out that a discriminatory attitude was taken by the Department of Transport with regard to shipments to Saint John port. I would ask him to explain the discrimination shown in this respect. It might be said that there is a selfish motive in the stand I have taken, and perhaps rightly so, because hon. members taking part in discussions of this kind usually speak for their own constituents who naturally have priority over all others; in many cases a general survey is not considered. This statement I believe can be borne out if we review the period when controls were being rigidly enforced in Canada. A control that was beneficial to an individual or his constituents received his support. Another that might be repulsive to him but of benefit to others was immediately condemned. In other words, we all supported controls on commodities we were obliged to purchase, but did not relish any interference with regard to commodities we might have to sell.
In my home town of St. Andrews we have for many years enjoyed the benefits of United States shipments through that port. It has also been an enormous source of revenue to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Each

and every year hundreds of carloads of tin plate pass through this port to the state of Maine, hundreds of thousands of gallons of edible oils that are used in the canning industry, and thousands of tons of salt used also in this industry. These commodities pass through St. Andrews for one reason only: the freight rate from the western United States is cheaper through Canada than by United States railroads. Undoubtedly United States railroads have endeavoured to have these materials hauled over their own lines, and the same arguments have been put forth as were used by the hon. member for St. John-Albert and the senior member for Halifax. Regardless of political pressure and other influences, however, the canning industries in the state of Maine still take advantage of the cheaper rail haul, and, as I have said, much to the benefit of the county I represent, and to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. After the salt, oil and tin plate reach their destination, raw materials must be found before canning operations are possible. That is where Charlotte county comes into the picture again, because we supply two-thirds of the raw materials used in this enormous canning industry in the eastern state of Maine; and from the time this industry was first established, these raw materials, which are produced by Canadian fishermen, have entered the United States duty free.
To give hon. members some idea of the production and the value of this industry, I shall quote just a few figures. In 1947, sardine fishermen of southern New Brunswick produced 122,000.000 pounds of sardines; that would be approximately 2,000,000 cases of 100 cans each, or, 200,000.000 tins. The value to the fishermen was $1,547,000. Approximately two-thirds of this amount were sold in United States of America. One can readily see the value of this United States market to the fishermen in that locality.
The story, however, is not yet complete with regard to the exportation of the canned sardines. Hundreds of thousands of cases, when ready for shipment, again find their way back to St. Andrews from Eastport, Lubec and Robbinston, Maine, and are shipped to all parts of the United States by the Canadian Pacific Railway, giving employment to dock workers, marine freighters and employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
It is true that the shipping through the port of St. Andrews would be a small item when compared with that of Saint John or Halifax; nevertheless it means a livelihood for several residents of the town and, indirectly, a benefit to many mo-re. The limited amount of ship-

The Address-Mr. A. IF. Stuart
ping through this port is, I may add, not for the want of a harbour, because we have in the St. Croix harbour one of the finest in the world. As to size, it would be much greater than Saint John and Halifax combined; Portland could also be thrown in with plenty of room to spare. We who live in Charlotte county cannot understand why no effort has been made to develop a harbour that nature has practically completed for us. The old adage that "the squeaking wheel gets the most grease" might apply in this instance, because millions of dollars of public moneys have been wasted in dredging in other Atlantic ports-


Mr. ISNOR:: None at Halifax.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -while this natural port, where dredging would be unnecessary, is being selfishlv neglected. Ships and cargoes valued at millions of dollars-and might I add that at the time those ships and cargoes were lost they were especially valuable; it was during the war-were lost inside Atlantic ports for one reason only, namely, compelling steamship companies and masters of steamships to navigate in harbours that are not, and never will be, safe for navigation.
Regardless of the amount of money expended in their development, St. Croix harbour has more to offer at the present time than any other harbour in the province of New Brunswick can ever hope to have. For many years the people of Charlotte county have endeavoured to have this great port developed, because it is recognized as one of the largest natural harbours in the world, in fact second to none. In Passamaquoddy bay the combined navies of the world could be moored in a landlocked harbour, the like of which cannot be found anywhere else on the continent of North America. During the war, when it was necessary to prepare convoys and arrange them before proceeding overseas, this wonderful harbour would have been of invaluable assistance, since it would have eliminated the necessity of loading freighters lying outside harbours in the open sea for many days awaiting the completion of the convoy, or awaiting berthing space. Many times during the war I criticized this practice, since I knew it was quite unnecessary. Many suffered through the selfishness of a few who sacrificed everything for personal gain.
I have had a few years of experience on cnt water myself, and I am well acquainted with the harbours on the Atlantic coast, having watched their progress over a period of years. So far, I have expressed my personal opinion as to the advantages of St. Croix harbour. At this point, however, I propose to put on record
the opinions and recommendations of men far better qualified than I, who made a survey of this harbour in 1912 and 1913 at the request of the dominion government. At that time the citizens of Charlotte county were hopeful that something would be done in developing the harbour as a national port. One survey was made by Mr. A. D. Swan, member of the institute of civil engineers, and I should like to place his report upon Hansard. It is the St. Croix harbour report of 1912-13:
No. 496, Lake of the Woods building, Montreal, March 4, 1913.
Hon. Robert Rogers,
Minister of Public Works,
Dominion of Canada.
Sir,-
St. Croix River, Charlotte County, N.B.
Having been honoured with instructions from you to examine into and report on the St. Croix river, in Charlotte county, New Brunswick, with a view as to its suitability or otherwise for a new deep water harbour which would be open all the year round for the largest class of merchant shipping, I beg respectfully to submit the following:
On 29th November, 1913, I left the port of Saint John. N.B., by tug boat and steamed down the bay of Fundy to the estuary of the St. Croix river, proceeding by way of Head Harbour passage, an opening between Campobello island and Deer island and distant some fifty miles from Saint John. The river St. Croix forms the international boundary between the state of Maine, U.S.A., and the province of New Brunswick, Canada. Having examined the entrance I continued up the river, passing, the town of Eastport, Maine, on the left, till the town of St. Andrews, about fifteen miles from the mouth of the river, was reached. I examined the approaches to the port of St. Andrew's and possible development from Passamaquoddy bay, and landing, examined the fore shore; after which I proceeded nine miles further up the river to Oak Point, the head of deep water navigation and situated about five miles southeast of the town of St. Stephen. I carefully examined the headland of Oak Point and The Ledge, as well as the Canadian side of the river, and later again visited the port of St. Andrews, also making myself conversant with railway facilities in the vicinity of St. Stephen and St. Andrews and the feasibility or otherwise of extending the railways with a view to the construction of railway terminals alongside deep water wharves. I visited the principal industries in the vicinity of St. Stephen within a radius of about ten miles, and inquired into the amount of present traffic, the existing conditions for handling same, and the reasonable probabilities for future development.
I again visited the river and vicinity on 23rd and 24th February, 1914. and after exceptionally severe weather, and found the river quite open for navigation. Thin ice had formed over it between Oak Point and St. Stephen, but a tug boat passed up without any difficulty whatever.
On this later visit, with your approval, I arranged with the shipping federation of Canada that they should nominate three experienced navigators to accompany me and give me their opinion of the suitability cr otherwise of

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
the river and approach thereto from a navigable point of view. The representatives nominated and who accompanied me were Captain Gillies of the Donaldson Dine; Captain Elliott of the Canadian Pacific Railway Lines; and Captain Kenny of the Head Line, along with whom I again inspected the river on board the S.S. Lansdowne, kindly placed at my disposal by the marine and fisheries department.
Copy of Navigators' report is appended hereto.
The St. Croix river is navigable for the largest class of vessels for about twenty-five miles in a northerly direction from Campobello island and the bay of Fundy. At its narrowest part between Deer Point and Dog island, near Eastport, the river is about 2,600 feet wide, and it has an average approximate depth at low water the whole way up to Oak Point varying from about 40 feet to 350 feet. For about eight miles of their course, vessels would pass through Passamaquoddy bay. which is approximately about twelve miles long by six miles wide, and which, having deep water, would afford magnificent anchorage if desired. The river and bay are at all seasons of the year free from ice, but there is a variation in the tide of about 24 feet between high and low water. The approach for vessels entering the St. Croix river from the bay of Fundy would be from Grand Manan channel between Grand Manan island and Campobello island, thence by Head Harbour passage; and I understand the Grand "Manan or north channel is looked upon more favourably by navigators than is the channel to the south of Grand Manan island.
The heaviest storms in the bay of Fundy are generally from the southeast, so that as soon as a vessel rounded Head Harbour point, she would be perfectly protected. The current of the river is most rapid for a short distance between Deer Point and Dog island, where it varies from two to five knots, and there is a curve just off the town of Eastport. The radius of the curve would be approximately about one mile and a quarter, but the navigable part of the river or roadstead at that place is about 2.400 feet wide, and the current is comparatively small. It was principally on account of this curve that I desired an opinion from a navigator's point of view, hut the three captains who accompanied me on my second visit of inspection unhesitatingly assured me' that it did not present any difficulty owing to. the great width, and that it compared very favourably with several curves in the St. Lawrence ship channel.
Next in the report is a section dealing with fog in the bay of Fundy and' St. Croix river. I will not read this whole report, but a table is included giving a record of fog at Partridge island, near Saint John, andi at St. Croix. For the years 1912-13 the average at Partridge island was 1,486 hours, while the average at St. Croix harbour was 395 hours. The report goes on:
It-will be seen from the above that the duration of fog, snow or vapour, the three conditions which call for the operation of the alarm, was at St. Croix island in St. Croix harbour only 27 per cent of that at Partridge island at the entrance of Saint John harbour. It is further to be noted that immediately on the turn of Head Harbour, Campobello, the fog condition began to improve.

The next part of the report to which I shall refer is headed' "Conclusion arrived at".
In considering the St. Croix river for shipping purposes, and as a possible auxiliary to Saint John, more particularly for the extensive traffic during the winter months, it seems to have many attractions, such as-It is some fifty miles nearer the mouth of the bay of Fundy than is Saint John. The distance from Montreal to Saint John by Canadian Pacific railway is 483 miles. The distance from Montreal to Oak bay, St. Stephen, by the Canadian Pacific railway is 438 miles; and if in the future a branch line is constructed from Mattawamkeag to Oak Bay, this would shorten the total distance from Montreal to Oak Bay to 410 miles. The river St. Croix and Passamaquoddy bay are comparatively well sheltered waters, never closed by ice, and protected from the swell of the bay of Fundy by numerous islands near the mouth; and as there is deep water right close in shore to the sides of the river and bay, practically no dredging whatever would be necessary to form a shipping channel. Leading lights for the guidance of shipping at night would, of course, have to be provided; probably some joint agreement regarding cost of same could be made with the United States.
Assuming, therefore, that the river offers reasonably attractive facilities for shipping, the question arises as to what part of the river should be developed first; whether St. Andrews ought to be the terminal or some point further inland; and I have no hesitation whatever in recommending that, because of its geographical position, as being the furthest point inland suitable for deep water navigation. Oak Point, overlooking Oak bay, should be selected as the terminus. Oak bay is a magnificent site, reached by a comparatively straight stretch of river, nine miles further inland than St. Andrews, with ample room for swinging and excellent accommodation for the construction of terminal facilities, in addition to which there is already the town of St. Stephen, a short distance off, with numerous industries, moderately large and rapidly increasing population, and varied commercial activities, affording an absolutely certain considerable amount of traffic the whole year round, the moment accommodation is provided. The land at Oak Point slopes gently towards the river and bay, and is all cleared and at present under grass. It is not that St. Andrews does not afford many most excellent points suitable for deep water terminals. but simply that by going further inland, the rail haul is shortened, and there already is considerable local business: nevertheless, if it should be considered advisable to construct one or more wharves at St. Andrews, the side of the river from Joe's Point upwards would he most suitable.
I therefore recommend with great confidence that wharf areas, railway terminals, roads and freight-handling facilities in general should be designed on a comprehensive, practicable scale, and constructed by degrees at Oak Bay as may be necessary. . . .
In conclusion, it is a recognized fact that no port in the world that has kept its facilities ahead of actual requirements, bi.it has experienced immense development followed by great increase of trade and population.
I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant.
A. D. Swan.

_______________The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
Just one other statement which, with the permission of the house, I should like to place on Hansard. This is a statement by Captain Mowatt who was for many years port superintendent for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Liverpool, England. He retired in September 1913. This was his report at that time:
The approach to the port of St. Croix via Head Harbour is equal to the approach of any other great ports in the world, and in many instances, excels the best for depth of water. There are no great ports which have such great depth of water, from the sea clear into port, as that of the St. Croix; it is such that the largest ships now in existence, and with the greatest draft of water, can enter the port at the lowest possible tide. The channels from Head Harbour into Passamaqnoddy bay are such that the largest vessel that ever will be built, can be navigated with ease at top speed, with perfect safety. They are free from shoals ami rock, and have ample width for turning a ship in the narrowest part. The tidal currents are nothing in comparison to the river Mersey (England) and other ports which I have navigated.
After rounding the Head Harbour light, there is good anchorage clear up to Oak Point. Passa-maqnoddy bay. being completely land-locked and having a comparatively even denth of water, affords good anchorage in any part of the bay. The current of the St. Croix river is not great, by reason of its evenness of width and depth of water. Vessels of the largest dimensions can he and swing to single anchor, and with from seventy-five to one hundred fathoms of cable, with perfect safety in all' parts of the river north and south of St. Croix island.
I he shore on the east side of the river, from Joes Point to and including Oak Point, is excellent for wharves and piers, and also for wharves running parallel with the shore line. The above wharves and piers can be so arranged and built that no dredging will be required. On the line of shore are no less than three sites where many dry docks can be easily built. On the banks of the river there is abundance of material for pier construction. In several places the banks and land elevation inland are perfect for grain warehouses, where cars can run over the top of the buildings and discharge into them, thus avoiding the expense of discharging grain by elevator from car to warehouse. There is unlimited caryard room in the vicinity of the above-mentioned sites. Fresh water for ships and other purposes is in abundance. Having large manoeuvring room where wharves are properly arranged, the largest vessels can dock and unload with ease, and without the aid of tug assistance.
(Statistics clearly show no trouble to navigation from ice, and also that there is less fog difficulty than in many parts of the Atlantic coast. Emphatically speaking, in making this port from sea in any weather condition, there is no more danger than in making Halifax, Saint John, or even New York.
After _ careful investigation. I consider St. Crodx river and Passamaquoddy bay equal to any in the world for a great national port.
In conclusion, I should like to say that during his visits to St. Andrews the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) lived
and played golf overlooking this harbour. The advantages it has over several other Atlantic seaports were brought to the attention of the minister. I am pleased to say he was favourably impressed. We, the citizens of Charlotte county, are hopeful that in the reconstruction program St. Croix harbour will not be forgotten.
In 1003 Champlain wintered in this harbour on Dochet's island. On the 350th anniversary of this historic event could one think of a more fitting commemoration than the official opening of the St. Croix harbour as a national port?
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, while the remarks I wish to make have a definite bearing on the people of my constituency, they also refer to the agricultural conditions of the country as a whole. Most of the people in my constituency make their living from the pursuit of agriculture. Their wants are not very great, and they are willing to turn their hands to fishing, trapping, lumbering and other pursuits when, through the effects of adverse weather conditions, they find themselves short of the funds required to purchase the necessary food and clothing for themselves and their families. In the more northerly parts they raise a certain amount of livestock, hogs and cattle, in order to add to their slender incomes.
It was, therefore, with great dismay that they saw the relation of feed costs and livestock prices get completely out of line. This was particularly distressing when they found out that, on account of the high prices of oats and barley, they could no longer afford to feed their livestock. This circumstance was and is very serious for them, because their incomes are derived from several small occupations, each of which must, of necessity, provide its necessary share.
Added to these difficulties which have been brought to my attention many times, is the fact that they are short of transportation facilities. When I first came to the House of Commons three years ago as the representative of those people I drew attention to the fact that they had through their country two incomplete railway systems. The ends had been built, but the middles had been left out; and they are still in the same condition. The end portions, fortunately, are still there; but the middle portions, unfortunately, are not. They were promised the completion of these lines many years ago, and1 I feel that without further delay something should be done about the matter.

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
I am happy to say that on one of these gaps an engineering construction and survey gang was working last summer, and I should hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) would do his level best to see that these lines are completed in the near future. I refer to the branch lines of the Canadian National Railways; and1 the gaps I have mentioned are those between Frenchman's Butte in Saskatchewan and Heinsburg in Alberta, and from St. Walburg in Saskatchewan to Beaver River. I feel that when those people, who were pioneers and have gone through all the difficulties and hazards accompanying pioneer life, went into that new country and were promised railway facilities, the least we can do is to see that they get them. We made a bond with those people and we should see that the bond is honoured and observed.
As I have said, the principal occupation of the people in my constituency is the production of foodstuffs. I believe it would be a fair statement to say that the most important thing in the world today is food. We in Canada may have some difficulty in realizing that fact because we have always had plentiful supplies of the more important varieties of foodstuffs we require. All food comes from the soil, and when the psalmist said that all flesh is grass he was speaking a profound truth. Agriculture is an honourable and important industry. We have heard it said many times that it is the backbone of the country. Therefore it follows that the people who engage in the occupation of tending the soil are the most important people among the workers of the world. With the world in its present state of food shortage the importance of the workers of the soil has been emphasized and perhaps brought closer to its real classification. Even now the true value of the things we eat and wear in comparison with the cost of other things leaves much to be desired.
It has been said with a good deal of truth that prices of farm products are the last to go up and the first to come down. It is just possible that when we have quoted the prices of foodstuffs that have prevailed in times past we have not had a fair realization of what such prices entailed. Certainly we could not have had much idea of the true value of those things which are so vital to us and which sustain life in all the peoples of the world. When we hear such quotations as eggs at ten cents a dozen, butter at fifteen cents a pound, meats at fifteen cents a pound, wheat at fifty cents a bushel and other grains at corresponding prices, we are simply recalling to mind the dreadfully unfair conditions which were

imposed upon our farmers in those days. Prices such as those which were obtained by farmers not a great number of years ago never provided a decent living for them and were a shameful commentary on the manner in which our major industry was considered and treated. It was only by the farmer working unbelievably long hours; it was only by his pressing into service his wife and children that he was able to stay on the farm. Indeed many thousands left the farm and the industry was in a really precarious position for a number of years.
I have suggested before, as have others, that some effort should be made to relate prices of farm products to each other and also to other things. That is what we have in mind when we talk about parity prices. It is futile to hold meetings and conferences and endeavour to advise farmers how to operate their farms. When prices of livestock are completely out of line with price of feeds the farmers will produce whichever shows a promise of success. No amount of sage advice or statistical sermons will change their intentions. If it is found that the production of a certain commodity entails a loss they will stop producing it in a hurry and no man can blame them. If it is felt that a greater number of hogs are desired, either for our home market or for the export trade, the simplest way to get them is to raise the price of hogs and bring that price into proper relationship to the price of feeds and other things.
A great deal has been said in this house about the difficulties of the farmer who is trying to raise hogs and stay in business. I wish to deal with this matter in detail so that hon. members may appreciate those difficulties and realize why hog production has fallen off so badly. I should like to refer for a few minutes to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) after he quoted that famous letter in which a Manitoba farmer said that he would trust to God and Gardiner that things will come out better than they appear right now. The statement made by this farmer must have sounded quite effective and interesting to those who did not check it carefully, or who did not really know a great deal about the hog business. I quote from the letter, which appears at page 502 of Hansard:
Total hog sales, $4,426.52. Total feed costs, $1,966.10. Margin of hog sal^s over feed, $2,460.42.
The only charge made against the hogs is the cost of feed. Industrialist members will appreciate that. They know what would happen if they tried to estimate their profit at the end

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
of a year by just charging the cost of their raw materials and forgetting all about labour and all other costs that creep in, such as interest on capital laid out and so on. This man simply charges the one item, and he takes the difference between the cost of that item and the amount received from the sale of his products as his net. The minister then went on to say:
I submit to the house that this simple method of bookkeeping is the method fQllowed by 90 per cent of the farmers of this cpuntry.
That is to say, 90 per cent of the farmers of this country are simple if they use that kind of bookkeeping. Also hon. members of this house must be simple if they believe that 90 per cent of the farmers are using that method of bookkeeping. I do not believe it at all.
That man who was giving those figures in connection with his hog raising business must have been an outstanding farmer. He stated that in 1946 he sold 133 head with a percentage of 59-4 grade A, which is the highest grade you can get for your hogs. Just before coming to the chamber, I looked up the Department of Agriculture livestock market review of February 12. In that review actual figures and quantities are given, but I have worked out my own percentages, which I believe are reasonably accurate. According to that review, there was the following production of grade A hogs in January, 1948:
Per cent
Ontario	   41-5
Saskatchewan	 31
Manitoba	 27
Alberta	 22-7
British Columbia	 27
Quebec	 27
Maritimes	 41-8
Canada as a whole	 30
Far be it from me to question the accuracy of this gentleman's bookkeeping, but in a province which produced only 27 per cent of grade A hogs he is supposed to have produced 59-4 per cent. Apparently he is a superfarmer. I worked out myself the cost of production, and I should like to present this to hon. members so that they will have an accurate picture and can contrast it with what is given on page 602 of Hansard. It may possibly demonstrate that the Manitoba farmer felt that he needed a little more help than that of the minister. The formula for feeding, which we have observed for a great many years, has been that it requires five pounds of feed to make one pound of hog. That has been the accepted formula, and it is very near to accuracy right now. The live weight of a select hog is 200 pounds. Its age, if you have a man who is a good feeder, would be six months; that is to say, the feeding
period would be four months, because a good strong weanling is eight weeks old. Reckoning and calculating along that formula-and I have put on this sheet everything in a very conservative way; if anybody wants to challenge the figures, I have another sheet underneath this one which really is tough; I have been so careful to get this reasonably right that I probably leaned over backwards on it -I find that it requires 1,000 pounds of feed to produce a 200 pound hog, or five pounds of feed to a pound of hog. That is the equivalent of twenty-two bushels of barley. These figures were drawn up about a week ago. In the meantime the prices have changed a little bit, but not very much. Twenty-two bushels of barley at $1.20 a bushel equals $26.40. That is the only item that was charged against the pig in the statement made by the minister; but the cost of this weanling pig, the cost of the pig when it was eight weeks old, also comes into my picture. The value of these pigs varied all the way from $5 to $10.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: I thought they were giving them away a little while ago. That is what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: The cost of a weanling pig is somewhere between $5 and $10, so I put it down at $7.50, which is a reasonable figure. Salt, minerals and skim milk work out to $2.50, and the chopping of the feed comes to eighty cents.
We shall now talk about labour. Hon. members understand that. I estimated that it takes an hour and a half a day to feed ten pigs. We feed these pigs three times a day, and half an hour each time is occupied in taking care of ten pigs. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that. That works out to ten and a half hours a week, because they have to be fed on Sundays too. In four months of feeding time that equals 168 hours for ten pigs, which is 16-8 hours a pig. I am allowing the farmer 75 cents an hour. I do not know whether anybody wants to quarrel with that unless he says it is not enough.


John Lambert Gibson: That is more than they pay in the box factory.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: At 75 cents an hour labour comes to $12.60. I have charged for the hauling of these fat pigs to the railway station, but I have not charged very much. I reckoned that it took half a day. I am taking the situation on my own farm; w-e reckon it takes half a day for a man and a team to get the pigs to town, and that costs S2 for a man and a team for half a day, or twenty cents a pig. All tluse costs added

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
together come to exactly $50. I have not made any extravagant claims at all. This 200-pound pig dressed weighed 175 pounds on the rail. If it graded A, and I am giving it the benefit of the doubt there, it would be worth $26.40 per 100 pounds, or $46.25 for a 175-pound pig. If it is a grade A pig we also get a $2 premium, so that brings the total amount of the pig up to $4S.25. But in pig raising, as in any other line of endeavour, we have occasional losses. We find that our losses approximate ten per cent; that is to say, something happens to one pig in ten; ten per cent failed to get to the rail. Ten per cent taken off $48.25 is S4.80; therefore our total returns for the pig we are talking about is exactly $43.45, and the cost of raising it was $50. In other words, the net loss is $6.55 a pig.
As I said, everything is conservatively estimated. If somebody wants to start an argument on these things I have another sheet which brings the net loss per pig up to $27.31.


Mr. ARGUE:: That is more nearly right.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: That is the one I am ready to argue on. As a matter of fact, it is closer to the true situation. It is very funny-if you are not raising pigs.


John Lambert Gibson: If you are a member of parliament it is funny.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: If hon. members will accept the figures in the first statement I made it will give a good reason why hog raising is going out of favour, and it will continue to do so while the situation exists as I have described it. It is a serious matter, because we have to get this proper ratio in agriculture of livestock raising. It must be kept in proper line for economic reasons and for good farming and agricultural reasons; and if we are to let this thing slip in this way we shall get into difficulties eventually.
A few more figures on Canada's pig business might also be illuminating. According to the Canada Year Book, 1947. in 1943 there were
8.145.000	head of swine in Canada. In 1946 these had shrunk to 5,377,000, or a drop of
2.771.000	head; that is to say, in 1943 there were fifty per cent more pigs in the country than there were in 1946. To use Canada Year Book figures, this represents a decrease, which I consider to be very conservative, of $62,725,000 in four years. When we consider that this is just one branch of one industry, it is a very serious situation indeed.
In Saskatchewan alone the hog population shrank in the same time from 1,754,000 to
757.000.	That is roughly a million head, with an estimated value of $22,600,000. again using

Canada Year Book figures. I believe that a proper relationship of food and livestock prices would change this situation. The farmer is getting 25 cents a pound for his dressed pork. The spread between 25 cents and the price of pork and bacon in the shop is too great. That 25 cents could be boosted to 30 cents, which would make hog production more worthwhile, and it should not be necessary to raise the price to the consumer.
If the industry is to survive, some formula will have to be found so that it can be carried on without running the operators into bankruptcy, and also to provide them with such living standards as will give them pride and satisfaction in their work.
Another thing which is causing agriculture some concern is the rumoured shortage of tractor fuels. We have now come to the time when oil is forming the base of the greater part of farm power, and a shortage coming at a critical time could cause a complete upset in one year's crop. The important thing to remember in connection with this matter is that farming operations are seasonal and that time is of the essence. Unlike manufacturing or industry, which can close its doors and vacate its benches at any time when difficulties crop up, and start up again in a week or a month or six months, when things are straightened out; if plowing, cultivating and seeding are not done within specified time limits it is quite useless to attempt to do them later, and the opportunity is lost for that year.
There is now very little horse power used except on small farms, and it is highly important that steps should be taken well in advance to ensure a sufficient supply of fuel for the tractors. It will probably surprise some hon. members to learn that the numbers of tractors in the three western provinces are given, at a rough estimate, as 35,550 for Manitoba, 57,740 for Alberta and 83,700 for Saskatchewan for the year 1947. This is an estimate only and I believe it to be an understatement.
From the figures secured from the "Monthly Report on Refined Petroleum Products in Canada", issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce in November, 1947, page 13, I find that 46,105,850 gallons of tractor distillate were distributed in the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. From the same source we find that 310,485,000 gallons of motor gasoline were sold in 1947 in these provinces, not necessarily, of course, for tractor fuel.
I think, however, having regard to the number of tractors operating in the west, that considerably over 100,000,000 gallons of fuel will be required for farm operations in 1948. This

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith
again is only an estimate, but I believe it is reasonably accurate. Arrangements for such a large quantity of oil must be made, as I said, well in advance and the fate of this year's crop and farming operations depend upon having oil available at the right time and in the right place.
It is also to be hoped that some form of control will be placed on the price of oil so that it cannot get entirely out of reach. A Saskatoon coal merchant is calling attention to the fact that fuel oil for stoves has jumped from 12+ cents to 22 cents in a year, and car drivers in the west are paying 47 cents a gallon for their gasoline. These are just a couple of reasons why production costs of farm produce are mounting all the time.
There are several other things I wish to mention but I shall not have time. There is, however, one thing I think is of interest. I have mentioned it before and I believe it could be mentioned again with advantage.
This is taken from the "grain market features", which is issued by the Searle Grain Company, Limited, of Winnipeg, and I am going to quote it:
The American magazine, Fortune, in its January issue, published an article which states that "Canadian farmers could not survive the competition of American farmers under conditions of a tight market." The reason, says Fortune, is that "U.S.A. farmers have superb technical and scientific guidance that is not available to Canadian farmers." Fortune is also of the opinion that our scientific agricultural work has dropped so far behind that Canada's only hope for the future lies in her industries.
Those who are familiar with Canadian agriculture, and who have tried to keep in touch with work in the U.S.A., will rub their eyes with amazement when they read this article. We have not space to give the full details of the splendid work done by scientific agriculturists in Canada, but we can as an example mention one single phase of scientific activity which is of paramount importance to our prairie farmers-the recent breeding and introduction of better varieties of cereals to contend with our peculiar prairie conditions. These comprise nine varieties of wheat, five of oats and twelve of barley, most of them produced by our dominion experimental farms and the dominion rust research laboratory, others by our universities.	These improved varieties, which
spring from that rare quality, i.e., vision, and the high talents of one section of our Canadian scientific	agriculturists-our skilled	plant
breeders and plant pathologists-have alone brought additional wealth to Canada that amounts to more than all the dominion appropriations made to agriculture since confederation.
Fortune, therefore, is in error, but in error at the moment only, for we venture to prophesy that if the present meagre appropriations made by the dominion government to agriculture are not expanded, then in a few years' time this article in Fortune will correctly portray the Canadian situation. The fact is that the breeding and production of these outstanding varieties of cereal stocks, and the progress made in other phases of scientific agriculture, have been the accomplishments mainly of a mere handful of older men, of such loyalty tq this country that they have placed their service to Canadian agriculture far above their own material interests; for the sad truth is that in recent years, whenever a Canadian scientist in agriculture has shown signs of talent, he has immediately been offered a position in American agriculture at considerably higher salary than he can receive in Canada, and so we lose our rising talent. As our present older men retire the probability of their valuable work being continued is remote indeed unless pal Lament sees proper to change the present unsatisfactory situation. Apparently we can train and develop skilled agricultural scientists in this country, but we are unwilling to retain them to serve Canada.
Fortune no doubt observed that for the year 1947 the appropriations made by the government of Canada to Canadian agriculture for ordinary and special expenditures amounted to just under 28 million dollars, whereas the total appropriations made by the U.S.A. to their agriculture were $1,247,000,000. The United States has twelve times the population of Canada, and so our Canadian government's appropriation for all agricultural services should in comparison be around 100 million dollars annually instead of the niggardly 28 million only which is made.
And then there is the other most important matter of the salaries paid to our agricultural scientists. Compared with salaries paid to similar scientists for similar work in the United States, the Canadian scale from the very highest to the lowest classification is stinted and totally inadequate.
We note that the appropriation by parliament for family allowances for 1947 was 245 million dollars. This is a bonus granted mainly for the purpose of feeding our children better, but surely the first thing required is to have more and better food produced, and at lower costs of production, so that it can be made available to children and to the people at cheaper prices and still with profit to farmers. Progressive agriculture is the only way to achieve this desired goal; to have better paid scientists, who consequently will stay in Canada, is the only way that such progress can be attained. By being so penurious with our appropriation to agriculture, so parsimonious with salaries to scientists, and yet so fantastically generous with family allowances, are we not "putting the cart before the horse"?
Considering all this, then, it certainly seems as though parliament should materially increase appropriations to agriculture, and should very considerably increase salaries to all classes of workers and officials engaged in scientific agricultural work.
Another point I wish to make is that it is a remarkable thing that we have not been able fully to appreciate the fact, although it has been brought before us several times during our lifetime, that when agriculture is prosperous the rest of the country is prosperous also. We have a tremendous home market for most of the things we manufacture. Just listen to this, which is taken from a publication recently issued by the Ontario govern-
The Address-Mr. Daniel

ment and called "A Conspectus of the Province of Ontario," prepared by the Ontario bureau of statistics and the research section of the department of the provincial treasurer. At page 32 the conspectus states:
Over 50,000 Ontario farmers have no automobile.
Over 160,000 Ontario farmers have no motor truck.
Over 140,000 Ontario farmers have no tractor.
There are less than 9,000 threshing machines in Ontario to serve 178,000 farmers.
Ninety per cent of Ontario farms have no milking machines.
Thirty per cent have no binders and thirty per cent have no cream separators . . .
Over 145,000 farm homes have no means of refrigeration.
Over 160,000 farm homes have no vacuum cleaner.
Over 60.000 farm homes have no radio set.
Over 125,000 farm homes have no running water in their homes and no equipment for pumping water.
Over 85,0i00 farm homes have no telephone. ..
About 130,000 farm homes are still heated by stoves and have no furnaces.
Over 160,000 farm homes are still using outside toilets and have no inside toilet facilities.
Over 160,000 farm homes have no bath tub or shower equipment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are getting them now since the Conservatives are in. There are changes from the time when the Liberals were there.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: If the money is available for these things, they will be bought. No one is more liberal with his money than is the farmer, especially with regard to things which are needed in his home or in his business.


Mr. K. R. DANIEL (Oxford):: During the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have heard hon. members on all sides of the house eulogize the beauties and charms of their constituencies. Just the other night the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), who did a most excellent job, waved his arms skyward to emphasize [DOT] the height of the mountains back of Fort William in the Thunder bay district. I really believe he convinced the majority of the members of this house that perhaps, after all, the Rocky mountains or even the Alps were mere dwarfs in comparison. However, I must admit that, in the many times I have gone through Fort William, I must have been looking out the wrong window because the most I saw were a few hills out there in lake Superior.
I should now like to offer some observations with respect to the riding of Oxford which I have the honour to represent in this house. It took me some time to appreciate just how much the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne meant to the ordinary

backbencher. I can now understand that it offers an opportunity to acquaint my fellow members and the government with some of the problems we face and at the same time to tell you, Mr. Speaker, something about our industries and the contribution we make to the general welfare of our country. I was going to tell you just where Oxford was, but the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross) yes-terdaj' afternoon did that very well. He said that London was on the main line of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and also on No. 2 highway. He could have gotten around that much easier by saying is was only some fifteen miles from Oxford.
I have always been under the impression that the speech from the throne represented an outline of the government's program for the coming session. If this were literally true I wouldi be compelled to say that the speech, as read by His Majesty's representative, was lacking ini that type of legislative program which our people expected of this government. I could not help but admire the fine effort made by the mover and the seconder under what must have been a rather trying experience. However, their defence of this administration was commendable and causes one to feel that they must have been carefully selected and well coached for the task.
Mr. GIBSON '(Comox-Alberni): Cabinet material.


Kenneth Roy Daniel: Oxford1 county is about equally divided between a rural and an urban population. The rural part of the riding is noted- for its production of dairy products, livestock and tobacco, along with other commodities pertaining to the average agricultural community. To the hon. members who were speaking of the beauty of their constituencies, might I say that beauty is all right; but, after all, I have always understood that beauty is only skin deep. When you want something to eat, you have to go back to Oxford and get some of that grand mellow cheese for which our county has been noted over these many years. In addition to our dairy products, we have livestock and, of late, tobacco. I may say that Oxford county, Elgin county to the south, Norfolk county, Middlesex county and Brant county are now all in the tobacco business; and during the last ten j*ears this business has made great strides in my riding of Oxford. You will understand then, Mr. Speaker, that my primary concern is for our basic producers. They want some assurance as to the future. This is not in evidence at this time.

The Address-Mr. Daniel
According to press reports, beef and bacon slaughterings and shipments are far outrunning the needs of the domestic market and the United Kingdom contract objectives. So great is this excess that press reports, based on, official department figures, indicate that the normal requirements for' the United Kingdom for the first quarter of 1948 have been met, or more than met, in a single month.
I may say that on Saturday I shall have the honour of introducing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) at the Oxford county federation of agriculture meeting in my riding. As regards all the nice things I am going to say about him, I will mean everything I say. But I doubt whether some of the farmers may feel that way. There may be some doubting Thomases when they come. But I am sure that after hearing the minister on that occasion, they will all go away feeling much better. However, the minister has assured the Canadian farmers that the prices and the quantities of meat that Britain will take under the United1 Kingdom agreements are fixed for the entire year. That applies to the contracts generally, but what will the situation be with respect to the surplus supplies that Canada now has on hand or in sight?
At the present time Britain takes Canada's food products under a part cash, part credit arrangement and, under the contracts themselves, it was stipulated that Canada and Britain would discuss the financial arrangements involved in three months. Sir Stafford Cripps, Britain's author of austerity, is now painting a gloomier picture of Britain's financial position. In the light of the apparent fact that Canadla has on hand surpluses of meat probably far more than will be required to carry over and take care of the short delivery seasons, I am wondering if the Canadian government is looking to the possibility of enabling Britain to purchase these supplies; or can this be taken as an indication that Canada is about to extendi further credit to the United Kingdom? If the current , supply situation continues it would appear that the government soon might be confronted with a choice of two courses: either propping the market at home by giving further assistance to the United Kingdom, or permitting the domestic market to become glutted' with a resultant slump in meat prices here.
During this session the house and the country have heard a great deal about the confusion, if not chaos, into which the nation's business and industry have been plunged by the so-called austerity program of the government. In my own constituency this might 5849-911
well be pointed out by a reference to the position in which the flue-cured tobacco growers now find themselves. Now as never before, the tobacco industry, and agriculture generally, need a forthright policy of guidance. For twenty long years the flue-cured tobacco industry has struggled to develop a market in Great Britain; but because of the uncertainty of Britain's austerity program the tobacco industry is now in danger of losing that outlet. At present the industry is equipped to produce from 110.000,000 to 130,000,000 pounds of tobacco a year, in a normal growing season. Canadians are using annually about
70,000,000 pounds of flue-cured tobacco, and it is this surplus of 50,000,000 pounds, which they might export if there were a market for it, that is giving concern to the tobacco men. The tobacco growers of western Ontario are considering a course whereby they might reduce their acreage in order to hold down to a minimum any surplus or export carry-over. It would seem to me a tragedy in this day and age that an industry equipped for far greater production should have to cut back, particularly when there are ready markets for its product. In order to save the British tobacco market for Canadian growers, the government might have seen fit, either to assist Britain obtain her normal requirements, or to offer some measure of assistance to growers to carry over any surplus they might produce this coming year.
Before I deal with other matters concerning my riding, I should like to read into the record a resolution which has been forwarded to me by the Oxford county council:
The following resolution sponsored by the Ontario federation of agriculture was presented to Oxford county council at its January session and approved:
Compensation for T.B. Tested Cattle
Whereas the dominion Department of Agriculture is proceeding to extend the area of T.B. tested cattle, in several counties in the province of Ontario;
And whereas the compensation paid to the farmer for cattle was the price that was paid for compensation in effect during the depression years;
And whereas the counties so affected authorized the test, when the compensation set up corresponded more closely "with the actual value of the cattle so tested;
Therefore be it resolved that the compensation paid the farmer be increased to correspond with present day value of the cattle so tested, and made retroactive to the beginning of the area tests in 1947.
I should like to remind lion, members, especially those who come from rural areas, that last session several hon. gentlemen rose and asked the minister when the test would take place in their counties. I remained
The Address-Mr. Daniel

The income tax, too, is due for a sharp revision, particularly as it affects the smaller income groups. The fact of the matter is that taxation in Canada has today reached such a peak that it is defeating its own purpose. It is hampering our producers and is a burden on our consumers. It is restricting production and reducing purchasing power.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and honour to represent the riding of Oxford. It is a privilege, too, to be a member of a free parliament and to bring to your attention the observations I have made. I hope that the administration will hearken to the voice of reason and that they will seek to give effect, or at least earnest consideration, to the recommendations I have made.


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, what we need most in Canada today is a through trans-Canada highway. There is a notice of motion standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the plans for a national highway across Canada, and entering into discussions with the provinces, with a view to its completion as soon as men and materials become
available.
The need for this road was never greater than it is right now. We talk about saving United States dollars and I cannot think of a better way of saving those dollars than to have this road built. If we in the west want to come here by car to represent our constituencies we must drive for two days through the United States. We have to convert our Canadian dollars into United States dollars. I do not know how many thousands of motorists coming to eastern Canada from the west have to do the same thing.
We read in the papers that there is unemployment in various parts of Canada. These unemployed are being paid out of the fund which was created by the dominion to take care of them. We do not want to see again the camps that were established in 1930 and 1931. We want this thing taken care of and these men paid a decent and fair wage.
I should now like to say something about my constituency. There are many things in
my constituency which could be improved by the opening up of the country. There are resources there which have never been touched. Last year the provincial government built a road to Cat lake, and the miners tell me that the lithium deposits there are so great that they cannot estimate their worth. A company in the United States has a formula whereby it can produce lithium at from forty-five to fifty cents a pound, but this formula is not available in Canada. I have been in touch with the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), and he tells me that chemists in Ottawa are trying to work out a formula so that this mine can be opened up and the product sold on the markets of the world in world competition.
Practically all the power developed in Manitoba is developed in my constituency. The great Winnipeg river is harnessed in only a few places, but there are five or six other falls which could be developed. A million and a quarter dollars are being spent this year at the little town of Seven Sisters to enlarge a power plant which has been running at only half capacity. When this is completed next year this plant will develop 225,000 horsepower.
At the present time a total of 35,000 horsepower is being used on farms in Manitoba. Power is being made available to 5,000 homes a year, but it will be some considerable time before enough power is developed to take care of the needs of rural Manitoba. The little town in which I have lived for years is not far from a power plant. It is a shame that the rest of rural Manitoba does not have the benefit of this power. We see the power lines going right by our door and we have no benefit as yet from it.
On motion of Mr. Sinnott the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Bill No. 3 tomorrow?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Bill No. 3 tomorrow. If it is disposed of, probably Bill No. 7 will follow.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 20, 1948