Mr. Blackmore:

If the hon. member will

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

Mr. Sluder:

Where do you sell your wheat?

Mr. Blackmore:

As I was saying, that is

the situation. It was no new thing in 1954. Every farmer in the United States then could put his grain into farm storage and receive $2.21 a bushel. At that time he did not have to make any commitments such as the hon. member for Swift Current infers. But the simple fact is that this was the situation which confronted the ordinary producer of wheat in the United States. Now, once the United States government takes that wheat into its possession, it may keep it or it may dispose of it through export subsidy, acceptance of foreign currencies, gifts or whatever other device may be found necessary to dispose of that wheat.

In Canada we have what amounts to a declaration from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that no such devices will be used to help dispose of Canadian wheat, even if the farmers in the three prairie provinces starve to death. That is not a very pleasant

92 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Blackmore thing, but we have to face facts just as they are, take off the gloves and call aces aces and spades spades.

Mr. Studer:

Then state the facts.

Mr. Blackmore:

It might be well to stop to comment for a minute or two on the importance of first-class storage. If storage is going to be suitable it must be constructed in such a way as to be able to turn aside all kinds of weather. It must be such that it can be aerated. It must be such that it will keep the birds and mice out, keep the cows out in case a mishap occurs, and the horses, the pigs and the chickens, which means that anyone who must put up temporary and inadequate shacks in which to store his grain is going to lose heavily. I am told that in the United States the storage is the very finest kind that can be provided.

I do not propose to go any further into the general aspects of the situation. I propose to canvass the prospects for the future of our Canadian farmers. Those prospects are far from rosy. We live in a world that is new and strange to us, a world that is full of change. If the whole nation works together, even then the risk and the danger will be sufficient. If one group of citizens has to work alone and absorb the impact of these changed conditions I think everyone must recognize the outrage that is being committed against those citizens who must so do.

We must note carefully and carefully appraise each of the many determining factors in the situation surrounding us. May I mention several of those and comment briefly on each one of them? There is in the world a vast amount of human need, as everyone in the house fully knows, wants of people who lack the money with which to buy. At least

1.400 million people go to bed hungry every night, all lacking money to buy. All of this need constitutes enormous potential markets. Everybody recognizes that those markets are available as soon as western statesmen get together and discover a suitable system of distribution.

The all-important thing is that we have not heard a word of western statesmen, if you can call them that, ever getting together and finding a suitable method of distribution. No matter what the FAO tells us is the condition, no matter how much pious longing is expressed, the simple fact is that when they come back here and report they report absolutely nothing concrete. We are still going on under the same system with which we tried to get along 50 years ago.

All round the earth the needs of humanity are increasing rapidly because, first, of the growth of population which is great and, second, the ever-expanding and rising standard of living made possible through scientific discovery. Not only should these

1.400 million people who go to bed hungry

The Address-Mr. Blackmore

every night have their hunger appeased but they should have decent houses in which to live. They should be able to have refrigerators, deepfreezers, and up-to-date facilities for toilets and 'the like in the same way that we do. For certain it is being borne in on them that all men are brothers in this world, and if we do not behave as though we are brothers we are facing some real trouble before too long.

This state of affairs simply demands more and more production, not a limiting of production. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) referred to the reduction of acreage in the United States.

I regret that, and I maintain that the United States in reducing their acreage instead of finding an adequate way in which to distribute their grain has committed an unethical act against the other nations of the world, and so shall we if we limit production. Of course we may be forced to do that because we just have not the plain common sense to do anything else, but we will not be discharging our responsibility if we do so.

There is an ever-increasing potential human demand, a demand in terms of need, for greater and greater production of all kinds of commodities by all peoples who have the resources with which to produce. There is implicit in what I have said a declaration of a responsibility resting upon us Canadians which we cannot escape and which we must discharge to our own children and grandchildren, a responsibility we simply must assume in the matter of producing all kinds of grain and especially wheat, food for the world.

The great Creator undoubtedly designed this vast land as a veritable ever normal granary for producing foods of all kinds. Imagine the inadequacy of a generation of Canadians who, because they have not sense enough to devise a way to distribute the goods, stop producing them and leave unused the great wheat-producing areas of our western plains and in other parts of the country for the production of almost every kind of human food. Food we must produce for the teeming millions unable to produce the grains they need.

We forget that we have here a vast area with very few people in it. Oh, we are aware of it in a general sort of way but right down inside ourselves we forget that because we possess this vast area with very few people, while there are areas where there are almost unbelievably many people crowded into a square mile, it becomes our duty to help produce food for those who are restricted in their resources.

The second general fact facing us is that many of our farmers-in fact all our farmers -will find their markets becoming less and less available largely because the nations that used to buy our wheat are finding their difficulties increasing which are making it-

Mr. MacDougall:

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

Mr. Blackmore:

I hope the hon. member is finished with his conversation. No comment is necessary, I think. Many of the nations are finding the difficulties of international trade such that they do not dare risk trying to sell enough of the goods they can produce for enough foreign exchange to buy the wheat they need. These nations are feeling a more and more pressing urge to produce their own wheat. For example, in the period 1935-39 France imported an average of 2-5 million bushels annually. That was a chance for us to sell wheat. But last year she exported 92 million bushels, as I have indicated.

Why has France changed from an importer of wheat to an exporter of wheat? She has changed simply because she has discovered that no longer is there a certain market for most of the commodities which she has produced over the years. Consequently she has no assurance whatsoever that she is going to be able to buy on the world's markets the wheat she needs. Hence she subsidizes the production of wheat in her own country. As a result, in good years she gets a great surplus which she must dispose of, as occurred last year when she exported 92 million bushels at prices which we could not begin to compete with.

I have dealt with the factor which involves the truth that so many of the nations which used to import, because of their difficulties, have now begun to produce their own and consequently are exporting. I now come to the third factor that faces us. That factor is this. It seems improbable that in the foreseeable future France and other nations in similar circumstances will change the pattern of production upon which they are now engaged, especially in connection with wheat. Scientific developments and the trading practices of the United States and certain other nations will compel nations to endeavour to become, as far as possible, more and more self-sufficient, especially in respect of foodstuffs, for the sake of their own self-defence and security.

The United States herself has done and is doing that very thing. They will do this much as Canada has been doing in respect of rubber. Formerly, we produced no rubber in Canada. We bought our rubber from Malaya. We now in large measure produce

94 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Blackmore our own rubber. Thus Malaya is deprived of the means of buying wheat, from us and we are deprived of a market. Will anyone in this house, or would anyone in authority throughout this country, advocate that we discontinue the production of rubber in Canada and run the risk of being in a position such as that in which we found ourselves during the last war? Not a one.

So we are going to continue producing our own rubber. We are already producing much of our gas, oil and many other things that we need, and in due time we shall produce yet more and more of what we need so that we can be self-sufficient and shall not incur the danger of impossible adverse trade balances such as those we are now suffering from. This very tendency of various nations to produce within their own boundaries what they must have will prevent Canada herself from buying substantially more British goods and thus providing Britain with more Canadian dollars with which to purchase Canadian wheat.

I grow a little bit weary, Mr. Speaker, of listening to a good many of the members in the house railing at the government for inefficient methods of selling our wheat. I think many of those people who engage in that foolish talk would be well advised to give careful thought to what I have just been saying. It will not matter how much our government tries, or how many devices it uses to sell wheat in France; France for the present will not take our wheat any more. So it will be with a great many other nations that formerly were our markets for wheat.

The fourth factor of great importance is this. Wheat and grain production generally is likely to increase in areas having resources permitting grain production. Regardless of whether or not the United States limits acreage, whether we limit acreage or whether the world as a whole tries to limit acreage, we are going to have certain other considerations entering into the picture. For example, better varieties of grain are being discovered right along. Finer fertilizers are being perfected. Methods of insect control are being adopted as well as methods of weed control. Great improvements in machinery are taking place. Every one of those advances makes it possible, under ordinary conditions, to produce more grain on the same area of land. These factors are going to come into action still more in the future. We might as well face these facts rather than endeavour to live in a fool's paradise.

The fifth factor is this. Already embarrassing world supplies of wheat have been augmented by a 1955 world total production

of: 7,300 million bushels, compared with a 1945-49 average of 5,895 million bushels and a 1935-39 average of 6,085 million bushels. By reference to some of these figures of production we see that we have accumulated close to 1 billion bushels of surplus wheat in the world for 1955 alone. That does not indicate very much opportunity in the future for us to dispose of surpluses. Even if nations like France who formerly bought our wheat were to open their doors and again buy some of our wheat, we still should find nations like Australia, Argentina and others endeavouring to thrust their surpluses into the gap provided by France. This is another fact which we simply must recognize.

I come now to the sixth factor. The whole world at this moment waits under the shadow of unimaginable disaster through nuclear warfare. Everyone in the country realizes that fact. Would we not be wise to store up a quantity of the grain which we possess against a time when dangers which we have no way of avoiding might more or less wholly impair much of our land for production for two or three years? If such a disaster were to come upon our children, how improvident they must consider us to have been when they look back upon us and think of what we could have done for them, but did not do, just because we did not have the sense to do it.

Then there is the seventh factor. Up to this present moment the so-called free nations, whether through unpardonable ignorance, indifference, stupidity or mischievous influence, have stubbornly omitted to adopt any effective method of distribution either internally or internationally. I referred to that matter a moment ago. I thought the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) did very well last night in bringing to the attention of those who were in the house how utterly and contemptibly inadequate our financial thinking is when compared with our thinking in terms of producing and accomplishing all manner of things physically.

This matter just cannot be laughed off. We have grandchildren coming up and they will realize our utter inadequacy for the age in which we live. Why not do something about finding how to distribute? I am not insisting that we use the method I have in mind, the Social Credit system.,Let anyone who thinks he can distribute by any other means bring his plan forward; let us have something done. .

These seven factors all tend to show, as I see it, that the farmers have no justification for expecting any change in the near future^ Meanwhile the grain of a great-many of them

is lying in elevators with mounting storage costs, which is another matter to which I believe far too little attention is given.

We come, now to a possible solution of the difficulty. Once more I should like to commend those who have spoken before me. Everywhere in Canada most unfortunately, and in the west as well, there prevails a vigorous divergence of opinion as to what should be done about our wheat problem. Government spokesmen, and I suppose their paid agents on the C.B.C. radio stations, have been dinning into people's ears the fact that the United States made a terrible mistake by encouraging production, treating her farmers well and all that sort of thing. They have argued that she has run into surpluses, so let us not do that. But they never tell us what to do. Apparently what is in their minds is that the thing to do is to turn all our farmers out on the prairie and say, "Root, hog, or die."

May I now, in deference and humility, suggest what appears to me to be the only principles upon which a really satisfactory solution of the surplus wheat problem can be based. In offering these proposals may I state that I am speaking for myself and not necessarily for the Social Credit group in this house or the Social Credit movement throughout Canada. I do not dare say that I speak entirely for even my constituents, because I have not been able to consult any large percentage of them to make sure what they think. When I have talked with them I have found they seem to be utterly at sea. They know something ought to be done, but they expect somebody higher up to tell them what should be done.

Two Social Credit conventions in the Lethbridge riding in the fall of 1955 approved these proposals I am about to give. I think others would have done so had they had the opportunity. Here are the four proposals. The first is the provision of adequate facilities for storing wheat oh each wheat growing farm. Without such provision it is rather unrealistic to talk about advances to farmers on farm-stored grain. Once we have adequate facilities that will turn the weather, turn the insects, turn the rodents, then we are able to proceed. That therefore is the first thing.

The second proposal is for immediate payment, not within the next five, six or seven months, on wheat stored on farms to cover full average costs of production plus a living allowance large enough to cover the average costs of carrying on. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggested that not less than 75 per cent of the price per bushel be paid. This was a good suggestion.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore My suggestion is probably just a little more flexible than that. I am not sure that 75 per cent of the price per bushel will cover the cost of production and give the producers sufficient to cover living costs. The hon. member's wording indicates that he feels as I do, about the. matter.

My third proposal is provision for the payment of storage on farm-stored wheat, such payment to be made in kind. The object of this policy would be ultimately to return to the wheat grower possession of the wheat stored on his farm, strictly on condition that the wheat grower would keep such paid for and returned to the farmer grain off the market until market conditions became favourable.

That may sound strange, but what it actually means is this. If the government buys the wheat on a man's farm and pays him for it, then the government could either adopt the policy the United States apparently has been following of continuing to pay money for storage on that wheat or it could say to the farmer, "Now, every year we have our grain in your bin we will pay you part of the grain back so that in due time you will own the grain and you will own the storage in which the grain is cared for." I propose the latter alternative.

Quite obviously, just as soon as the farmer owns the grain and the storage facility in which the grain is stored, then it will become his responsibility and his pleasure to take care of the grain without having storage paid on it. It is my judgment that if the United States were to adopt that one principle they would remove from the shoulders of the government a burden which is crushing them financially and in other ways.

Now, the fourth proposal is that the financing of all phases of this farm storage plan should be done through the Bank of Canada. I am sure the government believes that the Bank of Canada is a very stable institution. It should be the institution through which Canada could make financially possible what is physically possible. I favour calling upon the Bank of Canada to do its job. If it cannot do its job, I want to know why it cannot. I believe it can if properly managed. Consequently, the money which would be advanced to the farmer to build this approved storage would come qut of the Bank of Canada at an interest rate of not more than 1 [DOT] 5 per cent. The money to pay for the wheat would come out of the Bank of Canada.

In this case probably the government would have to borrow the money from the Bank of Canada and distribute it through the wheat board. There might be various technical means whereby the money could be issued

96 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Blackmore to the farmers, but the original money would come out of the Bank of Canada and not from the Canadian taxpayers. This is the money which would go to pay for the wheat. To pay for the storage as I have already suggested the government would simply begin turning back to the farmer the wheat it had already bought from him, so that ultimately he would own the storage, he would own the wheat, he would have been paid for the stored wheat and would be in a position to carry on in the future. The only restriction he would be under would be that he could not sell that grain unless conditions warranted it. Probably he would be required to receive a permit from those who would be administering the whole wheat situation.

Of interest to those seeking a solution to the problem of the present glut of wheat in Canada will be a Canadian Press report of a statement on the subject issued by Premier Manning of Alberta. Let me read the report which appeared in the Lethbridge Herald of December 22, 1955. I am not sure I shall have time to read all of it. It is headed, "Two-Price System to Solve Glut-Manning's Plan", and is written by Phil Adler, Canadian Press staff writer:

Two methods of solving the problem of surplus grain on the prairies were suggested Wednesday by Premier E. C. Manning of Alberta.

He said in an interview that Canada should accept soft currency for wheat or negotiate new trade agreements by extending credit through the Bank of Canada.

The farm-born premier who grows grain and raises 110 head of cattle on his 300-acre farm near Edmonton also advocated establishment of a federal grain bank "to meet fluctuating conditions" and spoke in favour of a two-price system for wheat.

Mr. Manning, Social Credit premier of a province which produced 133,000,000 bushels of wheat this year, said the grain surplus was a long-range problem which cannot be solved by interim measures. But interim measures were necessary.

Soft currency should be accepted up to a "reasonable" amount, the amount depending on the economic status of the country concerned. He said convertibility of all the soft currency would not be necessary providing the agreement was made on "specific terms" which would give Canada "prior preferred rates" on the country's exports. Wider trade with other countries would result.

Write Off Advances

Dealing with extension of credit through the Bank of Canada, Mr. Manning said no one will suffer if credit advances were written off.

"The farmer will be paid in full for his grain," he said. "The Canadian economy will benefit from the farmer's spending."

The whole economy of the country was based on buoyant agriculture economy.

New trade agreements should vary from other contracts. Canada should take from the wheatbuying country any goods economically possible for the country to export, providing the goods would not disrupt Canadian trade.

Speaking of the intangible benefits of selling wheat to needy countries, Mr. Manning said "it will go a long way to break down conditions which cause communism."

He said costly war materials made from resources which cannot be replaced are written off whereas food comes from a source which continues to produce.

The premier said there was "strong justification" for a two-price system for wheat. The domestic price "should and can be controlled in fairness to economy" and the export price should be the best possible.

He also said the federal government "would be well advised" to establish a grain bank to ,meet fluctuating conditions caused by war, crop failure and the like.

I do not pretend that Mr. Manning had in mind the proposals I have offered, but I think almost anyone will notice there is a sort of similarity between the two. In any event, Mr. Speaker, if we adopt a method of that sort we shall not be sitting by watching the farmers being driven off their land. That is exactly what is happening today. The government is supinely sitting here under the ivory towers while farmers with their grain in storage are having the price of that grain eaten up by storage rates until they have nothing left with which to discharge the responsibilities they have to enter into in respect of their farms, until the first thing we know one farmer moves out and another one moves in. In other words the farms are seized, not by the government but other people, some of those whom the government permits to do the job. Communism hardly does any worse than that.

Imagine the outrageous injustice. Men who have been on the land for 30, 40 or 50 years and have built up homes, find themselves driven from their homes not through any inefficiency on their part, or any imprudence whatsoever, but by a set of circumstances over which they could exercise no more control than they could over the sun; and all this is permitted by a government that pretends to be the friend of the farmers and pretends to be giving Canada good government.

While the suggestions I have outlined may not commend themselves to every hon. member, I think every hon. member will realize they have some chance of solving the problem which now confronts us.

Mr. A. M. Fraser (St. John's East):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to associate myself with all the previous speakers in extending very hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) on the excellent quality of the speeches in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

I felt it was singularly appropriate that the hon. member for Timiskaming should move the address in reply to the speech from the

throne in which the government indicated its intention to extend the principle of equal pay for equal work to women employed in all occupations under federal jurisdiction, a principle which she and the other women members of the house have consistently advocated.

I would like also to congratulate the Prime Minister and the cabinet on their positive and constructive approach to the problems which Canada is facing at home and abroad. This approach is fairly reflected in the policies outlined in the speech from the throne.

First, as regards external policy: Canada, I am sure we will all agree, has an enviable reputation in world affairs, thanks in large measure to the skill and devotion of our distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) whose constant efforts in the cause of peace have won for him the gratitude and admiration of the whole free world.

It is clear from the speech from the throne that the government is taking a realistic view of the dangers implicit in the international situation. As the speech states, the government remains "convinced of the need to maintain the defences of a free world as a deterrent to war."

In particular, I find myself in entire agreement with the government on the great importance which it attaches, and rightly, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have always regarded NATO as essential to the security of the Atlantic community. My conviction in that respect has been strengthened by the opportunity I had last year to see something of the work of NATO at first hand. Like the hon. member for Timiskaming, I was privileged to be one of the group of Canadian parliamentarians to attend the NATO parliamentary meetings in Paris last July. We had the great privilege of receiving briefings from Lord Ismay and other senior officials at Palais de Chaillot, and from General Gruenther, Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery and other high-ranking officers at SHAPE at Fontainebleau.

This authoritative exposition of the aims and methods of NATO convinced me that this great defensive organization has achieved a degree of military integration among free nations unprecedented in time of peace.

Our subsequent visit to the the Canadian army and air force bases in France and West Germany enabled us to see for ourselves the truly magnificent contribution which Canada is making to the NATO defence system. We all came away, I am sure, deeply impressed by the high morale of the Canadian forces and the excellence of their equipment. Not 67509-7

The Address-Mr. A. M. Fraser only were those service men and women helping to defend the frontiers of freedom in western Europe, but they were on the best of terms with the local people among whom they lived. They were Canadian ambassadors of good will, imparting a better understanding of the Canadian way of life and obtaining in return a fuller knowledge of Europe and its peoples, a knowledge and a sympathy which they will carry back with them to Canada. The long-run effects of this mutual understanding will be of incalculable value. Canada has every reason to be proud of her contribution to NATO.

The primary purpose of NATO is, of course, to deter aggression, but it is important that NATO be more than a military alliance. The NATO nations have developed a common defence policy, but if NATO is to continue strong, if it is to attain its full potentialities for good, this collective defence system must be buttressed by co-ordinated action to achieve economic expansion and greater social welfare.

This, I believe, is especially vital in the present phase of competitive coexistence when the struggle between the free world and the communist bloc is being waged more and more clearly in the economic field. Moreover, increased emphasis by the NATO countries on economic, social and cultural co-operation would go a long way to combat the pernicious propaganda of the communists that .NATO is merely an aggressive alliance. I would therefore urge the government to continue and, indeed, intensify its efforts to persuade the other NATO governments to implement article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.

As the speech from the throne so truly says, "security cannot rest on arms alone". The house, I am sure, will support the sincere and unremitting efforts which the government is making to improve international understanding, both by means of diplomatic negotiation and through the medium of the United Nations.

In particular we have all been thrilled by the initiative which Canada took at the recent session of the general assembly of the United Nations. And here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my warm admiration for the outstanding success achieved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the other members of the Canadian delegation. By their tireless efforts and patient negotiation 16 new member countries have been admitted to the United Nations. As a result that organization has become more truly representative of world opinion than ever before, a fact which cannot fail

The Address-Mr. A. M. Fraser to increase its effectiveness, particularly in the economic and social fields. The admission of the new members was indeed a resounding victory for the cause of international co-operation.

The government has given further proof of its constructive approach to world problems by its decision to continue and to increase its contribution to the Colombo plan. This decision I am confident will have the wholehearted approval of this house. It is a decision inspired by a genuine desire to help the peoples of the economically undeveloped countries of Asia to help themselves to attain a higher standard of living. It is inspired also by enlightened self-interest, since experience has shown us that the more widespread prosperity is throughout the world the more prosperous we ourselves will be. It is inspired also by the belief that economic aid and technical assistance to the peoples of less developed countries will reduce the danger of war. The more healthy the economy of a country, the less likely it is to fall victim to external attack or internal subversion. Thus the Colombo plan and other similar projects diminish the area of potential conflict and thereby serve the cause of peace.

I turn now to some of the internal features of the speech from the throne. As it points out, the past year has on the whole been a prosperous one for Canada despite the serious marketing difficulties encountered by our great agricultural industry, particularly our wheat farmers. The year 1955 has been the most productive year in Canadian history. Our export trade has been greater than ever before. More Canadians have been gainfully employed than ever before. I am confident that the house and the country will derive great satisfaction from these striking proofs of the essential soundness and indeed the dynamic character of our economy.

I have very happy to be able to state that Newfoundland has shared in this prosperity. There were unfortunately some weak spots, particularly in certain sections of our fishing industry, but throughout Newfoundland as a whole the record economic level of 1954 was well maintained in 1955 and may even have been surpassed. Production in two of our basic industries, namely, forest products and mining, was at a record height. Construction operations continued at a highly satisfactory rate. The average level of personal income increased. The premier of Newfoundland, Hon. J. R. Smallwood, in his new year's message described the year just ended as the most prosperous in all our history.

In the riding of St. John's East, which I have the honour to represent in this house,

economic conditions were very good indeed. At this point I would like to make a special reference to Bell island, the great iron mining centre which contributes so much to the economic stability of my riding. The year 1955 was a most important year in the history of the iron isle for it witnessed the completion of a new conveyor system and the erection of a new ore concentrator. These improvements represent the climax of the great mechanization program which the Dominion Wabana Ore company has been carrying out over the past several years. Since 1949 the company has spent a total of $19 million on the procurement and installation of the most modem equipment for the production, concentration and transportation of its product.

The company has firm contracts for the annual delivery of one million tons of iron ore to the United Kingdom and another one million tons to West Germany. Both contracts extend through 1961. Together with its deliveries to the Dosco steel plant at Sydney, Nova Scotia, these contracts provide Bell island with an assured annual market for three million tons of iron ore before concentration.

While I am on the subject of Bell island I should like to remind hon. members of the privations suffered by the 11,000 residents there in April of last year as a result of the prolonged ice blockade which cut them off from supplies from the mainland for a period of two weeks. That dangerous experience has demonstrated the urgent need for the construction of an airstrip on Bell island. I am happy to say that negotiations have been going on for some time among the federal government, the provincial government and Dominion Wabana Ore Limited for the construction of an airstrip. I trust that these negotiations will be pressed forward to a speedy and successful conclusion so that a recurrence of last year's isolation will be prevented.

I feel very strongly also that the time has now come for the erection of a federal public building at Bell island. Important federal functions are discharged there by three departments of our federal government, namely post office, customs and the Department of Transport. At present the officials of these departments have to do their work in the provincial public building in offices rented from the provincial government, offices which are quite inadequate to their needs. I would therefore urge most strongly that the government take immediate steps to remedy this situation by providing this great industrial community with a federal public buliding.

While I am on the subject of public buildings, I trust that the construction of the new

customs building scheduled for St. John's will be proceeded with this year.

A few minutes ago I referred to the fact that 1955 was a good year for the people of Newfoundland. Nevertheless the average personal income of Newfoundlanders is still far below the Canadian national average. Indeed it amounts to only about half the national average, according to the submission of the government of the province to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. At page 122 the Newfoundland government stated that in St. John's proper there are 308 "condemnable" houses. It added, and I quote:

These are shocking, run-down tenements In slum areas which should have been tom down long ago. There are another 350 to 400 houses which are only slightly better and which will be condemned when the "condemnable" houses are finally removed.

The submission points out that these figures are based on only a partial survey of the area within the city limits of St. John's. It estimates that in the whole of the St. John's area there are over 1,000 houses which should be condemned now. Hon. members will therefore readily understand why the people of St. John's will welcome the far-seeing amendments which the government is proposing to its great National Housing Act.

I wish also to congratulate the government on the arrangement it has proposed to the provincial governments for sharing the costs of assistance to those unemployed persons who are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and who are in need. Under this arrangement the federal government will assume half those costs after the number of unemployed reaches -45 per cent of the population of a province. This is a constructive social measure and will be of great assistance to the provincial authorities in meeting the costs of unemployment relief. As the house knows, the provincial government of Newfoundland has already signed the draft agreement embodying this cost-sharing arrangement.

I welcome also the proposed amendments to the Trans-Canada Highway Act. The problem of communications has always been a very difficult one in Newfoundland because of the dispersal of its population. Good road communications are essential to the development of Newfoundland's natural resources and to the growth of its tourist industry. I am convinced that these proposed amendments will be of great value to Newfoundland, as they will be to the other provinces.

The full development of Newfoundland's natural resources requires social capital on a scale which the provincial government is unable to provide singlehanded. The provincial government has done very much and 67509-7i

The Address-Mr. Nowlan will continue to do its utmost to build up the public services which are a prerequisite to industrial development, but it needs the co-operation of the federal government. Moreover, the development of natural resources in Newfoundland, as in the other provinces, is unquestionably in the national interest of Canada as a whole.

It is my firm conviction, therefore, that the government of Canada should participate as fully as possible in public investment in Newfoundland, and thus contribute to her industrial development.

Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I naturally associate myself with those words which are always conventional and usually sincere, and in this case most sincere, in expressing congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is a difficult task for one to speak in this house on such an occasion. I know that the gracious lady who moved the address and the young man who seconded it both maintained the traditions that one expects of those performing that task, and this augurs well for their own future in parliament.

I am sure, too, that we all regret the fact that on this particular occasion the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of the Social Credit party, is not in the house because of illness. I am sure we all hope that in the not too distant future he will be fully restored to health and back with us again.

The hon. member who has just preceded me has stated that the speech from the throne was a courageous approach to the problems confronting Canada. Overlooking any references to external affairs, with which one will not quarrel, if one can say that this speech is a courageous approach to internal problems then either we have no problems in Canada or the government does not have a solution to them, because there is very little in that speech having to do with our own domestic problems.

I was reminded of a statement I heard many years ago in a legislature a long way from here. A Liberal leader, who was criticizing vigorously a speech from the throne which had been brought down by a Conservative government, snorted and sniffed and finally said, "It was as dry as last year's birds' nests". I think that is as apt a description as one could find for this speech from the throne.

Last evening one of the hon. members from Halifax produced his own speech from the throne, in which he brought forward suggested solutions to many problems, none

The Address-Mr. Nowlan of which were mentioned in the speech from the throne. One appreciates that and welcomes it. The only thing that bothers one is the fact that members on that side occasionally have the courage to make these suggestions but, when the time comes to vote, they continue to vote for the government and vote against the very suggestions which they sometimes have advocated themselves. This does not add to one's hopes for the solution of some of those problems.

Last night the hon. member dealt with a problem to which he has referred on many occasions and to which I have also referred. T am going to mention it only briefly, but it is one that is becoming more important as the years go by. The question is the whole problem of university education in this country.

If time permitted-and if Mr. Speaker permitted, as I am sure he would not-I could put on record extensive quotations with respect to the problems confronting our universities today. I have one document here that contains statements by gentlemen who are not educationalists and not visionaries, but men such as Mr. Rhys Sale, the president of Ford of Canada, Mr. Douglas Ambridge, the president of Abitibi corporation, and Dr. Solandt, of the defence research board. All point out that we have not enough students attending university, and that of those who are attending, not enough are studying the sciences. In this country, we talk sometimes boastfully, or perhaps wishfully, of a population of 40 or 50 million which we shall attain in the not far distant future. Every one of these men says that if we are going to attain that increase or any part of that increase, we must develop, and emphasize the development of leadership to a far greater extent than we are doing today.

I do not wish to attach \oo much importance to the scientific field, because I think the humanities also have an important position and one which should be safeguarded. But I read last night a statement by the vice president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to the effect that in Russia two-thirds of the students in all the universities are studying applied science and engineering with direct reference to the nuclear world we are entering. Here in Canada less than 50 per cent are studying the sciences, including medicine.

Something must be done to assist the universities in carrying the load with which they are burdened. That problem applies particularly, as I have said before, to our own universities in the maritime provinces. There we have succeeded in maintaining a tradition and a culture-I think a significant one and

one of which we are proud-which is virtually the only one of its type left in North America. It has been illustrated during the last few weeks by articles, which I hope hon. members have read, in Maclean's magazine, written by different Canadian authors, including Bruce Hutchison and Max Ferguson, dealing with our own particular culture. Perhaps the maritimes are the one place left in North America where we do not make a cult out of financial success itself, and we do not measure success by the size of a man's Cadillac car or by the number of garages a man has or whether he has two or three cars in his garage. The other night I read a magazine article by a leading educationalist in New Brunswick, who said that probably the maritimes were the only place left in North America where a clergyman receiving a salary of $3,000 a year and rendering real service to the community would probably get greater recognition than the president of a huge corporation drawing perhaps $500,000 a year.

If we have succeeded in maintaining that standard-and I believe it is worth while maintaining-our universities have contributed much towards it. Our universities indigenous to our own soil, though rather small, have performed a yeoman service.

They find the pressures today even greater than before.

Without going into the figures, which I have put on the record at other times, I simply want to say again, Mr. Speaker, that I am disappointed there is no reference or suggestion in the speech from the throne of an amendment to the act which would provide for larger grants to universities in general and our own universities in particular. It is absolutely wrong, sir, that a financial system should be worked out under which the universities which need the most receive the least, and that is the situation with respect to our universities in the maritime provinces. The government has not dealt with that problem up to the present, and that is only one of many problems in the field of education and the social services to which I think some attention should have been paid.

In that connection, too, I want to mention the system introduced last year of pensions for crippled persons, which has not worked out satisfactorily and has created tremendous disappointment. I do not suppose there is one member of the house who has not in his constituency a score of people who have been refused a pension when by any law based on practicality they should have received it. The minister said yesterday he was proposing to call a conference. That is always an easy way to deal with things and

fMr. Nowlan.]

to postpone them. I realize that this is a matter of provincial-federal co-operation and that a conference is necessary, but I do know the minister has received many protests during the year and I would have thought there would have been time to call that conference before now. In any event, we hope and urge that some action be taken in that connection before the house rises.

One could go on with omissions, but I do not propose to do that at the moment. The house will be glad to know, as has appeared in the newspapers, that the complaint I have made from time to time about the long delay in connection with the inauguration of the service now given by the Bluenose has finally been overcome and that the ferry is belatedly but I believe efficiently operating today between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor. I do not believe it could have been anticipated that it would be put in operation this fall. After all the long delays one would have thought every preparation would have been made, but certainly the accommodation at Yarmouth is of the most temporary nature. I know it is causing concern to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) right now, and I am quite certain that it was only due to the pressure of public opinion in the last month or two that the Bluenose was put in operation this fall. Otherwise it would have been delayed until next spring.

There is one point in connection with this matter that I want to mention. I refer to the rates which are being charged for the transportation of vehicles on the ferry. Some of us remember when the former minister of transport, Hon. Mr. Chevrier, spoke in such glowing and enthusiastic terms about this matter many years ago. At that time he emphasized the important part the ferry would play in the development of the economy of the maritimes, particularly the economy of Nova Scotia, in that our trucks could carry fish and agricultural products with a relatively short haul into the markets of New England and central Canada. That has been expected. Most of us thought that really would be the greatest contribution the ferry would make other than its contribution to the tourist industry, which was an obvious one.

Now, however, we find that the rates which it is proposed to charge are so high that according to the truck men they are virtually prohibitive. Instead of enabling us to deliver more goods more cheaply and efficiently to the markets of Ontario, Quebec and New England, the rates are such that we cannot augment these deliveries and we are virtually bound by the scale of costs which is now in vogue. I realize it is the responsibility of the minister and the C.N.R. to make

The Address-Mr. Nowlan the ferry operate as efficiently as possible and also not to lose too much money in connection with its operation. But that, sir, is only one factor in the situation. The boat was not built to operate as a financial success. The boat was built-incidentally, the province of Nova Scotia contributed $1,-

500,000 toward its capital cost-to assist industry in the maritimes in general and in Nova Scotia in particular. It is not going to render that service if the present rates are maintained.

It is true there has been an intimation that the matter is under study and review. Naturally these rates are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. They are not inscribed on stone and it should be possible, and I say it is necessary, to have them revised. Seasonal rates are not an unknown factor to the Department of Transport or in ratemaking generally in Canada. You have seasonal rates effective in so far as transportation on the great lakes is concerned. During the tourist season when the boat will be taxed to capacity one rate could be charged because at that particular season there would, be very little movement of products, but in the middle of September when the tourist trade rapidly falls off I think an adjustment in rates would not only be in the interests of industry in Nova Scotia but also in the interests of the boat itself, because you could then build up traffic in trucks which would be carried and bring about increased revenue which otherwise would be lost.

I raise this matter now because I hope that by the time the minister's estimates come before the house some time this spring he will be in a position to tell us that the rates have been revised. If he does not, I give him fair warning that I intend to urge as strongly as possible that he take action on that score before his estimates go through.

Dealing with shipping for a moment longer, there is one other matter to which I want to refer. I have mentioned it before, and again there is no reference to anything such as this in the speech from the throne. I think it is important. I refer to the necessity of a better and more efficient steamship service out of maritime ports to the Caribbean and South America. We in the maritimes have one asset which is not duplicated anywhere in Canada except in British Columbia. That is our maritime position, our export position. Nova Scotia sticks out like a wharf into the North Atlantic and, as we know, the movement of freight by water is the most economical method.

I know we have a potential market for Nova Scotia, maritime and Canadian products

102 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Nowlan generally in the markets of the Caribbean and South America, and this problem is not being met. Let me give one little graphic illustration as to just how we were confronted with the problem this year. I think the house knows-I am going to refer to it in a moment

that this fall we were confronted with a crisis with respect to apples, as were other fruit growing districts in Canada. It was possible to market only a proportion of the crop. Certain exporters were able to locate markets in the West Indies for a substantial quantity of apples at a price which was most attractive in yiew of the competitive rates generally prevailing.

These markets were developed. They were found or financed, but then what did the fruit exporters find? They found that the refrigerated space available from Canadian National Steamships, the only steamship company servicing that area from Halifax, was so small that they could only accommodate a fraction of the order on each ship. As a result less than 50 per cent of the apples for which a firm market had been negotiated in Trinidad left Halifax, and a really substantial loss was incurred by the fruit growers who had looked forward to a very profitable market in the West Indies.

I know there are problems. I know there are exchange problems. I have had some little difficulty in getting permits for the export of Nova Scotia products to the West Indies. In this case, however, the exchange problem was solved, dollars were available, but Canadian National Steamships just had to say, "We are sorry, we have not the refrigerated space and we cannot take your apples."

That, Mr. Speaker, is not good enough. The Annapolis valley is probably as large an egg-producing area today as any other part of Canada. It has developed tremendously during the last ten years. There is a market in Venezuela with no exchange problems. It is a dollar market. They have dollars to burn, based on oil. What do you have to do? You have to rail the eggs in carload lots from the Annapolis valley to New York, or you have to haul them by truck and then reload them on refrigerator ships in New York and take them down to Venezuela, where you have competition from the United States producers. I am told they make a profit. That is not good enough either.

I have a suggestion to make. I have raised this matter before and I am urging it again as one contribution toward the solution of our maritime problems, many of which we must solve ourselves and as to which we are not asking any assistance. But this is a national problem. Private industry cannot furnish these ships because the markets are not there.

[Mr. Nowlan.l

They will have to be developed slowly and gradually. I have found the department to be most co-operative, the minister to be most apologetic and the Canadian National Railways anxious to serve. But when you have small ships with little refrigerated space there is no hope of developing those markets. That is something which should be done soon.

Speaking of transportation, I would not want to worry the minister with further possible problems which may arise, but I suppose it would not be amiss to give a preview of one upon which I know the minister has already been approached. Undoubtedly we shall hear more about it in the relatively near future. In my own constituency we have a transportation problem across the Minas basin, where before the war there was a regular steamship service cutting off several hundred miles of roundabout drive. We had the distinction, and in this case perhaps the misfortune, of having the then minister of finance in the dominion government as the representative of our constituency. He felt, and properly so, that he had to set an example for economy so that all his colleagues would follow suit. As a result, that steamship which was giving us a daily service and was receiving a subsidy from the Dominion of Canada, found that the subsidy was cut off or disallowed. I am told, in fact I know this, that it was the only steamship subsidy which was cut off in the whole of Canada, but it was to be an example.

The subsidy was discontinued and the boat ceased operation. It has since been sold and of course cannot go back into that operation again. However, a group of men are organizing a company which will have a ship in that service independent of the tides, and one which can operate at any time, day or night. I presume an approach will be made to the Minister of Public Works for the construction or reconstruction of wharves. I know a subsidy will be asked for as well if that ship is to operate as it should. I hope and believe this request will receive the support of the government when it is brought actively or officially to their attention within the next few weeks or months.

Much has been said in this debate already about the problems of agriculture, and I do not intend to repeat what others have said. Coming from the east, I think this should be said. The wheat grower is not the only farmer in Canada who is encountering problems. Farmers generally are encountering serious problems, and I do not think proper attention is being paid by this government to the solution of those problems. I know their solution is not any easy matter.

I know there is no cut and dried solution that anyone can come up with.

We are living in a rapidly changing world in so far as agricultural production is concerned. I do not think that fact has been recognized by those who are responsible for our administration at the moment. We have the problem of bonuses, fire sales, subsidies in other countries, in Europe and in Great Britain. Owing to these governmental techniques the net result is that the farmers in those countries can grow perhaps inferior goods but sell them at higher prices than our farmers can get by selling our goods over there at the moment.

I think study must be given to this whole problem of what we are going to do about subsidized production of agriculture all over the world. Sometimes the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture come down fairly late and we do not have as much time to spend on them as we should like to have. But when his estimates are before the house this winter or this spring I hope he will be in a position to give us the thinking of his officials or the suggestions of his department as to how agriculture is going to fare in this -if I may use a cliche-new world. It is a new world and one with which we are going to be confronted for many years to come. Frankly, as I said before. I do not think any great approach has been made so far to the solution of this problem.

In that connection may I say that I think our whole agricultural price support legislation needs overhauling and review, and that a policy needs to be evolved in connection with it. Frankly, at the moment I do not think we have a policy. I think we have a hit-or-miss approach, one of "do something if you can for this place if there is enough pressure, and don't do it if there is not enough pressure". No farmer knows where he fits in or what is going to happen so far as price support is concerned. I noticed a statement in the press, and it is not from a jaundiced political Conservative viewpoint. I have in my hand a statement attributed to the minister of agriculture from my own province, Hon. Colin Chisholm. When speaking here the other day at the dominion-provincial agricultural conference he said this:

I don't think we can continue any longer to deal with surpluses as isolated problems, or as problems which can be settled merely by granting price support here and there when extreme urgency calls for it.

I do not think we can do that either. I think something must be done to create price support legislation which will be consistent and rational, which can be understood and which can be brought into effect. I saw the

The Address-Mr. Nowlan system operating this fall in the valley. As is well known, the apple growers in the Annapolis valley approached the government and asked for financial assistance in September when they were confronted with the biggest crop they have ever had, I suppose, in their history. It was a beautiful crop, a tremendous one, and one which was absolutely beyond their capacity to market, as was true also of growers in other parts of Canada. It was not an isolated problem. It just happened this year that apples would grow on spruce trees, almost, anywhere in North America. In fact, trees that had not been sprayed or looked after for 15 years produced a very good quality crop.

The apple industry, through a delegation, approached the government and asked for financial assistance. That was early in September. The matter went on and on. First the Minister of Agriculture told the delegation from Nova Scotia that they should find out what was the attitude of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia with respect to this matter. I want to register my own objection, Mr. Speaker, to this particular approach.

Mr. Gardiner:

If I may do so, I should like to make a correction.

Mr. Nowlan:

Surely.

Mr. Gardiner:

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

Mr. Nowlan:

I accept the minister's statement entirely. What I am saying is this. Representing Nova Scotia, I want to register a protest against a philosophy or a policy which would require, as a prerequisite to the price support of some commodity in Nova Scotia, the reaction of the growers of the same product in Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia or wherever it might be. I can understand that there might be circumstances and products where that procedure should be followed but it does not necessarily apply in every case. This is a huge country. Each part has its own problems and its own diversifications. What may be the "situation prevailing in British Columbia this year has no application to Nova Scotia this year or vice versa, or to Ontario or Quebec.

That is one criticism I make of a hit-or-miss policy or lack of policy. When one is evolved, I say it must be evolved on such a basis that you do not have to say to somebody from one province, "Go and find out what they are thinking about it in another province". As the minister just said, he knew fully and his department knew fully what the other people were thinking about it anyway. It was well

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

Mr. Gardiner:

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

Mr. Nowlan:

I am not going to enter into a discussion with the minister, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is this. I have kept out of this discussion up to now. I have said nothing about this at any time because I thought the thing was going to fail. I knew it would fail because, quite frankly, I was in Ottawa a week before the delegation came here and I saw the officials in the minister's department. They told me that the attitude of Ontario and Quebec was opposed to ours. It is a strange thing it took the minister five weeks to find out officially, and that he had to get the Nova Scotia officials to tell him what his own officials told me the week before. They wanted to obtain the attitude of Ontario and Quebec simply as a stall, hoping the apples would fall, the apples would rot or freeze or something would happen to them and the problem could be solved in that way.

In the end, following weeks and weeks of delay after the decision of Ontario and Quebec was known, during which time the growers did not know whether to borrow money in order to pick the apples, to borrow money to buy boxes or discontinue operations, a whisper would come down that there was a telegram from Mr. So and so who says that something is going to be done tomorrow. Then there would be another whisper from somebody who would be in communication with somebody who would be in communication with somebody who would be in communication with the Minister of Agriculture who apparently was not so optimistic. It depended on how good a Liberal you wer* or to whose telephone you had access whether you decided to pick apples or let them freeze on the trees.

Finally the minister announced that there would be. no price support this year. I could debate that decision but I am not going to do so. It was a decision he had to make. I think from some points of view he could justify it, but I do not think it is justified from our own point of view. However, I am not debating that at the moment; I am simply dealing with the technique which was followed. fMr. Nowlan.]

Mr. Gardiner:

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

Mr. Nowlan:

There are official records of this, Mr. Speaker, but I have not those records in front of me. The end result was that there would be no price support for the valley this year. The minister went on to say that if they would reorganize, which might be an excellent suggestion, the marketing system and approach him next year, he would give the matter consideration. Of course this is a very broad promise. He said he would give consideration to anything they proposed. Whatever the exact words may have been, the end result was that we were told there was no price support for us this year.

As I have said, for the sake of this argument I am not quarrelling with that decision, although I may on another occasion. But that was not the end of it. Word kept coming that something was yet going to be done. This was the end of October or perhaps almost the first of November. I am speaking now from memory. This decision had been awaited from early September. Somebody says something else is going to happen, but this is not official. Then in November I read in the newspapers that officials from the department were down interviewing the minister of agriculture for Nova Scotia about this matter. Then we find officials of the price support board in the valley studying the case and getting the facts. The minister has a most competent inspection service which could have advised him, and undoubtedly did, every 24 hours as to the number of apples picked, the number in cold storage, the variety and where they were moving. All those things are matters of official record.

However, we had a delegation down to get the facts of the case. Then we had another delegation down to get the facts of the case. Even in December there were studies being made. Actually, Mr. Speaker, you know, in the old days of our great-grandfathers when we communicated back and forth, by smoke signals from hilltop to hilltop, information could have been carried back and forth to Ottawa from the Annapolis valley just as quickly as it was this season. Still these whispers, these thoughts, these hopes continued.

Then I read a most amazing statement attributed to the minister. I am paraphrasing it, and it was made in December when he met the potato growers from Prince Edward Island. He said, "Were I to give price support to potatoes in Prince Edward Island I would have to give price support to apples in the

Annapolis valley". If you can tell me the connection between apples and potatoes, I should like to know it. It is true that the French word for potatoes is pomme de terre and for apples it is just pomme, so perhaps the minister was confused and was thinking in French at that time; I do not know. I cannot find any other connection. If that is the basis upon which we are going to get price support, "because if I give price support to the potato growers in Prince Edward Island I have to give it to the apple growers of the Annapolis valley," then it is high time there was a study of this price support system.

I might remind the minister that when I first came to this house he did not even give price support on that basis. At that time he gave price support to potatoes in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but did not give it to Nova Scotia potatoes. The day I left there was an announcement that price support had come to the valley. I did not have time to read the report, and because of the dislocation of communications in the valley I have not been able to receive any report other than the one I got from a few growers when I left that it was not worth anything. They did not think it would be accepted. Evidently it takes from an early September morning until a cold January morning to find out whether or not you can get price support, and in the meantime the apples are all sold, picked or frozen. This is not a happy situation. I say the time has come when we should have a study of this situation before we can adequately cope with the problems confronting agriculture.

There is one other matter which affected my constituency and upon which I want to make perhaps a few critical references. The disaster that recently hit the maritimes is not the only one from which we have suffered. During the fall and early winter the steamship service connecting our province with New Brunswick was cut off because of a strike, which extended from September until just before Christmas. The western part of Nova Scotia was isolated. The Bluenose was not there and the Princess Helene was tied up. Industry suffered tremendously. Unemployment was rife, and as I say this strike lasted from September until a day or two before Christmas.

This year we celebrated the bicentennial of the expulsion of the Acadians. We all know the tragic story of their expulsion and of their return around through the isthmus of Chignecto. I may say that if they had come back this year they would have had to travel the same way, because there was no other way of getting into Nova Scotia. The workers 67509-8

The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy did not want to stay on strike. Industry was dislocated. This matter was as important to western Nova Scotia as a rail strike would be to the national economy. For the last few weeks at any rate settlement was held up, and I say this not unkindly but I believe advisedly, by the stubbornness of one man, the president of the S.I.U., who was determined to hold the strike on as long as he could in order to exercise influence somewhere else. We paid the penalty.

In a situation such as that, and one which meant so much to us, I do not believe we got the co-operation and leadership from this government which we deserved and which would have been given had the circumstances been different and had the strike occurred elsewhere. One result of the strike was unwarranted attacks on labour which naturally result when people are angered by such things. It was unfortunate and unnecessary that it should have been allowed to continue as long as it did.

Now I close on a happier note. I noticed that the Minister of Agriculture had his deputy in Nova Scotia last week. He was there for various reasons, probably, but among other things he had a conference with the minister of agriculture and the premier of Nova Scotia on the construction of a dam across the Annapolis river which, if completed, will restore thousands of acres of marshland and will remove the necessity of maintaining scores of miles of running dikes.

I just happened to read that in the paper last night. I smiled because I remembered that when I first spoke in this house, from down in the far corner, sir, I spent some little time emphasizing that question and urging the minister to do something of that nature. I am glad to know that he has had his engineers down there. I understand that surveys have been made and soundings have been taken, and that economically and financially it will not be such a terribly expensive undertaking.

I do hope that the Minister of Agriculture will see his way clear to work with the province of Nova Scotia in this regard. According to the reports one reads, they are prepared to co-operate in such an undertaking. I do hope this is one of those joint undertakings which can be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties, and if so it will be for the good of Nova Scotia.

Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):

Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, like those who have preceded me, I should like to add

106 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy my congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme).

I feel that this debate gives the private member an opportunity to report to the House of Commons generally on the affairs of his own constituency and the affairs of the province or of the nation in general as they affect the people he represents. This year, as in other years, and as long as I am permitted to sit in the House of Commons, I intend to outline to the government the necessity for the construction of the Chignecto canal, but before doing so there are some other matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the government.

The Liberal government has been very good to the province of New Brunswick in the past 20 years. I am not going to enumerate all the good things. The things I pick out are those with which perhaps we were not entirely satisfied. In outlining them I do not mean to say that I do not approve the government's program. I am making only helpful suggestions.

I have informed the Department of Public Works of the necessity of dredging to assist the fishermen of my constituency, especially at Cape Bald, Robichaud, Offer, Dupuis Corner and Little Cape. With respect to the first three mentioned, I have asked for extension so the fishermen will be able to land their fish there shortly after they are caught, and there will be no congestion. If that were done they would have the facilities that should be afforded. At Lower Cape Bald the wharf is the same size as it was 30 years ago, and it is now becoming quite crowded.

There is one harbour in Westmorland county that is in need of special consideration, namely the harbour of Pointe du Chene. This harbour is used by fishermen and shippers alike, but the depth of water is not great enough for ocean-crossing vessels to complete loading their cargo. The channel should be deepened to at least 18 feet to allow fully loaded vessels to enter the harbour. I ask the government to investigate this matter carefully. I have been assured by many of the shippers in the area that if this were done they would use the harbour, and it would give a lift to the economy of that particular area.

I wish to thank the Department of Public Works for the new wharf that is under construction at Emily's Point-Shemogue. I would also like to mention the fact that the building of 110 houses by the department at Moncton is appreciated in terms of employment and lasting effects. During one of the debates [Mr. Murphy (Westmorland) .1

last year the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) challenged me to say something about assistance to New Brunswick in the development of power. Last year I did that; I used the Colombo plan as an example, and I asked for some consideration for New Brunswick. This summer I read in the press that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had opened a project under the Colombo plan in the Far East. While I was very pleased to read that, I was sorry that instead of it being in the Far East it was not just down east in New Brunswick. Therefore I again suggest to the government that consideration be given to financial assistance by way of loan or by some other method for the development of power in the province of New Brunswick.

Since I spoke last on the Chignecto canal project, or since I first started speaking on it, most of the hon. members from New Brunswick have also mentioned it in their addresses and have been favourably disposed toward it. Perhaps the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, whose constituency would be vitally affected by it, will have something to say about the construction of the canal this year.

I should like to read to the house a short clipping from the Moncton Times, dated November 5, 1955. It reads as follows:

"The Chignecto canal project is essentially sound," declared Hon. George Drew, head of the national Progressive Conservative party and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, at a press conference in Moncton yesterday.

Mr. Drew was spending a few hours in the city on his way to Nova Scotia in the course of a hurried tour of the maritimes.

In saying he found the project "to be sound after intensive study," he added that "the courage and vision of people before us were responsible for the building of our rail lines." The same, he stated, holds true of canals.

"Throughout history lines of transportation, whether rail or water, have led to progress and I am of the opinion the Chignecto canal is a sound proposition for the benefit of Canada as a whole, and particularly so here in the maritimes."

I know the Leader of the Opposition was sincere when he said that this would be of benefit to all of Canada. I rather expected him to say something about it in the House of Commons during this debate.

In connection with the Chignecto canal project, last fall there was a press release in the Moncton Transcript dated September 16. It was a Canadian Press dispatch from Halifax. According to this dispatch a spokesman for the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company made a statement concerning the development of light and power under the Chignecto-Minas project. The dispatch stated that the project would provide 60 times the electrical energy that could be used in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined. That

The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy

amount of electrical energy could be provided by the Chignecto-Minas project.

The Chignecto canal, of which I am speaking, would pierce the isthmus of Chignecto. For those who are not familiar with the geography of the maritimes may I say that the isthmus of Chignecto is a narrow neck of land which joins New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The proposed Chignecto canal would provide a short route in sheltered waters for ships running from the St. Lawrence river to the eastern seaboard of the United States, and in some cases would mean a saving of almost 500 miles. Such a canal would increase steamship sailings between the Atlantic provinces and central Canada, and with the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway the route to the eastern seaboard of the United States, Mexico and South America would be shortened by at least 400 miles.

It may surprise many to know that in 1871, shortly after confederation, industrial wages in New Brunswick were the highest of any of the provinces, but by 1946 they ranked second lowest. In 1871 one out of every five industrial workers in Canada was employed in the maritimes, but by 1946 this had dropped to one out of seventeen. During the past few years there have been discoveries of ore bodies in northern New Brunswick and Gaspe which are of such importance that another look at the Chignecto canal project by the government of Canada is very much in line. I think that we are entitled to know for once and for all what is going to be done about this great project.

The extent to which the failure to build the Chignecto canal has arrested development in the maritimes is difficult to estimate. That failure, together with the depression of the 1870's, greatly retarded our progress. Young people of the maritimes when denied opportunities for advancement migrated to other parts of Canada and the New England states which benefited greatly by such migrations.

The volume of traffic passing through our Canadian canals far exceeds the expectations of those men who had the foresight and courage to embark upon a policy of canal construction. The Chignecto canal has been included in federal estimates in the past, but for some reason or other it has never been carried out. There have been ten surveys made of the Chignecto isthmus, and with the exception of minor technical differences all agree that the canal is feasible. The Chignecto canal is a national need and in fairness to the maritimes Canada should keep her promise and build it now.

67509-8J

There is another matter which I should like to discuss briefly; that is the Canadian National Railways, which has a close connection with my constituency. Offices and repair shops of the railway are located in Moncton, and the interests of the employees of the Canadian National Railways are of great concern to me. As a member of the railway committee, to which Mr. Donald Gordon, the president, reports annually, I have become somewhat familiar with the operations of the Canadian National Railways. Although in Ottawa and Montreal Mr. Gordon may be considered the most important man in the Canadian National Railways, to me, representing as I do 5,000 railway workers in Moncton, the railwayman in Moncton is most important.

Not only do these men work for the Canadian National Railways; they take an interest in railroading that money could not buy. Railroading has been their lifelong work; they have spent many years in helping to build up the Canadian National Railways and when a deficit occurs they, like the rest of us, must pay taxes to make it up. As the true representative of such a large number of railwaymen I must make my position clear with respect to legislation concerning the right to strike by Canadian National men. It is not my intention to support any antistrike legislation dealing with the Canadian National, whether it be introduced from one side of the house or the other.

Before closing I have another request to make or recommendation to offer in connection wtih another corporation. While I approve of nationalization in the matter of the Canadian National Railways, I want to say something about another corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As far as radio is concerned, the C.B.C. has not been brought to my notice by my constituents generally. They seem to be fairly well satisfied with C.B.C. radio, but I do want to say a word about C.B.C. television.

We have a local television station in Moncton which serves us well. Its local programs are good, but apparently productions of the C.B.C. are distributed to local stations to be shown to the viewers there. As more sets are bought in my constituency the more complaints I get about C.B.C. television productions. I have been told that they are terrible, that they smell. Although I am not a television fan I have viewed some of the C.B.C. productions and I must say that the complaints seem to be justified. Perhaps this work could be done better by private enterprise or perhaps not, but my opinion is that it could be better done.

The Address-Mr. Barnett

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

They are no worse than the United States programs.

Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):

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