Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):

Let us look at the position of the delegates. A resolution was presented to the annual meeting of the united grain growers, one of the oldest cooperative societies in western Canada advocating that loans be made by the wheat board against farm-stored grain, and that resolution was defeated almost unanimously, and with very little discussion. Practically the same resolution was presented to the delegates meeting of the Alberta wheat pool, and it was defeated. The same resolution went before the delegates of the Manitoba wheat pool, was passed at one session, was reconsidered at the next session and modified to ask for loans on farm-stored grain only provided suitable arrangements could be made by the Canadian wheat board.

True, it was passed at the meeting of the delegates of the Saskatchewan pool. Unfortunately I have no way of knowing just what

happened, but I was told it was passed by a small margin and after a heated discussion between those for the resolution and those opposed to it.

A favoring resolution was passed by the three farmers' unions, but I must say that at the meeting of the farmers' union which I attended a resolution was presented asking for a vote of confidence in the Canadian wheat board which was passed unanimously, except for one vote in opposition.

In other words, the attitude of the farmers' unions is something like the attitude of the C.C.F. party in this house: that party is in favour of the wheat board but, and the "but" is always there. I have never heard a clean-cut statement from the C.C.F. party that it is unreservedly in favour of the wheat board. I read a clipping of a speech by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in which it was reported that he said that when he came down here he would put a motion before the house that would make the Liberals stand up and be counted regarding their attitude toward loans on farm-stored grain. I am not worried about the attitude of my fellow Liberals, because I know that the Liberal party favours the present methods of marketing wheat and I am pretty sure that our members on the Liberal side will see through the propaganda drive which is behind the demand for advances on farm-stored grain.

I will be most interested to see how the opposition will respond to that demand that they stand up and be counted. I know how a few of them will, particularly the Conservatives. I think I have them pretty well sorted out as to who believes in wheat board marketing and who does not.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

What about the western farm conference in December attended by the ministers of agriculture of two of the western provinces?

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

Is the hon. member referring to the meeting he organized in Prince Albert or the meeting in Regina or Saskatoon?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I am referring to the Saskatoon meeting.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

The Saskatoon meeting and the Prince Albert meeting were attended by certain pool leaders, certain implement manufacturers and certain citizens of the towns attended. As far as the Saskatoon meeting is concerned, I did not see any advocacy there of payments on farm-stored grain, although my memory may have slipped. Certainly at the Prince Albert meeting we had a ringing declaration by the

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I would like the minister to answer this question. Did the western farm conference in Saskatoon, which was attended by the minister of agriculture of the Liberal government of Manitoba and other representatives, not send a delegation to Ottawa, which included representatives of the Liberal party, to ask for farm-stored wheat advances, and did not Mr. McDonald, the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, say that your plans were as effective as a stirrup pump in a forest fire?

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

This delegation came to Ottawa from the Saskatoon conference and my colleagues will confirm the impression that we got from that meeting at Ottawa that there were two or three delegates present who advocated payments on farm-stored grain, but there were certainly those who advocated just the opposite. I will get together all my records of the Saskatoon meeting because we will have further discussion of this subject. I will be able to answer the questions of my hon. friend during the debate which will take place on the legislation.

We are told that the prairies are in a desperate plight, that if something is not done immediately there is going to be a serious drop in buying power on the prairies which will be reflected in eastern Canada and thus we will soon have another depression. I was able to get from the bureau of statistics only the records of retail sales on the prairies for the first nine months in 1955 as compared with the first nine months in 1954. I find that in Manitoba retail sales were up 4-3 per cent.

Oh, no.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

In Alberta retail sales were up by 6-4 per cent.

That cannot be.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

In Saskatchewan retail sales were down by 1-7 per cent.

We can understand that.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

Incidentally, there is no change in the price level between those years. I have no desire to disparage the position of the producers. A certain number of producers have found themselves in difficulty this past season, and the purpose of the guaranteed loan was to relieve those smaller producers. I was told several times, mostly by city people, that it was ridiculous to offer $1,500 and that that was chicken feed. I am not interested in the man who thinks $1,500 is chicken feed. That particular loan 67509-9

The Address-Mr. Bryce was intended to relieve that situation. As far as the long term situation is concerned, it seemed to me it was a hardship on the western farmer that he should be required to pay the carrying charges at the level required when grain storage is filled for practically 12 months in the year. Apart from that, it did not seem to me that there was any particular burden on the farmer through this condition of plenty.

However, the carrying charges, which used to run at between eight and 10 cents a bushel, went up last year to 16 cents a bushel and could go as high as 20 cents a bushel. That is a burden on the farmer for doing something that is in his own interests and also in the interests of the country as a whole, for it is greatly in the interests of the Canadian economy as a whole that we should have orderly marketing of western wheat, and that the full value of that wheat should be recovered through our marketing methods. Therefore, on my return from the western trip, I recommended to the government that the farmer be relieved of a substantial part of the cost of storage involved by the carryover of wheat, that the government take that over and pay carrying charges on the abnormal portion of the carryover of wheat held in storage for government account. That, I think, is reasonable, in these circumstances, and we shall go into that proposal in more detail as we reach the bill presently on the order paper.

I see that my time is exhausted. I might sum up by putting the attitude of the opposition and the attitude of the Liberal party in a few short words. I think it can be fairly said that the attitude of the opposition is that they seek strength and progress through scarcity; as long as there is scarcity they are quite satisfied, and everything is fine. The attitude of the government is that it wants strength and progress through sufficiency. Even if planning for long-range sufficiency involves building up temporary surpluses, we shall take the onus for that program. We shall endeavour to see that hardship is not permitted to fall on the producer, but we are glad to have surpluses, particularly at a time when, in so many areas, we have acute shortages that hold within themselves the seeds of inflation.

Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):

Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I wish, like other members, to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I know that it is a great honour to be bestowed on a member, and I am sure the people who sent them here will appreciate the honour that has been bestowed on them.

130 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Bryce

I wish to raise the problem of the Disabled Persons Act as it is administered in Manitoba. Many disabled persons there are not receiving the benefits of that act. I took this matter up with the genial minister some time ago, and he said that 2,200 people had applied for it in Manitoba, but only 371 people had been granted the pension. Six hundred and seventy people had applied but had been refused, and another 1,000 or 1,500 people had applied but their applications had not been dealt with.

I could take you to the constituency of Selkirk and show you people who can hardly walk along the street. They are not able to earn their bread and butter, but still they have been turned down because they are able to walk. It is misleading to have a Disabled Persons Act when it does not help the people who are disabled and who should be looked after. I am going to appeal again to the government and to the minister that they speed up this matter and see that those who are entitled to this allowance receive it.

Now I wish to talk about conditions in the Selkirk constituency, the interlake country. I have listened to my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) telling us today about the great crops we have. In my constituency of Selkirk we have nothing. I told the Prime Minister last year that there would be people starving in Selkirk constituency, and he said that would not be the case. I can assure him it is the case today. People are leaving the interlake district because they cannot get enough to eat. They are crowding into the cities. If a community does not have a crop for one year, it is a catastrophe; but, when it does not have a crop for two years, it is a disaster. The dominion government should step in and do a little for these people.

I said that the people are leaving the interlake district. My good friend, the Minister of Justice ( Mr. Gar son) knows that what I am saying is true. He has been up there, and I wish he had told the government more about it. He saw the conditions in which these people were living. A survey was made last October at Teuton, about 40 miles from Winnipeg, and it was fopnd that about 60 people were leaving every morning to go to Winnipeg to dig sewers or do other work so that they could get bread and butter for their tables. I do not know how far you are going to let this go before you do something for these people. These people are not wheat farmers, about whom you hear other members talking; they are just ordinary dirt farmers who keep a few cows and cultivate a quarter section of land. Many farmers who had cattle have had to sell them. This survey was taken in Teulon, but the other districts

[Mr. Bryce.l

surrounding it, at about the same distance from Winnipeg, are in the same position. I could not give you accurate figures for them, but a survey should be taken. These people who had cattle have very few left now because when the disaster first struck they sold a few head in order to keep going, and since then they have been continually getting rid of more all the time. They are not going to have any cattle left, and it is their cattle on which they depend. They depend on their cattle for the production of cream which brings in enough cash to supply them with the necessities of life.

The provincial government has been concerned with the matter but the provincial officials always tell me that the dominion government is not doing anything and that when they do something the provincial government will step in and help too. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) spoke he referred to mass meetings. There have been many mass meetings in the interlake country, some of them having as many as 500 farmers in attendance. These meetings were not called by any political party. They were called by the rank and file farmers with the support of the municipalities in which they live. These farmers want to know what is going to happen so far as they are concerned.

What does the provincial government offer them? They say that they will try to provide work and wages. How are they going to do that? They say to these farmers, "Well, you can go to the bush." How can a man who has a few head of cattle and other stock go to the bush? The bachelors can go and those farmers who do not do anything but grow grain. The provincial government also said they would pay for the trucking of hay into the districts where it is needed. They said they would pay for the trucking of the hay. What I want to know is, who is going to pay for the hay? These people have no money to buy hay so very little trucking of hay is going on. Mr. Robertson, the minister of agriculture for Manitoba, said to these farmers: "You can go to your municipality and get relief at 6 per cent."

That is the position in which these farmers in Selkirk find themselves. I know what the federal government did. They sent a man to the district to survey the damage to the farms and as a result paid the farmers so much money for damage to their buildings. The farmers of the interlake country do not care what their farms look like. They want to be able to get back into production again. They want to be able to produce cattle because conditions there are really bad.

I want to say something about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as it affects these people.

I have a resolution here that I am going to read. The interlake farmers come under the P.F.A.A. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows how much money has been paid there. He has paid out more money there than he ever did before but it has only been a drop in the bucket. Then there is the case of the man who bought crown land. If he bought crown land after the 31st of December, 1940, the law says he cannot participate in P.F.A.A. benefits. But here is the hard thing. He has to pay into the fund. Last year the minister said in the house that these men have paid about $300,000 into the fund. I do not know what would happen if any private company or individual took money from people for such a purpose and then refused them the benefits of it. That is what is happening. These farmers have paid $300,000 into the fund but they have never got anything back and the law says they cannot get anything back. I bet that if anybody else did that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would have the person on the carpet right away. I know he would not let me, any co-operative society or anybody else do it. Money is being taken from these people for benefits that they can never be paid.

I have a resolution here from the Manitoba farmers' union, Fisher Branch, one of the districts that has been pretty badly hit. It contains an appeal on behalf of these people who bought crown lands. When these men came back from the war we were delighted to have them take up farming, but now they have had two or three bad years and the first thing we know they will leave their farms and go back where they came from. The resolution reads as follows:

Whereas the farmers who bought land from the government after 1940 are not able to participate in the P.F.A.A. assistance and as these farmers contribute into this fund when they deliver grain to any elevator and as these farmers are in a desperate need of assistance in this area;

Be it resolved that we urge the government to consider these needy fellows and bring them into the P.F.A.A. program so they may participate in the assistance along with the other farmers.

I appeal to the minister to give this matter further consideration when he brings the act before the house for revision. If he even granted assistance for this year until times get a little better it would be of tremendous benefit to these people.

In my opinion many eastern members and others who do not know the situation think that when a person receives P.F.A.A. assistance he is getting a lot of money. Some of the cheques that have been arriving in the Eriksdale district have been for $5, $7, $20 and so on. The same is true of the Arborg district. How it is computed that a man should only receive $5 or $7 as a payment 67509-9J

The Address-Mr. Stick for his year's operations I do not know. I think there should be a survey of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The whole operation of the legislation should be investigated. During the recess I spent half my time answering letters and dealing with Mr. Bird, the director at Regina, with respect to P.F.A.A. applications. The districts hardest hit are Fisher Branch, Eriksdale, Arborg, Riverton and even some of the sections farther south such as Teulon, Woodlands and Petersfield. They have all been badly hit.

There is no use of my going over the whole matter again, but I want to make a suggestion before I sit down. Our troubles in the west seem to arise from the fact that we have too much grain. Then send some of it to Selkirk. We need feed, we need seed, and there seems to be an abundance. I have not seen it myself but I have seen photographs in the newspapers of wheat standing out in the field. The people of the interlake country have had no crop for two years. They need seed and they need feed so that they will not have to sell more cattle. I do not know how much plainer I can make the situation. It is a desperate one, and I hope that the Manitoba member of the cabinet will help me to impress upon the other members of the cabinet how serious the situation is. The interlake country has met with a disaster such as it never had before. There have been two years during which there has been no crop. I want the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to give consideration to extending the P.F.A.A. benefits to those who have paid into it. If a man is not to receive the benefits, then do not take his money. I hope the cabinet will send somebody out there, and they will see that I am telling the truth in this house. They will see how serious the situation is. Then, we could ship in feed and seed to these people who so badly need it.

Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):

May

I be privileged, Mr. Speaker, with other members in this house who have preceded me, to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address.

I do so with the knowledge that to speak in this house, particularly at the opening of the session, is an ordeal through which many people have gone and one which they have carried out with a great deal of distinction to themselves and to this house.

Before beginning my main theme today I wish to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), for whose opinions I have always had a great deal of respect. He referred to the large iron ore deposits which we have in Newfoundland

The Address-Mr. Stick and Labrador. In the course of his remarks he said this at pages 56 and 57 of Hansard for January 12, 1956:

In the field of trade we find that many significant decisions concerning Canadian economic life are made outside of Canada, that many Canadian firms which are subsidiaries of United States companies buy in the United States from their parent companies or buy from firms with which their United States parent has also entered into contracts, thus placing obstacles in the way of the diversification of Canadian trade.

Should we then not insist that more of our own resources should be used in this country? Not long ago I read in the Montreal Gazette a statement made by John C. Doyle, president of Canadian Javelin, which referred to what he called the most valuable and largest iron ore deposit in the world in Labrador. He referred to talks which were going on between the company and United States steel and iron ore interests, and he seemed to suggest that it would be only a matter of time until the company was taken over lock, stock and barrel, as he put it, by United States concerns.

Of course we know what will happen. This iron ore will go down on the railways which are being built to the sea, it will be put into ships and go to the United States.

We have had these iron ore deposits in Labrador for countless ages. We know that Canada is not in a position to digest these large deposits of iron ore, and the question arises, what are we going to do with them? Well, we cannot eat them. It has been suggested also in this house by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and I have commended him for it, that we give away the great surplus of wheat that we have to the hungry people. As a practising Christian, I cannot take exception to that proposition. Well, we have friends and we have allies who need our raw materials. If we cannot digest our raw materials at the present time I think we have a duty also to our allies to see that they get the raw materials for which their economy is so badly in need.

I am not so concerned about foreign capital coming into Canada to help us with the development of our natural resources. One need only picture the oil situation in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It needed not only United States capital but United States know-how to develop it. If we took a selfish attitude regarding our natural resources, what would have happened to the oil in those provinces? May I say also that of this iron ore which we have there and which we want to put to use, according to the latest information I have, two or three million tons will be going to our allies in Europe to help their economies.

I am not concerned so much about what capital comes in to develop our natural resources, as I am with the fact that we should develop them. When the time comes that Canada needs these natural resources this government, or whatever government is in power, will see that Canada gets her share

first. I think that policy has been enunciated in this house for three or four years. I am not concerned so much, therefore, with whether United States capital or any other capital comes into this country as I am with the development of the natural resources we have and putting them to the best use to which they can be put.

We have heard a great deal about wheat in this country. We shall hear more about the wheat situation and the plight of the farmers in the west with whom we all sympathize. I believe a way will be found to help the farmers and relieve them of some of the burdens they are carrying. I am sure that those of us who do not belong to the west will sympathetically receive any reasonable proposition which comes before this house to alleviate any distress in the western provinces. We are not one-section Canadians in this house, we are Canadians. What affects one part of this country affects the other part.

In connection with these very large iron deposits which we have in Labrador, may I say also that we have the largest hydroelectric potential of any part of the world. I refer to the Hamilton river-Grand Falls hydroelectric potential. It may be news to members in this house that a very large British concern, allied with other British concerns, has spent several million dollars in investigating this hydroelectric potential. We have these huge iron ore deposits, and we have other mineral deposits. Right alongside of them we have this wonderful hydroelectric potential which we want to put to use. If we develop our iron ore deposits, we will develop the hydroelectric energy sufficient to run those mines.

We are concerned in Newfoundland to see that this development takes place, and that it goes forward as speedily as possible. It may be news also to some members who have advocated our natural resources in Canada that for the last 50 years we have been exporting iron ore from Bell island to European countries of some 2-5 million tons and a half million to Dominion Steel in Nova Scotia and the balance goes overseas. I have mentioned this in order to bring to the attention of the house that we have a large potential in natural resources which we want to develop and which we wish to develop in the best interests of Canada and the people of our province. In this way we hope to achieve a diversification of our economy and allow our people to get the work they so badly need.

I turn now from quoting the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to a few remarks made by the hon. member for

Macleod (Mr. Hansell) which are found on page 62 of Hansard for January 12, 1956. The hon. member made his usual witty and entertaining speech, and referred to the situation out west. He used these words:

In a nutshell the problem is this. Here are six loaves of bread and here are six hungry men with no money in their pockets.

The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) is a brother divine. I was rather disappointed -when he mentioned the six loaves of bread -that he did not say anything about the little fishes. I am sure he knows the scriptures, and the lesson which we have read so many times, namely, the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. He will remember that that lesson refers to bread and fish; it was not bread alone. In that lesson our Lord demonstrated that what the people needed was a balanced diet. That brings me to my theme, the purpose for which I am speaking here today, namely, the fisheries of Canada.

Mr. Winters:

Very good.

Mr. Stick:

There are two main primary producers in this country, the farmers and the fishermen. We have heard a lot about the problems of our friends on the farm, but we do not hear overmuch about the problems of the fishermen. Newfoundland was discovered some 450 odd years ago, and it was discovered because of the great wealth which was found in the sea around our coast. We may say that today the fisheries are our national economic problem. It is our national industry; it has always been so and it is still so today. Anybody who knows anything about the sea knows that the fisherman's life is not a rosy one. It is a life of hazard and a gamble, when he has to go out day by day and night by night seeking a living on the face of the water.

Many years ago a bank manager was transferred from the west to St. John's, Newfoundland, and he made a remark something like this. He found it far more difficult to make advances to fish merchants than to farmers when he was in western Canada because when he made his advance on the prospective wheat crop and other grains he could see those grains growing, but when he made advances to a fish merchant he could not see the fish in the sea. According to his story, he was taking greater risks making advances to fish merchants than when he was lending money to farmers. That is true. Our men take chances. Our men go out in their big boats, and a great majority of them in small boats. They go out day by day, and they do not know whether they

The Address-Mr. Stick are going to get a catch of fish or not; but they go. They take the chance; they take all the risks involved in storms and stress of weather which can destroy their fishing gear overnight. They may have very little to show for their day's toil. This has been going on for many centuries in Newfoundland. Therefore, it may be said that our people live by faith, faith in divine Providence to give them the blessings of the harvest of the sea.

Newfoundland has been described as a land of hope and tragedy. I think there is a lot of truth in that also. We have had many tragedies in Newfoundland, but we have always had hope.

As I have said, this has been going on for hundreds of years. Our fishermen now find themselves in the position where it is very difficult for them to replace their equipment owing to the high cost of replacement. It is true that a few years ago we had a depression in our fishing industry. At the present time things are looking a lot better. The high cost of replacement is something about which our fishermen have to worry, and rightly so. As I said, they go out and they produce. They are one of the primary producers of this country. They accept all the hazards of their calling. They look around and they see the products which they have brought in being processed in the processing plants which we have around our coast and which we hope to expand, and they see the workers in those plants qualifying for unemployment insurance. They who have produced the wherewithal to give work to these people are denied this privilege. I go around my riding year after year and I speak to hundreds of our men and our women, too. They say to me: "Mr. Stick, why can we not get the benefits of unemployment insurance?" I say to them: "It is not an easy thing to bring about; there are great difficulties in the way." I hope that in time, after a proper study is made, our fishermen may have the benefit of the system of unemployment insurance, for which they are willing to pay, so that they may feel they are not discriminated against.

Last year we had a report on this problem from an interdepartmental committee. The most charitable thing I can say about that report is that it is the most negative report that I ever read in my life. That committee went out of its way to find every excuse it could so that our fishermen would not have benefit from unemployment insurance. I spoke on it last year and I make an appeal

The Address-Mr. Stick now. Our fishermen in Newfoundland feel- and I expect this feeling persists in other provinces as well-they have a right to participate in unemployment insurance. Furthermore, they are prepared to pay their proportion the same as other workers. My appeal today is this. Their cause is just; they are worthy of it. I hope the interdepartmental committee will carry on its work until it does find a way to include the fishermen in the national scheme of unemployment insurance which we have in Canada. I do not care what department it comes under. I do not care whether it comes under the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Fisheries. I believe it can be done. This problem can be solved. If there is a will there is a way. It is high time this problem was solved, and something should be done at this session or at the next session.

This is my idea as to how it should be done. I do not want boards of civil servants going around checking on the fishermen to see whether they are fishing today, tomorrow or the next day. In the main, our fishermen are honest people. I put forth this idea for what it is worth. In Newfoundland we know that if a man catches a certain quantity of fish he is a full-time fisherman, and that he must fish the whole season to catch that quantity of fish, whether it is codfish, lobsters or other kinds of fish. Let us get a yardstick so that if the fisherman catches a thousand pounds or two thousand pounds, let us say, of codfish, he would be entitled to full benefit of unemployment insurance, and he would pay for them. If we work out the yardstick on that basis, then he would get his receipts from the merchant to whom he sells his fish, and on those receipts the government, with their agents going around and with their fish inspectors, would know very well that he had caught this quantity of fish and therefore he is a full-time fisherman; he has fished the whole 190 days and is entitled to unemployment insurance because he has paid his assessment the same as the other ordinary worker. Surely, some yardstick can be worked out. There are enough brains in the civil service of Canada to work out a yardstick so that our fishermen by fishing the full time would reap the benefit of unemployment insurance.

The argument used against my suggestion is that it would be subsidizing the fishermen. Well, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. I have heard the word "subsidization" used as an excuse before. If we adopt such a. scheme, then it will encourage our

fMr. Stick.]

fishermen not only in the fall of the year when they get discouraged and seek some other kind of work, but it will encourage them to keep on fishing right up until the weather prohibits them from fishing. It will also encourage our people in the winter months of January, February, March and part of April when they have nothing to do, when they find that they cannot get employment elsewhere and when they work preparing their boats and building their boats. It will give encouragement to these people by assuring them that in those four months they will be looked after. They are paying for it. It will encourage them to carry on in this industry which is one of the oldest in the world. By carrying on, they will be contributing their share to the economic life of this country.

The fishing industry today is worth about $200 million to Canada. It is capable of great expansion. It cannot be expanded if you have a disgruntled fishing class. If we encourage our fishermen, by showing them they have the sympathy of our people, they will be prepared fully to accept the risks under which they have carried on for many years and they will be adding to the industry and the wealth of this country in no uncertain terms.

May I say a final word. At the main entrance to the House of Commons are these words carved in stone:

The wholesome sea is at her gates,

Her gates both east and west.

The words "and north" also should be included.

Everything that comes from the sea is wholesome. Doctors will send you on a sea voyage and to the seacoast as an antidote for frayed and distorted nerves. What applies in the medical profession with regard to health measures, applies to the food which comes from the sea. It is nutritious. Only lately we have been finding that out. What the people of Canada need to eat is a balanced diet. By eating more fish our people's health will be that much more improved. On looking around at the people in this part of Canada, I see a lot of anaemic children, with no colour in their cheeks; but when I go back home and see our own children with the healthy look on their faces, I can only come to one conclusion, namely that it is the fish diet that gives them the bloom in their cheeks. Canada needs a balanced diet and more fish is what we must have to build up the fishing industry. For the sake of Canada and for the health of our people, here and now I advocate that we

encourage our fishermen by giving them unemployment insurance whereby they may carry on under the hazards under which they have been carrying on for centuries. If they do not get this encouragement they will feel disappointment.

Mr. Speaker, I have just about finished. In making this plea, I do so in the best interests of all of Canada and not in the interest of one section only. I do so because if we look after our fishermen and encourage them as we do our farmers and everyone else, I believe we will have a Canada fit to live in; a Canada to which other people are looking and to whose shores they will want to come; a Canada which we all desire; a happy Canada, a prosperous Canada and a good Canada in which to live. We have the land, the forests, the mines and the sea. Surely, with that combination we can work out a scheme of economics whereby all the people of Canada will enjoy that prosperity which we all wish them to have, full health, full stomachs and faith in the future of our country which I believe is brighter than that of any other country.

At one o'clock the house took recess.