Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Robichaud:

The hon. member will have his opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. Ferguson:

I have it now. [DOT]

Mr. Robichaud:

When the hon. member accused our able Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) of inactivity and indifference in the manner in which he lately has been conducting the affairs of his department, was he really sincere and was he aware of the fact that under his leadership and guidance his department is spending over one billion dollars a year of the Canadian taxpayers' money for the welfare of the Canadian people? Is he aware of the fact that in order to double family allowances, the Canadian taxpayers would have to pay an extra $380 million a year and that in order to increase the old age pension by $20 a month another $180 million would have to be appropriated? He should tell us if his leader and the other members of his party are prepared to advocate this additional expenditure of $560 million to be added to the burden of the already heavily taxed Canadian taxpayer.

The Address-Mr. Robichaud

The hon. member mentioned additional help for mental hospitals. Is he aware of the fact that the federal government has contributed over $1 million to build a new mental hospital in his own town of Campbellton? I would say that our present Minister of National Health and Welfare is well aware of the needs of the citizens of Canada. A matter of great importance, as the minister just stated a few moments ago, namely the establishment of a health insurance policy, is now under serious study. I am confident that the Canadian public would prefer to see the implementation of this welfare legislation rather than the doubling of family allowances.

Mr. Brooks:

Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare write your speech?

Mr. Robichaud:

Was the hon. member expressing the policy of his party when he said in French last night-and he was careful to say it in French so that even the members of his own party could not follow him too closely-as follows, as reported at page 176 of Hansard:

(Translation) :

When will the government recognize that, before giving over a billion dollars to England, it should give something to Canadian citizens?

(Text):

Such nonsensical, exaggerated and wild statement's may pass unnoticed in an election campaign but not before this House of Commons.

Mr. Van Horne:

I rise on a question of privilege.

Mr. Robichaud:

You had your chance last night.

Mr. Speaker:

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

Mr. Van Horne:

Is this the hon. member who is known in New Brunswick as the fellow who is always asleep in the house?

Sit down.

Mr. Robichaud:

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

*See also pages 225-26.

The Address-Mr. Rohichaud

1 would remind the hon. member that crown lands are strictly under provincial jurisdiction, and that he should direct his request again to the government of New Brunswick, with whom he is so closely related.

(Translation) :

Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the house an unfortunate situation which affects a large number of electors in my constituency and more particularly the 6,000 residents of Shippigan and Miscou islands. As I stated before the house last year, those residents are served by a ferry during the shipping season but, in the wintertime, their only means of communication is an ice bridge.

I understand that the construction of a bridge between Shippigan island and the mainland is primarily a provincial responsibility. The provincial authorities might have already undertaken the erection of that bridge had not the cost of the work been greatly increased due to the fact that a navigation channel must be left free to enable the fishing boats of the district to go to their fishing grounds. However since the maintenance of navigable waters comes under federal jurisdiction, I think that the Department of Transport or the Department of Public Works would be justified in sharing in the construction of that bridge.

Those of us who live in the district are aware of the difficulties and hardships of those islanders, especially during the period preceding the formation of the ice bridge between the island and the mainland. On December 9 last, the ferry boat was seriously damaged and it was only a month later that service could be half restored.

I must say that hundreds of residents of Shippigan island volunteered their services and worked long hours without pay to cut the ice and open a channel that would enable the ferry to resume operations. All this time, the islanders were without coal or fuel oil and, in many cases, lacked essential supplies. There was, too, the sad spectacle of sick people being transported in men-drawn sleds across treacherous ice for emergency hospital treatment on the mainland.

During the holiday season, there was a delay of five or six days before mail could be delivered to the various post offices on those two islands. Their residents rely essentially, for their livelihood, on the fishing in-

dustry and on field moss. Huge quantities of fish and moss ready for shipment could not be shipped owing to the lack of transportation; the economy of that area was therefore seriously affected.

I am not in a position to confirm whether the New Brunswick provincial authorities called on the federal government to invite them to share in the construction of a bridge between Shippigan island and the mainland. Under normal conditions, this construction would be essentially a provincial matter but, as I mentioned earlier, since the cost of that construction is substantially increased on account of navigation, I believe that the federal government should take part in that project.

May I express here my appreciation to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) for the co-operation given us by his department for the improvement of facilities in the fishing centres of Gloucester county. However, I regret that, so far, we have been unable to get a favourable decision for some improvements to the docks of Maisonnette and for the construction of a wharf at Petite-Riviere-de-l'lle. I realize that these two fishing centres have difficulties which are embarrassing enough and hard to solve for the departmental engineers but I still think that the Department of Public Works should be in a position to meet these problems and to give its early approval to these two projects. The residents of those two centres are fishermen first and foremost and have no other means of providing a living for their families. It is not reasonable to expect them to continue operating in such conditions? Those good fishermen deserve more favourable consideration on the part of the federal authorities.

I would not like to resume my seat without asking the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to give favourable consideration to a revision of the new Unemployment Insurance Act with a view to extending its benefits to this large number of seasonal workers at present excluded from its provisions. I also support the request made by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) and express the wish that these fishermen may be allowed to come in under this legislation as soon as possible.

(Text):

Mr. R. R. Knighi (Saskatoon):

Mr. Speaker, I cannot hope to emulate the enthusiasm of both hon. gentlemen from New Brunswick.

One thing I did notice-and I would congratulate them upon it-is that they are so perfectly bilingual it must be convenient at times to call each other names in either language.

As most hon. members know, I come from a city constituency. The members of my group who have spoken up to the moment have come from rural constituencies, and they are concerned with the question of wheat and its marketing. Since I come from a city which is in the centre of the wheat country, a city whose reason for existence is service to the farmers who live in that wheat country, and whose livelihood depends on the prosperity of the farmers in that country, I shall make no apology for trying to reflect some of the opinions that are being expressed in and around my city. Even our industries are geared to farming, because there we have great storage elevators. The dominion government has a storage elevator there. We have flour mills, packing plants, a vegetable oil extracting factory, and so on. Therefore, we are dependent upon agriculture, which is all around us. This is acknowledged, of course, by other people, even by labour, who have passed resolutions in regard to the question of farm advances upon stored grain. They, if their resolutions are any indication, are almost as anxious about the question as the farmers themselves.

I hold in my hand a copy of a report which says that Mr. F. W. McClelland, president of the Saskatoon and district labour council, issued a statement deploring the tie-up of grain. He said that it was giving his organization serious worry. This, he says, is a very serious situation, as lack of money in the farmers' pockets means not only hardship for the farmers, but also reduces business for businessmen and industry, and results at times in labour lay-offs. This is the meat of the resolution that was passed. It asks that the government guarantee cash advances to farmers on grain stored upon the farms; so much for the opinion of labour.

One might have thought that perhaps the pronouncements of the government and the pronouncement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and the fact that certain legislation was on the order paper by way of the speech from the throne, might have stilled, as it were, the controversy that is taking place. But I hold in my hand the issue of the Star-Phoenix of January 11, which was printed after the contents of the speech from the throne were known. It contains a picture of an assembly of people and says that more than 500 persons crowded into convocation hall of the university Tuesday afternoon to hear a panel discuss

The Address-Mr. Knight Canada's grain marketing difficulties. This grain marketing problem, of course, is a longterm one.

Apart from the need of getting money immediately into the hands of farmers, the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday morning dealt with some of the western demands-I think I should say the C.C.F. demands also because what we have advocated has been much in line with what the farmers themselves are advocating in the west. To remind you of them, sir, I wish to read a few of them. Immediate advance payments are recommended; use of barter trade where that is practical, and would not interfere with labour in this country. The acceptance of sterling and other soft currency programs for assistance to underprivileged nations should be stepped up and increased, and we should have a more efficient staff of salesmen for Canadian wheat throughout the world.

The minister dealt with some or perhaps all of those points yesterday. I was going to comment that he had not mentioned, for I had noticed it too, the matter of a proposed differential between the domestic and the export price. But my hon. friend the member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) raised the point this morning, and the minister has made his comments on that, so I will not need to deal with it.

While I am not a technical expert, we are fortunate in this group in having one or two young men who are themselves graduates in agriculture who are themselves farmers, and who are particularly interested in the question now before the house and the country, men who have made a close study of figures and statistics. That is not in my line, so I shall refrain from trying to do it.

I would like to comment on the general attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He said that he was at a meeting or two in the west and I think he mentioned Edmonton, perhaps, in particular. He did mention the meeting of wheat pool delegates in convention at the city of Regina. He spoke there on one day and he said he had heard the delegates there did favour the resolution on advance payments. I think he played this down, a resolution which favoured advances on farm-stored grain; a resolution which, may I say, is endorsed practically unanimously in the west. I am talking now about farmers irrespective of their political opinions on other matters.

As to this playing down, and as to the assertion by the minister that there is a lack of unanimity and that sort of thing, what are the facts? Well, as for the playing down of

The Address-Mr. Knight the wheat pool resolution, one cannot do that very well. It has been attempted before. Now I am not mentioning this politically at all but it did happen. It was Mr. McDonald, who leads the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, who asserted that the result of the wheat pool convention was that the delegates were quite in agreement with what the government was doing. The wheat pool hastened, through some of its officers, I know not who, to deny that particular assertion, and so it was obvious that Mr. McDonald had been either misinformed or misquoted. The statement put out by the wheat pool says:

Over the years, the policy of the wheat pool organization is laid down by the delegates in annual meeting. When the pool delegates convened for the 31st annual meeting on November 1, the regular order of business was suspended-

They must have thought it pretty important.

-in order to undertake a special discussion on the emergency situation in farm finance.

Then there followed a complete discussion of the whole situation and the delegates passed a resolution as follows:

That we urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on farm-stored grain.

They did pass other resolutions. I do not think I need to give them to the house. I have no intention of cutting that one out from the other resolutions, and if anyone wishes I shall be pleased to read them. I skip a bit and go on:

The policy of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, as approved by its delegates in annual meeting, is clear-cut.

Then, I have underlined this.

It does not favour the government's proposal for bank loans.

Well, so far as playing down the decision of the wheat pool delegates is concerned, I think I have given the answer. As well as those meetings attended by the minister and by other members, I am sure by Liberal members of this house, there were other meetings. As a matter of fact there were hundreds of meetings. I can mention the meeting at Regina where my genial friend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) was debating with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), and may I say that my sympathy in that case was with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, irrespective of what the subject was.

However, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants any information as to the real feeling at that particular meeting, he can certainly get it in detail from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who, I am sure, would admit the almost unanimous support

for cash advances there. Then there was the farm conference at Saskatoon, and I have the minutes of the meeting before me, but I will not weary you with them. I see across from me the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). You may be sure if the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants a correct analysis of the opinion of that meeting, he could get it from the hon. member for Rosthern. The meeting at Saskatoon, was billed as a farm conference but it was not exactly that, because it was made up of representatives for various organizations, representatives of the grain trade for example. Some of the ministers of agriculture, I think from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, were there. I do not think the minister of agriculture for Alberta was there. The cooperatives were represented, school trustees and labour and so on. Numerous resolutions were passed.

Let me read you one that stands out. I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, from the Co-operative Consumer of October 7. This resolution was,

I think, the main resolution at the conference:

. . . the conference urged the federal government to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on grain they had in store up to the value of one-half the normal delivery expected.

Then it makes some provisions as to how these advances should be paid and so forth. Skipping a little bit, further down it says:

It was also stressed that this was an advance and not a loan.

Well, that was the farm conference at Saskatoon. I do not think there is any doubt about what those people thought about what the government should do. I did not intend to mention what follows but I happened to see it, in the same paper. I might say the co-operatives in our province are playing a more and more potent and meaningful role in public life. I have here a copy of a night letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) from George Urwin, president of the Federated Co-operatives Limited, in which he says:

Respectfully suggest prompt action on request from conference of representatives from all sections of our economy concluded in Saskatoon yesterday. Lack of purchasing power through inability to market grain causing severe hardship which can only be remedied by immediate action by your government in respect to the requests of the conference.

There is not much hesitancy or doubt there about what those people at Saskatoon asked for and really wanted despite the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce plays down those requests, and says they were not unanimous. He says there was a difference of opinion among those farmers as to what they actually wanted. Now an immediate

result of that conference at Saskatoon was that a delegation from that conference was sent here to Ottawa. There, I think, was one place where the minister got his idea there was a lack of unanimity. I have already explained that conference consisted not of farmers alone but a wide representation of other interests in addition.

Now in a case like that the only kind of resolution you can get passed is a resolution which will compel unanimity. When this delegation came to Ottawa and presented its resolutions, there was a storm of anger among the farmers in the west. Some of them said the delegation had scuttled the Saskatchewan conference and it was a milk and water affair that was presented to the government. As far as the farmers of that conference were concerned, they were very irascible indeed about the alleged neglect of that particular delegation to press home the point which the farmers wanted to make. I think that explains to some extent why that delegation was not as forceful as it might have been.

Yesterday the minister linked up the C.C.F. with these particular resolutions, but I may say that it is not particularly a C.C.F. business. Liberal farmers are just as concerned as other people. It is interesting to note that the Liberal association of Saskatoon made quite a point of the interest being too high. One gentleman attending that meeting was quite indignant and said that the 5J per cent rate was exorbitant when the Canadian wheat board could borrow money at 31 per cent. At that time they did not know whether the rate would be 5 or 5J per cent. Those are not my words, they are the words of a member of the local Liberal association. Another speaker was very critical of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for not, and so on and so forth.

I do not know whether there was any significance in this, but that particular meeting of the association was called to appoint officers for the coming year and the president and secretary of the association both gave notice that they would not be available.

Mr. McDonald, the leader of the Liberal party in the province, had something to say about the interest rate, and I think he made the most amazing contribution of all in regard to that matter. I have here a report which appeared in a November issue of the Star-Phoenix referring to a statement made by Mr. McDonald. If Mr. McDonald ever becomes premier of the province I hope he does not take on the treasury portfolio. The report stated that Mr. McDonald had indicated that a majority of the loans would be repaid in six months and the interest rate thus would amount to only 21 per cent rather

The Address-Mr. Knight than 5 per cent. Mr. McDonald would be most valuable to the small loan companies in this country in connection with their rather non-understandable interest rates.

I must find fault with the insinuation- the press took even more than that out of it -by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who must have been angry, as I do not think he really meant it, that somehow the C.C.F. by what it was advocating was opposing the wheat board system of marketing. The minister knows better than that. Everyone in the country who is interested knows better than that. That type of marketing is a fundamental part of our philosophy and there is no question about that.

I was at a number of meetings and they certainly endorsed the wheat board system of marketing. I never in all my life heard anyone take such a drilling as did Mr. Stanley Jones, president of the Winnipeg grain exchange, in the town of Swan River in northern Manitoba. I was there and I heard 300 angry and very earnest farmers, all of whom were in favour of advance payments on grain, do everything to that man except lay hands on him. He escaped, but that is about all. I would point out that a great number, a proportion at least of those farmers at that particular meeting, were C.C.F. people and they certainly were in support of the wheat board method of marketing. As I say, I never knew a man to get such a going-over.

I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) over there and perhaps I should modify my previous statement by mentioning that at the meeting at Minnedosa I understand he was drilled until the small hours of the morning by another group of farmers who apparently had about the same opinion as most of the farmers in western Canada.

Mr. Garson:

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

Mr. Knight:

I am quite prepared to accept the minister's statement. Perhaps he did not feel things quite as badly as they were represented in the press. But I would point out that the farmers argued with the minister until that time. Would the minister not say that they were opposed to the actions of the government in this particular regard. I think the minister was quite fair in saying that this discussion was a perfectly proper one.

192 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Knight

Mr. Garson:

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

Mr. Knight:

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

Mr. Garson:

No, Mr. Speaker-my friend-

Mr. Knight:

Unless you are taking time off, Mr. Speaker, I must object.

Mr. Speaker:

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