Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):

I wish to direct a question to

the Minister of Trade and Commerce having to do with the announcement he made yesterday with respect to the United Kingdom wheat agreement. He advised that the price of wheat to the United Kingdom would be SI .55 a bushel for the next two years, with a minimum of SI a bushel at the fourth year. My question to the minister is this. Is the government now in a position to state whether there will be any change in the domestic price in Canada

now SI .25 a bushel-or whether there will be any change in the initial price of $1.25 which is now paid to wheat growers? If the minister is not in a position to make an announcement now perhaps he would do so at an early date.

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

A great deal of attention has been and is still being given to the point raised by the leader of the opposition. This crop year ends on Wednesday next, and it naturally follows that some time between now and Wednesday a statement must be made in this connection. I am hoping to be able to make a statement next Tuesday.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):

I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister 63260-246J

of Mines and Resources a startling charge made in the issue of the Canadian Mining Reporter which hon. members received this morning, relating to the Tomahawk iron mine at Hastings, Ontario. I do not expect the minister to give an answer now, since this may be a new problem to him, but I think the matter is of sufficient importance that after he has investigated it, perhaps on Monday, he might report to the House of Commons so that we may know the story in full. I shall send the paper over to the minister so that he may be apprised of the allegations which it contains.

Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):

The hon. member for Peel showed me this article when I came into the house. I shall make inquiries and report later.

Mr. BRIDGES:

This section was amended by the marine and fisheries committee.

Section as amended agreed to.

Mr. MacINNIS:

Mr. Chairman, I have to leave the chamber to attend a committee meeting, and I am taking this early opportunity to say a word on this bill. I oppose it.

I cannot see a more unwise measure at this time than the bill before us. Along with other members I am serving on a standing committee of this house and hearing matters in dispute between wage earners and their am-

Judges Act

ployers, with the government in the picture I believe as having set down certain basic increases in wages beyond which boards cannot go. In other words, the wage rates were frozen in 1941, and there is only a slight relaxation in those rates at the present time.

The Minister of Labour indicated in the house some days ago that any increase in wages over ten cents an hour would be fraught with danger to the country because of its inflationary effect. I do not know whether that is true or not; but the point is that wage increases in the very low wage categories are being resisted, with the result that we have now in Canada some 50.000 or 60,000 industrial workers on strike. Those increases are being resisted. And at that very time, with these conditions existing, we have before us a bill which proposes to raise to the extent of as much as one-third the salaries of persons who are already getting extremely high salaries in relation to the wages being paid industrial workers in Canada.

To the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who, at the present time receives $15,000, we are proposing to add one-third more, to make it $20,000. To me this does not make sense, from the point of view either of economics or of social thinking. It would appear to me that any reasonable society would consider its duty to be that of raising the living standards of those at the bottom before raising the standards of those at the top. As a matter of fact an increase in salary to a man receiving $9,000, $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 does not raise his standard of living, bemuse the increased amount received will not be spent in that way.

Liquor.

Mr. MacINNIS:

I do not know that that is a fair remark, even if it comes from this side of the house. I am not suggesting at all that these people will spend part of their salary on liquor. And even if they did, it is their business, not mine. That does not enter into the picture. But the point is that they do not need to spend any of that increase in salary on the basic essentials of life. The great majority of the people in Canada have never yet received an income sufficient to provide their essential needs. I cannot understand a man of intelligence and culture, and with an understanding of what makes society and keeps it integrated, bringing in a measure to increase salaries where they ought not to be increased, thus creating further class divisions in Canada, and at a time when we should be doing the very opposite.

Mr. FLEMING:

You are creating them.

I Mr. Maclnnis.]

Mr. MacINNIS:

It is creating class divisions, because the man who receives $20,000, $15,000, $12,000 or $10,000 in salary has no understanding of or connection or association with the man who must live on a wage from $500 to $1,500 or $2,000, or perhaps even $3,000.