Mr. TUCKER:

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

Mr. PEARKES:

Why wait?

Mr. GREEN:

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

Mr. TUCKER:

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

Mr. GREEN:

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

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart

Mr. TUCKER:

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

Mr. GREEN:

I repeat my suggestion. Mind you, if the government is willing to take the recommendation of that committee as to the amount of increase, I think there is a good deal in what the hon. member has said; but I am afraid the position is that the government has made up its mind that it will go thus far and no farther, and it is for that reasofi that it is willing to have the increases referred to the committee.

The committee should have been set up in December. The need existed then as it does now. Certainly it should have been set up at once when the house resumed on January 26, and I say it should now be set up without any further delay and should be given the power to deal with all these questions.

In conclusion, I warn the government that it must face each of these questions and it must face them at this session. There are other problems which I have not the time to deal with tonight, such as the question of preenlistment condition, the question of the benefit of the doubt, the fact that the wife of a veteran of the first war, maTried after the first of May, 1944, can get no allowance, failure to give imperial veterans war veterans allowance, and the need to give more assistance to such groups as the firefighters and auxiliary services, the young women who served in the Canadian Red Cross and the men who served in the ferry command. These are all topics which no doubt will be discussed by the committee and they, too, will have to be met during the present session.

There is this fact always to be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the veterans' problems can never be finally disposed of and put away in a filing cabinet. As long as there remains one veteran of either war alive who needs assistance, veterans affairs must be a main problem for the Canadian parliament.

I think it was a mistake to make such a fuss about getting out a veterans charter in 1946. I said at the time I thought it was unwise to do so, because it gave the idea that everything was settled. We had a charter; there were no new problems that would arise and we could forget about veterans. Actually, this charter was just a revision and a bringing up-to-date of veterans legislation, and a worthwhile work it was too. But the problem will never be settled, and no matter what we do to help out Canada's veterans, we cannot adequately repay them and their dependents for the sacrifices that have been made.

Mr. A. W. STUART (Charlotte):

Some little time has elapsed since the speech from the throne was read on December 6 last. However, I wish to join with those who have taken part in the debate in complimenting the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. In rising to take part in this debate, I do so as one who considers it his duty to express what he believes to be the opinion of the great majority of the people he has the honour to represent.

The matter I wish to discuss in this debate was introduced by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) and the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor). It has to do with the Atlantic seaports. On February 6 the hon. member for St. John-Albert brought to the attention of the house and particularly the Department of Transport the discriminatory attitude which this department had taken with regard to shipping through the ports of Saint John and Halifax. The hon. member for St. John-Albert spoke in this debate, as I say, on February 6, and the following day the Saint John Tele graph-Journal published the greater part of his remarks. The Department of Transport was accused of "bare-faced trickery" and "double dealing" with regard to shipments through the port of Saint John. On February 10 an editorial appeared in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal. I will not quote it all because it is quite lengthy, but I will quote the last paragraph which reads as follows:

It is good to have one of our representatives in parliament speaking out boldly on behalf of our ports and it is to he hoped that other members from the maritime provinces will realize that this issue transcends party lines and will support the vital cause with equal force. If politics is discarded and our spokesmen at Ottawa show a united front on this question the ports of Halifax and Saint John will at last win justice.

I fully realize that the members from New Brunswick and the maritime provinces should endeavour to co-operate in every way possible when a question of benefits to our province or to the maritime provinces is concerned. I regret, however, that I cannot agree with statements made by the hon. member for St. John-Albert or by the senior member for Halifax. If cheaper freight rates can be obtained through Portland, Maine, than through Atlantic seaports the exporter will certainly take advantage of that situation; and in order to divert this traffic from its economic course the Canadian people would be called upon to subsidize Atlantic seaports. It is a well-known fact that the volume of United States goods shipped through Canadian ports is much greater than is that of Canadian

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart

goods shipped through United States ports. Much serious thought should be given this extremely important matter before any action is taken by this government that might disrupt the national economic movement of goods between these two great countries. I am convinced that this would be an unpopular move. As has been argued on many occasions by hon. members sitting opposite, it is far better to let things such as this take their natural course than to interfere by substituting some artificial arrangement which at best would be only a temporary measure, not a permanent solution.

I might also add that if the same publicity is given in the press to my remarks as was given to those of the hon. member for St. John-Albert I have nothing to fear as far as my county is concerned. I am confident that I shall be expressing the views of the great majority of the people living in the county of Charlotte.

As hon. members are aware, Saint John is called a national port. We in Charlotte county believe this name should be changed, for this reason. If any Canadian outside the county of St. John makes an application for work at this port, he must pay an enormous fee, even though millions of dollars of Canadian money has gone in to build the port up. A citizen of Canada from outside St. John county must pay that fee. A citizen of St. John county is treated in an entirely different manner. The hon. member for St. John-Albert pointed out that a discriminatory attitude was taken by the Department of Transport with regard to shipments to Saint John port. I would ask him to explain the discrimination shown in this respect. It might be said that there is a selfish motive in the stand I have taken, and perhaps rightly so, because hon. members taking part in discussions of this kind usually speak for their own constituents who naturally have priority over all others; in many cases a general survey is not considered. This statement I believe can be borne out if we review the period when controls were being rigidly enforced in Canada. A control that was beneficial to an individual or his constituents received his support. Another that might be repulsive to him but of benefit to others was immediately condemned. In other words, we all supported controls on commodities we were obliged to purchase, but did not relish any interference with regard to commodities we might have to sell.

In my home town of St. Andrews we have for many years enjoyed the benefits of United States shipments through that port. It has also been an enormous source of revenue to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Each

and every year hundreds of carloads of tin plate pass through this port to the state of Maine, hundreds of thousands of gallons of edible oils that are used in the canning industry, and thousands of tons of salt used also in this industry. These commodities pass through St. Andrews for one reason only: the freight rate from the western United States is cheaper through Canada than by United States railroads. Undoubtedly United States railroads have endeavoured to have these materials hauled over their own lines, and the same arguments have been put forth as were used by the hon. member for St. John-Albert and the senior member for Halifax. Regardless of political pressure and other influences, however, the canning industries in the state of Maine still take advantage of the cheaper rail haul, and, as I have said, much to the benefit of the county I represent, and to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. After the salt, oil and tin plate reach their destination, raw materials must be found before canning operations are possible. That is where Charlotte county comes into the picture again, because we supply two-thirds of the raw materials used in this enormous canning industry in the eastern state of Maine; and from the time this industry was first established, these raw materials, which are produced by Canadian fishermen, have entered the United States duty free.

To give hon. members some idea of the production and the value of this industry, I shall quote just a few figures. In 1947, sardine fishermen of southern New Brunswick produced 122,000.000 pounds of sardines; that would be approximately 2,000,000 cases of 100 cans each, or, 200,000.000 tins. The value to the fishermen was $1,547,000. Approximately two-thirds of this amount were sold in United States of America. One can readily see the value of this United States market to the fishermen in that locality.

The story, however, is not yet complete with regard to the exportation of the canned sardines. Hundreds of thousands of cases, when ready for shipment, again find their way back to St. Andrews from Eastport, Lubec and Robbinston, Maine, and are shipped to all parts of the United States by the Canadian Pacific Railway, giving employment to dock workers, marine freighters and employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

It is true that the shipping through the port of St. Andrews would be a small item when compared with that of Saint John or Halifax; nevertheless it means a livelihood for several residents of the town and, indirectly, a benefit to many mo-re. The limited amount of ship-

The Address-Mr. A. IF. Stuart

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

Mr. ISNOR:

None at Halifax.

Mr. STUART (Charlotte):

-while this natural port, where dredging would be unnecessary, is being selfishlv neglected. Ships and cargoes valued at millions of dollars-and might I add that at the time those ships and cargoes were lost they were especially valuable; it was during the war-were lost inside Atlantic ports for one reason only, namely, compelling steamship companies and masters of steamships to navigate in harbours that are not, and never will be, safe for navigation.

Regardless of the amount of money expended in their development, St. Croix harbour has more to offer at the present time than any other harbour in the province of New Brunswick can ever hope to have. For many years the people of Charlotte county have endeavoured to have this great port developed, because it is recognized as one of the largest natural harbours in the world, in fact second to none. In Passamaquoddy bay the combined navies of the world could be moored in a landlocked harbour, the like of which cannot be found anywhere else on the continent of North America. During the war, when it was necessary to prepare convoys and arrange them before proceeding overseas, this wonderful harbour would have been of invaluable assistance, since it would have eliminated the necessity of loading freighters lying outside harbours in the open sea for many days awaiting the completion of the convoy, or awaiting berthing space. Many times during the war I criticized this practice, since I knew it was quite unnecessary. Many suffered through the selfishness of a few who sacrificed everything for personal gain.

I have had a few years of experience on cnt water myself, and I am well acquainted with the harbours on the Atlantic coast, having watched their progress over a period of years. So far, I have expressed my personal opinion as to the advantages of St. Croix harbour. At this point, however, I propose to put on record

the opinions and recommendations of men far better qualified than I, who made a survey of this harbour in 1912 and 1913 at the request of the dominion government. At that time the citizens of Charlotte county were hopeful that something would be done in developing the harbour as a national port. One survey was made by Mr. A. D. Swan, member of the institute of civil engineers, and I should like to place his report upon Hansard. It is the St. Croix harbour report of 1912-13:

No. 496, Lake of the Woods building, Montreal, March 4, 1913.

Hon. Robert Rogers,

Minister of Public Works,

Dominion of Canada.

Sir,-

St. Croix River, Charlotte County, N.B.

Having been honoured with instructions from you to examine into and report on the St. Croix river, in Charlotte county, New Brunswick, with a view as to its suitability or otherwise for a new deep water harbour which would be open all the year round for the largest class of merchant shipping, I beg respectfully to submit the following:

On 29th November, 1913, I left the port of Saint John. N.B., by tug boat and steamed down the bay of Fundy to the estuary of the St. Croix river, proceeding by way of Head Harbour passage, an opening between Campobello island and Deer island and distant some fifty miles from Saint John. The river St. Croix forms the international boundary between the state of Maine, U.S.A., and the province of New Brunswick, Canada. Having examined the entrance I continued up the river, passing, the town of Eastport, Maine, on the left, till the town of St. Andrews, about fifteen miles from the mouth of the river, was reached. I examined the approaches to the port of St. Andrew's and possible development from Passamaquoddy bay, and landing, examined the fore shore; after which I proceeded nine miles further up the river to Oak Point, the head of deep water navigation and situated about five miles southeast of the town of St. Stephen. I carefully examined the headland of Oak Point and The Ledge, as well as the Canadian side of the river, and later again visited the port of St. Andrews, also making myself conversant with railway facilities in the vicinity of St. Stephen and St. Andrews and the feasibility or otherwise of extending the railways with a view to the construction of railway terminals alongside deep water wharves. I visited the principal industries in the vicinity of St. Stephen within a radius of about ten miles, and inquired into the amount of present traffic, the existing conditions for handling same, and the reasonable probabilities for future development.

I again visited the river and vicinity on 23rd and 24th February, 1914. and after exceptionally severe weather, and found the river quite open for navigation. Thin ice had formed over it between Oak Point and St. Stephen, but a tug boat passed up without any difficulty whatever.

On this later visit, with your approval, I arranged with the shipping federation of Canada that they should nominate three experienced navigators to accompany me and give me their opinion of the suitability cr otherwise of

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart

the river and approach thereto from a navigable point of view. The representatives nominated and who accompanied me were Captain Gillies of the Donaldson Dine; Captain Elliott of the Canadian Pacific Railway Lines; and Captain Kenny of the Head Line, along with whom I again inspected the river on board the S.S. Lansdowne, kindly placed at my disposal by the marine and fisheries department.

Copy of Navigators' report is appended hereto.

The St. Croix river is navigable for the largest class of vessels for about twenty-five miles in a northerly direction from Campobello island and the bay of Fundy. At its narrowest part between Deer Point and Dog island, near Eastport, the river is about 2,600 feet wide, and it has an average approximate depth at low water the whole way up to Oak Point varying from about 40 feet to 350 feet. For about eight miles of their course, vessels would pass through Passamaquoddy bay. which is approximately about twelve miles long by six miles wide, and which, having deep water, would afford magnificent anchorage if desired. The river and bay are at all seasons of the year free from ice, but there is a variation in the tide of about 24 feet between high and low water. The approach for vessels entering the St. Croix river from the bay of Fundy would be from Grand Manan channel between Grand Manan island and Campobello island, thence by Head Harbour passage; and I understand the Grand "Manan or north channel is looked upon more favourably by navigators than is the channel to the south of Grand Manan island.

The heaviest storms in the bay of Fundy are generally from the southeast, so that as soon as a vessel rounded Head Harbour point, she would be perfectly protected. The current of the river is most rapid for a short distance between Deer Point and Dog island, where it varies from two to five knots, and there is a curve just off the town of Eastport. The radius of the curve would be approximately about one mile and a quarter, but the navigable part of the river or roadstead at that place is about 2.400 feet wide, and the current is comparatively small. It was principally on account of this curve that I desired an opinion from a navigator's point of view, hut the three captains who accompanied me on my second visit of inspection unhesitatingly assured me' that it did not present any difficulty owing to. the great width, and that it compared very favourably with several curves in the St. Lawrence ship channel.

Next in the report is a section dealing with fog in the bay of Fundy and' St. Croix river. I will not read this whole report, but a table is included giving a record of fog at Partridge island, near Saint John, andi at St. Croix. For the years 1912-13 the average at Partridge island was 1,486 hours, while the average at St. Croix harbour was 395 hours. The report goes on:

It-will be seen from the above that the duration of fog, snow or vapour, the three conditions which call for the operation of the alarm, was at St. Croix island in St. Croix harbour only 27 per cent of that at Partridge island at the entrance of Saint John harbour. It is further to be noted that immediately on the turn of Head Harbour, Campobello, the fog condition began to improve.

The next part of the report to which I shall refer is headed' "Conclusion arrived at".

In considering the St. Croix river for shipping purposes, and as a possible auxiliary to Saint John, more particularly for the extensive traffic during the winter months, it seems to have many attractions, such as-It is some fifty miles nearer the mouth of the bay of Fundy than is Saint John. The distance from Montreal to Saint John by Canadian Pacific railway is 483 miles. The distance from Montreal to Oak bay, St. Stephen, by the Canadian Pacific railway is 438 miles; and if in the future a branch line is constructed from Mattawamkeag to Oak Bay, this would shorten the total distance from Montreal to Oak Bay to 410 miles. The river St. Croix and Passamaquoddy bay are comparatively well sheltered waters, never closed by ice, and protected from the swell of the bay of Fundy by numerous islands near the mouth; and as there is deep water right close in shore to the sides of the river and bay, practically no dredging whatever would be necessary to form a shipping channel. Leading lights for the guidance of shipping at night would, of course, have to be provided; probably some joint agreement regarding cost of same could be made with the United States.

Assuming, therefore, that the river offers reasonably attractive facilities for shipping, the question arises as to what part of the river should be developed first; whether St. Andrews ought to be the terminal or some point further inland; and I have no hesitation whatever in recommending that, because of its geographical position, as being the furthest point inland suitable for deep water navigation. Oak Point, overlooking Oak bay, should be selected as the terminus. Oak bay is a magnificent site, reached by a comparatively straight stretch of river, nine miles further inland than St. Andrews, with ample room for swinging and excellent accommodation for the construction of terminal facilities, in addition to which there is already the town of St. Stephen, a short distance off, with numerous industries, moderately large and rapidly increasing population, and varied commercial activities, affording an absolutely certain considerable amount of traffic the whole year round, the moment accommodation is provided. The land at Oak Point slopes gently towards the river and bay, and is all cleared and at present under grass. It is not that St. Andrews does not afford many most excellent points suitable for deep water terminals. but simply that by going further inland, the rail haul is shortened, and there already is considerable local business: nevertheless, if it should be considered advisable to construct one or more wharves at St. Andrews, the side of the river from Joe's Point upwards would he most suitable.

I therefore recommend with great confidence that wharf areas, railway terminals, roads and freight-handling facilities in general should be designed on a comprehensive, practicable scale, and constructed by degrees at Oak Bay as may be necessary. . . .

In conclusion, it is a recognized fact that no port in the world that has kept its facilities ahead of actual requirements, bi.it has experienced immense development followed by great increase of trade and population.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant.

A. D. Swan.

_______________The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith

Just one other statement which, with the permission of the house, I should like to place on Hansard. This is a statement by Captain Mowatt who was for many years port superintendent for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Liverpool, England. He retired in September 1913. This was his report at that time:

The approach to the port of St. Croix via Head Harbour is equal to the approach of any other great ports in the world, and in many instances, excels the best for depth of water. There are no great ports which have such great depth of water, from the sea clear into port, as that of the St. Croix; it is such that the largest ships now in existence, and with the greatest draft of water, can enter the port at the lowest possible tide. The channels from Head Harbour into Passamaqnoddy bay are such that the largest vessel that ever will be built, can be navigated with ease at top speed, with perfect safety. They are free from shoals ami rock, and have ample width for turning a ship in the narrowest part. The tidal currents are nothing in comparison to the river Mersey (England) and other ports which I have navigated.

After rounding the Head Harbour light, there is good anchorage clear up to Oak Point. Passa-maqnoddy bay. being completely land-locked and having a comparatively even denth of water, affords good anchorage in any part of the bay. The current of the St. Croix river is not great, by reason of its evenness of width and depth of water. Vessels of the largest dimensions can he and swing to single anchor, and with from seventy-five to one hundred fathoms of cable, with perfect safety in all' parts of the river north and south of St. Croix island.

I he shore on the east side of the river, from Joes Point to and including Oak Point, is excellent for wharves and piers, and also for wharves running parallel with the shore line. The above wharves and piers can be so arranged and built that no dredging will be required. On the line of shore are no less than three sites where many dry docks can be easily built. On the banks of the river there is abundance of material for pier construction. In several places the banks and land elevation inland are perfect for grain warehouses, where cars can run over the top of the buildings and discharge into them, thus avoiding the expense of discharging grain by elevator from car to warehouse. There is unlimited caryard room in the vicinity of the above-mentioned sites. Fresh water for ships and other purposes is in abundance. Having large manoeuvring room where wharves are properly arranged, the largest vessels can dock and unload with ease, and without the aid of tug assistance.

(Statistics clearly show no trouble to navigation from ice, and also that there is less fog difficulty than in many parts of the Atlantic coast. Emphatically speaking, in making this port from sea in any weather condition, there is no more danger than in making Halifax, Saint John, or even New York.

After _ careful investigation. I consider St. Crodx river and Passamaquoddy bay equal to any in the world for a great national port.

In conclusion, I should like to say that during his visits to St. Andrews the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) lived

and played golf overlooking this harbour. The advantages it has over several other Atlantic seaports were brought to the attention of the minister. I am pleased to say he was favourably impressed. We, the citizens of Charlotte county, are hopeful that in the reconstruction program St. Croix harbour will not be forgotten.

In 1003 Champlain wintered in this harbour on Dochet's island. On the 350th anniversary of this historic event could one think of a more fitting commemoration than the official opening of the St. Croix harbour as a national port?

Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, while the remarks I wish to make have a definite bearing on the people of my constituency, they also refer to the agricultural conditions of the country as a whole. Most of the people in my constituency make their living from the pursuit of agriculture. Their wants are not very great, and they are willing to turn their hands to fishing, trapping, lumbering and other pursuits when, through the effects of adverse weather conditions, they find themselves short of the funds required to purchase the necessary food and clothing for themselves and their families. In the more northerly parts they raise a certain amount of livestock, hogs and cattle, in order to add to their slender incomes.

It was, therefore, with great dismay that they saw the relation of feed costs and livestock prices get completely out of line. This was particularly distressing when they found out that, on account of the high prices of oats and barley, they could no longer afford to feed their livestock. This circumstance was and is very serious for them, because their incomes are derived from several small occupations, each of which must, of necessity, provide its necessary share.

Added to these difficulties which have been brought to my attention many times, is the fact that they are short of transportation facilities. When I first came to the House of Commons three years ago as the representative of those people I drew attention to the fact that they had through their country two incomplete railway systems. The ends had been built, but the middles had been left out; and they are still in the same condition. The end portions, fortunately, are still there; but the middle portions, unfortunately, are not. They were promised the completion of these lines many years ago, and1 I feel that without further delay something should be done about the matter.

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith

I am happy to say that on one of these gaps an engineering construction and survey gang was working last summer, and I should hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) would do his level best to see that these lines are completed in the near future. I refer to the branch lines of the Canadian National Railways; and1 the gaps I have mentioned are those between Frenchman's Butte in Saskatchewan and Heinsburg in Alberta, and from St. Walburg in Saskatchewan to Beaver River. I feel that when those people, who were pioneers and have gone through all the difficulties and hazards accompanying pioneer life, went into that new country and were promised railway facilities, the least we can do is to see that they get them. We made a bond with those people and we should see that the bond is honoured and observed.

As I have said, the principal occupation of the people in my constituency is the production of foodstuffs. I believe it would be a fair statement to say that the most important thing in the world today is food. We in Canada may have some difficulty in realizing that fact because we have always had plentiful supplies of the more important varieties of foodstuffs we require. All food comes from the soil, and when the psalmist said that all flesh is grass he was speaking a profound truth. Agriculture is an honourable and important industry. We have heard it said many times that it is the backbone of the country. Therefore it follows that the people who engage in the occupation of tending the soil are the most important people among the workers of the world. With the world in its present state of food shortage the importance of the workers of the soil has been emphasized and perhaps brought closer to its real classification. Even now the true value of the things we eat and wear in comparison with the cost of other things leaves much to be desired.

It has been said with a good deal of truth that prices of farm products are the last to go up and the first to come down. It is just possible that when we have quoted the prices of foodstuffs that have prevailed in times past we have not had a fair realization of what such prices entailed. Certainly we could not have had much idea of the true value of those things which are so vital to us and which sustain life in all the peoples of the world. When we hear such quotations as eggs at ten cents a dozen, butter at fifteen cents a pound, meats at fifteen cents a pound, wheat at fifty cents a bushel and other grains at corresponding prices, we are simply recalling to mind the dreadfully unfair conditions which were

imposed upon our farmers in those days. Prices such as those which were obtained by farmers not a great number of years ago never provided a decent living for them and were a shameful commentary on the manner in which our major industry was considered and treated. It was only by the farmer working unbelievably long hours; it was only by his pressing into service his wife and children that he was able to stay on the farm. Indeed many thousands left the farm and the industry was in a really precarious position for a number of years.

I have suggested before, as have others, that some effort should be made to relate prices of farm products to each other and also to other things. That is what we have in mind when we talk about parity prices. It is futile to hold meetings and conferences and endeavour to advise farmers how to operate their farms. When prices of livestock are completely out of line with price of feeds the farmers will produce whichever shows a promise of success. No amount of sage advice or statistical sermons will change their intentions. If it is found that the production of a certain commodity entails a loss they will stop producing it in a hurry and no man can blame them. If it is felt that a greater number of hogs are desired, either for our home market or for the export trade, the simplest way to get them is to raise the price of hogs and bring that price into proper relationship to the price of feeds and other things.

A great deal has been said in this house about the difficulties of the farmer who is trying to raise hogs and stay in business. I wish to deal with this matter in detail so that hon. members may appreciate those difficulties and realize why hog production has fallen off so badly. I should like to refer for a few minutes to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) after he quoted that famous letter in which a Manitoba farmer said that he would trust to God and Gardiner that things will come out better than they appear right now. The statement made by this farmer must have sounded quite effective and interesting to those who did not check it carefully, or who did not really know a great deal about the hog business. I quote from the letter, which appears at page 502 of Hansard:

Total hog sales, $4,426.52. Total feed costs, $1,966.10. Margin of hog sal^s over feed, $2,460.42.

The only charge made against the hogs is the cost of feed. Industrialist members will appreciate that. They know what would happen if they tried to estimate their profit at the end

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith

of a year by just charging the cost of their raw materials and forgetting all about labour and all other costs that creep in, such as interest on capital laid out and so on. This man simply charges the one item, and he takes the difference between the cost of that item and the amount received from the sale of his products as his net. The minister then went on to say:

I submit to the house that this simple method of bookkeeping is the method fQllowed by 90 per cent of the farmers of this cpuntry.

That is to say, 90 per cent of the farmers of this country are simple if they use that kind of bookkeeping. Also hon. members of this house must be simple if they believe that 90 per cent of the farmers are using that method of bookkeeping. I do not believe it at all.

That man who was giving those figures in connection with his hog raising business must have been an outstanding farmer. He stated that in 1946 he sold 133 head with a percentage of 59-4 grade A, which is the highest grade you can get for your hogs. Just before coming to the chamber, I looked up the Department of Agriculture livestock market review of February 12. In that review actual figures and quantities are given, but I have worked out my own percentages, which I believe are reasonably accurate. According to that review, there was the following production of grade A hogs in January, 1948:

Per cent

Ontario 41-5

Saskatchewan 31

Manitoba 27

Alberta 22-7

British Columbia 27

Quebec 27

Maritimes 41-8

Canada as a whole 30

Far be it from me to question the accuracy of this gentleman's bookkeeping, but in a province which produced only 27 per cent of grade A hogs he is supposed to have produced 59-4 per cent. Apparently he is a superfarmer. I worked out myself the cost of production, and I should like to present this to hon. members so that they will have an accurate picture and can contrast it with what is given on page 602 of Hansard. It may possibly demonstrate that the Manitoba farmer felt that he needed a little more help than that of the minister. The formula for feeding, which we have observed for a great many years, has been that it requires five pounds of feed to make one pound of hog. That has been the accepted formula, and it is very near to accuracy right now. The live weight of a select hog is 200 pounds. Its age, if you have a man who is a good feeder, would be six months; that is to say, the feeding

period would be four months, because a good strong weanling is eight weeks old. Reckoning and calculating along that formula-and I have put on this sheet everything in a very conservative way; if anybody wants to challenge the figures, I have another sheet underneath this one which really is tough; I have been so careful to get this reasonably right that I probably leaned over backwards on it -I find that it requires 1,000 pounds of feed to produce a 200 pound hog, or five pounds of feed to a pound of hog. That is the equivalent of twenty-two bushels of barley. These figures were drawn up about a week ago. In the meantime the prices have changed a little bit, but not very much. Twenty-two bushels of barley at $1.20 a bushel equals $26.40. That is the only item that was charged against the pig in the statement made by the minister; but the cost of this weanling pig, the cost of the pig when it was eight weeks old, also comes into my picture. The value of these pigs varied all the way from $5 to $10.

Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):

I thought they were giving them away a little while ago. That is what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said.

Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: The cost of a weanling pig is somewhere between $5 and $10, so I put it down at $7.50, which is a reasonable figure. Salt, minerals and skim milk work out to $2.50, and the chopping of the feed comes to eighty cents.

We shall now talk about labour. Hon. members understand that. I estimated that it takes an hour and a half a day to feed ten pigs. We feed these pigs three times a day, and half an hour each time is occupied in taking care of ten pigs. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that. That works out to ten and a half hours a week, because they have to be fed on Sundays too. In four months of feeding time that equals 168 hours for ten pigs, which is 16-8 hours a pig. I am allowing the farmer 75 cents an hour. I do not know whether anybody wants to quarrel with that unless he says it is not enough.

Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):

That is more than they pay in the box factory.

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

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith

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

As I said, everything is conservatively estimated. If somebody wants to start an argument on these things I have another sheet which brings the net loss per pig up to $27.31.

Mr. ARGUE:

That is more nearly right.

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

Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):

If you are a member of parliament it is funny.

Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: If hon. members will accept the figures in the first statement I made it will give a good reason why hog raising is going out of favour, and it will continue to do so while the situation exists as I have described it. It is a serious matter, because we have to get this proper ratio in agriculture of livestock raising. It must be kept in proper line for economic reasons and for good farming and agricultural reasons; and if we are to let this thing slip in this way we shall get into difficulties eventually.

A few more figures on Canada's pig business might also be illuminating. According to the Canada Year Book, 1947. in 1943 there were

8.145.000 head of swine in Canada. In 1946 these had shrunk to 5,377,000, or a drop of

2.771.000 head; that is to say, in 1943 there were fifty per cent more pigs in the country than there were in 1946. To use Canada Year Book figures, this represents a decrease, which I consider to be very conservative, of $62,725,000 in four years. When we consider that this is just one branch of one industry, it is a very serious situation indeed.

In Saskatchewan alone the hog population shrank in the same time from 1,754,000 to

757.000. That is roughly a million head, with an estimated value of $22,600,000. again using

Canada Year Book figures. I believe that a proper relationship of food and livestock prices would change this situation. The farmer is getting 25 cents a pound for his dressed pork. The spread between 25 cents and the price of pork and bacon in the shop is too great. That 25 cents could be boosted to 30 cents, which would make hog production more worthwhile, and it should not be necessary to raise the price to the consumer.

If the industry is to survive, some formula will have to be found so that it can be carried on without running the operators into bankruptcy, and also to provide them with such living standards as will give them pride and satisfaction in their work.

Another thing which is causing agriculture some concern is the rumoured shortage of tractor fuels. We have now come to the time when oil is forming the base of the greater part of farm power, and a shortage coming at a critical time could cause a complete upset in one year's crop. The important thing to remember in connection with this matter is that farming operations are seasonal and that time is of the essence. Unlike manufacturing or industry, which can close its doors and vacate its benches at any time when difficulties crop up, and start up again in a week or a month or six months, when things are straightened out; if plowing, cultivating and seeding are not done within specified time limits it is quite useless to attempt to do them later, and the opportunity is lost for that year.

There is now very little horse power used except on small farms, and it is highly important that steps should be taken well in advance to ensure a sufficient supply of fuel for the tractors. It will probably surprise some hon. members to learn that the numbers of tractors in the three western provinces are given, at a rough estimate, as 35,550 for Manitoba, 57,740 for Alberta and 83,700 for Saskatchewan for the year 1947. This is an estimate only and I believe it to be an understatement.

From the figures secured from the "Monthly Report on Refined Petroleum Products in Canada", issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce in November, 1947, page 13, I find that 46,105,850 gallons of tractor distillate were distributed in the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. From the same source we find that 310,485,000 gallons of motor gasoline were sold in 1947 in these provinces, not necessarily, of course, for tractor fuel.

I think, however, having regard to the number of tractors operating in the west, that considerably over 100,000,000 gallons of fuel will be required for farm operations in 1948. This

The Address-Mr. Townley-Smith

again is only an estimate, but I believe it is reasonably accurate. Arrangements for such a large quantity of oil must be made, as I said, well in advance and the fate of this year's crop and farming operations depend upon having oil available at the right time and in the right place.

It is also to be hoped that some form of control will be placed on the price of oil so that it cannot get entirely out of reach. A Saskatoon coal merchant is calling attention to the fact that fuel oil for stoves has jumped from 12+ cents to 22 cents in a year, and car drivers in the west are paying 47 cents a gallon for their gasoline. These are just a couple of reasons why production costs of farm produce are mounting all the time.

There are several other things I wish to mention but I shall not have time. There is, however, one thing I think is of interest. I have mentioned it before and I believe it could be mentioned again with advantage.

This is taken from the "grain market features", which is issued by the Searle Grain Company, Limited, of Winnipeg, and I am going to quote it:

The American magazine, Fortune, in its January issue, published an article which states that "Canadian farmers could not survive the competition of American farmers under conditions of a tight market." The reason, says Fortune, is that "U.S.A. farmers have superb technical and scientific guidance that is not available to Canadian farmers." Fortune is also of the opinion that our scientific agricultural work has dropped so far behind that Canada's only hope for the future lies in her industries.

Those who are familiar with Canadian agriculture, and who have tried to keep in touch with work in the U.S.A., will rub their eyes with amazement when they read this article. We have not space to give the full details of the splendid work done by scientific agriculturists in Canada, but we can as an example mention one single phase of scientific activity which is of paramount importance to our prairie farmers-the recent breeding and introduction of better varieties of cereals to contend with our peculiar prairie conditions. These comprise nine varieties of wheat, five of oats and twelve of barley, most of them produced by our dominion experimental farms and the dominion rust research laboratory, others by our universities. These improved varieties, which

spring from that rare quality, i.e., vision, and the high talents of one section of our Canadian scientific agriculturists-our skilled plant

breeders and plant pathologists-have alone brought additional wealth to Canada that amounts to more than all the dominion appropriations made to agriculture since confederation.

Fortune, therefore, is in error, but in error at the moment only, for we venture to prophesy that if the present meagre appropriations made by the dominion government to agriculture are not expanded, then in a few years' time this article in Fortune will correctly portray the Canadian situation. The fact is that the breeding and production of these outstanding varieties of cereal stocks, and the progress made in other phases of scientific agriculture, have been the accomplishments mainly of a mere handful of older men, of such loyalty tq this country that they have placed their service to Canadian agriculture far above their own material interests; for the sad truth is that in recent years, whenever a Canadian scientist in agriculture has shown signs of talent, he has immediately been offered a position in American agriculture at considerably higher salary than he can receive in Canada, and so we lose our rising talent. As our present older men retire the probability of their valuable work being continued is remote indeed unless pal Lament sees proper to change the present unsatisfactory situation. Apparently we can train and develop skilled agricultural scientists in this country, but we are unwilling to retain them to serve Canada.

Fortune no doubt observed that for the year 1947 the appropriations made by the government of Canada to Canadian agriculture for ordinary and special expenditures amounted to just under 28 million dollars, whereas the total appropriations made by the U.S.A. to their agriculture were $1,247,000,000. The United States has twelve times the population of Canada, and so our Canadian government's appropriation for all agricultural services should in comparison be around 100 million dollars annually instead of the niggardly 28 million only which is made.

And then there is the other most important matter of the salaries paid to our agricultural scientists. Compared with salaries paid to similar scientists for similar work in the United States, the Canadian scale from the very highest to the lowest classification is stinted and totally inadequate.

We note that the appropriation by parliament for family allowances for 1947 was 245 million dollars. This is a bonus granted mainly for the purpose of feeding our children better, but surely the first thing required is to have more and better food produced, and at lower costs of production, so that it can be made available to children and to the people at cheaper prices and still with profit to farmers. Progressive agriculture is the only way to achieve this desired goal; to have better paid scientists, who consequently will stay in Canada, is the only way that such progress can be attained. By being so penurious with our appropriation to agriculture, so parsimonious with salaries to scientists, and yet so fantastically generous with family allowances, are we not "putting the cart before the horse"?

Considering all this, then, it certainly seems as though parliament should materially increase appropriations to agriculture, and should very considerably increase salaries to all classes of workers and officials engaged in scientific agricultural work.

Another point I wish to make is that it is a remarkable thing that we have not been able fully to appreciate the fact, although it has been brought before us several times during our lifetime, that when agriculture is prosperous the rest of the country is prosperous also. We have a tremendous home market for most of the things we manufacture. Just listen to this, which is taken from a publication recently issued by the Ontario govern-

The Address-Mr. Daniel

ment and called "A Conspectus of the Province of Ontario," prepared by the Ontario bureau of statistics and the research section of the department of the provincial treasurer. At page 32 the conspectus states:

Over 50,000 Ontario farmers have no automobile.

Over 160,000 Ontario farmers have no motor truck.

Over 140,000 Ontario farmers have no tractor.

There are less than 9,000 threshing machines in Ontario to serve 178,000 farmers.

Ninety per cent of Ontario farms have no milking machines.

Thirty per cent have no binders and thirty per cent have no cream separators . . .

Over 145,000 farm homes have no means of refrigeration.

Over 160,000 farm homes have no vacuum cleaner.

Over 60.000 farm homes have no radio set.

Over 125,000 farm homes have no running water in their homes and no equipment for pumping water.

Over 85,0i00 farm homes have no telephone. ..

About 130,000 farm homes are still heated by stoves and have no furnaces.

Over 160,000 farm homes are still using outside toilets and have no inside toilet facilities.

Over 160,000 farm homes have no bath tub or shower equipment.

Mr. FRASER:

You are getting them now since the Conservatives are in. There are changes from the time when the Liberals were there.

Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: If the money is available for these things, they will be bought. No one is more liberal with his money than is the farmer, especially with regard to things which are needed in his home or in his business.

Mr. K. R. DANIEL (Oxford):

During the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have heard hon. members on all sides of the house eulogize the beauties and charms of their constituencies. Just the other night the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), who did a most excellent job, waved his arms skyward to emphasize [DOT] the height of the mountains back of Fort William in the Thunder bay district. I really believe he convinced the majority of the members of this house that perhaps, after all, the Rocky mountains or even the Alps were mere dwarfs in comparison. However, I must admit that, in the many times I have gone through Fort William, I must have been looking out the wrong window because the most I saw were a few hills out there in lake Superior.

I should now like to offer some observations with respect to the riding of Oxford which I have the honour to represent in this house. It took me some time to appreciate just how much the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne meant to the ordinary

backbencher. I can now understand that it offers an opportunity to acquaint my fellow members and the government with some of the problems we face and at the same time to tell you, Mr. Speaker, something about our industries and the contribution we make to the general welfare of our country. I was going to tell you just where Oxford was, but the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross) yes-terdaj' afternoon did that very well. He said that London was on the main line of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and also on No. 2 highway. He could have gotten around that much easier by saying is was only some fifteen miles from Oxford.

I have always been under the impression that the speech from the throne represented an outline of the government's program for the coming session. If this were literally true I wouldi be compelled to say that the speech, as read by His Majesty's representative, was lacking ini that type of legislative program which our people expected of this government. I could not help but admire the fine effort made by the mover and the seconder under what must have been a rather trying experience. However, their defence of this administration was commendable and causes one to feel that they must have been carefully selected and well coached for the task.

Mr. GIBSON '(Comox-Alberni): Cabinet material.

Mr. DANIEL:

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

The Address-Mr. Daniel

According to press reports, beef and bacon slaughterings and shipments are far outrunning the needs of the domestic market and the United Kingdom contract objectives. So great is this excess that press reports, based on, official department figures, indicate that the normal requirements for' the United Kingdom for the first quarter of 1948 have been met, or more than met, in a single month.

I may say that on Saturday I shall have the honour of introducing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) at the Oxford county federation of agriculture meeting in my riding. As regards all the nice things I am going to say about him, I will mean everything I say. But I doubt whether some of the farmers may feel that way. There may be some doubting Thomases when they come. But I am sure that after hearing the minister on that occasion, they will all go away feeling much better. However, the minister has assured the Canadian farmers that the prices and the quantities of meat that Britain will take under the United1 Kingdom agreements are fixed for the entire year. That applies to the contracts generally, but what will the situation be with respect to the surplus supplies that Canada now has on hand or in sight?

At the present time Britain takes Canada's food products under a part cash, part credit arrangement and, under the contracts themselves, it was stipulated that Canada and Britain would discuss the financial arrangements involved in three months. Sir Stafford Cripps, Britain's author of austerity, is now painting a gloomier picture of Britain's financial position. In the light of the apparent fact that Canadla has on hand surpluses of meat probably far more than will be required to carry over and take care of the short delivery seasons, I am wondering if the Canadian government is looking to the possibility of enabling Britain to purchase these supplies; or can this be taken as an indication that Canada is about to extendi further credit to the United Kingdom? If the current , supply situation continues it would appear that the government soon might be confronted with a choice of two courses: either propping the market at home by giving further assistance to the United Kingdom, or permitting the domestic market to become glutted' with a resultant slump in meat prices here.

During this session the house and the country have heard a great deal about the confusion, if not chaos, into which the nation's business and industry have been plunged by the so-called austerity program of the government. In my own constituency this might 5849-911

well be pointed out by a reference to the position in which the flue-cured tobacco growers now find themselves. Now as never before, the tobacco industry, and agriculture generally, need a forthright policy of guidance. For twenty long years the flue-cured tobacco industry has struggled to develop a market in Great Britain; but because of the uncertainty of Britain's austerity program the tobacco industry is now in danger of losing that outlet. At present the industry is equipped to produce from 110.000,000 to 130,000,000 pounds of tobacco a year, in a normal growing season. Canadians are using annually about

70,000,000 pounds of flue-cured tobacco, and it is this surplus of 50,000,000 pounds, which they might export if there were a market for it, that is giving concern to the tobacco men. The tobacco growers of western Ontario are considering a course whereby they might reduce their acreage in order to hold down to a minimum any surplus or export carry-over. It would seem to me a tragedy in this day and age that an industry equipped for far greater production should have to cut back, particularly when there are ready markets for its product. In order to save the British tobacco market for Canadian growers, the government might have seen fit, either to assist Britain obtain her normal requirements, or to offer some measure of assistance to growers to carry over any surplus they might produce this coming year.

Before I deal with other matters concerning my riding, I should like to read into the record a resolution which has been forwarded to me by the Oxford county council:

The following resolution sponsored by the Ontario federation of agriculture was presented to Oxford county council at its January session and approved:

Compensation for T.B. Tested Cattle

Whereas the dominion Department of Agriculture is proceeding to extend the area of T.B. tested cattle, in several counties in the province of Ontario;

And whereas the compensation paid to the farmer for cattle was the price that was paid for compensation in effect during the depression years;

And whereas the counties so affected authorized the test, when the compensation set up corresponded more closely "with the actual value of the cattle so tested;

Therefore be it resolved that the compensation paid the farmer be increased to correspond with present day value of the cattle so tested, and made retroactive to the beginning of the area tests in 1947.

I should like to remind lion, members, especially those who come from rural areas, that last session several hon. gentlemen rose and asked the minister when the test would take place in their counties. I remained

The Address-Mr. Daniel

The income tax, too, is due for a sharp revision, particularly as it affects the smaller income groups. The fact of the matter is that taxation in Canada has today reached such a peak that it is defeating its own purpose. It is hampering our producers and is a burden on our consumers. It is restricting production and reducing purchasing power.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and honour to represent the riding of Oxford. It is a privilege, too, to be a member of a free parliament and to bring to your attention the observations I have made. I hope that the administration will hearken to the voice of reason and that they will seek to give effect, or at least earnest consideration, to the recommendations I have made.

Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):

Mr. Speaker, what we need most in Canada today is a through trans-Canada highway. There is a notice of motion standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), which reads:

That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the plans for a national highway across Canada, and entering into discussions with the provinces, with a view to its completion as soon as men and materials become

available.

The need for this road was never greater than it is right now. We talk about saving United States dollars and I cannot think of a better way of saving those dollars than to have this road built. If we in the west want to come here by car to represent our constituencies we must drive for two days through the United States. We have to convert our Canadian dollars into United States dollars. I do not know how many thousands of motorists coming to eastern Canada from the west have to do the same thing.

We read in the papers that there is unemployment in various parts of Canada. These unemployed are being paid out of the fund which was created by the dominion to take care of them. We do not want to see again the camps that were established in 1930 and 1931. We want this thing taken care of and these men paid a decent and fair wage.

I should now like to say something about my constituency. There are many things in

my constituency which could be improved by the opening up of the country. There are resources there which have never been touched. Last year the provincial government built a road to Cat lake, and the miners tell me that the lithium deposits there are so great that they cannot estimate their worth. A company in the United States has a formula whereby it can produce lithium at from forty-five to fifty cents a pound, but this formula is not available in Canada. I have been in touch with the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), and he tells me that chemists in Ottawa are trying to work out a formula so that this mine can be opened up and the product sold on the markets of the world in world competition.

Practically all the power developed in Manitoba is developed in my constituency. The great Winnipeg river is harnessed in only a few places, but there are five or six other falls which could be developed. A million and a quarter dollars are being spent this year at the little town of Seven Sisters to enlarge a power plant which has been running at only half capacity. When this is completed next year this plant will develop 225,000 horsepower.

At the present time a total of 35,000 horsepower is being used on farms in Manitoba. Power is being made available to 5,000 homes a year, but it will be some considerable time before enough power is developed to take care of the needs of rural Manitoba. The little town in which I have lived for years is not far from a power plant. It is a shame that the rest of rural Manitoba does not have the benefit of this power. We see the power lines going right by our door and we have no benefit as yet from it.

On motion of Mr. Sinnott the debate was adjourned.

Mr. KNOWLES:

Bill No. 3 tomorrow?

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