Mr. Wylie:

This may be fun for many members, but it is not funny to me. It is very serious, because we are getting into a serious situation. If hon. members wish to laugh, and if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) wishes to interrupt, then let them do so. But it is time they started to think about something. We hear talk about the high cost of living, and we wonder how so many people are getting along today on their meagre incomes. I am glad to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his seat, because I am going to read-

Mr. Fraser:

He is in somebody else's seat.

Mr. Wylie:

In somebody else's seat-well, it is his privilege to sit there.

Mr. Knowles:

He should get into someone else's shoes.

Mr. Wylie:

If you would keep quiet I would get along.

I have often discussed this matter with citizens in Medicine Hat. In this connection I should like to read from a letter I received from a man who has been in business for years and who bought bonds during the last war. Due to his age he has had to sell his business, and he is trying now to get along. In order to do that, however, he has found it necessary to sell some of his bonds. This is what he writes:

During the war I was one of a team from the Rotary club who sold bonds. At a school of instruction held in the city hall the question was asked: "Will these bonds have to be sold at a loss if sold before maturity, as were those of the first great war?" and the answer given us at the time was, "These bonds will be face value any time sold by presenting at your bank."

In order to get along he finds it necessary to sell one or two bonds each year. In a preceding paragraph in the letter he states:

1954 and 1957 were selling at a loss of $10 per $1,000, 1960 at a loss of $12.50 per $1,000, and 1966 at a loss of $22.37 per $1,000.

That is what has happened to the bonds sold during the last war, despite the fact that purchasers were told the bonds would be accepted at their face value. I believe I am right when I say that the present issue of bonds may be redeemed at their face value, but we see that the bonds sold during the last war were not. This has worked a hardship on many who bought bonds and who are now forced to sell them. This is something to which the Minister of Finance should give consideration.

This was mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he spoke in this debate. At that time some hon. members seemed to doubt what was said, but I can say it is true. That is the penalty people are paying for cashing in on their insurance policies, which were paying three per cent, and with that money buying bonds they are now forced to sell.

I am pleased to see the government has brought in a bill for old age security, so that everyone over the age of 70 years may receive a pension. I would say, however, that anyone who has not some additional income could not get along on this $40 a month. If they get only this $40, who is going to help them out? Is the dominion government going to do it? In Alberta, which pays one of the highest-I almost said the highest-old age pensions in Canada, the recipients will be badly disappointed if they receive only this $40. At the present time they receive $40 per month in one cheque and a supplementary payment of $10 in another. Not only that, but they have free medical, dental, optical and hospital care.

What is going to happen? Are the old people who come under the provisions of the new legislation going to receive these benefits, or will they receive only the $40 a month. It seems to me the federal government is trying to put the provinces in a position where they will have to use the means test, whether they like it or not. That is exactly what is going to happen. No province can pay $40 a month, or $10 a month plus all the other benefits, to all its citizens over 70 years of age. The dominion government collects the money for the pension of $40 a month; where will the provinces derive their income with which to make additional payments?

Oil.

Mr. Wylie:

I am glad the hon. member mentioned that. Today in Alberta we are fortunate in that we have oil. But that oil was there prior to 1921, when the Liberals were in office. It was there before the Liberals were kicked out of office. That oil was there, and the Liberals could have used it so they would not have had to borrow money with which to build highways, for which we are still paying. So when you mention oil-yes, we have oil, and it is a Social Credit government that has developed the oil fields of Alberta. The Social Credit government of Alberta will develop the natural resources of that province so we will still be paying more than any other province to our senior citizens.

I should like to say one word about the price of wheat. I listened to the hon. member

The Address-Mr. Wylie for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) when he was speaking the other night. While we did have a good crop in southern Alberta this year, it was the' first crop in about twenty years that could be described as good. But the farmers in many parts of that section of the country have not been able to get off their crops, and a lot of grain is still in the stook or swath or even standing in the field. Speaking the other night, the hon. member for Moose Mountain had this to say, as reported at page 228 of Hansard of October 19:

Are we going to ask for a higher price for wheat? I am not in favour of doing that, Mr. Speaker, because if we did we would be joining the labour force in asking for higher wages, and it would be like a dog chasing its tail; we would be getting no place. But we are interested in keeping the tools that we need to produce the wheat in line.

That is what we want. What has happened to the cost of the tools used to produce wheat? What does a self-propelled combine cost today? This type of combine, which most people want to use, costs about $5,500.

What about a Cadillac, too?

Mr. Wylie:

I suppose the hon. member would still use a scythe. We are not going back to those days. If a farmer wants a self-propelled combine there is no reason why he should not have it, because all the implement manufacturers in Canada produce this type of combine. If I cannot get help and want a self-propelled combine, I am certainly going to have one. A few years ago a combine, I admit not self-propelled, could be purchased for $2,500. As the hon. member for Moose Mountain has said, the price of that implement has doubled. Has the price of wheat doubled? Has the value of the dollar doubled?

During the war the farmers of this country subsidized the consumers, and they are still doing it. Apparently they will have to continue to do so until something is done about the Liberals. That is the situation today. The farmers are not at all satisfied with the price they are getting for their wheat, and why should they be? The farmers in Medicine Hat get about $1.18 per bushel for No. 1 and about $1.12 per bushel for No. 3 or No. 4. Some payments are made later on, and when they are someone always says the Liberal government is being so good in paying the 20 cents per bushel or whatever it may be. That is not the government's money; that is the farmer's money, and it is simply being given to the rightful owner. The government has held it back, has paid all these high salaries and everything else. Unless we have a prosperous agriculture in this country we are going to be in a bad way. Let us keep

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart agriculture, and this includes the growing of apples, at a fair level so we in this country may enjoy the fruits of our labour.

Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think we all appreciated their contributions. Belonging to this group who sit in the rump I can assure you that it did me good to have these hon. members chosen for this particular job, as they are both members of our group.

There are one or two matters I should like to bring to the attention of the government. First I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) upon the presentation he made in connection with the Passamaquoddy tidal power project. The Canadian part of that projeot is entirely within my riding, and I certainly appreciate having a fellow citizen give such a detailed explanation. I believe many of those who live in the county of Charlotte also appreciate the effort of the hon. member. I should like to go on record as being greatly interested in this project, which has been tossed around now for some twenty-five years. It is of vital interest, not only to the county I represent but to that particular section of New Brunswick and perhaps to the whole province. In fact I believe there will be beneficial results accruing to all the maritime provinces. I should like to add a few words to what has been said by the hon. member in order that the house may understand more fully just what this project really is.

As I have said, I am quite familiar with that particular section. I have lived there all my life. I cruised the waters of every cove and inlet when I was engaged in the fishing industry for a period of twenty-three years. I feel that I can speak with some authority, and I can assure you that this project is no idle dream. In the opinion of those who are interested it is really feasible. It is felt that in the completion of this project will be found the salvation of the southern part of New Brunswick and of a large section of the maritime provinces.

I concur in what was said by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert about the lack of interest shown by the federal and other governments in Canada. For the information of hon. members I shall endeavour to point out some of the advantages of the 'Quoddy project. I do not believe the same set of circumstances can be found anywhere else on the North American continent. To the best of my knowledge and belief every hydro power project on this continent is dependent upon weather conditions for the production

of power to move the wheels of industry. In other words, droughts and floods create considerable fluctuations in the amount of power developed. This is not the case with the Passamaquoddy project. The source of power here is as reliable as the sun itself. Floods or droughts would not interfere with the productive power to the extent of one kilowatt hour in fifty years. May I say to those who have not seen just what we have there that it is a most unique proposition. Its possibilities are appreciated by many who know the history of 'Quoddy as I know it. There is little doubt in my mind that if this source of power were available in the central provinces there would have been no hesitation so far as its development is concerned. They are searching for more power in the central provinces today to add to what they already have, but in this particular section we are desperately short of power. It is needed greatly. The cost of the little power we have today makes it impossible for the people living there to enjoy the electrical appliances in their homes that they would like to enjoy. The cost of power is too great to use it for any other purposes than those that are absolutely necessary.

Another factor entering into this proposition which in my opinion would be of paramount importance is the fact that if this development were completed not a single acre of land in that area would be flooded. I am doubtful if you can find the same set of circumstances anywhere else in the world where a power dam has ever been built. The power in this case would be developed exclusively from the rise and fall of the tide. There would be no damage to property. No towns would have to be moved. No cemeteries would have to be moved, and no valuable farm land would be flooded. These problems do not enter into the situation at all. It is purely a matter of using the rise and fall of the tide for developing electrical energy. The only damage which would arise inside the enclosure where the dam would be built would be to the fishing industry. As I have stated, I was engaged in the Ashing industry for twenty-three years, and no one would have any more interest in the damage that might be created to that industry than myself. I believe, however, that the records of our Department of Fisheries in Ottawa indicate that this damage could be taken care of with very little difficulty. I am sure from my experience with the Canadian and American members of the international joint commission that neither the government of the United States nor the government of Canada would for one minute wish to deny the fishermen anything that

rightfully belonged to them. It is estimated that the damage caused by this project would be less than 10 per cent. I am informed that in the construction of Boulder dam, for instance, over 40 per cent of the cost was to pay for damages, which will give some idea of the difference between this project and some of the big power projects that have been completed on this continent. It is estimated that the 'Quoddy tidal project would have a capacity of 3 billion kilowatt hours per year, or about 1 million horsepower. Perhaps you can realize what 1 million horsepower would mean to a section of the country that is hungry for power. There is no question about the need. There is no question in my mind about the benefits that might be obtained from the completion of the development. In that section of Canada a million horsepower is badly needed.

To sum up, we would have an enormous block of power and a deep water harbour outside the dams,-I am doubtful if a better one could be found anywhere in Canada,- as a result of which we would benefit from cheap water transportation. Ships of any size could use the harbour that would be in the immediate vicinity of where the dams would be built. My final question to those in authority is: Why is so little enthusiasm shown with regard to Quoddy while apparently every effort is being made to deepen the St. Lawrence waterway system and at the same time develop a greater quantity of power in this part of the country? I have an article I should like to put on the record, taken from the issue of Newsweek of October 1, 1951. The heading is "Weather Hampering Defence; Aluminum Plants May Move." The article reads:

The nation's defence program, already plagued by materials shortages, strikes and high costs, was running into still another obstacle-the vagaries of an unruly nature. It was largely a case of too little or too much rain. In July record floods hit the midwest, causing $1 billion worth of damage, much of it to facilities engaged in important defence work. Meanwhile, the serious results of the Pacific northwest's hottest, dryest summer in twenty-five years appeared.

Late last week defence mobilizer Charles E. Wilson dramatically underscored the situation. He telegraphed the "big three" of the aluminum industry-Reynolds Metals Company, Kaiser Aluminum Company, and Aluminum Company of America -asking them to prepare plans for moving their plants from the Pacific northwest. The reason: a power shortage threatening to cut the use of electricity in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.

Then I should like to read another paragraph reading:

Aluminum officials said there were apparently only two sites to which their operations could be moved quickly-idle second world war plants at Burlington. N.J., and Maspeth, N.Y. But, despite the presence of physical facilities which could be reactivated, they weren't at all sure power supplies

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart

would be adequate. The cost of moving the plants, furthermore, would undoubtedly be high. But one company executive pointed out that the solution was not as radical as it sounded since, barring construction of vast new hydroelectric plants, power would always be short in the northwest.

Then I should like to refer to the final statement which reads:

However, administrator James F. Fairman of the defence electric power administration on Monday announced that his body had never been consulted about the move; furthermore, he said, "We'd like to know where they plan to move . . . There is no available power supply anywhere in the United States.

I can assure Mr. Charles E. Wilson that there is a supply of power available in the 'Quoddy area. The people down there, who are greatly interested and who are firmly convinced it will be of enormous benefit to our section of the country, are patiently waiting for action to be taken, and some day we hope to see the completion of the project.

There is one other subject on which I wish to speak briefly. Some of my friends in the House of Commons have suggested to me that legislation to deal with price fixing is not necessary in the Dominion of Canada. They have a perfect right to their opinions, and I should like to express some of my views. A great portion of this debate has been taken up with a discussion of the high cost of living, something that today seems to dominate every piece of legislation that is brought into the house. It all turns to the one subject of inflation. Members from all parts of Canada and representing all parties in the house have expressed their views.

The C.C.F. members, as we all realize, believe that we should have direct controls. The Social Credit members have ideas of their own as to how the situation might be taken care of, and I believe my Conservative friends are between two fires. They discuss controls, but just how far those controls should go I have not been able to determine from what they have said. In my opinion there is a Liberal way, as there always has been, to approach this situation. In my own humble way and in a few minutes I should like to put on record methods that I believe would be of great benefit in fighting inflation.

I have stated that in my opinion the way to fight inflation is the Liberal way. By that I mean that the first approach should be to throw down the gates so far as customs barriers and tariffs are concerned. That is not an idea that was born last night. It is one that was bom before I was born. It is one I have believed in for as long as I can remember. It is something that my father believed in. Another factor that might convince me more than some other members is the particular section of the country from

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart which I come. I have lived all my lifetime on the international border where I have been able to see the benefits we derive from the markets we enjoy in the United States of America. And when I see this great difference between prices on the two sides of the border I am convinced immediately that one of the greatest things we have today with which to fight inflation with is our tariff regulations. What we in the maritime provinces need-and this applies as well to other sections of Canada-is the advantage of those things that they produce in the United States much cheaper than we have ever been able to produce them in Canada.

I will just take one minute to say here that two-thirds of what we produce down there is sold in the United States, and it goes into the United States duty free. If tomorrow there was a prohibitive tariff put on the things we produce-and it is mostly raw materials-the maritime provinces would get the greatest shock they have had since confederation, and one which I believe it would take them many years to overcome. The only markets we enjoy today are those that have been provided by our United States friends. Perhaps that is why I have been accused of leaning towards the United States. I can only say that they have been good to us down there. When we ship what we have to offer to the United States-and it means millions of dollars-we bring back United States dollars, and then we are obliged to use those United States dollars to pay double the price in central Canada for commodities that we would like to have in our homes, and that we could buy right on our doorstep for one-half what they charge here. Believe it or not, it is a hard one for me to explain to my people. They know that all my lifetime I have been advocating freer trade, and I will continue to do so as long as I live. I believe that if we could overcome the tariff wall, it is one of the things that would help us in this battle against inflation.

Comparisons have been made during this debate with commodities such as butter, eggs, meat, bread and several other primary products. We were given the prices we were obliged to pay in Canada, and they have been compared with those in the United States. I believe we will all agree there is a very small difference between the prices paid for these articles in the two countries. The comparison that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) with regard to the two capitals I think would be a fair comparison between any two cities in the United States and Canada. I believe the comparison was fair, but at the same time the very articles that are responsible for the high

TMr. Stuart (Charlotte).)

Mr. Sinnoil:

Down 6 cents today.

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

We can take Rinso, Duz, or any other you might wish to name. Take any brand you wish to choose; take the price in the United States and the price in Canada, and you will find a difference of 35 to 50 per cent. There are some soaps that I can buy in the city of Calais at two for a quarter which cost 25 cents a cake in Canada. If the soap manufacturers can explain that one away, again I have no argument left. These are the things that are responsible for the high cost of living in this country today. When people tell me that the increase in the cost of living in the United States has not been as rapid as it has been in Canada, may I say that to anyone living on the border the reason is quite plain. There is no justification for a difference of from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, and in some cases 100 per cent, as I will show the house in a minute. I would suggest that the articles I have pointed out are glaring examples of monopolies. We pay for all the radio advertising that goes on. It is all included in the price of the goods; I realize that. But they do not do any more advertising in Canada than is done in the United States. All I ask them to do is to explain this great difference in prices.

I want to mention one other thing just briefly because I have not the facts and figures before me. I do it for the benefit of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I am sorry he is not in his seat. I wish he would get a record of the price that is being paid today by Canadians for insulin, and then get the price that is being paid for insulin in the United States. If hon. members do that they will get one of the greatest shocks they ever had in their lifetime. Insulin is a drug that is used today by thousands of Canadians. Diabetics all over the country must have insulin in order to live. When you get a difference of from 50 per cent to 100 per cent in the cost of insulin as between the United States and Canada you are convinced that something is wrong somewhere. I cannot vouch for it, but I have been told that the drug firms that produce insulin in Canada are subsidized by this government, though that is not firsthand information. A friend of mine in the town where I

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart live informed me that he could buy insulin in Calais, Maine, for about 60 per cent of what he could buy it in St. Andrews, New Brunswick. Is that right? Should that go on? This is something needed by a small portion of our population, but many of them cannot afford the prices being charged in Canada at the present time.

I shall get back to my old theme song, and that is electrical appliances. I love to talk about them. It is only a few years ago that the General Electric company purchased a very beautiful plant in Hamilton. My good friend the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross) and some of the other boys around there were told the company was going to give us electrical appliances for the same prices that were charged in the United States. They were going to roll off the assembly line in just a few months. To the best of my knowledge that assembly is not a dream; it is there. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the commodities that roll off that assembly line have quite different price tags on them than in the United States. One could take radios, vacuum cleaners, toasters, washing machines, refrigerators and oil burners, and there are dozens of others I could name if I wished. In nine cases out of ten they are manufactured in Canada by the same manufacturer who produces them in the United States. But when you compare the prices you find there is something wrong somewhere. I have made this statement before, and I wish to put it on the record again.

I live on the bank of the St. Croix river, and you can throw a stone across to the other side. On one side of that border an electric refrigerator sells for $225. If you walk across the little bridge to the other side it sells for $460. It is made by the same company. If there is any justification for that I should like to have some official of the General Electric or these other companies who manufacture electrical appliances appear before a committee of this house and explain to the members why there is that great differential. I cannot understand it. It is a bone of contention for every member who represents a constituency bordering upon the United States.

One other thing I want to mention is farm machinery. Again this is not information which I have obtained myself, but it has been given to me by friends in this house. A few years ago the duty on farm machinery from the United States was cut by the government. At that time there was a great disturbance amongst the manufacturers in Canada. I atn told that today all these different machines which are so necessary for modern farming

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart can be purchased for the same price in Canada as in the United States. Who would be responsible for that change?

I was a young man in 1927 when the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, stood up in this house and said he was going to cut the duty on automobiles by 25 per cent. Immediately afterwards the greatest number of delegates arrived on parliament hill that have ever been here or ever will be here. If the duty on automobiles was cut the manufacturers in Canada would be obliged to close their doors. I remember reading that, because it was headlined in every newspaper you picked up. The prime minister stood by his guns and the duty was cut. If one goes over the record as shown in the Automobile Guide one finds that more automobiles were sold in Canada in 1929 than were ever sold before, and it was 1947 before that figure was ever passed. This would seem to indicate that articles can be manufactured in Canada at nearly the same cost as in the United States whenever the manufacturers are forced to do so. So long as they have the tariff protection their costs will be based on the cost in the United States, plus the duty, plus sales tax, plus defence tax, and 2 per cent on top of that. That is just enough to make sure that people will not go through all the red tape necessary to buy in the United States and bring the article into Canada. Every Canadian citizen would be justified in so doing. I do not believe in supporting monopolies, particularly within our own country.

The first thing many might say is that if the gates were thrown open it would mean a lot of unemployment in the sections where manufacturing takes place. Did you ever stop to realize that many of those engaged in manufacturing came from the maritimes and the west? I believe that conditions would so improve if this action were taken that a great percentage of those people would want to go back, because to a maritimer only the maritimes is home. If a person could make some sort of living there you would never tempt him to come to central Canada. I believe the answer to our problem is to throw open the gates and give the people of this country an opportunity to buy the things they would like to buy for their homes at prices that are not unreasonable.

A few days ago when the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) spoke in this debate he mentioned a fact that we do not hear from his group very often. He was bitterly critical of the freight charges which the citizens of western Canada have to pay on the automobiles they buy from Ontario. I agree with the statement he made. I have

[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).)

a small clipping from a Winnipeg paper which I shall not put on record, but it bitterly criticizes the fact that the western people are forced to pay that freight. Something should be done about it. In my opinion the automobile industry is the greatest monopoly of them all. Each and every one of us recognizes that. We may wink at it, but it is a statement of fact. If I purchase a car in New Brunswick I pay the freight on it from Ontario to New Brunswick. If my friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) purchases a car in British Columbia, he pays over $300 freight on it. I feel it would not be any great task for anyone to take a pencil and ascertain the number of units which are manufactured in Canada each year-they are all on record in the Automobile Guide-and I think it would be found that by increasing the cost of automobiles to the residents of Ontario and Quebec by $50, an automobile could be sold to the member for Comox-Alberni for the same price as it was sold in Ontario. Two-thirds of the automobiles that are produced are sold in Ontario and Quebec.

I believe that is one of the most glaring examples of "we have it; take it or leave it", the action of a monopoly. We find that no branch of the automobile industry has been established anywhere outside Ontario. We are all obliged to pay what they demand. I think the time has come when the members of the house should get together and take action. I believe the members from Ontario would be as fair as anyone else. I do not think for one minute that they believe a setup of this kind should be tolerated. It is wrong.

There is one other question on which I want to touch briefly. There will be a discussion concerning freight rates. The people of this country who have the best means at their disposal for adjusting freight rates are the manufacturers themselves. I want to put on record the fact that some of the goods produced in the maritimes are sold in other parts of Canada for the same price as they are sold in the maritime provinces. A few examples would be Moir's chocolates, Gan-ong's, Stanfield's products, and the Hartt shoe company. Their products are sold in every part of Canada for the same price. But if Ganong Brothers want a truck to use in their business they have to pay the freight on that truck from Ontario to Charlotte county. In my opinion a lot could be done in this regard, and it would make us much happier than we are at the present time.

Again I should like to emphasize the fact that, as I live in a constituency that borders on the United States, so many of these things

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart

are brought to my attention every day that seem extremely convincing that monopolies are as thick as they can be all over this country. Why should I stand up in my place and oppose any legislation this government might devise which would take care of that situation?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one prediction which will never come true, perhaps, because the suggestions I have made will not get very far. Nevertheless I want to make one prediction. Throw open the gates in this country for three months and the cost of living will drop by many points. We all know that. Again I want to say that this is the Liberal approach to the problem. I only hope that the men here who have listened to my remarks today will just add a little bit to what I have said and see if something

connot be done to put in their place these monopolistic organizations that we have in Canada.

On motion of Mr. Murphy the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Tomorrow we will take up second reading of Bill No. 13, to provide for old age security; then resolution No. 8 on today's order paper in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). If we have time left we shall take up resolutions Nos. 4 and 5 on today's order paper.

At 6.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on October 26, 1951.

isd/'h/i m/m A 1 flRRARIL

Thursday, November 1, 1951