1943-07-07

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On June 28, 1943, the Prime Minister made the following statement in the house as reported at page 4072 of English Hansard:
The statement to which I refer is as follows:
"We have here in the cabinet three new millionaires who have made their money since the war's outbreak. We shall denounce them at the proper time and place. Fortunes are being built up."
The proper time and place to make a statement of that kind is in this House of Commons with the hon. member simultaneously undertaking to prove the charge or, if he is unable to do so, to resign his seat in this house. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should be obliged either to withdraw the statement completely or else to convert it into a specific charge to be investigated in the usual manner, and the consequences of the investigation also to be followed up in the usual manner.
On my question of privilege I do say that those words which he then used about me bear a charge based upon an incorrect translar tion of the French debates of June 25 last. Because the Prime Minister did not verify the translation of the speech I gave in French I was subjected to serious wrong in respect of my privileges and prerogatives as a member of parliament. I was unfairly attacked by a certain portion of the press, and the incorrect translation of my speech, as quoted by the Prime Minister, was broadcast to all the country. This is the reason why, for the sake of truth, justice and honour, I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the words which, on June 28 last, he unfairly said about me, on the basis of a highly incorrect translation.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that matter had been cleared up some days ago.


Liguori Lacombe: It has never been.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made it perfectly clear to the house and to the country that I did not regard as correct the translation which my hon. friend claims is not correct. I said so, and I gave the original French words my hon. friend used. I certainly thought the whole matter had been cleared up, and His Honour the Speaker indicated to the house that he was of the same opinion.

Empire Parliamentary Association
Mr. LACOM.BE: It was not the same day; it was on Wednesday last.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The same correction applies of course to both days, if that is any satisfaction to my hon.. friend.


Liguori Lacombe: I want a decision from the Chair. A few minutes' ago I did not ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the translation, but to withdraw the words which he said about me concerning this false translation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member brought this matter before the house on Wednesday last, as he has said, and I then indicated to him that the motion before the Chair dealt only with the French text, and not at all with the English translation. I would also point out to the hon. member that a question of privilege should be raised immediately or as soon thereafter as it is possible, by the hon. member who is claiming the privilege. This matter has now been before the house on two occasions, and the hon. member under the rules has no right to exercise a claim for privilege in respect of a matter which was already before the house a week ago.
In respect of the question the hon. member now raises, may I point out that the matter brought before the house was on the French text, not on the translation, I think therefore the incident must be considered as closed.


Liguori Lacombe: I regret to have to appeal from your decision.
(And less than five members having risen):


Thomas Vien: Presenting reports hv
standing and select committees.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. A. FONTAINE (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot) presented the fourth and fifth reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved:
That the fourth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, presented this day, asking for leave to sit while the house is sitting, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the Congressional Record, the proceedings and debates of the 78th congress, first session, Washington, Saturday, July 3, 
1943. This number contains an account of the visit made by members of congress to the meeting of the Empire Parliamentary Association at Ottawa. I understand that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), who was chairman of the conference, has also received a copy of the Congressional Record and would like to make reference to the visit of Canadian members to Washington arising out of what appears in the Congressional Record. If such is the case, I feel that my hon. friend might be permitted to make his remarks at this time.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister and the house for the opportunity of referring to the visit made by members of this house, together with the Speaker of the Senate, the Honourable Thomas Vien, to the Senate and the House of Representatives in Washington on June 30 and July 1.
The members of this house who were privileged to attend on that historic occasion were the hon. member for Stormont, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and myself. I think reference should be made to the kindness and the friendship and hospitality which were shown to us by both houses, not as individuals but as representatives of the parliaments of Canada and the other parts of the British empire. I need hardly say that the depth and warmth of their reception of us epitomized the devotion and the common sacrifices of the British empire and the United States of America in the present struggle, and it was the expressed hope and prayer of the members of congress, the members of the Canadian parliament, and of the parliaments of the United Kingdom, of Australia, of New Zealand and of Bermuda, that out of this meeting would come a repetition in the years to come of like meetings, and that the spirit of cooperation that now actuates the great democracies in the world should be continued in the days of peace.
I should mention the outstanding event of the visit which showed the appreciation of the United States of America of the empire as a whole, and of Canada, which was that for the first time in history, members of parliament from all parts of the empire were invited to take and did take desk seats on the floor of the United States Senate while it was in session. This was the greatest tribute that the United States Senate could pay to the representatives of the empire, and history was indeed made thereby on July 1, 1943. I hold in my hand a copy of the Congressional Record

Questions
of July 3, 1943, in which United States Senator Warren Austin, one of our distinguished visitors, referred to the visit of the representatives - of the United) States to Canada. Referring to the fact that delegations from all parts of the empire and the United States had attended, he said:
The subject of study and informal discussion [DOT]was the qualification and capacity of democracies to win the war and to attain peace that will prevail throughout the world.
The discussions were marked by eagerness for information, candour of expression and friendly understanding.
No obligations were sought or undertaken, but consequences of high value in mutual understanding were realized.
He goes on to say that with the unanimous consent of the Senate he would like to place upon the record the eloquent speeches made on the occasion of that visit by the Prime Minister of Canada, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and the hon. member for Lethbridge. He used these words:
I concur in the opinion of the Prime Minister of Canada that "the resolution itself will in time become an historic document," and I believe that this first meeting of members of the Congress of the United States with members of the Empire Parliamentary Association is the beginning of a relationship among those bodies- which are closest to the people of the democracies-having endless possibilities of understanding and achievement.
He ends with these words:
The compliment of their visit to the Congress of the United States is further evidence of the intention of the democracies to cultivate a more perfect union for the prosecution of the war and the attainment of lasting peace.
The words of Senator Austin are reechoed by every hon. member of this house.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Elaine Alice McCormick Desrosiers.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Phyllis Beatrice Barnett Woodham.-Mr. Hill.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What is the total number of prefabricated houses built by the Wartime Housing Limited, in the city of Halifax?
2.	How many of these houses are occupied by, (a) employees of H.M.C. dockyard; (b) employees of Halifax Shipyards Limited; (c) employees of construction firms presently engaged in war-time construction projects; (d)
members of the armed forces, army, navy and air force; (e) waterfront workers; (f) civilians otherwise employed?
3.	What is the method used in selecting
tenants?	_
4.	Are any houses occupied by persons who have moved to Halifax since May 1, 1942? If so, -what number?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	544.
2.	(a) 224; (b) 205; (c) 70; (d) 9; (e) none; (f) 36 (Department of Transport and the civil service).
3.	During the course of the construction of the houses, an allocation plan is worked out with the industries which Wartime Housing must serve in any locality. Each industry thereafter selects its list of tenants for the houses allocated. Upon Wartime Housing Limited's investigation proving the necessity, the houses are given to the persons nominated.
4.	We have no knowledge as to the arrival dates of our tenants. This can only be determined by taking a census.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-CLARK-RUSE LIMITED, LAKEBURN, N.B.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	What number of prefabricated houses have been built by the Wartime Housing Limited at Lakeburn, Westmorland county, N.B., for the use of the employees of Clark-Ruse Limited? _
2.	How many of these houses are now occupied by employees?
3.	Is the Department of Munitions and Supply considering the making of these houses available to members of the armed forces, if they are not taken up by Clark-Ruse employees at an early date?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	At Lakeburn, N.B., 200 houses were constructed for the use of workers and their families engaged in the production of munitions or on defence projects. By reason of proximity, the Clark-Ruse plant would be the largest user of these houses.
2.	As of July 3, 1943, 143 houses were occupied by employees of the Clark-Ruse company except for 11 houses occupied by employees of T.C.A., Department of Transport, or the McNamara company.
3.	On all Wartime Housing projects certain houses are made available under standard conditions to families of soldiers in overseas service. As yet, no requests have been made in proper form for houses to be used in this locality for this purpose.
Wartime Housing Limited has not considered the making of these houses available to others than those permitted under the order in council which created Wartime Housing Limited. Daily we are informed by the Clark-Ruse company that by fall they will require all of these houses and possibly will be asking for some additional houses.
Questions


MEAT RATIONING-TURKEY AND CHICKEN
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	Why are there no coupons for turkey and chicken when coupons have been issued for beef and pork?
2.	At whose request was the rationing of beef and pork instituted?
Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	No coupons are issued for turkey and chicken because poultry is not rationed.
2.	Rationing of beef and pork, as well as veal, lamb and mutton was introduced as a government policy to ensure an equitable distribution of meat throughout all sections of Canada and for the purpose of releasing additional quantities of meat for export to our allies.


CEILING PRICE OP PITLPW'OOD
Mr. BLANCHETTE:: In view of the increase of $4 per ton on pulp, as per agreement between the wartime prices and trade board and the U.8. office of price administration on February last, and since present indications are that a further advance in price of pulp will be permitted, will the ceiling price of pulpwood paid to the producer be increased also?


Mr. ABBOTT:: There was no increase of $4 per ton in the price of pulp in February last, but it is assumed that the question refers to an increase of S4 per ton in the price of newsprint effective March 1, 1943. No increase in the price paid to producers of pulpwood is contemplated as a result of this increase in the price of newsprint or as a result of any increases under consideration at this time.
Actually, the price increase made in March was the first increase in the price of newsprint since 1938. This was allowed partially to compensate Canadian newsprint producers for increased costs including increases of from $1.50 to $2 per cord in the prices paid for pulpwood during the period from 1938 to the date of the establishment of the price ceiling in the fall of 1941.


STORAGE FACILITIES FOR 1943 WESTERN CROP
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What steps are being taken at the present time to provide building materials to the western provinces for the erection of storage facilities for the 1943 crop?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Arrangements have been made whereby all but a very small percentage of the production of lumber in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and in the northern and southern interior of British Columbia is to be made available for use in this area for war purposes and essential civilian demands, of which agriculture is considered of

major importance. Arrangements have also been made whereby substantial deliveries of lumber produced in the coastal area of British Columbia have been and are made available to the prairie provinces.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	What are the conditions and regulations regarding the employment and pay of employees engaged on the secondary canals of the dominion?
2.	Are these conditions and regulations being followed in the case of, (a) lockmasters; (b) loclcmotormen employed on the Cornwall canal?
3.	What are the differences in the conditions of employment and pay of these two classes of employees on that canal?


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT- MEDICAL SERVICES, QUEBEC CITY AND MONTREAL
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What medical doctors in Quebec city and Montreal have been employed by or engaged in connection -with the work of the Government Employees' Compensation Act in each of the years 1940 to 1942 inclusive?
2.	How much has been paid to each for such services during each of the said years?


ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Is the government of Canada constructing a road in Newfoundland, (a) on its own account; (b) in conjunction with any other government?
2.	If so, what is the location of such a road?
3.	What is the estimated cost of same? '
4.	Has any part of such road been completed ? If so, at what cost?
5.	By -what firm or firms is the road being built?
6.	Did the contractors supply the equipment for building the road?



INTERNMENTS


Liguori Lacombe: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, memoranda, evidence, reports and other documents in the possession of the Department of Justice, concerning the appeal of Air. Camillien Houde, heard on the 28th May, 1943, by an advisory board at Fredericton.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to oppose the motion made by the hon. member for the production of these papers, because I thus have to remain responsible for the decision that was taken. I have to take that position for two reasons. One is that the terms of the defence of Canada regulations make it the responsibility of the

Questions as Orders lor Returns
Minister of Justice to exercise his judgment in these matters for the safety and security of the state, and in order to discharge that responsibility it is necessary that he be able to have available to him information that cannot be made public. Moreover, the terms of the defence of Canada regulations provide expressly what information in that respect is to be communicated to the house:
21. (3) The Minister of Justice shall, at the beginning of each session of parliament and every four weeks thereafter during each session, make a report to parliament showing the action taken under this regulation, which report shall show:
(a)	the number of persons detained under orders made pursuant to this regulation; and
(b)	the number of cases, if any, in which the Minister of Justice declined to follow the advice of any advisory committee which may be appointed under the next following regulation.
Those are the items of information which the regulations provide shall be communicated to parliament, and they have always been regularly and fully communicated.
The second reason is that this matter comes in terms within the language used by Your Honour on the 30th of June in disposing of a motion for the production of papers, your remarks and decision being reported in Hansard at page 4287. These papers are communications from confidential advisers to the minister for the purpose of enabling him to reach a decision and come expressly within the language used by Your Honour in giving a ruling on the 30th of June. In my judgment, for these reasons it is not in the public interest that these papers be produced, and I ask that the house do not order that they be tabled.


Liguori Lacombe: I want to draw attention-


Thomas Vien: Order. This motion is not debatable.
Motion negatived on division.



CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS OR INSTRUCTIONS

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: For a copy of all censorship orders, regulations or instructions issued under government authority since the outbreak of war.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Mr. Speaker, I ask that this motion stand, for the reason I gave on Monday.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I be permitted to say a word with respect to the minister's explanation? This is the second occasion on which the minister has asked that this motion stand. We are anxious that the papers called for by this motion shall be made available just as soon as possible, because shortly the minister's department will be before us for consideration, and without the papers which are here
called for I am afraid we shall be prejudiced.
I should like to know why the minister is continually asking that this motion stand.
Mr. LaFLECHE: On the 5th of this month when this motion came up I said:
Mr. Speaker, because it will not be possible to ascertain the full extent of this motion before a few days, may I ask that it stand?
I have done my best to find out just what all this means, and I have been told by the officials who are in Ottawa that it will take a very long time to produce all these papers, because hundreds of files must be perused. The gentleman I would particularly like to see is the director of censorship, who will not be back in Ottawa until next week. It is really to save time, certainly not to deprive the house of information, that I ask that the motion stand.


Mr. CHURCH:: The whole thing should be abolished. It is nothing but a farce.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Thursday, July 8, 1943, until the end of the session the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock, p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield):: I desire to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question. As the result of an article in the Montreal Gazette of June 21, which states that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation at their convention passed a resolution "for less restrictions and better distribution of beer supplies", does the government intend to take any action along this line?


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: I have not received a copy of the resolution to which the hon. member for Springfield has referred, but I understand from what he said that it referred to the production and distribution of beer. I should like to say that the brewers are having great difficulty in maintaining, with the staff that they have available, the quota which has been given to them, but I have not heard of
Canadian Forces

any suggestion that men should be diverted from essential war industries in order to produce more beer. With regard to the better distribution of beer, that is entirely a matter within the control and jurisdiction of provincial authorities.


Mr. REID:: Will the minister explain why British Columbia has been discriminated against in this matter?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Reid: That is a legitimate question, Mr. Speaker.


Colin William George Gibson: There has been no discrimination against any province. Every province is treated on exactly the same basis, receiving a cut of ten per cent of the amount purchased in the previous year.


Thomas Reid: I think a fuller statement is required for the information of this house.



CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, notice of which I have given him. It concerns the proposed construction of an addition to Christie Street hospital. Has the minister been officially informed of the offer by the city of Toronto of a free site for a permanent hospital ultimately to replace Christie Street hospital, and stated to be either Earlescourt Park or a site in High Park? Further, will the minister consider staying construction pending a further survey?


Thomas Vien: Order. This is a question which should not be asked on the orders of the day.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I have a question to ask of the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I have given, arising out of a wire I received this morning from Vancouver, and a copy of which was received, I believe, by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who kindly deferred to me as regards asking this question, which concerns a farming district. It is as follows: Vancouver, B.C.
July 6, 1943.
Farmers of the Fraser Valley face extremely serious labour shortage entailing danger to a number of important crops unless men are
'*Mr. Gibson.]
found for harvesting immediately. Right now at least 100 men needed in Surrey municipality and several hundred more in other parts of valley to harvest hay now ready to be brought in. If hay not harvested it is certain that many dairy farmers will have to sell herds for beef in fall and go out of business with calamitous results to dairy business. Acting on behalf of dominion provincial emergency farm labour committee Surrey branch Surrey municipal council and Vancouver labour council the undersigned have already met with military officials in Vancouver to-day requesting that members of armed forces be assigned to farm labour work for next two-week period but have been told that their orders forbid such action except when men are off duty. We would urgently request that you do what you can to bring about a special order from national defence headquarters wrhich would permit allocation of needed man-power from armed forces for emergency service in Fraser Valley farms until critical period is passed.
Councillor Tom Binnie, Surrey municipality; Councillor Ben Shepherd, Surrey municipality; E. E. Lear}', President Vancouver labour council; R. K. Gervin, Secretary Vancouver and district trades and labour council.
The question I wish to ask the minister is: Will the department consider harvest leave for soldiers stationed in the area, or will they permit the use of sufficient soldiers as a flying column for this purpose, these men to be returned by truck each night to their camp?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: If the hon. member will put the question on the order paper I will see that it is answered to-morrow. In the meantime I shall send him a copy of the directions which have been issued with respect to harvest leave, dated July 5, so as to give him immediately what information I have.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have not given him notice, but which is somewhat supplemental to a question I asked previously. I have not received any w'ord that an appointment to the vacancy in the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has yet been made; can the Prime Minister give any information as to when we may expect some news on that point?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite true that the appointment has not yet been made, but I hope it will be made very soon.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ST. LAURENT: On June 30 the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) asked a question on the orders of the day concerning the arrest of one Charles Brandel Crate. Perhaps I may be permitted to table the answer as if it were a question placed upon the order paper in the usual way.
Charles Brandel Crate is a former leader of the Canadian Union of Fascists. At the outbreak of the war he severed his connections with this organization and signed a statutory declaration to that effect.
The Canadian Union of Fascists was declared an illegal organization under the defence of Canada regulations in June, 1940, and there is no evidence that it had been functioning since, nor any attempts made to revive it.
Crate was engaged in August, 1942, by the Par Tex Foundation Company, Limited, Toronto, and was sent by this company to Newfoundland to work on a telephone construction line, which apparently the said company contracted to build. He returned to Canada in December, 1942.
In December, 1942, he obtained employment with the Dominion Bridge Company, Toronto, Ontario, as a labourer.
In January, 1943, he was engaged by the Don Construction Company and on the 28th of that month left for the company's camp at Dawson Creek, British Columbia. He worked there until about the end of May.
Crate arrived at Edmonton during the early part of June. He was arrested at Edmonton on June 21 and charged under section 39C of the defence of Canada regulations for having advocated the policies of an illegal organization, namely, the Canadian Union of Fascists. He appeared before Magistrate Miller on the 29th of June. No plea taken and accused remanded in custody until July
7.	The case is still before the courts.
Crate was employed in the area around Dawson Creek and did not go beyond that. This is not a restricted or prohibited area.
This man is a Canadian by birth, of English parentage, and as Dawson Creek is not in a restricted area he did not require a permit to travel to that area. It is understood that Crate has complied with the national selective service regulations.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed' from Tuesday, July 6, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
Wartime prices and trade board-administration, $14,300,000.
Gordon Graydon: This is in connection with another matter, but I wish to raise the point before the minister begins his remarks. I thought a moment ago I saw the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. I should like some information as to when we may expect answers to the questions which have been standing since the estimates of the Department of Labour under the war appropriation bill have been before the committee. I believe I was promised them last Monday; it is now Wednesday. I suggest to the Minister of Labour that, if it is convenient to his department to do so, the questions might be answered to-morrow.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Yesterday I was asked for certain information which I did not have at the time. The leader of the opposition asked last evening for a statement of the number of cases referred to the Department of Justice. I have made inquiries and I find that no cases have been referred to the Department of Justice. Decision as to whether or not there shall be prosecution in prices board cases is made in every instance by the board.


Gordon Graydon: Their decision is final?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle asked the other night for the number of inspectors in the rural part of Saskatchewan. The board employ inspectors who are attached to the regional office and to the subordinate local offices in Saskatchewan. There is no separation of their work as between urban and rural districts, tlqe investigators covering the general area in which the office to which they are attached is located. On April 15 the investigators employed by the board in Saskatchewan numbered 80. I can furnish a list of the number operating from the various offices, if the hon. member wishes.
4432	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
The member for New Westminster last night raised a question with regard to honey prices. Order 286 of the board, effective June 21, sets maximum prices to primary producers, on sales in bulk to processors or dealers, at 12$ cents or 14 cents for pasteurized. Primary producers may sell at retail to consumers at 15J cents in bulk when the purchaser provides his own container. In non-glass containers the maximum prices vary from 17J cents in 8-pound containers to 23 cents in one-pound containers; in glass, from 20$ cents in 4-pound jars to 35 cents in half-pound jars. The prices which I have given are for non-pasteurized, and for pasteurized, granulated, one must add 1$ cents per pound to all prices. It occurred to me that the hon. member said that the producers received before the war 20 cents per pound. That may have been in containers, and if so these prices would be consistent with that price.
There was also a question with regard to imported honey. All imported honey sold at retail must be sold strictly within the lawful price ceilings. During the autumn of 1942 and the winter of 1942-43 some imports of Mexican and Jamaican honey were authorized for sale to or use by industrial users, for example, packers and soft drink manufacturers, or by contractors operating construction or lumber camps. The cost to such users or contractors was in the majority of cases from 16 to 17 cents a pound. There were a few shipments where the laid-down cost to industrial users in Canada was in the neighbourhood of 20 cents. The board has no record of prices as high as 35 cents. In each case the industrial users were required to give an undertaking to absorb such increased costs of this raw material and not to raise their prices to their customers. During the past three months no new authorizations for the sale of imported honey at higher than ceiling prices have been given, even to industrial users. It is however lawful for an industrial user to purchase honey in a foreign country and bring it into Canada for his own use, since no purchase or sale takes place in Canada.
The member for Lake Centre asked for the record of the percentage or proportion of recommendations of regional counsel which were acted upon. The records of the enforcement administration are not kept in such form as to make readily available the number of prosecutions recommended by the regional offices. A careful estimate however indicates that approximately 75 per cent of such recommendations are approved by head office in Ottawa. The percentage varies of course as between the several regions-as low as 60

or 65 per cent in some and as high as 90 per cent in others. Those are the main points.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Do I understand the minister to say that only a percentage of the prosecutions were authorized by the head office?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. All that take place are. What I have been saying is that recommendations are received from regional counsel which in some cases are not accepted by the head office.


James Arthur Ross: Does the chairman of the board authorize the prosecutions?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The wartime prices and trade board?


James Arthur Ross: Does the chairman of the wartime prices board issue the authority?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The board itself as such does so.


James Arthur Ross: There has been
considerable publicity and talk about black markets in Canada, especially in meat. I have heard that there has been a great deal of interference from packing bouses, either by telephone or otherwise, and it has been said that certain threats were made over the telephone by the heads of certain packing houses to the chairman of the prices and trade board. Is that right?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Certain threats?


James Arthur Ross: In some cases. That is what I am informed. Just what interference has there been from officials of packing houses with the chairman of the prices board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no knowledge whatever of any threats to the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, coming from anyone.


James Arthur Ross: There has been no attempt at all at interference by officials of packing houses?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not so far as I know. The official of the board who would be in a position to know says that he knows of none.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think the minister has answered1 all the questions I asked. For example, there was a question as to the division between various types of prosecutions, rental and so on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I gave that last night.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh; they were
given?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


Thomas Langton Church: I have here a most
important document, a return I first secured showing that for the first three years of operations of the wartime prices and trade board, down to June 15, 1942-three years less two months-the number of prosecutions has been 150. In this connection I have a return to an order of the house with regard to the enforcement of the law. This is sessional paper No. 341, Monday, June 29, 1942. I will read the questions:
1.	How many people, by provinces, have been prosecuted in the law courts for not carrying out the orders in council and instructions, rules and regulations and directions of various boards and controllers and dollar-a-year men, including the wartime prices and trade board, and various non-legislative bodies?
2.	What lawyers, by provinces, have been retained, and what are their fees?
3.	Does the Department of Justice provide counsel to enforce federal law for the wartime prices and trade board and other federal boards?
In reply to the first question the answer is:
1. Numbers of persons prosecuted for alleged contraventions of regulations, orders and requirements of the wartime prices and trade board, September 3, 1939, to June 15, 1942:
Nova Scotia	 8
New Brunswick	 1
Quebec	 22
Ontario	 96
Manitoba	 6
Saskatchewan	 8
British Columbia	 9
In reply to the third question, whether the Department of Justice provide counsel to enforce federal law for the wartime prices and trade board and other federal boards, the answer is yes. The minister said that there have been 150 prosecutions in two years and ten and a half months.
Last night the minister announced that of 3,335 prosecutions from December 1, 1941, to May 31, 1943, 894 were for infractions of price rules, 952 rentals, 465 rationing and 225 sundries, like gasoline. I can tell you that in the city of Toronto the fines levied in connection with many of these prosecutions are not uniform. The magistrates impose heavy fines; the people are not given time in which to pay, and they have to go to gaol. There should be a standard of action and uniform enforcement in these cases; and in any case why should we in Toronto have the greatest number of these rental prosecutions, while the prosecutions in connection with rationing, gasoline and so on, amounted to only some 465? Then where are these people detained? We
know that during the depression the government of Canada, in order to relieve unemployment, built many municipal institutions all across Canada, though Ontario did not get any. In some of the provinces they built gaols, schools, court houses and places of that kind, thus relieving the local taxpayers. In the county of York they have a gaol which was built shortly after confederation and which does not provide adequate accommodation for these people. As a result there is a good deal of suffering. I believe the minister is very humane and I suggest that he should look into these matters and consult with the enforcement officers as to equality of treatment and more reasonable fines for petty breaches.
Then I should like to know why a number of these young solicitors are employed in enforcement work when they should be doing war service. I have noticed some of the names in the newspapers, and I cannot understand why the Department of Justice should engage these young prosecutors when there are crown attorneys in all the districts whose duty it is to enforce the federal laws. The enforcement of all federal laws comes under the provincial attorneys general and their deputies, the crown attorneys in the police courts throughout the country. I do not know why these other solicitors should be engaged.
I appreciate what has been done by the minister in freezing rents in order to protect the poor people, especially in the cities. He has done very good work, but I believe the time has come when we should have a vast housing policy, because under present conditions no one wants to own property. The minister has a parliamentary secretary, one of whose relatives was for a number of years our corporation counsel. I refer to the late Mr. W. C, Chisholm, K.C., a very capable official, who went into this enforcement matter thoroughly some years ago. At that time it was found that a large share of the work of enforcing federal statutes was carried on by the police departments and crown attorneys of the various cities, who had that much less time in which to carry on their other duties. I do believe the municipalities should be given some help in this enforcement work. I believe some contribution is made in connection with the detention costs, but then I believe there is altogether too much detention. Many of those offences are merely trivial; many people are brought to court unnecessarily, though where serious offences occur of course there should be proper punishment. We should never legislate against human nature, but I am sure the minister and his assistant have done very good work.
4434	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I am sure all the members of this committee sympathize with the minister and the officials of the wartime prices and trade board in the very difficult and responsible duties they have to perform. I noticed that Canada's first minister of finance brought down in this house in 1867 a budget with expenditures during the first five months of just a little over $5,000,000, and that the monthly expenditures at that time were less than we are spending in two hours now. The controls necessary in order that the burdens of modern warfare may be distributed fairly and evenly across the country are very complicated. I think the minister and his staff are to be congratulated on having been able to bring the public of Canada along with them so well and to have so few black markets and so few people in various parts of the country who are trying to take advantage of the regulations. I have a letter from the chairman of one of the war finance committees in my constituency in which he states that his district raised $42,000 though the quota was only $28,000 in the last campaign. In his letter he went on to say:
We have very little canvassing to do this time, as it was great the way the people came in with their subscriptions. One party had twenty-nine cream cheques saved up. Several people of very little means came in and bought on the instalment plan. Those are the kind that give a canvasser more pep. Those are the ones that we fight to save.
That is from a veteran of the last war, writing as chairman of the committee, and I think it important that we maintain this attitude right across the country.
Before I discuss the two questions I want to bring to the attention of the minister I might say that planning by people who are opposed to social planning has produced some worth while results. One of the press releases referring to order A-314 of the wartime prices and trade board states that the order has had the effect of eliminating at least one hundred million truck miles per annum, which is said to be an ultra conservative figure, with few instances in which justifiable criticism based on actual hardship could be levelled at the board, either because of lack of service or increased cost. Then it goes on to say that in the ice cream industry in Ontario between 60 and 70 per cent of the mileage previously run has been saved, at an actual dollar and cents saving to the industry. In other words, competition in the industry had in peace time wasted from 60 to 70 per cent of delivery costs, and since we have demonstrated that this wastage can be avoided in war time I hope we may have similar controls when the war is over, for the greatest good to the greatest, number.
'-Mr- Church.]
The minister's parliamentary assistant brought down for me some answers in connection with the amount of sugar being made available this year for canning, for the soft drink industry, for the manufacture of wines, and for the making of candy. I should like the minister to regard himself as the father of a very large family-the people of Canada- with the welfare of that family to consider. This year he is providing about ten pounds of sugar per person for canning. At the same time, according to these figures, he is providing 6-6 pounds of sugar per person for the making of soft drinks, -9 pound per person for the making of wines, and 4-8 pounds for the making of candy. The actual figures as they were brought down in the house are 66,000,000 pounds for soft drinks, 9,100,000 pounds for wines, 48,000,000 pounds for candy and 100,000,000 pounds for preserving. To work it out on the actual amount of sugar available for the minister's family this year, on the assumption that he has three children-I do not think that is correct, but assuming that he has the average family he would receive ten pounds of sugar for each person, or a total of fifty pounds of sugar for canning purposes. He would have thirty-three pounds for making soft drinks, four and a half pounds for making wine, and twenty-four pounds for making candy. I suggest that the minister and his assistant discuss this matter in their family circles to-night, and note the reaction of the members of their families.
I understand the difficulties. I know that the soft drink industry in Canada has a large investment. I know that less sugar is available to them than was available last year. But the information we have seems to indicate that they have far too much sugar made available,	taking into consideration the
amounts provided for essential purposes such as canning and preserving.
I received only this morning a communication from the sugar protest committee of Victoria, British Columbia, a communication which I believe other hon. members also have received. People across Canada are not organized; they cannot make their protests vocally. But I believe there is a genuine protest across Canada against giving a family of five only fifty pounds for canning, and at the same time giving them thirty-three pounds for soft drinks, four and a half pounds for wine, and twenty-four pounds for candy.
I realize that some educational work must be done immediately to counteract the influence of the people who make soft drinks available. I have been disturbed by the reply made in confectionery stores when requests have been made for soft drinks, when none

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
were available. They say, "'Blame Mr. Usley lor this", instead of "'Blame Hitler". I suggest that the wartime information board should be trying to have our people understand that we cannot have suggar for canning and for our children if we are going to continue to make this very large volume of sugar available for the soft drinks industry.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the wine industry.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Certain hon. members may think I am a crank on the question of drink. I think in peace time the soft drink industry provides an alternative to harder liquors. But with the tremendous amount of fruit which will waste this year there will have to be some change in the amount of sugar made available.
In connection with trucking I would point out that I placed a question on the order paper in which I asked how many trucks in Canada delivering soft drinks exclusively have been permitted to operate beyond the thirty-five mile limit. The answer to that was 222. Then I asked how many trucks delivering beer exclusively operated beyond the thirty-five mile limit, and the answer was 203. To the question as to how many trucks belonging to wholesale produce dealers were permitted to operate beyond the thirty-five mile limit, the answer was 126.
In my constituency we have a large wholesale produce industry. That industry has large territories to cover, in which only a poor train service operates. They are placing on the market a very large volume of eggs for purposes of processing for the British trade. My information is that they have not been able to obtain permission to operate beyond the thirty-five mile area. At the same time soft drink trucks go whizzing by, and apparently they have no difficulty at all in securing adequate supplies of both gasoline and rubber. I submit we are allowing the soft drink industry two great concessions. I would ask the minister to make a statement indicating whether something can be done this year to make more sugar available for canning and less available for soft drinks and wine.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I should discuss one at a time the purposes for which sugar is made available. The cut in the amount of sugar made available for candy is thirty per cent this year below the amount allowed in 1941. The same cut of thirty per cent is made in respect of wine and soft drinks. The hon. member says that the relationship of the amount used for these purposes to the amount available for canning of fruit is an incorrect relationship. To begin with I would point out that the thirty per cent cut is a substantial
and severe one. The hon. member seems to think that we should discourage to a greater extent than we do the use of soft drinks. Well, human beings are so constituted, whether we like it or not, that they have to drink something.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What about cold water?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Legislative bodies which have tried to decree that the only drink should be cold water have encountered some little resistance in public opinion. And if they are to have freedom to drink something other than water, I suppose the alternatives are soft drinks and beer.


Gordon Graydon: Oh no-milk.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a food rather than a drink.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: And buttermilk.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The possibility of utilizing these food drinks-because that is what they are-in a large way, is limited. I know the hon. member does not think that people should drink more beer. And with a very large number of persons in the country complaining that they cannot get as much beer as they would like, I am afraid that the discontent of the population would be considerable if we made an extremely drastic cut in the amount of soft drinks they can obtain. We are told that in war plants the availability of soft drinks is essential to morale. It would not be essential to my morale, and probably not to the morale of my hon. friend; but it does appear that there are a great many people in the country who do like to drink some soft drinks. I am afraid that if we cut the amount of soft drinks by more than thirty per cent, along with the cut in beer which has taken place, we would have a greater outcry than we should have in a time of war.
With regard to candy I would direct the minds of hon. members back to a session or two ago when we were discussing the thirty per cent tax on candy. I well recall the speeches made at that time. I remember speeches by hon. members who are also members of the medical profession, in which they argued that candy was not an article we should tax, because it was a good energy-producing food, particularly for children. We all remember the story about those poor little boys and girls who, we were told, were going into the stores to buy a stick of candy for a cent. They would reach up their little hands and hold out the cent to the storekeeper, saying, "A cent's worthy of candy, please", and the storekeeper would say, "Oh, no, my child; that is two cents now, because of the Mackenzie King government." I think it was
4436	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
the hon. member for Peterborough West who accused us of having arranged it so that we would even take candy from kids. I am just mentioning these things to show that candy has made friends-or at least that it had a lot of friends at that time in the House of Commons. If we cut down to too great an extent the amount of sugar available for candy we get results which are not the results we should like to have.


Gordon Graydon: The minister must have been more impressed than we thought he was.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, I was touched by the speech of the hon. member.


Gordon Graydon: So were the taxpayers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is what the hon. member said. With regard to wine, we are following the same course; that is subject to a thirty per cent cut. The hon. gentleman referred to the heavy investment, and the implication was that we were very tender toward heavy investors. Whenever anything is done about wine the investors who are most vocal are the grape growers. They are the ones who protest most vociferously when anything is done which unduly affects wine. Nevertheless we have passed an order in council which prohibits wines being reinforced by spirits, and we are subjecting them to the same type and degree of sugar control as applies to other industries. Here again I think the only proper policy is not to go to extremes.
The hon. gentleman says that much fruit will be wasted, but the reports I get are that the fruit crop is very light in Canada, that in many cases it is going to be difficult to get fruit. Some people will have more sugar than they will be able to use, and! some will have less, possibly a great deal less, than they will be able to use. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the people of Canada never used more than 100,000,000 pounds of sugar for the canning of fruit. In 1942, when they were given the privilege of securing as much sugar as they requested for canning purposes, they required only 106,000,000 pounds. That represents practically one hundred per cent as against the seventy per cent being supplied to these other industries. If the hon. gentleman can work out a more rational policy than the one we are following, I should be glad to have him do it. The hon. gentleman mentioned beer and soft drink trucks.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: And wholesale produce trucks.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to delay answering that until I have looked over a memorandum which has been placed before me.


Gordon Graydon: As the question of sugar rationing has been reintroduced into the discussion, there are one or two matters I should like to bring up. Will the minister clarify the position in connection with the international sugar board? The information I have-perhaps the minister will correct me if it is erroneous -is that the amount which can be had for this purpose is regulated by an international sugar board which operates not only so far as Canada is concerned but with respect to the United States. I note from an article which appeared in a Fairfield, Maine, newspaper that the amount of sugar being provided for canning in Maine is twenty-five pounds maximum. That is a maximum, not an arbitrary or a minimum amount. As I read the article, it states that a top limit of twenty-five pounds of sugar per person was set under new regulations which became effective on May 15.
If there is an international sugar board or any arrangement which covers both countries, we ought to be entitled to as much for. canning purposes as is allowed in the United States. It is natural that thoughts of discrimination will arise, particularly along the border. This is one point I should like the minister to clear up. While I am on my feet I should like to place a letter on the record on behalf of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling), who has asked me to do this for him. He is very much interested in this matter. He received a copy of a letter addressed from Silverton, British Columbia, to the ration administrator, Confederation building, Montreal, Quebec, under date of June 25, 1943. It reads as follows:
We have to-day received from the Nelson, British Columbia, ration committee, coupons for sugar for canning, amounting to thirty pounds for our family of three.
It was understood that rural districts where fruit is extensively grown in gardens, would receive at least fifteen pounds per person.
This ration allotted us amounts to one crate of fruit per person for the entire season's canning, and no sugar for jam. This is a ridiculous allotment, in view of the fact that it has been impossible to secure any supplies of jams, jellies, or canned fruit through retail channels in this district, and also in view of the fact that in practically every home, raspberries, strawberries, cherries and currants have been given extensive cultivation in preparation for the season when home canning and jam making would have to take the place of bought goods.
Those of us with small patches of berries and fruits might just as well cut them down, as the crops will now go to waste, and this in a country which is in a state of war.
According to press reports British Columbia, a fruit producing area, has been given the lowest allotment per person in Canada. Why?
Last year, according to official statistics, the amount of sugar used for home canning and

War Appropriation-
-Finance-
-Prices Board
preserving was about as much as the allotment for 1943. Yet everyone who did home canning had ample. Why are we cut to one crate of small fruit per person this year? If eight and a half million people have applied for sugar for canning, there is something wrong in the administration of the sugar distribution. After many years in the wholesale fruit business, I am convinced that there is no such thing as 85 per cent of the population of Canada preserving at home. Fifty per cent would be a high figure. Either your figures are inaccurate or else almost 50 per cent of those applying have no intention of using this sugar for canning, thereby cutting the allotment for those who legitimately intend doing so.
Your figures in your circular are also out of line. You claim there are 100,000,000 pounds sugar available for canning among eight and a half million applications.
According to my way of figuring, this would work out to almost 12 pounds per person. Why only 10 pounds in a fruit producing district?
If the same amount was used in preserving last year, then only 5,000,000 people used preserving sugar, including men, women and children, as the amount used was about 20 pounds per person on the average. Where have the three and a half million extra users of sugar come from? An increase of 70 per cent?
On what basis has this distribution been made that some districts, non-fruit producing, receive more than those which produce fruit in the home yards?
What information and from what source was it gathered upon which the distribution was made? What steps have been, or will be taken to ensure that the allotment given will be used for preserving? (It would take an army of policemen to check each individual's canning operations.)
As citizens who are making sacrifices to enable this war to be fought to a successful conclusion, we have the right to ask pertinent questions, which affect the distribution of the sacrifice, and sugar for our families on an equitable basis.
It has been proved conclusively on several occasions so far since the war started that administration for the whole of Canada cannot be done effectively from points w-hich are over 3,000 miles from the area administered, and possibly this is the answer to some of the questions which the people of British Columbia are asking.
I want to thank the minister and the house for permitting me to read this letter on behalf of the member for Kootenay West, who had asked me to do so when this item was under consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for York-Sunbury raised the question of the use of sugar in the United States as compared with Canada in the house on June 4, and instead of replying in the house I wrote him on June 17-
Mr. GRAYD'ON: Did he make the same suggestion as is made here?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, he did not give this figure. He raised the question because he said the restaurants of the United States
seemed to be a little freer with their sugar than restaurants here. Perhaps I had better read the letter I wrote to him:
Dear Mr. Hanson:
Ou June 4 you asked me in the house for information as to the allocation of sugar supplies for Canada as compared with the United States.
At the end of 1941 it became obvious that the United States and Canada would have to ration sugar due to the shortage of ships to carry sufficient raw sugar from producing areas to the United States and Canada.
At that time, many discussions w-ere held in Washington between the Sugar Administration and the office of Price Administration and other competent American government agencies. Subsequently, the ration administration was formed and participated in these discussions.
It was laid down as a principle between the Canadian and United States government agencies that as far as possible the two ration schemes should be as nearly equal as local geographical, economic and distributive conditions permitted. At the present time, the per capita consumption, excluding the needs of the army, is almost exactly the same, being about 66 pounds per head in the United States and 65 pounds per head in Canada. This consumption of 65. pounds per head is the total amount of sugar consumed in Canada for household, home canning, industrial and institutional use, divided by the population.
At the beginning of rationing, the sugar administration felt that the restaurant business, in order to save sugar, would require to be authorized to remove sugar bowls, from the table. If this -was not made mandatory, competitors might have nullified any saving in restaurant consumption. In the United States, such removal of sugar bowls has not been made mandatory but a very large number of restaurants and hotels only serve one tablet of sugar for a beverage and a little envelope of soft sugar for cereal or fruit. The envelope contains less than one teaspoonful and one tablet is less than three lumps. From our investigation and experience, the amount of sugar allowed to clients in restaurants in United States is appreciably less than in Canada, although there are exceptions where it is possible, on demand, to obtain more.
The allocation of sugar internationally is made by the combined food board through its sugar committee, on which Canada is represented. At meetings of this committee, Canada, United States and Great Britain present figures of their requirements and available supplies are allocated in accordance with relative need. Canada and the United States share on a similar basis, our ration plans being almost identical. The United Kingdom is slightly differently placed, in that larger stocks have to be carried and disseminated throughout the island for security reasons.
We are dependent upon the United States for our share of raw sugar to the extent of about one-third, in that the war shipping administration has given the Canadian sugar administration an undertaking to lift in 1943, 100,000 tons of raw sugar by American flag vessels. United States government agencies, therefore, expect to be assured that we are not providing more sugar per capita in Canada than they are themselves in the United States.
4438	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
I have no definite information as to how they have divided their sugar in the United States between canning and ordinary purposes. The officials tell me that it is their opinion, although they do not vouch for this, that one billion pounds of sugar has been allocated by the United States for home canning, which would be a smaller amount per capita than in Canada, and their information also is that the amount allowed in the United States is 25 pounds per family rather than per person. But I am not in a position to deny -what the hon. gentleman has said.


Gordon Graydon: Just to have the matter made clear perhaps I might read into the record this one paragraph for the minister to check, because it raises a question which it seems to me will have to be decided one way or the other. This article appeared in the Fairfield Review, in Maine, on May 15 last. It is entitled "Canning Sugar", and reads:
Procedure by which housewives will obtain sugar for home canning and freezing of this season's fruit crop on and after May 15 was released Monday by the Maine district office ot price administration. As previously announced by price administrator Prentiss M. Brown, sugar for home canning is being allotted on substantially the same basis as last year, that is, one pound for each four quarts (or eight pounds) of the finished product, and by essentially the same procedure-written application to the local board. A top limit-
I spoke of that before as being a mistake.
A top limit of 25 pounds of sugar per person Isse^ *n new regulations, which become effective May 15^ The OPA emphasizes, however, that the 25-pound figure is a maximum, to be granted only in the relatively few cases where this large amount of fruit will be canned and preserved. Last year there was no nationwide ceiling over the amount that was allowed each person, but many local boards set individual limits of 10 or 15 pounds, while others granted individual amounts as high as 45 pounds. The new limit of 25 pounds per person assures more uniform treatment, although it is not expected that many families will apply for the maximum amount. Within the 25-pound per person limit, any family can apply for sugar to put up jams, jellies and preserves at the rate of five pounds per individual. This is a more generous allowance than last year, when sugar for preserves was limited to one pound per person.
I leave that with the minister, so that the whole record will be clear.


The CHAIRMAN:: Before we go any
further I should like to refer to the statement made by the leader of the opposition. This sugar discussion has been taking place on several occasions. It is an important question,
[Mr. Ilsley.)
and perhaps it would suit the convenience of hon. members and the minister if we disposed of the sugar question first.


Mr. STIRLING:: The minister referred to the curtailment which is to take place in various lines of production, but he did not say anything with regard to a curtailment in the consumption of sugar permitted for the commercial canning of fruits and for the making of jam.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no limit for commercial canning.


Grote Stirling: Or for making jam?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Or for jam making, no.
There would be a limit on account of other factors, such as the amount of fruit available; but they can get the sugar that is required.


Grote Stirling: There is a cut of thirty per cent in sugar for use in the making of soft drinks.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Grote Stirling: But the cut to the housewife who does her own canning is a great deal worse than thirty per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no cut below last
year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The canning factories have to use a thin syrup; they are not allowed to use a heavy syrup-


James Lorimer Ilsley: They have to use a thin
syrup.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is their cut?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I think it is realized by the people of Canada that the difficulties we are experiencing because of the rationing of sugar arise out of the sheer stupidity of the men who have been in charge of this country for the last six years. I can support my stand very easily. There is no reason in the world why Canada should not be producing all the sugar that Canada needs.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Absolutely none.


John Horne Blackmore: As far back as 1936 I began to draw to the attention of hon. members the danger we were running into by reason of a war restricting the amount of sugar which could be brought into this country. Generally speaking, whenever I made such a remark some of the wise men on the Liberal side passed my warnings off

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
very lightly. Oh, they were buoyant in, their disregard in those dlays. Now we see the country in the difficulties which their buoyancy and simple-mindedness have run us into. I wish to point out that there was plenty of time in 1936 to have made provision for all the sugar which Canada would need, and anyone with real intelligence and the disposition to use it could have seen at that time that there was serious danger of a war. I rose in this chamber in 1937, and again in 1938 and 1939, and I pleaded with hon. members and with the government to increase sugar production in Canada. Not a word was said in reply

not one. In 1941 I had to rise in my place and devote a considerable amount of attention to the problem of sugar, because it was proposed by some all-wise individual in Canada that we restrict by 1.300 acres the amount of sugar beets which could be planted in the southern Alberta area.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Surely not restrict the production?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. It was only after a great deal of effort that certain stupid men could be brought to see that such restriction was really wrong and that the 1,300 acres should be permitted to be grown.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are the farmers of
southern, Alberta actually prevented from raising all the sugar beets they wish to raise?


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, undoubtedly. The hon. member will find in Hansard of April 3, 1941, my speech dealing with the whole question, if he is interested enough to look it up. That was actually proposed in Canada, and but for a good deal more effort than should have been necessary it would have been adopted.
I believe it is time that we as members of the house and the people generally in Canada should begin to recognize that it is a good thing for a country to be producing what it needs. Generally speaking, people admire the mixed farmer; they generally rejoice over a mixed farming area, and those areas as a rule are more stable than one-crop areas. Now, Canada is far from stable economically. But we are in a position now to start over again. At least we can begin to start to plan over again. I hope that by some means we can manage to prevent the people who have charge of the planning policies of this country from developing such fatuous ideas about the national economy as have prevailed since 1935, such ideas as that we ought to specialize in one, or two, or three
or more commodities and import just as much as we possibly can, so that we can export. Why were we supposed to restrict our sugar production in this country? Why? So that we could sell salt fish to Cuba. It sounds most attractive now, does it not,- salt fish and potatoes to Cuba? And in order to be able to sell salt fish and potatoes, we were to restrict the development of the beet sugar industry in Canada. If you can imagine anything that looks more stupid in the light of what has happened since, come around and tell me about it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Unless you happen to be catching fish.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to point out furthermore that it was possible for us to have brought into Canada in the spring of 1941 two big beet sugar factories. They would have been producing sugar in the fall of 1941. There are areas in the province of Alberta in which those factories could have been established, and sugar would have been coming on to the market greatly to the relief of the sugar situation in Canada. Now it may seem impossible for hon. members to believe this, but I personally went to members of the government and urged upon them the advisability and the necessity of allowing those two factories to come into Canada and of setting up conditions and circumstances which would assure them of getting a market if they did come in; but I was met with a courteous disregard. Not only that: in the spring of 1942 we could have had another factory, but the government let it go. I wonder how long the people of this country and the members of this house are going to submit to a management of the country's affairs so open to question as this kind of thing is.
I thought it was fitting, Mr. Chairman, that we should do a lot of thinking about this matter before we left the subject of sugar.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of enhancing my reputation for stupidity I should like to point out two or three qualifications of the hon. gentleman's remarks. I do not think anyone ever suggested that Canada should or could put herself in a position to supply all her requirements from beet sugar production in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because the economic sacrifice involved in so doing would be too great. The opportunity for expansion is not there, except at a tremendous cost. At the present time, or before the war, if I remember correctly, the total proportion of sugar derived

4440	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
from sugar beets in Canada was about 15 per cent, and it rose to about 18 per cent. Of course there is a vast difference between that and 100 per cent; and certainly I never heard it suggested by the hon. gentleman or anyone else that it was feasible to fill that gap between 18 and 100 per cent. Those who have advocated a subsidized -and greatly expanded programme of sugar beet production in Canada have been ambitious to get it up to a little higher figure; that is all. If that all along has been the only policy which would be arguably sound, I think the hon. gentleman's assertion that if we had been supplying a larger part of our requirements from beet sugar production we would have had more sugar for use by the civilian population is incorrect, because the amount of sugar we are able to get from abroad takes into account the amount of sugar which is available in Canada, and if we were to double our beet sugar production in this country we would be denied a proportionate amount of cane sugar by way of importation. So that the results of the ineptitude of ministers and governments and so on, if such it were, are not the results which the hon. gentleman has portrayed so feelingly. It would not have meant that we would have had more sugar; it would merely have meant that a larger proportion of the same amount of sugar would have been grown here instead of being imported.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the minister ought to explain the statement he made that it would be impossible except at very great cost to produce Canadian sugar in Canada. Before he starts to meet my contention-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not intend to start.


John Horne Blackmore: Then he has made a statement which is utterly unsupported and unsupportable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, sir; utterly
unsupported and unsupportable. I doubt if there is a province in Canada in which a sugar factory could not be established.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We have them in
Ontario.


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly they could be established in Ontario to supply all Ontario's needs, and certainly in Manitoba; and in the Carrot River valley in Saskatchewan I am told the same could be done. In Alberta fifteen factories could be operated, each of which would supply five per cent of Canada's total needs. I am positive that a sugar factory could be established in British Columbia, and I have had representations 
from Nova Scotia to the effect that they could establish one successfully there. Under the circumstances, I wonder how the minister can support his claim that it would be too costly. Let me give him another thought before he attempts this task, which he may rush into, because he has got into the habit of recklessness in the matter of sugar.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why were they not established?


John Horne Blackmore: Because sufficient
encouragement was not given.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Who would pay for the encouragement?


John Horne Blackmore: The encouragement could be paid for very easily.


James Lorimer Ilsley: By whom?


John Horne Blackmore: I happen to come from an area where sugar is produced and I know a few things about sugar. All the minister has to know is this-and I have already pointed this out to the house! In the Raymond area, where I was living when I was elected, the sugar factory sold its sugar at just about four cents per pound in 1937 to the wholesaler. That is so cheap that the prospect of buying sugar at four cents per pound must appear to the people of Canada as utopian. They sold their sugar at four cents a pound and the factory made $155 an acre gross for every acre that was used in the production of sugar beets. If that is not enough to show that sugar can be produced economically in Canada, there must be something that I have overlooked, and I do not think there is. All that would have been necessary would have been to-guarantee to the producers of sugar beets-access to the Canadian market first. That is all. As matters were, it was so easy for the Department of Finance or the department of inland revenue to change a certain duty ever so little, and thereby admit sugar from cane producing areas at an exceedingly lower rate to destroy the beet sugar production enterprise here. A great many people-had to abandon the idea of going in for the production of beet sugar, which otherwise they would have undertaken.
I think it would have been found that the economic advantage to Canada which would have accrued from the raising of our own. sugar beets and the production of our own. sugar would have been so great that it would have doubly compensated us for any possible-expenditure which we might have had to make as a government to protect the beet sugar-industry.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
Let me give one example. A 1200-ton slicing capacity mill at Raymond in my constituency is estimated by responsible American authorities to be capable of keeping 10,000 people; not only those who grow the beets and those who process them in the factory, but those who produce the coal and the various other items that contribute to that processing, those who haul the beets, those who care for them, those who take care of the live stock which are produced in a beet sugar area because of the abundance of feed there; hay grown in the crop rotation in preparation for the beets; beet pulp, beet tops, beetalasses, and so on. When all these factors are taken into consideration it will be seen that a 1200-ton slicing capacity mill will keep 10,000 people. We were keeping people on relief in Canada year after year and paying for it out of the dominion treasury as well as out of provincial and municipal treasuries. That is one simple example. Moreover, we were losing all the revenues that would have gone to the railways for the hauling of the beets and the hauling of the sugar and all that sort of thing.
Even these two considerations will constitute a serious obstacle for the minister to climb over in establishing his contention that Canada could not on economic grounds afford to have produced her own sugar.
Let me make one more observation before I resume my seat. We have been hearing a good deal lately about the food conference at Hot Springs, Virginia. The most important pronouncement that came out of that conference was that never yet had mankind produced enough food. They omitted, I grant, to say something else of equal importance, if not indeed of greater importance, namely, that never had mankind been able to pay for the food that it had been able to produce. They did say, however, that mankind had never produced enough food, and they urged that every means be taken to increase the food production of the world in every country. If their advice means anything at all it should mean that in Canada we should increase our food production, and among the foods which should receive first consideration, apart from commodities which we now produce in abundance, such as wheat and other grains and vegetables, beet sugar should be prominent.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should not like the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge to pass without in a measure agreeing *with his general premise, but I am more particularly anxious to emphasize, or at any rate to confirm, the view which the hon. member took back in 1936, that our country should see to it, in the interests of the generations that will 72537-2814
come after us, that in the supply of all necessary commodities, and particularly foodstuffs, for every individual commodity we should at least have some source of supply, even though that source might be very limited in comparison with requirements. . At any rate, our country, Canada, should have a spot where that particular commodity might be produced,, and I say that Alberta is such a spot for sugar.
I rise now merely to emphasize the hon. member's remarks. Coming from the central province of Ontario, I commend to the consideration of the house his remarks of 1936-and his consistent and continued argument: from that day forward, because, in common with members from Alberta, I would point out that in western Ontario at Wallaceburg, and in the counties of Essex and Kent and through that area, we are able to produce a certain amount of this particular commodity. The economics of production is another matter. If we had a world-wide free interchange of all commodities the situation would be different. It is perhaps not feasible or economically possible to produce our own requirements in certain lines within the confines of our own country. It is probably true that sugar can be-produced more easily and more economically in the West Indies and other areas closer to-the equator than it can be produced here; but if future events should once more give people the disposition to become more self-sufficient than is the case at present we may be forced' into the position of keeping lit the embers of the fire which made it possible for us to-begin the production, within the confines of.' our own country, of a very necessary commodity such as sugar. I believe the hon. member for Lethbridge deserves the commendation of this house for the effort he has put forward, ever since he has been a member of this chamber, in keeping to the fore the possibility of Canada producing her own sugar requirements. It is true, as the Minister of Finance has said, that our own production amounts to only fifteen per cent of our consumption at the present time, but still that fifteen per cent might sustain us should the world economic position become so desperate that we would have to depend upon Alberta or Ontario for our sugar requirements. But apart from the economies of the situation there is the fact that 10,000 people can be sustained by this industry within our own country.


John Horne Blackmore: That is by just one factory.


Joseph Henry Harris: As the hon. member says, that is in connection with only one factory; and before we are very much older
4442	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
the day may come when we shall be happy to find employment for 10,000 of our citizens, whether in Alberta or in Ontario. Further than that, we must keep our transportation system going, and any little help it may get from the sugar industry in connection with transportation from Alberta to the consuming centres of Ontario and Quebec might help out very considerably.
I am very anxious, as I am sure the Minister of Finance is anxious, that the observations of the hon. member for Lethbridge should be borne in mind in the days to come, so that we may give some thought and study to the development of another necessary industry within our borders, not only to keep our own people employed, not only to maintain a balanced national economic system, but also in order that those of our people who desire to exercise their talents in this particular branch of industry may have an opportunity to do so. We must produce sugar for our own needs; and while it is true that the larger part of that sugar comes from other parts of the world, I believe we should maintain some production in Canada. The efforts of the hon. member for Lethbridge in connection with the production of sugar in Canada have been really worth while. I believe they will find a ready echo in the western part of Ontario, particularly in the counties of Essex and Kent, and more particularly in the town of Wallaeeburg, whose refineries have been idle oftener than they should have been; as well as in the city of Chatham.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: I
think I should keep the record straight and talk about the sugar industry for a moment or two, since the question has been discussed at some length by the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Dan-forth. It does seem to me that we should settle once and for all whether or not it is economically sound to produce our own sugar in Canada; for this question has been bandied around the house ever since I came here, in 1935, and for many years before that. Neither this nor any other government of Canada has given much encouragement to the production of sugar beets in Canada, though I have no doubt that from an economic point of view, we cannot compete with the sugar cane industry of the West Indies, Cuba or some of the other southern islands, so far as price is concerned.
The previous speaker mentioned the counties of Essex, Kent and Lambton, and referred to the sugar refineries in that area. It is true that we have two modern sugar refineries .there, capable of processing approximately

40,000 acres of beets annually. This year, in spite of all the efforts that have been put forth, only about 10,000 acres of beets, or perhaps less, are being grown. If another 30,000 acres were produced we would be able to produce approximately 75,000,000 pounds more sugar in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask why that is
not being produced?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I was just coming to that. The contract that has been offered to the growers is very good, probably fifteen or eighteen per cent better than last year, but there are several factors entering into it. From the point of view of returns, sugar beets must compete with such crops as corn, soya beans, white beans and so on, which probably would not give an equal gross return, but which probably give an equal net return. The question of labour also enters into the problem. It is difficult to guarantee sufficient labour to stimulate the production of this additional 30,000 acres of beets.


Joseph Henry Harris: It is mostly
labour, is it not?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Labour is one problem.


Joseph Henry Harris: It is the main
problem.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The
price is another factor. This year, on a sixteen per cent sugar content, these sugar beets would give the grower a gross return of approximately $100 per acre, and the average sugar content of the beets in those southern Ontario counties over the past ten years has been approximately sixteen per cent. But that return was not sufficient, particularly in view of labour difficulties and also having regard to other field crops, to bring about the maximum production of sugar beets in this country.
I do not know just what is the solution. It has been stated publicly that if we produced an additional 75,000,000 pounds of sugar we would have ample for our own use. That may be true, but, as the minister has said, if we brought about that additional production we would get approximately that much less from the United States. As the minister explained, our policy is coordinated1 with that of the United States in regard to sugar. Formerly we obtained the great bulk of our supplies under a trade treaty with the British West Indies. That has been cut off, owing to the lack of shipping space, and also to the fact that most

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
of the south Pacific islands are in Japanese hands, and now our sugar comes from Cuba, whose production is controlled by the government of the United States. So that now we buy our sugar through the United States, and if we produced an additional 75,000,000 pounds of our own we would probably get that much less from the United States. Our 75,000,000 pounds would simply go into the pool, to be divided among the people of Canada and the United States, and this would not make a great deal of difference to the average person who is doing some canning, or to the amount of sugar the average purchaser would get.
What I rose to say was that the sugar beet industry has been bandied around for a long time. The government of the day should make up its mind whether it wants sugar beets to grow in this country, or whether it does not. That is something the government does not seem to be able to do.


Mr. LALONDE:: Last night the Minister of Finance promised that he would put on record certain figures respecting tire sales in the district of Mont Laurier. Would he be good enough to do that now, if the figures are not confidential? Then, is it true that the central office of the wartime prices and trade board in Montreal, Quebec or Ottawa establishes a quota on sales of tires in each territorial district? If so, how does that quota operate?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid I cannot explain the operation of the quota very well, because it is established by the rubber controller rather than by the wartime prices and trade board. The rubber controller is an official of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
I would have to take out of the police report the figures for which the hon. member has asked. I do not think I should place on the record the figures showing the sales of half a dozen competing garages. I believe, however, that I might place on record the percentages, so as to bring out the point I made last night.
I said last night that the sales in 1942 by the Laurin garage were sharply up from the previous year, whereas the sales of the other five garages were sharply dowm. That is correct. The percentages I shall give are only approximate, and they may be slightly misleading because the fiscal years of the various garages are not the same. One would run from April to April, another from November to November; another would be the calendar year and so on. But approximately it would be true to say that sales of tires and tubes of the Laurin garage were double in 1942 what they were in 1941, or that they were 200 per cent of the 1941 figure. The 1942 sales of the
Gaston Forget garage were approximately twenty-five per cent of the 1941 sales. It is, however, fair to say that this percentage does not cover quite a twelve-month period. The 1942 sales of the William Grenier garage were approximately thirty per cent of the 1941 sales. The 1942 sales of the Grenier Brothers garage were approximately twenty-five per cent of the 1941 sales. The 1942 sales of the Vanchestein garage were approximately forty per cent of the 1941 sales. The 1942 sales of the Brisebois garage were approximately eighty-five per cent of the 1941 sales.
These figures had to be picked out of a confidential police report and converted into percentages. As I have said, allowances will have to be made for differences in the fiscal years, and in at least one case a period shorter than the fiscal year has been taken. That affects, of course, the validity of the comparison.


Maurice Lalonde: I thank the minister for this information. While we are on the subject of tires, I would point out that in my humble opinion the establishment of a quota for each district may lead to some misunderstanding. In fact, my information is that if a customer comes before the representative of the wartime prices and trade board with an application signed before a friendly garage, the quota is open to him. But if he comes with an application signed before a garage not friendly to the representative, then he is told, "Too bad, my friend; the quota is exhausted." I have received many complaints from my district regarding the handling of tire sales permits. The figures given by the minister this afternoon are an explanation of what has happened in my constituency. I am not surprised to see that the Laurin garage percentage has increased to the extent indicated, because Laurin and the representative of the board at Mont Laurier are very close friends. If the investigators of the wartime prices and trade board wish to make any further investigation, they would do well to see a certain number of persons in my district who would be only too glad to state that when they went to the representative's office with an application signed by a garage other than the Laurin garage they have always been told that this famous quota is exhausted.
I urge the minister to find a means of cutting down this practice which seems to be open to representatives of the calibre of the one at Mont Laurier. I thank the minister just the same for the trouble he has taken, and I would sincerely hope that in the near future he would keep a tight grip on the arrogant bureaucracy now prevailing in the district of Montreal, so far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned.
4444	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have here a letter dated June 18, 1943, sent out by a large wholesale clothing company to all its branches. It is as follows:
There has been a ruling just put into force by the wartime prices and trade board saying that our khaki tropical worsted can be made in air force officers uniforms only. So if you get an army man or a navy man wanting a uniform of the wool tropical do not take the order, as we are not allowed to make them. The government is supplying the cloth, and they are reserving it for the air force only.
Why should the wartime prices and trade boardl discriminate against the army and the navy? Is it because the air force has such a pull that they can get that kind of goods, while the other armed forces cannot? These are materials for officers' uniforms. Surely there must be some explanation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is this from a wholesaler?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is from a wholesale house to its branches. Officers of the army-I do not know about the navy- are pretty well upset about it and are wondering why a ruling like that should come out from the board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to get information about that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I mentioned the matter when the estimates of the Minister of Munitions and Supply were before us. It is something that should be cleared up at once, because there should be no necessity for these officers to go around in heavy uniforms if they can get the others. There should not be that type of discrimination. Officers of the air force are allowed to have bellows pockets in their uniforms, but the officers of the army or the navy are not allowed these. Uniforms fit better with this type of pocket, especially when an officer is carrying his order book or anything else in his pocket. I think the minister should look into the matter at once.
Last evening the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that many employees of the wartime prices and trade board were receiving salaries of $4,000 or more. I do not object to their receiving salaries of that kind, although some of these men perhaps were not receiving any salaries in 1939. Many of them were attending university. I should like to cite the case of a sole proprietor who was doing a business of $30,000 or $40,000 a year in 1939 and taking out of the business only something like $2,500. Anything above that was being put back into the business. This man is not allowed to-day to take out

any more than the $2,500, even though he has increased his business, which may be an essential one, to $160,000 or $170,000 a year. I believe there is a point where he can take fifteen or twenty per cent, which would bring him up to $3,500 or $3,600. This man is making for the government $15,000 in excess profits tax and $4,000 or more in standard profits tax, but he is kept down to $3,500. He is not allowed1 to go up to the $5,000 salary limit, but men in the employ of the government, in the wartime prices.and trade board, have had their salaries jumped from $6,000 to $10,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is one man who had his salary raised from $6,600 to $10,000, and there are others who have had their salaries jumped up, although perhaps not that much.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would be a promotion to a different job.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It might be a different job, but this sole proprietor of an essential business is doing a different job. In 1939 he may have been working only six hours a day, but to-day with the lack of help he is working eighteen hours a day; he is sales manager, treasurer, cashier and everything else. He is working for this government; he is working for you and for me, and he should be allowed to jump his salary to $5,000 the same as other government men have jumped theirs. If one man is allowed to do it, another man should be allowed to do it.
It is up to the government to see that these sole proprietors are not discriminated against. I know of two or three cases, but I have this one particularly in mind. I have not given the exact figures, but they are pretty close. This man has been held down to $3,600 and, as I said before, he is making for the government $15,000 in excess profits tax and $4,000 in standard profits tax. In 1940 about all the government got was the income tax on his $2,400 salary.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This scarcely comes under the resolution. For a while I thought the hon. gentleman was discussing salary control, but apparently he is discussing the administrative practices of the Department of National Revenue.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is salary control.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not in the ordinary sense. Just let me make it clear. The sole proprietor is getting no salary' because he is employer

War Appropriation-
-Finance-
-Prices Board
and employee in the one person. The only importance of the point at all is for tax purposes-how much will the Department of National Revenue allow him to call salary for taxation purposes? It is not a question of salary for salary control purposes; it is merely a taxation problem, and it would not come under this resolution.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It comes under the wartime prices and trade board; they are the ones who regulate salaries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They do not have anything to do with salaries; the salary controller does not have anything to do with this kind of thing. It is a matter of what the income tax branch will allow to be called salary for the purpose of computing the taxation of the company. That does not come under wartime prices and trade board; it is a matter for my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Must your department go to the income tax commissioner when it jumps up a salary from $3,000 to $5,000 or $10,000, or do you just go ahead and do it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is not talking about the salary order; he is talking about the relationship between an employer and an employee. The salary in that case would be subject to the provisions of the salary control order. This matter is administered by the commissioner of income tax, who has a board to assist him. I do not want my hon. friend to get the idea that salaries are being jumped in the civil service. Where there are promotions, the appointees take the salaries of the higher positions. I may say that there has been a great deal of criticism, amounting almost to resentment, because of what is alleged to be harsh treatment accorded to the civil service. I would be glad to have my hon. friend's rebuttal on that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I said that I did not object to the salaries being paid, but I said that they should all be equal. If you give it to one, you should give it to the other.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The same principles are applied.


Mr. SENN:: Among other duties, I believe the wartime prices and trade board is charged with the responsibility of making decisions in connection with prices of foodstuffs. I think it was in February when the minister made a statement about the relationship between the wartime prices and trade board and the
Department of Agriculture, particularly the agricultural food board which has been set up by that department to deal with questions relating to foodstuffs, food production and distribution. It was apparent from the minister's statement that there has been a certain amount . of overlapping and uncertainty, and even open conflict, with regard to the jurisdiction of these boards. The minister stated that there had been a blurring of the lines of responsibility between the wartime prices and trade board and the Department of Agriculture and that there had been detailed consultations between the departments concerned. He stated also that as a result of conferences between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and himself, a full understanding of the responsibilities of the two boards had been reached and overlapping had been eliminated. He then gave a detailed statement as to the authority of the two boards. He said that the wartime prices and trade board was charged with (1) responsibility of estimating and defining the over-all domestic needs for food; (2) responsibility for import and distribution of food; (3) final responsibility in all matters of price and final responsibility in all matters of consumer rationing.
The duties of the agricultural food board were defined as follows: (1) responsibility for maintaining and encouraging production; (2) consulting with the wartime prices and trade board as to subsidies and price adjustments; (3) recommendations to council re producer subsidies; (4) the exportation of foodstuffs, and (5) the diversion of foods to the armed forces.
In passing I should like to point out to the committee that these two boards, with a number of other agriculture boards, deal with farm problems; at least, they deal with farm prices. They influence farm income; in fact they practically control the whole economic set-up of agriculture to-day in Canada.
The finance minister stated in February that this division of authority was clear, but I am afraid that overlapping and misunderstanding are bound to continue. Several members of the different agricultural boards have just recently appeared before the committee on agriculture and colonization, where questions were constantly arising which had to do with the functions of the wartime prices and trade board and the relationship of price to production. The reluctance of the members of these agricultural boards to make any statement regarding the activities of the wartime prices and trade board was sufficient evidence, to my mind at least, that misunderstandings still exist and that there is not yet a clear division of authority.
4446	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
The most important factor to be considered in the encouragement, maintenance and increase of production, which is stated to be the first function of the food board, is necessarily that of price. If prices are not satisfactory, production cannot be maintained, let alone be increased. No one knows better than the Minister of Agriculture that this is so; for, speaking in the house on the demand for greater production of cheese some time ago, the minister instanced how the price of cheese in the winter months of 1941-42 had been raised to stimulate production, and he gave figures to show that when the price was raised, production increased substantially. If price is the main factor, how can the food board and other agricultural boards function properly to maintain and increase production, if price is controlled by another board over which they have no control, and which they can only consult.
I am firmly of the opinion that any control of the price of farm products should be vested in the boards which are responsible for the encouragement of production. The food board and other agricultural boards should be in the best position to deal with matters of price and production. Price and production go together; they cannot be managed by separate authorities. I believe that if price control of farm products had been vested in agricultural boards much dissatisfaction and uncertainty would have been avoided.
No one will deny that the price for farm products should be sufficiently high to cover the cost of efficient production and give a reasonable profit to the producer.
Nor can it be denied that in many lines of farm production the price ceiling as established by the wartime prices and trade board on the finished product has not been high enough to create a proper relationship between the price paid to the farmer for his goods, and that of the goods which he must buy. I have stated on more than one occasion that price control is necessary. We cannot allow inflation to run riot. But I am equally certain that price ceilings on farm products should not be imposed which do not establish parity as between the farmer's prices and those of other products. I therefore reaffirm my belief that one of two courses should have been followed by the wartime prices and trade board. The first one would be that until prices of farm products have risen to the point where there is parity, no price ceiling should be established on foodstuffs which come from the Canadian farm; or, second, ceilings providing parity should have been set up in1 the first instance. It is true
fMr. Senn.]
that the Minister of Agriculture early in the session gave certain figures, which appear in Hansard, endeavouring to show that parity exists already. His definition of parity, however, is theoretical and academic. It reads as follows:
Parity price is the price of the commodity which will give a purchasing power with respect to articles the farmer buys equivalent to the purchasing power of such commodity in the base period.
If we assume for a moment that this is a correct definition, it will be readily seen that a base period during which parity existed should be chosen for purposes of comparison. Certainly farmers will not agree that parity existed at the time chosen by the minister, namely, the period between 1926 and 1929. As a matter of fact, the inequalities in prices which existed at that time, and for years before, was one of the chief causes leading to the depression which began in 1929. The fact remains, however, as the minister knows, and certainly as producers know, that farm prices were entirely out of line in the period chosen, September 15 to October 12, 1941, which served as a basis of present ceilings above which prices of foodstuffs are prohibited from going. It is the season when large quantities of farm products are being marketed and when prices are generally lower than the yearly average. Seasonal conditions are largely responsible for these low prices. It is the period when grain has been threshed, when farmer's commitments become due and when taxes must be paid. He must sell to raise money to meet these demands, and he is convinced that his necessity is often exploited by the concerns that process and market his goods.
I feel certain that the price received from exportable surpluses of farm products would in large measure prevent excessive rises in price, because the domestic price is largely governed by the price received for such exportable surpluses. If shortages arise which might tend to boost prices above a reasonable level, rationing as it is being practised by the wartime prices and trade board would finally effectively control such rises.
The question will then be asked if, when prices of farm products rise to a position of parity in Canada, will that increase the cost of living and create dissatisfaction among the consumers in the urban centres? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in such cases, instead of providing producer subsidies, which are more or less hand-outs to the Canadian farmer, consumer subsidies should be given, if necessary, to protect the interests of the consumer. We have at the present time one specific

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
example of consumer subsidies which is working satisfactorily. The farmer is fairly well satisfied with the price he receives for milk destined for fluid consumption. The consumer is protected by a consumer subsidy on milk of two cents a quart, which keeps the price to the consumer at a reasonable level. In my judgment the same method should be applied by these boards to other commodities if we are to encourage production, and if price is to be the deciding factor in so doing.
I do not want to carry on to any great extent, but I should like to say that the same conditions that have applied between the bacon and meat board and the wartime prices and trade board exist also with the dairy industry. Milk is processed into a number of products, all of which are important as food. But on these products arbitrary price ceilings have been imposed, just the same as in other lines of foodstuffs. In the case of dairy products, as in the case of bacon, the price realized for the processed article influences in great measure the amount of production in the different lines of dairy products. Instead of prices of dairy products being allowed to find their own level and thus stimulate and encourage production, a rigid control, often unevenly applied, has been practised. I am not objecting to control, but the unevenness of the control is a matter which, I think, should be criticized, and it has resulted in confusion, rivalry and distrust in the dairy industry. It is comparatively easy for milk producers to change the factory to which they send their milk; in fact, they can change overnight from a cheese factory to a butter factory, or to a condensary. Some discussion was had a short time ago respecting the power of the dairy products board or of the food board to determine the destination of the farmers' milk. To exercise such power, even in a roundabout way or by moral suasion, is, in my judgment, interfering too much with personal liberty.
The whole point of the argument which I have been attempting to make is that price ceilings on food should not have been established at levels lower than are commensurate with the cost of production and at levels lower than those set for other commodities which the farmer has to buy. Great care should be taken to study carefully every implication and every possible result of price fixing and control before making an order. Too often after an order is made, same unforeseen complication follows which, in turn, has to be remedied until the whole system is a patchwork puzzle which confuses and discourages the producer.
Agriculture in Canada is fully aware of the vital need of food production as part of our war effort. It has made almost superhuman
efforts to produce to capacity. In this it has been blessed by Providence with favourable weather conditions resulting in bumper crops. It has been, however, and is still handicapped by labour shortages and insufficient cash returns.
I once more urge upon the minister and his colleagues the advisability of placing the price structure of food products where it properly belongs, namely under the control of the Minister of Agriculture and the agricultural boards.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I should say at once that I believe that would be a great mistake. It is essential in every price control system that the control of all prices be vested in one body, one authority. If the setting of prices on agricultural products were to be removed from the authority of the wartime prices and trade board and transferred to the Department of Agriculture, there would be an equally good reason for removing control of fishery products from the wartime prices and trade board and placing it in the Department of Fisheries, and, as a matter of fact, for removing the prices of products of the mines and the forests and placing it under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mines and Resources. In fact, the only theory on which there should be that spreading around of authority is that it is desirable to put the control of prices in the hands of persons who are directly concerned with production and who traditionally have concerned themselves more intimately with the interests of producers.
That is a very popular theory, and it does not apply only to farmers; it applies to a great many groups in this country who would like to get their prices away from the wartime prices and trade board. I repeat, they would just love to get their prices away from the wartime prices and trade board, because they would hope to be in a little more sympathetic forum when they applied for higher prices. That would be their reason. I am not saying that against them. I am not saying that against the hon. gentleman who is advocating it. He speaks in this house for the farmers and argues the farmers' case on a good many occasions, and that is his right. But the reason I have given is the reason why these groups want to get somewhere else; they would like to get some place where, they think, they would be dealing with individuals who would be less concerned with control and more concerned with higher prices.
We have to take hold of this thing or drop it. We have to be firm, or we have to be vacillating.
I am utterly convinced of the unsoundness of the suggestion made by the hon. member

4448	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
for Haldimand when he says that we should carve out one set of prices and take that away from the price control authority; because you cannot separate one set of prices from other prices. A great many farm products are used in the production of processed products. Would the price of the processed product be left under the jurisdiction of the wartime prices and trade board when the price of the primary product was placed'under the jurisdiction of some other authority? Would the price of competing imports be left under the jurisdiction of the wartime prices and trade board and the price of primary products in Canada be transferred to some other authority? As a matter of fact, if the pace of price control were to be set by various competing authorities, with a central price control authority, the administrative task of * the central price control authority would be impossible and they might as well go out of business. That is the reason why I have always urged and argued that there be one price control authority for all prices. I am sure that no other system of price control would work.
With reference to the other point which the hon. gentleman has argued, with regard to parity prices and prices on farm products,
I think, if we talked about that, we would talk endlessly. It has been discussed and discussed and discussed in this chamber every time the Minister of Agriculture comes before the house, and I have made some speeches on it from time to time over the last two or three years. It has been repeatedly emphasized by public men in other countries as well as by public men in this country that if you intend to institute price control you have to start some time, you cannot go on partly adjusting before you start. We thought the time had come in the fall of 1941 when we had to start, and, as I said the other day, I am convinced we did the right thing and did it at the right time. We made some adjustments afterwards. We made most of our adjustments by way of subsidies, and the subsidy bill is very substantial indeed. As a matter of fact, the difference between producers' subsidies and consumers' subsidies is not as great as hon. gentlemen seem to think; it is a difference in form rather than in principle. When we pay a subsidy of ten cents a pound on butter we are doing so for the benefit of the consumer, are we not; as much as for the benefit of the producer? The consumer is enabled by the payment of that subsidy to get his butter for thirty-five cents a pound, and the producer is enabled by the payment of that subsidy to get forty-five cents a pound for it. I do not see that 
there is very much difference in principle, although there is a difference in form, between that and the milk subsidy, which has the effect of enabling the producer to get whatever the price is-say, twelve cents-and the consumer nevertheless to get milk for ten cents a quart.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think the minister meant what would appear to be the natural implication of his last statement, namely, that the farmer is getting twelve cents a quart for his milk.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, less the distribution
charges.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister had better make that clear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that is less the distribution charges.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: The hon. member for Mackenzie a little while ago suggested that the minister might regard himself somewhat as the father of his country. If he does so regard himself, I believe we should bring to his attention one matter which is of great importance in a country like -ours. I have had representations from small retail stores selling children's clothing and children's underwear, and also letters from young mothers-to-be on the extreme shortage of yard goods which are needed for babies' layettes and young babies' clothing. I think the minister is familiar with that square garment which constitutes the major portion of a baby's wardrobe in its early years. Really there is an appalling shortage of cotton goods, mostly flannelette. I had word from one store in Vancouver that they were able to sell only five yards of flannelette to every layette. That is positively absurd, and there are hundreds, indeed thousands of young mothers-to-be who are frantic, because they do not know where to get the material they need. The question of price is also important. Twenty-five or thirty-five cents a yard used to be considered a reasonable price for a good quality of flannelette, and at that price it was decent enough for most mothers; but now the price is roughly fifty cents, which makes the cost of the layette for the working mother considerably greater. Even in the white *wool for small coaties for very young babies there is an extreme shortage. This is a matter of importance to thousands of young people, and I suggest that the minister might look into this shortage, particularly of yard goods and flannelette, and see to it that an adequate amount is allowed. I am informed by one retail store in Vancouver that 230,000

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
yards of flannelette is being released this year, but that is totally inadequate to provide for the number of layettes expected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There has been an increasing demand for flannelette, and the board is fully conscious of the present situation and has taken steps to limit the use of flannelette for certain purposes and to order the production of greater quantities. It is a problem with which the board is quite familiar and on which it is working.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: What about the price? Does that necessarily have to be greater, or will they keep the price down? At present it is fifty cents and that is exorbitant.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Has it increased?


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: It must have, because
twenty-five or thirty cents a yard was all I paid a few years ago.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. AVRIGHT:: May I refer to a question raised by the hon. member for Haldimand. There are one or two questions I would ask with respect to it. AVhat is the basis of determining the subsidies paid on various agricultural products? Observing these subsidies, it has been difficult for me to find out any basis on which they are paid. It seems to me that the basis has been simply that when a certain product became scarce the department gave a subsidy to secure greater production, and there
does not appear to be any basis, or equal basis, for different products, on which the subsidy is calculated. If that is the principle on which the subsidies are paid, then the only way in which agriculture can get a fair price for its products is to have a shortage, and when the shortage becomes apparent the subsidy is immediately paid. That appears to be a poor method by which to get extra production. We are going to be scarce of a good many agricultural products this year. From evidence we have had before the committee on agriculture it is doubtful whether we shall be able to supply the amount required by the British government this year in any agricultural product with the exception of wheat. Certainly in dried potatoes, vegetables, dried eggs and cheese, the situation is doubtful. I d'oubt whether we shall obtain the production that they require without further seriously curtailing the amount for home consumption in Canada. Price is a determining factor in the amount of agricultural commodities produced. Take eggs. Last winter they dropped nineteen cents a dozen in the month of January, and immediately there was a serious curtailment in the production. While these conditions prevail, unless agriculture is guaranteed a market in which the farmers know they will get a certain price for their products, the production required will not be obtained.
As regards transferring authority for the payment of these subsidies from the wartime prices and trade board to the Department of Agriculture, I certainly think agriculture would get more favourable treatment from the Department of Agriculture than from the board. That does not necessarily mean that the price ceiling would be pierced. You can pierce the ceiling in two different ways, by making articles scarce and by creating a black market, or by the other method. The policy being followed by the wartime prices board is one that is creating a scarcity of agricultural products, and I suggest, therefore, that the basis on which the subsidies are paid should be the cost of production. I have argued this point with the minister before, and he says it is impossible to ascertain the cost of production of agricultural products because every farm is different. They find the cost of production of war goods and pay different prices to different factories on the same goods. I maintain that the cost of production of agricultural products can be ascertained, not necessarily on every farm, but a fair base price could be ascertained and the subsidies could be paid on that basis instead of by the haphazard method by which they are now paid.
72537-282 J
4450	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
Will the minister explain the basis on which the subsidies are paid on different agricultural products and the reason for it? Will he tell us by what method they ascertain the amount paid on any particular product?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. WRIGHT:: The minister stated that the Department of Agriculture made recommendations to the wartime prices and trade

board with respect to subsidies. Are these recommendations accepted? That is the point in which I am interested.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not quite correct. The precise position is that the Minister of Agriculture consults with the wartime prices and trade board and then makes such recommendations to council as he thinks fit with respect to subsidies to primary producers. Whether or not council accepts his recommendations depends, of course, upon the view they take of the matter at the time. They have to give consideration to all the factors involved.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then are we to take it for granted that the Department of Agriculture is responsible for prices?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; prices are wholly under the control of the wartime prices and trade board; that is, the prices that may be charged for the goods in the market; but the payment of subsidies, which is separate from prices, is a matter for council, and the recommendation to council comes from the Minister of Agriculture after the matter has been discussed with the price-fixing authority by the officials of the Department of Agriculture.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the wartime prices and trade board anything to do with the regulations of the prices of articles made from magnesium, zinc, rubber, beryllium, titanium, plastics and so forth?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it has everything to do with the prices if they are civilian goods.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But not military goods?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The price ceiling does not apply to purchases by the Department of Munitions and Supply. They have the right by law to pay more than the maximum price and have done so on occasion when they found it necessary in order to get what they had to get. But more and more they are complying with the ceilings and working very closely with the wartime prices and trade board, giving the board every opportunity to get them the goods at or below the ceiling.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know it is important to get the munitions, but on the other hand a great deal of important material came out before the United States senate committee dealing with patents and so on which indicated that prices were being enhanced through the control of patents, the restriction of production and the control of materials through cartels and so forth. As a result, the assistant attorney general of the United States, Thurman

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
W. Arnold, appeared before that committee and asked for specific legislation to prevent the United States from being compelled to pay enhanced prices through restrictions on patents and so on. On July 31, 1942, he asked that legislation be passed to prevent-
. . . the use of patents as an instrument to suppress competition, restrict production or destroy independent business on a scale that substantially interferes with the distribution of any commodity.
And which results in the enhancing of prices. I have been wondering what we have in this country. We do not have a committee set up to go into these matters, as they have in the United States Senate, nor I suppose, have we officials such as they have in that country to control these prices, unless the wartime prices and trade board exercises such control. The minister says it does not have that control in relation to goods supplied for military purposes. It is well known that aviation gasoline, rubber, beryllium, titanium, magnesium, zinc and so on are all under the control of patents and cartels, most of them international in scope. Is Canada being protected now, as the United States is, against the payment of enhanced prices for such articles even if they are required for military purposes? I agree that the main purpose is to get the materials; that is all-important; but on the other hand there should be some control in regard to prices, even where materials are purchased- for war purposes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can only repeat what I said, that whether they are cartelized or not, no matter how they are handled or by whom, when they are sold to a civilian purchaser they must comply with the price ceiling. It is well known that this price ceiling runs through hundreds of thousands of different articles, and that they cannot go beyond it. That does not apply, as I said before, to sales made to the Department of Munitions and Supply. As a matter of practice, I think they do buy at or below ceiling prices in nearly all cases. They have their controllers, their buyers, their organizations; they do not pay any more than they have to, but for the reasons I gave the other night and again to-day they are exempted by law from the operation of the ceilings.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In connection with
magnesium metal they are paying a very much higher price than that given to the house a year ago by the Minister of Munitions and Supply as the price at which magnesium metal would likely be made in this country. Who controls the selling price of magnesium metal made for the Department of Munitions and Supply? Do the producers set any prices they wish? I am quoting from memory and
I may be wrong, but I believe the price I mentioned in this house recently was forty cents a pound, or a cent or two one way or the other. That is a very high price for magnesium metal, which was offered to the government by another company at a very much lower price.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The price is set by the Department of Munitions and Supply, for reasons which appear good to them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then there is no control over what is paid by the Department of Munitions and Supply?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not under this legislation. It is controlled by order in council; that is, the contracts are approved by order in council.


Gordon Graydon: There is not any control, as we understand it, under this legislation.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: During last night's sitting of the committee, the hon. -members for Winnipeg North Centre and Vancouver East dealt at some length with the official cost of living index prepared -by the dominion bureau of statistics, suggesting that it did not provide an accurate measure of recent changes in costs of living in Canada. I pointed out during the course of discussion that the wartime prices; and trade board has nothing whatever to do with the preparation of the index, either directly or indirectly, and that it is based on an independent and scientific analysis by competent statisticians in the bureau of statistics-which is responsible to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In view of the importance of the index to the government's whole wage and price stabilization- policy, I have come to -the conclusion, however, that I should not leave these criticisms unanswered. I am afraid that if I do so, hesitation may be interpreted as an admission that there was some validity in the criticisms. This would be most unfortunate and I wan-t to make it perfectly clear that the government as a whole realizes the importance of the index to all those Canadians whose cost-of-living bonus is determined by it and is very much concerned- to see that the index is sound and accurate and has the confidence of the public at large.
For this reason I intend giving a fairly comt-prehensive statement dealing with the preparation of the index. Again may I repeat that the preparation- of the index has nothing to do-with the wartime prices and trade board or the Minister of Finance. In effect the committee may consider that in dealing with the index
4452	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
I am speaking on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is unavoidably absent to-day.
First, with the consent of the committee I wish to place on Hansard a copy of a recent bulletin prepared by the bureau of statistics which deals with the technique employed in preparing the cost of living index and which includes a list of the items in the index. Have I that consent? This contains many figures, and it would' take a long time to read it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If it is acceptable to the committee, it can be placed on Hansard, by unanimous consent.


Gordon Graydon: There was a similar occasion when a matter of this kind arose in the house not long ago. On that occasion the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence for Air was placing on Hansard the answers to some questions. At that time I was quite agreeable that he should do so, in order that the time of the house might not be consumed unnecessarily in the presentation of those answers. It w-as pointed out at that time however, and it should be pointed out again, that- if this is placed upon Hansard it constitutes a departure from fairly well established rules.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It can be done only with unanimous consent.


Gordon Graydon: I realize that. But in
[DOT]addition to what the hon. member has said *with respect to unanimous consent, may I point out that I am anxious to preserve all the formalities which this house jealously maintains and guards. In view of the present stage of the session, if this statement contains many figures and statistical information I believe we might make an exception. But if it is a statement, in the general sense of the term, supplementary to the statement the minister is now making, then I would be definitely opposed to allowing it to go on Hansard, from the point of view of precedent alone.


James Lorimer Ilsley: So that there may be no
misunderstanding, may I say that this is partly a statement and partly figures. If there is any objection, of course I shall have to read it. It would become part of my speech.


Gordon Graydon: I will not object to it.
I believe we have protected1 our position as members of the House of Commons by raising the objection which has been raised. It is distinctly understood that this shall not constitute a precedent in any shape or form?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
.[Mr. Ilsley.l


Mr. KNOWLES:: How long would it take to read it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: War Appropriation-
-Finance-Prices Board
Weighting System of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Cost of Living Index-Con.
E. Homefurnishings and Services Furniture
Dining-room suite, 9 pc	
Bedroom suite, 4 or 5 pc	
Kitchen table	
Kitchen chairs	
Studio couch	
Bed springs	
Mattress	
Floor Coverings
Axminster rug, 9' x 12'	
Congoleum rug, 9' x 12'	
Linoleum (square yards)	
Furnishings
Sheets, 81" x 100"	
Towels, cotton terry. 22" x 44"	
Blankets, all wool, 6-8 lbs. 72"x90"..
Table oil cloth	
Hardware
Frying pan, iron	
Saucepan, enamel, 2J or 3 qts	
Garbage can, galvanized	
Kitchen broom	
Dishes and glassware
Set of dishes	
Glass tumblers	i	
Cleaning Supplies
Laundry soap	
Soap flakes	
Abrasive cleansers	
Chloride of lime	
Laundry
Sheets	1	GeometricTowels	I-	averageMen's shirts	J
Telephones
Cost of
homefurnishings items as a percentage of
Commodity homefurnishings weights and services (annual	sub-group
replacement	budgets	Sub-group
allowances) January, 1943 weight
0-06 sets	12-0	
0-06 "	10-9	
0-08	0-7	
0-20	0-4	
0-08	5-5	
0-05	0-6	
0-16	2-9	9
0-04	4-6	
0-15	1-9	
1-70	2-5	15
1-0	3-5	
3-0	4-5	
0-5	6-6	
0-4 yards	0-4	3
0-3	0-4	
0-5	0-5	
0-25	0-8	
1-0	1-3	2
0-1	1-6	
2-0	0-4	17
24 bars	2-5	
24 packages	12-1	
9 cartons	1-9	
2 packages	0-5 2-0 2-0 2-0	6
Group
weight
F. Miscellaneous Items
1. Health	
(a) Medicines	
Aspirin tablets, box of 12
Epsom salts, 1 lb	
Boracic acid, 2 ozs	
Tincture of iodine, 1 oz. .
Zinc ointment, 1 oz	
Cod liver oil, large bottle
(b) Hospital charges Semi-private room Public ward bed .
Cost of medicine
Commodity items weights as a (Annual percentage replace- of ment medicine allowances) budget
1-3	15-1
0-7	4-1
0-3	1-6
0-	7	7-4
4-7	5-2
1-	3	6-6
Commodity
weights
1
Per Sub-group Group cent weight weight 23 17 23
4458	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
Weighting System of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Cost of Living Index-Con.
Cost of medicine items as a
percentage
of
Commodity medicine Per Sub-group Group F. Miscellaneous Items-Con.	weights budget cent weight weight
(e) Doctors' fees	
Office consultation	
Ordinary day visit	[DOT] Geometric
Ordinary confinement	 average
(d) Dentists' fees	
Amalgam filling	
Porcelain filling	
Gold filling	 Geometric
Upper and lower dentures	 average
Ordinary extraction	
Prophylaxis	,
Cost of individual items as a percentage of personal (Annual cleaning replacement supplies allowances) budget
2. Personal Care	
(a) Personal cleaning supplies	
Talcum powder, tins	
1-3	2-3Tooth paste, tubes	
21-7	37-6Tooth brushes	
8-7	13-6Shaving sticks	
2-2	3-7Toilet soap, bars	
52-2	23-6Vaseline, jars	
1-3	1-0Razor blades, packages of 5	
13-1	18-2(b) Barbers' fees	Haircut (men's)	
5Shave	
23. Transportation	
(Percentages)
(a)	Motor operating costs	
Gasoline	 44
Repairs and maintenance	 10
Licences	 9
Depreciation	 37
(b) Rail fares	 5
(c) Street oar fares	 46
4. Recreation	
(a)	Theatre admissions
(b)	Newspaper costs ..
(e) Magazine costs ... (d) Tobacco costs ....
Cigars	
Cigarettes	
Cut tobacco	
	 23
	 22
	 4
	 51
.}Geometrie 1 average
5. Life Insurance
9
21
31

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
For the expert statistician this is perhaps sufficient, but I feel that the committee would appreciate some general comments of a less technical nature which may help to explain just how the index is prepared and what it means. These are based in the main on information supplied by the bureau of statistics.
The index is a measure of the month to month changes in the cost of living of the average Canadian wage-earner's family. In 1937 and 1938 the bureau made a study of the living expenses of nearly 1,500 Canadian families. These families were specially picked as typical wage-earning families; each consisted of a husband and wife and one child or more. The average number of people in the family was 4-6, and the average family income was $1,453 a year. Officials from the bureau asked these families to keep a careful record of their expenditures during the twelve months from October, 1937, to September, 1938. It was on the basis of these records that the bureau knew how much importance to give to the various kinds of food, clothing, recreation and all other things that come into the family budget. They divided the cost of living up into the six main groups and found that they occupied the following proportions of the average living expenses of the families that were surveyed: food 31 per cent, fuel and light 6 per cent, housing 19 per cent, clothing 12 per cent, home furnishings and services 9 per cent, miscellaneous items 23 per cent.
It has been argued that conditions have changed a good deal since that budget was prepared in 1937 and 1938. There are some goods that cannot be bought to-day, and the purchase of other goods is limited by rationing. I want to make it clear that the bureau takes such changes as these into account. For example, automobile tires and tubes, steel frying pans, and bananas have been removed from the index since they are no longer regularly available. The weighting given to tea, sugar and motor operating costs has been reduced on account of rationing. Some changes in buying habits are so small as to have a negligible effect on the index, and in such cases, of course, there is no point in making adjustment. I should also point out that when the bureau takes an item from the index, that does not mean that the total living expenditures have been reduced. The amount of money that was formerly spent on these articles is regarded as being distributed among other items in the index.
It is important to realize that the index aims to record a fixed standard of living. During the war, and particularly during its early
years, many families increased their family income, and- as a result have bought better clothes, more expensive food, etcetera. The index does not and should not record higher living expenses due to better living. If it did it would indicate not a higher cost of living but a higher standard of living.
Now, let me revert for a moment to one of the most frequently expressed criticisms of the index. Many people want to know how it can possibly be maintained that the cost of living has only gone up 17 per cent during the war in view of the rise which has taken place in foods. They point to stewing beef which has risen by 78 per cent, lard which has risen by 73 per cent, round steak which has risen by 66 per cent during the war, and so on.
It is perfectly true that those particular foods have risen by that amount, but the committee should remember that they represent only a small part of the cost of living. All foods put together represent less than a third of the cost of living index, and while some foods have risen substantially, other foods such as bread, sugar, etcetera, have remained steady, and milk has actually declined in price. These are important foods, and occupy a much larger part in the weekly family budget than many of those foods which have risen in price.
Foods in the cost of living index have risen by 31-8 per cent since the beginning of the war. This is a substantial rise, most of which occurred before the application of the price ceiling. It is also the part of the cost of living of which the housewife is particularly aware since she sees the effect of it upon her allowance for housekeeping expenses. The other items, which in many households are paid by the husband, have not risen by anything like this amount since the beginning of the war. Fuel and light have risen by 14-1 per cent, housing by 7-4 per cent, clothing by 20-3 per cent, home furnishings and services by 16-7 per cent, and miscellaneous items by 6-8 per cent. The total index has risen by 17-6 per cent since August, 1939, but of this only 2-2 per cent since the establishment of the ceiling.
The point I want to make here is that the cost of food has risen by more than the other groups in the index, and the cost of certain particular food items has risen by a good deal more than the cost of food as a whole. Now many people tend to regard the cost of living as just the cost of food. They forget that the cost of living also includes rent, and clothing, and electric light, and life insurance, and doctors' bills, and many other needs which have increased in price a great deal less than has food.
4460	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
Another question which is frequently asked concerns the accuracy of the price reports made to the bureau.
The bureau does not rely entirely on reports from storekeepers. In addition to the reports which it receives from storekeepers, it has its own representative in most of the principal regional centres, and it may appoint others before long. These representatives obtain the prices needed each month by personal visits to stores. It may interest the committee to know that these representatives periodically visit smaller towns so as to make a check on the trend of prices throughout the region.
I should now like to say a word on deterioration of quality, which is a live topic at the moment. For many years the bureau has asked firms reporting prices for clothing and home furnishings to make at the same time estimates of any changes of quality in the goods. When the bureau receives a report of a reduction in quality, this reduction is treated just as if it were a price increase of the same amount. The bureau, furthermore, instructs its field representatives to 'be on the watch for quality deterioration when obtaining price reports.
It must be remembered that there are two types of quality deterioration:	that which
shortens the life of an article, and that which affects its appearance without shortening its life or reducing its serviceability. If a man finds that a suit now stands only three quarters of the wear that a similar suit used to stand, the cost of his clothes over a period of years has risen, although the price remains the same. It is obviously reasonable to include deterioration of that type in the cost-of-living index. Suppose, on the other hand, the man finds that the suit he now buys is less attractive than it used to be, the material rougher perhaps or with less novelty in pattern but it still lasts every bit as long as it used to. He could not then claim that this quality deterioration had affected his cost of living.
There have been complaints that many cheap lines of goods are now off the market, and that it is necessary to buy more expensive brands. In such cases the bureau puts the price of the more expensive brands into the index. Stores have instructions not to report the price of any article winch is not readily available, but instead to send in the price of the next more expensive article that is readily available.
A list of the items included in the index has been published, and comments have been made on the large number of items entering into an average family's normal budget which are not on this list. These omissions may be difficult to understand but the reason is that 
it is not practicable to get direct price quotations for every item in the family budget. The bureau instead obtains price reports on what are regarded as typical items, "weighting" those prices sufficiently highly to cover all the items that ought to be in the group. I would take as an instance, foods. Many foods have wide seasonal price changes, and as a result the consumption of them varies. People eat them in quantity when the price is low and eat less when the price is high. Shifts in consumption from season to season and year to year, as crops vary, are so great that it is extremely difficult to give these foods a correct degree of importance in the budget. There is also the problem of obtaining comparable prices.
* Many of the fresh vegetables in particular are not always sold upon a weight basis, so that price changes may actually reflect quantity differences as well. To include these items might well result in the index becoming less rather than more accurate.
The bureau of statistics, therefore, picks out those foods items on which a representative price can be obtained from month to month. . The index includes forty-four food items which represent about seventy-five per cent of the total cost of foods in the budget on which the index is based. Those foods on which a price is not obtained are considered to have risen by the same proportion as those foods on which price reports are made.
The bureau has often been asked whether the restricted number of foods in the index makes it less reliable. In order to test this possibility a check was made. An experimental food index was computed on the basis of only fifteen items; round steak, blade roast, rolled rib roast, pork loins, bacon, milk, butter, eggs, flour, sugar, potatoes, corn syrup, marmalade, oranges and lard. This index, with one-third of the items in the official index, shows a wartime rise to May, 1943, of 30-3 per cent, which is only 0-5 per cent less than the increase for foods shown in the official index. I might mention, incidentally, that the number of food items included in the Canadian index compares favourably with those in the indexes of other countries.
Food, of course, is not. the only group where difficulty is experienced in getting representative prices. Another difficult group is clothing, which also includes many items seasonal in character. A lady's hat may sell in season at S4.95 and be cleared at $2.98 or less. The same is true of dresses, coats, and many other items. To include prices for these things in the index would cause erratic movements which would not follow the basic changes in clothing prices. Therefore, the

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
bureau has selected a comparatively small list of twenty-nine clothing items which are of fairly standard construction and have no pronounced seasonal price movements. These items represent in proper proportion all the important materials used in making clothing, i.e., cotton, wool, rayon, rubber and leather. The bureau assumes and I think with reason, that the change in cost of these items gives a correct record of the rise or fall in all clothing prices.
Having dealt with the cost-of-living index itself I now wish to make a few remarks on related topics which are more strictly the concern of the Minister of Finance.
In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the effect of direct taxes, such as income taxes, on the cost-of-living index. This is a question that is raised from time to time and I think merits a fairly full explanation. The hon. member said and I quote:
But the bureau apparently does not take into consideration any of the direct taxes paid toy the people of Canada. Yet these taxes have increased tremendously, and add to the cost of living.
If the committee will consider the matter carefully I think they will agree that to include direct taxes in the cost-of-living index would be quite inappropriate and would indeed defeat the whole purpose of our wartime financial programme.
The cost-of-living index measures changes in the cost of living of the average wage-earner's family. It is an index of prices like an index of wholesale prices or an index of retail prices. If prices go up the index goes up; if prices go down the index goes down. To the extent that taxes such as excise and customs taxes which are indirect taxes enter into prices, they are, of course, reflected in the index. The only exception to this is the increased war taxes on cigarettes and tobacco which were excluded for a specific and, I think, obvious reason.
Direct taxes, on the other hand, do not affect prices. They are taxes on incomes, that is, they reduce the amount available for spending. If the hon. member's argument were sound that direct taxes affect the cost of living, it would follow that the cost of living of the rich man had risen many times more rapidly than that of the man wfith a low or moderate income. Equally absurd, it would mean that the cost of living of the man with a family had risen less sharply than the cost of living of a single man with the same income.
I would also point out that if an attempt were made to include income taxes in the cost-of-living index, there would have to be an individual cost-of-living index for each taxpayer as taxes vary enormously from individual to individual depending upon income, family responsibilities and personal circumstances. An average would mean absolutely nothing.
But there is a very much more important reason for not including direct taxes in the cost-of-living index. When, as acting Minister of Finance, I delivered the first Canadian war budget speech on September 12, 1939, I said:
We shall be guided by the belief that all our citizens will be ready to bear some share of the cost of the war, but we shall insist on the principle of equality of sacrifice on the basis of ability to pay.
If income taxes were included in the index, this principle would be nullified, for since the cost-of-living bonus is determined by the cost-of-living index the bonus would be increased by approximately the amount of the increase in the income tax. Thus people getting the bonus would1 pay little or no income tax. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that only certain groups are eligible for the bonus. To these, in effect, taxes paid would be rebated, leaving more to be borne by those who are not eligible for the bonus.
The hon. member then went on to say, and I want to deal particularly with this phase of his argument, that "part of the money paid in taxes is being used to subsidize prices. Part of what we pay in taxes is actually part of the price which we pay for some of our food." The hon. member appears to be arguing that the policy of paying subsidies in order to stabilize the cost of living is a case of transferring money from one pocket into the other, of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The truth is, of course, that subsidies designed to keep down' the cost of living serve a very definite and useful purpose and that, used judiciously, they are essential to any general policy of price stabilization, serving the dual purpose of ensuring supply and of protecting the standards of life and of those receiving low or moderate incomes.
A rise in the cost of living produces unequal effects upon various sections of the population. It is true that some individuals might manage to cover the added costs of living by the increases in their incomes resulting from higher prices. Perhaps the unmarried industrial worker drawing cost-of-living bonus would be in that fortunate position. But his fellow worker, married and with a family, is not so well placed. His cosbofi-
4462	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
living bonus is exactly the same as that of the single man, yet he has not one but several mouths to -feed. A stable cost of living is very much in his interest. It was not overlooked, also, that a rise in the -cost of living affects everyone, whereas certain important groups-farmers, small proprietors, pensioners and all those whose incomes make them ineligible-do not receive the cost-of-living bonus.
As to the cost of subsidies, this is borne, not ini proportion to benefits received-then it would be a meaningless transfer from one pocket to the other-but like any other war cost, in accordance with ability to pay. The family man who benefits most firom stabilized living costs pays his share of subsidy costs not directly in proportion to the benefits received but, on the contrary, according to his taxes, which vary inversely in proportion to the number of his dependents. Rich and poor benefit in proportion to what they consume; they pay in accordance with their income. In- other words, the payment of subsidies distributes the burden of rising costs according to ability to pay. Far from being a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul, the payment of subsidies to stabilize the cost of living is sound and in the best interests of the very groups in the community on whose behalf my hon. friend so often speaks.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister mentioned twenty-nine articles of clothing. Would he give them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are in the bulletin I have already put on Hansard.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It does not include ladies' hats, for instance, which are most intangible?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Mr. BENCE:: The matter of enforcement was referred to last evening by the hon. member for Lake Centre. The minister also had something to say on that this afternoon, although I think I did not quite follow him. My understanding is that in the first place a recommendation is made by the local investigator that a .prosecution be instituted, that the local office sends it on to the provincial counsel, who is a permanent official retained by the government to look after these matters, and that provincial counsel then sends the whole file on to Ottawa, where the matter is dealt with by the enforcement administrator here, who I understand, is Mr. F. A. McGregor. I asked a question in the house on the enforcement division last March. My question was:
What are the names of the administrators and other officials of the enforcement division of the wartime prices and trade -board situated in the city of Ottawa?

I was informed in reply that Mr. F. A. McGregor was the enforcement administrator, that he was a permanent official of the Department of Labour at Ottawa, and that there were two other -members of the division, Mr. H. M. Brown, deputy enforcement administrator, also a permanent official of the Department of Labour, Ottawa, and Mr. P. J. M. MacDonald, enforcement counsel. My understanding is that one of these three gentlemen is a barrister by profession. It is this board of three which in the final analysis determines whether or not a prosecution shall be instituted.
Under the provisions of the order in council under which the prosecutions are instituted, it is necessary to obtain consent in writing from the wartime prices and trade board or from the attorney general of -the province concerned before an information can be laid. The prosecution is a very technical one, and I suggest to the minister that this whole matter should be left in the hands of some competent counsel who has experience in prosecutions and that it should not be left in the hands of this board of three sitting in Ottawa. I say that for a particular reason. I have personal knowledge of one case in which Mr. McGregor insisted on a prosecution despite the fact that he had been advised by the local counsel in Saskatchewan that -the consents necessary before the information was laid were not proper consents, and that a conviction could not be obtained. As a matter of fact, because these consents were not proper, seventeen charges were dismissed. I suggest to the minister that since these prosecutions are very technical, as he knows as well as I, if not better, they should be in charge of some man who is well trained in such matters. I am not for one minute suggesting that they have not trained men in the provinces; I know they have in Saskatchewan, but my point is that prosecutions should be in the hands of someone who has a greater knowledge of prosecutions than this board of individuals who reside in the city of Ottawa.
There is another matter. The minister in the course of his statement referred to the fact that a change in the quality was taken into consideration in determining the price, and that, if the quality were inferior the price had to come down in order to keep in line with the price-ceiling policy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not quite correct. If there -is a deterioration in quality and no reduction in price, it is regarded as a price rise, and if that conflicts with the ceiling it could not take place.


Alfred Henry Bence: If, for example, a certain type of commodity cost $50 in the fall of

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
1941, and the same commodity, with cheaper materials in it, was constructed to-day, the price could not be retained at the same level;
I understand it has to be of the same quality in order to justify charging the same price. That was the original statement contained in the price-ceiling policy which was brought down by the government. It has to be of comparable quality.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As serviceable.


Alfred Henry Bence: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The test is serviceability.


Alfred Henry Bence: Well, comparable quality means taking everything into consideration, and the minister impressed upon us the fact that it means "serviceable" rather than particularly good looking or anything like that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Alfred Henry Bence: The point I was going to make is this. I understand that the quality of gasoline which is sold now is not as high as that sold during the price-ceiling period. I understand that this matter was taken up with the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, because the complaint was that a gallon of gasoline is now of inferior quality, probably for reasons which are beyond the control of the administration; I do not know. But if that is the fact, I should like to know why steps have not been taken to review the cost of gasoline to the consumer, because if with a gallon of gasoline you could go, say twenty-five miles in 1941, and with a gallon of gasoline you can now go only fifteen miles, surely, if the price-ceiling policy is to be retained, some reduction in price should be made.
The other point to which I wish to refer seems to me to be of the utmost importance, and I should like to obtain some information from the minister in connection with it. I refer to the setting of a price. As the years have gone by since this price-ceiling policy was introduced, we have found that it is necessary to depart from it to a certain extent with respect to certain commodities. I have in mind particularly meat. At one time meats came under the original price-ceiling policy of the government, they had to be sold at the same price at which meats of a comparable quality were sold during the basic period. But since that time the whole set-up has been greatly changed, so that now we have prices set for lamb, pork, veal and so on by special orders in council. I wish to know from the minister the method by which it is determined that there should be a change in the price ceiling with respect to, say meat
or eggs, because I can see that the whole situation is fraught with a great deal of danger, particularly if the matter is not kept completely secret. I should like to know whether the decision is restricted to a very few people, or whether a number of people are called into consultation, and, generally speaking, just how the administration safeguards the public against the possibility of a change in the price ceiling leaking out before it is made effective.
I know very well that it is difficult to conceal these things. I must confess that I have been somewhat amazed, and have expressed this feeling before, that things which are supposed to be kept in the dark nevertheless seem to get out. For example, a short time before the minister brought down his budget a year ago he announced that the administration did not believe a policy of compulsory savings to be feasible, and yet two days before the minister made his speech in this house last year there was a little write-up in one of the local papers indicating that in all probability a system of compulsory savings would be brought in. I give that to the minister as an indication of the manner in which things may leak out, and I am very much afraid, in connection with the price-ceiling policy, that unless the most rigid control is kept over the matter of the deliberations of the people who have charge of these matters, there is great scope for possible dishonesty. I should like the minister to clear that up, for this reason. In the last few months there have been several changes in connection with the price ceiling on meat and also on eggs, and1 I have received inquiries from citizens in my own constituency with respect to the manner in which this was done. They have said to me-and I repeat this to the minister -"It is a strange thing that just before there is a rise in the price ceiling of meat, certain people are very active in the meat buying market." They say, "Either they have inside information"-which I am not necessarily suggesting-"or else they are pretty good guessers." I have known in my own city of meat buyers going to the stock yards and buying meat in tremendous quantities just before there happened to be a rise in the price ceiling. The same thing has happened with regard to eggs. I suggest that, in view of the feeling on the part of these people which I have mentioned, the minister should make a statement clearing up this situation.
I give the minister another example of what happened recently, in connection with* the matter of eggs. There was a change in the price, I have forgotten whether it was up or down, and in order to ensure that holders of
4464	COMMONS
War Appropriatibn-Finance-Prices Board
eggs would not make am undue profit, the government agencies, I understand, went to various parts of Canada and purchased as many eggs as they could possibly get from the people who were holding them. One or two persons either became suspicious or had inside knowledge. They held on to their eggs and were able to make a profit, whereas other purchasers of eggs complied with the request of the government that they should be delivered to the administration and were done out of the profit which these other people made. I should very much like the minister to clear up this position, because it seems to me that it is one of the most dangerous angles of the price ceiling policy administration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to the third point made by the hon. gentleman, the importance of secrecy is very well recognized by the board. The officials are sworn to secrecy when they take office, and not only that, but all advisory committees who are consulted take an oath of secrecy. I know of no leaks. The rise in the price of eggs of a cent a dozen, I think it was, was on account of the fact that the Department of Agriculture advanced the price of eggs which were to be exported to Great Britain. I remember the circumstances very well. It was not at all a wartime prices and trade board matter. I do not believe there was any certainty on what was going to happen until it did happen, although naturally there may have been some discussion among officials, including wartime prices and trade board officials. But the rises in prices to which the hon. gentleman has referred are, I think, monthly rises which are public knowledge.


Alfred Henry Bence: Oh, no. May I say to the minister that it was determined at a certain time that they would put in this policy of monthly rises in prices of meat, but at the time that policy was determined on, nobody outside knew it would be put into effect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; that is right.


Alfred Henry Bence: And so in connection with
other matters of the same kind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The fact that there is some activity in buying does not indicate that those who are buying know what is going to happen, nor do intelligent forecasts of the contents of a budget indicate that there are leaks. I do not think there have been any leaks at all since I have been Minister of Finance or, as far as I know, before that. In one of our budgets, an important one, there wore fifteen or twenty officials who participated in the pre-budgetary discussions which

went on for several months. We were deciding upon very important policies, and there was nothing at all in the way of a leak at that time. But of course the more people there are discussing a move, the more chance there is that someone will drop a word or say something which a shrewd hearer can interpret in a certain way. All I can say is that the importance of the problem is well recognized.


Alfred Henry Bence: How many persons would
know that a price rise would go into effect- change in policy?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know how many
would know; a few would know. Often it is announced almost as soon as it is decided. The decision is not -made until the night before the announcement. Sometimes, in matters of importance, I am consulted and I take the matter to the cabinet. No one knows what the cabinet will do. That does not happen very often. Usually the board makes these decisions itself.


Alfred Henry Bence: Will the minister say something with regard1 to gasoline?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that what
happened there was this. The various companies had various systems of grading or were selling various grades of gasoline. The oil controller thought it would be better to reduce them all to two grades; accordingly he instituted a system of two grades of gasoline, and the average quality of these two grades is believed to be as high as the average quality of the grades that were sold by the various companies.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What are the octane
ratings of the two grades?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not in my department but in munitions and supply.


Alfred Henry Bence: Has the wartime prices and trade board considered the question whether there has been a breach of the ceiling in that direction?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The officials are not acquainted with that subject matter. I shall have to inquire.


Mr. GRAHAM:: In my opinion the minister has placed on Hansard a very important statement dealing with a matter that has certainly a considerable bearing on the spirit of the people, because, as he pointed out, the price of foodstuffs is something very real to the average housewife. The statement, I am sure, is one from which members of this house will derive much benefit if they will read and

War Appropriation-
-Finance-
-Prices Board
carefully digest it at their leisure. I make one suggestion to the committee. Since this ia of such great importance, and the matter has such a marked effect on the degree of satisfaction in the country with the government's price control policy, not merely the usual means of publicity should be given it, but some effort should be made to see that it is given wide publicity, and not in the daily newspapers only. What I had in mind was this. There is at present in this city the editor of my own home city weekly newspaper, the Swift Current Sun, of which that community is particularly proud. It has on several occasions won awards of the Dominion and Provincial Weekly Newspaper Associations. That gentleman is here assisting in writing up some of the matters that are of public interest for circulation throughout the weekly newspapers of Canada.


Gordon Graydon: He does a good job, too.


Roy Theodore Graham: He does a good job, and I warmly suggest to the minister that Mr. James Greenblatt, who happens to be the editor of whom I am speaking, be asked to prepare, in briefer form than the minister has been able to give, a summation of the information given to-night and put on Hansard, and that it be circulated throughout the weekly newspapers of the country. In addition, I hope the minister will be able to find an opportunity of giving the information to farm journals. I know of no class of persons in this dominion who in the last analysis are more important than the housewives-and I am speaking of the war effort. They are an amazing source of strength to the nation, in the towns, the villages and the countryside, and any information that we can give to the housewife, which will enhance her appreciation of the fairness of the laws of Canada at the present time, in the carrying out of the difficult task of maintaining reasonable prices, particularly of foodstuffs, clothing and shelter, will, I am sure, pay dividends in renewed interest and in unity of support of our total war effort.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will take note of the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Last night the minister spoke of the work the housewives did in the way of policing and enforcing the price-ceiling regulations in Canada. I think they have done a very good job. It is most important, that the ceiling be maintained and the cost of living kept down if we do not want to have inflation, and anything that will further that end will be of benefit to the citizens. But as goods become scarcer it
will be more difficult for the housewives of Canada to play this part. This is the point. They will be told that they have to take this or that at a certain price or go without. There is going to be a difficulty. When information is laid in connection with prices, is the name of the person laying the information made public or is it kept secret?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is secret.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I think every precaution should be taken to protect the housewives in connection with the enforcement of these regulations.
Perhaps the minister has noted in the newspapers that one of the controllers in Toronto has called for some kind of rationing of fuel for that city this year. There is no question about it that from appearances the situation is now a very serious one for the people of our city. Here is an interesting headline in the Globe and Mail of June 24: "Fuel oil hopes far from rosy for eastern United States." That is just fuel oil. That is the situation that exists to-day. What is the government going to do? Are we to have a repetition of what happened before, when we were told in the first place that there would be no rationing of butter and two or three weeks afterwards rationing came in? Are we to have the same thing that happened with potatoes, and so on? In my own city the housewives were able to buy only from their own grocer, or df they wanted potatoes they had to buy other food with it, and they were paying as high as five cents apiece. Are we to have that, or are we to have a policy in connection with the fuel situation before it becomes too serious in Toronto. Are we to ration fuel this winter or not? It is about time we had some policy so that the people of my city and the people of the rest of the country will not suffer. Are we to have the same thing that happened in connection with cordwood and wohd fuel? That situation has not improved. Let us get something done in time, so that we may know what the situation will be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the hon.
gentleman would expect me to say whether or not any commodity is to be rationed. I would not want to say that, because I do not know.


Mr. LOCKHART:: A press report to-day said not.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then is the situation as serious as we think it is? What is to be done about it? Is it to be allowed simply to drift? Who will take charge of it-the wartime prices and trade board or somebody else?
4466	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
We want to know in time, so that we may make our plans for next winter. This is the time to do it, not after the snow comes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The production and distribution of coal and1 fuel wood are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. If rationing should become necessary, I do not know what department would carry it out. There is one rationing authority now in the Department of Munitions and Supply in connection with gasoline and tires.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then there is the other point in regard to housewives who help enforce the ceiling policy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman will look at the report of the wartime prices and trade board, he will find that at page 66 it is provided that the names of persons furnishing information to the board on enforcement matters are held confidential in the investigations which follow.


George Hugh Castleden: In connection with
administration costs which amount to $14,300,000, how are the personnel selected? How are those who are to be placed in charge of the various regional offices of the board selected, and what salaries do they receive? This question has to do with the ability of the staff to keep the public informed and to give the public accurate information. There is a multitude of orders in council being passed in regard to prices, and I should like to know what machinery exists in order to keep these officials informed, and what are their instructions with respect to giving information to the public. A person goes to the wartime prices office and asks for some information in regard to what rent should be charged for a room, or what he should do with some surplus coupons, or some other related matter in connection with which they require information. The complaint I have received is that these persons often are told to go and see a lawyer about it', that those in charge of these offices did not know what should be done, and admit it. I should like to know whether those employed in these offices are instructed to do this, or whether there is not some higher official in Ottawa from whom they can get the information they require.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is an important system of internal circularization; that is to say, the board orders, instructions and so on are sent round to the staff of the board in all parts of Canada. They are informed promptly as to everything it is necessary for them to know. It might be that some official would not take

it upon himself to advise an applicant on some legal question; that sometimes happens, and in a case like that it is better to tell the applicant to see a lawyer than to give bad legal advice.
Generally speaking, appointments to positions carrying salaries of under $5,000 are made by the civil service commission, and to those carrying salaries of over $5,000 by the governor in council. On the question of salaries it might be of interest for me to inform the committee that as of March 31, 1943, those serving without remuneration numbered 259; those receiving over $8,500 per annum, none; those receiving from $5,000 to $8,500, 43; those receiving from $4,001 to $5,000, 83; those receiving $3,001 to $4,000, 174; those receiving from $2,001 to $3,000, 683; and those receiving $2,000 and under, 3,723; making a total of 4,965 at that time. The average salary including cost of living bonus, based on salaries paid during the month of March, 1043, and including those serving without remuneration, was $1,525, while excluding all persons serving without remuneration the average annual salary, on the basis I have just given, was $1,610. Was that the information the hon. gentleman wanted about salaries?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes. The other question whether there is any source to which those in charge of these offices can refer in case they are asked something they cannot answer. Are they instructed to tell people making such inquiries to go and see a lawyer? Is there a source within the department to which they can refer such inquiries? *


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; they would go to their superiors for information. If their superiors did not have the information, they would apply to their superiors and finally it w'ould be obtained. You know sometimes people ask you the most annoying questions, and I can well understand that an official might hesitate to give an opinion which, unappreciated by the questioner, might have to do with a difficult point of law about which a lawyer should be consulted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You send the annoying
question to a lawyer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I never like to be asked for a definite opinion on a difficult point of law, because it is a most dangerous question to answer.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In a wartime prices and trade board press release, dated July 6, I find the following:
Appointment of Irving B. Everett of Toronto to an executive position in the wartime prices and trade board's ration administration was

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
announced to-day. Mr. Everett will be chief of the general section in charge of meat and butter. Mr. Everett is on loan from the Swift Canadian Company, Limited, Toronto, of which he has been sales manager.
I am just wondering how many members of that board have been employed by these packing houses. In my own riding there is a man who has been slaughtering hogs for the last thirty or forty years; in fact I think he had the first private slaughtering place in our district. Now he has been denied a permit to slaughter hogs. He asked permission to slaughter just what one might call the runts in the different pens, and even that was refused him, though they said he would be allowed to slaughter farmers' hogs. It looks to me as though there is some discrimination against the small man who is slaughtering his own animals, or is slaughtering for others. I find this in the Globe and Mail of July 6:
The Central British Columbia Live Stock Association has sent an appeal to the dominion government asking that merchants holding slaughter permits be allowed to issue temporary permits to producers to slaughter live stock for sale to the merchants.
At another point they say:
The wartime prices and trade board recently decreed that slaughtering of live stock for local use in rural areas must be done .and stamped by one man. In the Burns-Francois lakes district, the man appointed by the local ration board was the only one who might be said to have an "abattoir"-two poplar trees growing beside a road.
The farmers complain that to obey the order they must in some cases hire trucks or hitch up the old grey mare and cart live stock anywhere from ten to one hundred miles to be butchered at the poplar tree abattoir.
I note that it is creating a hardship throughout the rural district, because these people who are forty or fifty miles, or perhaps more, away from packing houses cannot haul their hogs to those packing houses and then back home again.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Everett, to whom the
hon. member referred, is chief of the rationing administration. The rationing administration has no connection with the food administration. It is in the food administration that the slaughtering control rests.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It
would be all mixed up.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; they are distinctly
separate. The rationing administration is at Montreal, and the foods administration is at Ottawa. They are certainly distinct. It is [DOT]easy to say that this slaughtering control is in the interests of the packers, but the fact is that some slaughtering control is absolutely necessary to make the rationing of meat a
success. To show how far they go in some countries, I would point out that in Great Britain they reduced the number of slaughtering places by ninety-five per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; but they have not the distances that we have in Canada. It is altogether different over there. The whole country could be put in Ontario.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We do not go to anything
like the lengths they have gone over there.


Alfred Henry Bence: Might I ask a question at
this point about the construction of the new wartime prices and trade board temporary building in Ottawa?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Alfred Henry Bence: Did the minister consider
the advisability of the erection of this building?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I did.


Alfred Henry Bence: In the minister's opinion, in view of the fact such a tremendous amount of lumber and materials are required for construction, might not some alternative plan have been arrived at, rather than use up all these valuable materials and man-power. Was the situation thoroughly canvassed as to whether or not these various parts of the board could not have been left where they were, or put in other places, either in Ottawa or in adjoining cities?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sure the hon. member has no conception of how thoroughly that situation was canvassed. I can say it was canvassed very thoroughly. The wartime prices and trade board was at that time in twenty-two separate places in Ottawa. They were spread around throughout the city. We were trying our best to send as many branches or divisions out of the city as we could. For instance, the rationing administration, with a tremendous personnel, is established in Montreal. But we can go only so far in that direction. It was expensive and it was inefficient. It was a. waste of time, money and everything else to operate in that way, to have one administration here and another there. I came to the conclusion it was necessary to have these branches together, under one roof, if possible.
Then the question was raised: Where? That was discussed very thoroughly. The proposal eventually adopted is by far the cheapest of the alternative proposals considered-and several were considered.
4468	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
Mr. O'NEILL: Is the slaughtering of hogs on the quota basis in British Columbia, and are the accredited' abattoirs under the control of the packers?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The quota that can be slaughtered is fixed by the meat board, formerly known as the bacon board. Is the hon. member talking about hogs alone, or does he include beef as well?
Mr. O'NEILL: When the slaughtering of beef animals was first considered it was put on a quota basis. That is to say, if a certain company slaughtered a thousand animals last year they were permitted to slaughter whatever percentage is allowed them this year. Eor instance, if it were ninety per cent, then they would be permitted to slaughter 900 animals.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Mr. O'NEILL: But that system was abandoned. At the present time while there is a quota, that quota is not divided among the packers on the same basis as it was last year. They are allowed to slaughter so many cattle. But there is no certain quota fixed for any one company. I was wondering if the same thing now applies to hogs, or whether each packer is allowed a certain quota of hogs to slaughter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a quota for each slaughtering place. For export houses the quota is fifty per cent of 1940, and for others it is seventy-five per cent of 1941. That is fixed by the meat board.
Mr. O'NEILL:	What about domestic
consumption?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The export houses have for their domestic quota fifty per cent of 1940; and the others-those which are not export establishments-have seventy-five per cent of 1941.
Mr. O'NEILL: Are the accredited slaughtering abattoirs under the control of the packers, or are there independent slaughtering houses?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There have been 12,000
slaughter permits issued, and there are about forty-five or fifty inspected houses. I cannot imagine that all of them are controlled or owned by the packing industry. I do not think that would be the case at all.
Mr. O'NEILL: I understand that there are only three in Vancouver, two of which are owned and controlled by Canada Packers, Swifts or some of the others, the third one being an independent house. However, I understand that negotiations are under way by

the packing concerns to get hold of this house. The government will not permit animals to be slaughtered except in an accredited slaughter house. If the packers own all these places, there will be no place for an independent man to slaughter his stock. The independent man always pays the producer anywhere from two to three cents a pound more than the packer pays. I shoidd like to have this matter cleared up, because it is of great concern to producers in British Columbia.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to get some information for the hon. gentleman. I did not understand that he was asking a question; I thought he was just making a statement. I shall look into the situation.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister will see how the small producer is gradually being squeezed out of existence.


Mr. ROY:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a particular situation which arises in the lower part of the Gaspe coast where the only means of transport is by water. It may happen that during the season of navigation a merchant may not get in sufficient sugar, syrup and other foodstuffs to last thoughout the winter, and the result is that before spring the population is short of these items. Last fall they could not secure sufficient molasses and sugar to-last until the spring. Since last spring some of the ships which used to carry on this trade have been sold to other companies and it is not expected that they will be kept on this route. We are afraid that sufficient stocks of food will not be brought in before the fall to last until next spring. I suggest to the minister that this board should make sure that necessary stocks are delivered to last throughout the winter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the responsibility of the wartime prices and trade board to attend to the proper distribution of foodstuffs to meet a situation of that kind. I understand that the local merchant makes arrangements for delivery of what he requires, and if he anticipates any difficulty it is open to him to apply to the wartime prices and trade board.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Will the minister make sure
that the board investigates the matter and sees to it that sufficient supplies are taken in before toe close of navigation? Orders should be given to the board to proceed with this investigation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are fully aware of their responsibility in that regard. In view of the fact that the hon. member has publicly called attention to the necessity of seeing that trans-

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
portation is provided, I am sure that they will give attention to this matter. I shall suggest to them that they do.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Before I ask some questions that I have in mind I should like to say a word of praise to the minister. I am sure he has not expected this of me. I understand in our neighbouring country to the south they have had to make three changes in the gentlemen who have been in charge of their price control. I congratulate the minister upon being so successful in securing the man he did. I disagree ninety per cent with what he says, but I believe he has the courage of his convictions. He has stayed with what he started out to do. However, I would say that I do not think this gentleman has the foggiest notion of what he is talking about in connection with agriculture.
The first question I have to ask is in connection with an order for return brought down on July 1. This contained a number of questions in connection with sugar, but the fifth question asked if women's organizations had been represented at the negotiations that were carried on and, if so, which ones? I know the minister will not have these answers with him, so that I shall give the answer that was given. The answer was that the foods administration, the ration administration, the consumer branch of the wartime prices and trade board and the consumer branch of the Department of Agriculture each had a woman representative attending these discussions. I should like to know who- these ladies were, who appointed them and what organizations were represented.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The lady representing the consumer branch of the wartime prices and trade board was Miss Sanders. The consumer branch is a voluntary organization of the women of Canada, consisting of about
12.000	in all. The lady from the foods admin>-istration was Miss Speers, a nutrition expert and a member of the staff of that administration. The lady representing the Department of Agriculture was Miss Pepper, and the lady representing the ration administration was Miss Archer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On July 6 I asked this question:
Will salmon be released- and distributed for Canadian consumption on a per capita basis to each province?
I was informed in reply that approximately
200.000	cases of canned salmon will be released for Canadian consumption but that the basis of distribution had not been determined. I also asked further questions in reference to canned herring on the same day. The reason
I asked those questions was that my information was that last year herring from the Atlantic coast was distributed in British Columbia while all the herring in that province went to the British market. I think the public are entitled to know the answers to the questions, and I must say that I do not particularly appreciate the answers that were given me. I will give the questions and answers:
3.	Will canned herring be released for distribution to the several provinces?
The answer to that was:
3.	Certain quantities of canned herring are being considered for Canadian consumption but the basis of distribution cannot be determined until the quantity to be available is known.
Then I asked:
4.	If so, on what basis?
The answer to that was:
4.	See answer to question 3.
Then question 5 was:
5.	Will eastern herring be shipped to British Columbia ?
The answer to that was:
5.	See answer to question 3.
My last question was:
6.	Will British Columbia canned herring be released on the Pacific coast?
The answer to that was:
6.	See answer to question 3.
British Columbia produces as much fish as any other seven provinces in the Dominion, and my question now is, do the wartime prices and trade board, in their so-called maintaining of the price ceiling and of the so-called cost of living index, believe that herring from the Atlantic coast can be transported to British Columbia, where we produce as much fish as any other seven provinces-those are the figures of the bureau of statistics-and sold *there, while our herring in British Columbia is taken overseas and the so-called cost of living index be maintained under .those circumstances?


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand it, nothing is settled about the distribution of herring this year. I think the answer to question No. 5 which my bon. friend has just quoted indicates that nothing is settled. The answer means nothing much more than that the matter is under consideration. The hon. gentleman is complaining that last year some herring from the eastern coast was sent to British Columbia, while British Columbia herring was sent to Britain. I do not know the facts of the case. Perhaps my colleague the Minister of
4470	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
Fisheries has something to do with the distribution of the fish production of this country. I do not know whether he will be able to throw any light on that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: With all due deference to the minister, and I have given credit where credit is due, I do not agree with the cost of living index, and I am doing my best to point out that the figures are not true, when herring from the Atlantic coast can be moved to British Columbia whose fish production is the equivalent of any other seven provinces. My interpretation of the answers that were brought down in reply to my questions is that the wartime prices and trade board-not the Department of Fisheries-determines how and where the fish is to be distributed. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong. May I ask the minister whether fish from the Atlantic coast are to be released for local consumuption on the eastern seaboard, and whether fish from the western coast will be released to that district?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The matter is not determined yet. The answers to the questions show that. I rather intimated a moment ago that perhaps the Department of Fisheries has the distribution or allocation of fish under its control. That is not so. The wartime prices and trade board looks after .the distribution of fish in Canada, while the Department of Fisheries takes responsibility for the export of fish. The allocation or distribution of fish to meet the demands of the Canadian market is the responsibility of the wartime prices and trade board. What arrangements will be made for the present year remains to be seen. That has not yet been determined.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have another
matter to take up with the minister. I have already taken it up with 'his parliamentary assistant. My information is that on June 21 a firm of canners in British Columbia received a call from the office of the wartime prices and trade board in Victoria that the Department of Munitions and Supply would call for the release of 5,000 pounds of jam for a boat, presumably a naval boat. It is not in the public interest to make the name public. This firm of canners replied that they did not have available that quantity of free stocks, but that they had it in frozen stocks. They were informed that they could not release that amount from the frozen stocks, but that they could from the free stocks, but that if munitions and supply had Ottawa requisition the wartime prices and trade board it could be done. I was informed that that was entirely incorrect. That was the answer given by the department, under date of July 2, at Mission,

British Columbia. On the morning of the 21st of June a telephone call was received from the wartime prices and trade board that munitions and supply office at Victoria would be telephoning and asking for 5,000 pounds of jam, and that United Farmers Cooperative Exchange could supply them out of free stocks but not out of frozen. According to the statement of the manager, in his letter, the board stated that-
. . . we could supply them out of our free stocks but not to send any out of the "frozen" stocks-we had 1,600 cases of frozen jam in our warehouse at the time. I said we were sold out of free stocks, which they already knew.
This is the important part:
I asked for the release of 100 cases of 4-lb. jam if they phoned for it but the answer I got was that they had no. power in Vancouver to release any frozen jam to the naval stores at Victoria.
Shortly afterwards another telephone call came from Victoria asking if the firm could ship 5,000 pounds of jam to the naval stores at Esquimalt. In case any hon. members from the Atlantic coast do not know, Esquimalt is the foundation of the entire defence of the Dominion of Canada on the Pacific coast; it is our Halifax, only a far greater port. I do not want to weary the committee by reading the whole letter.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are bragging.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Maybe I am bragging. I am entitled to brag about my province. But there is something wrong, to my mind, when naval stores cannot get a release of jam at any time without having to go through all this rigmarole.
Here is the point which I am most concerned about. The wartime prices and trade board have-I say this with all due deference- no greater influence than possibly their master the Canadian Manufacturers' association. This firm got in touch with the Canadian Manufacturers' association, and they immediately took the matter up. I should be glad to give the minister a copy of this letter. They informed the firm that they could do nothing about the matter. But then, as this boat had to leave, the firm shipped the jam on their own responsibility. The wartime prices and trade board called them up and severely bawled them out. They had forwarded requisition order No. C-1382.


Grote Stirling: And never got the jam?


George Alexander Cruickshank: And never got the
jam? That I do not know. The point I am trying to get at is this. Are a few officials here, who do not even know there is a war

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
on, to have the privilege of denying our navy jam when requisition is made in due order, and then afterwards it is O.K'd with a number I have given, requisition order C-1382? This can be checked from the records-the Oii'ing of the order. What I am interested in knowing is this, can the Department of Munitions and Supply at any time requisition jam or any other food product for our armed forces without being hindered by the wartime prices and trade board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend indicated, I took this matter up when he first put his inquiry before me. The inquiry took the form of a statement that he had been informed that a firm in Vancouver, United Farmers Cooperative, had been refused permission to deliver frozen stocks of jam to the Department of Munitions and Supply, presumably for the armed forces. I took the matter up with the wartime prices and trade board; and I was informed that, while frozen stocks of jam were, of course, under the control of the wartime prices and trade board, on no occasion had they refused a requisition from the Department of Munitions and Supply for the armed forces. In addition, that morning they telephoned long distance to the wartime prices and trade board office in Vancouver and were informed by the office in Vancouver that they had received no request from United Farmers Cooperative for delivery of jam to munitions and supply. I communicated that information to my hon. friend, and that is the last I heard of it until to-night. If the jam supplies were required for the navy, as I take it from what he said they were, as the committee knows purchases for any of the armed forces are made through munitions and supply. But the point I wish to make is that the wartime prices and trade board food administration stated without qualification that they had never refused a request from the Department of Munitions and Supply for frozen jams or any other food products, and that in the case of this particular company they had been informed over the long distance telephone, on inquiring, that no request for delivery had been received.
There may have been some mix-up in the filing of the requisition-I do not know as to that-but that is the information which the board here were given by their office in Vancouver. If my hon. friend has any further particulars, we shall be glad to go into the matter and see what happens.
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv:	I thank the parliamentary assistant. I am not quarrelling with him; he gave me a very fair report 72537-283
at the time and answered every question I asked. This firm may be wrong in their information, but they are the largest independent jam firm in the Dominion of Canada

I repeat that, "independent jam firm in the Dominion of Canada"-and they make the definite statement that they were turned down on this. Eveiybody knows that no firm has any difficulty in selling this kind of produce. The firm are not worried about the order; but what I am interested in and what the manager of the firm is interested in and took upon himself as a good Canadian to bring to my attention, is that some naval boat-I reiterate, what we hear so often, that "it is not in the public interest" to say what particular boat, because apparently anything we do not want to mention is not in the public interest-required this jam, could not get it, and he took it upon himself to release this jam. I want to know whether the wartime prices and trade board, either any official or the whole board, has any power to refuse to release jam or any other food to any branch of the armed forces. I am entitled to an answer to that question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just to answer my hon.
friend's last point, these frozen stocks to which he is referring, of jam and other products, are frozen, not because the wartime prices and trade board wants to freeze them, but at the request of the Department of Munitions and Supply in order that they may be sure that there will be an adequate supply for the armed forces. As I say, it is possible that in this case naval stores or some group like that attempted to order this jam direct from the supplier without going through munitions and supply. I cannot say as to that. But the important point in principle is that the wartime prices and trade board does not refuse and has not refused requisitions from munitions and supply for the armed forces, and the purpose of freezing these stocks is at the request of munitions and supply in order that they will be available for the armed forces.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I did not know that my
hon. friend was going to switch from salmon to jam, or I would have risen before. I wish to ask a question with respect to salmon. My understanding is that 200,000 cases of salmon will be released for domestic consumption. Can the minister say whether it will be released on the percentage of population of the different provinces?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The basis of distribution
has not been settled. Discussions covering

4472	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
the whole distribution of fish are going on between the board and the Department of Fisheries at the present time.
Mr. O'NEILL:	Would it be unfair to
have it allocated on a percentage basis of the population? ,


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not see anything unfair about it, if everything else is allocated on that basis. Whether it was fair or not might depend upon the allocation of other foods.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I should now like to ask
a question with respect to jam. Is more jam being released to the German internment camps than is being allocated to the civilian population of this country?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The German prisoners get the same rations as -the depot troops in Canada. That is by virtue of the Geneva convention. How that compares with the amount available for the civilian population I do not know. It it not a ration to the civilian population. One would have to know how much is available and find how much that would give to every civilian in Canada and compare the result with the army ration. That is what it amounts to.
Mr. O'NEILL: I am not very familiar with the matter, and possibly the minister does not buy any more tins of jam off the shelves in the stores than I do, but I understand from my wife that there are many days when there is no jam on the shelves, though occasionally you will find it in the stores. Yet there is common gossip that there is all the jam in the German camps that they require.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There has been a large increase in the amount of jam available for the civilian population of Canada, but even a greater increase in the demand. A good instance of this will be found in the statement I made when the wartime prices and trade board1 estimates were introduced. I quote from page 4256 of Hansard.	y
A good instance of this is jams, jellies and marmalades. Before the war the production of these items w-as in the neighbourhood of 45 million pounds. _ By 1942 the output had risen to over 70 million pounds. Of this total some 15 million pounds were used by the armed forces and other priority users, but there still remained a considerably larger quantity for civilians. Yet hon. members, or at least their wives, know that jams, jellies and marmalades are very difficult to obtain in retail stores.
It shows the increase in the supply and the greater increase in the demand for jams, jellies and marmalades.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish the minister would clarify the Canadian War Orders and Regulations, Ottawa, June 28, 1943. There is

one point that I do not understand. Let me quote from order No. 289, respecting maximum manufacturers' prices of certain groceries. I quote:
The board hereby orders as follows:-
1.	The schedule to order No. 116 of the board is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the words "jam, jelly and marmalade" and substituting therefor the word "marmalade".
The second paragraph is the one I do not understand:
2.	The said schedule is hereby further amended by deleting therefrom the words "clothes pins".
Would the minister explain that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was a special order, with ,a long list of articles sold by grocery stores, including clothes pins, and they therefore appeared in the schedule. One by one specific orders were made relating to the prices of these articles. I do not know whether all or even most of them have been covered, but at any rate clothes pins are among those that have been.' When a specific order was made the article affected ceased to be subject to the general order and therefore was taken out of that general order by deletion from the schedule.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It has nothing to do with jams?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. Jams appear elsewhere on the list.


Mr. PERLEY:: I think the minister made a timely statement this evening. It is one that should have been made some time ago. It dealt with the many difficulties which the board has and the manner in which it is trying to cope with the various problems. A good deal of information was given us to-night which I think is worth while, and I endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Swift Current, that the statement given to-night should be summarized and set out in concise form by a certain representative of the press whom he mentioned and who would be capable of doing it. He suggested that it be published in the weekly newspapers so that the people would have -the information. I am prompted to support that suggestion by tire statement made by the hon, member for Saskatoon. He indicated- some of the difficulties which merchants, consumers and others have through failure to understand the working of the prices board and also the changes in prices. The local merchants in my own district face these difficulties. I have heard them complain- that there is so much confusion and lack of understanding in the method of carrying out the different regulations, and of the changes in -prices. As the

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
hon. member for Saskatoon said, the information sometimes gets out in advance, while in other cases there is delay, I have heard both consumers and local merchants complain. I will not enlarge on this, though I have letters which I could read toi illustrate what I am saying. However, I am trying to be brief. I suggest that the statement be summarized and given out. Yesterday there was some discussion on the question of rent and rent control and prosecutions, and in that regard I have had some complaints.
The hon. member for Haldimand suggested this afternoon that the producers should have had representation on the prices board. On page 73 of the report referred to yesterday by the minister we find a list of the board and the different firms whom they represent, but we do not see a real representative of producers there, apart from the Department of Agriculture. I wish to endorse the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member fo.r Haldimand that we should have a real representative of the producers on this board. In my opinion we would have avoided many of the difficulties in regard to the ceiling on farm products if this had been done. I agree with the hon. member that ceiling prices on certain farm prodiicts are not fair or as close to parity prices as they should be.
To come back to the question of rentals, it was stated yesterday that during the nine months' period ending March 31 last there were 1,679 prosecutions, of which 730 corn cerned rentals. Would the minister give us a break-down of that figure of 730, to show how many of these prosecutions occurred in the western provinces? I hear many landlords in the city of Regina complaining about the enforcement of the rental regulations. I happen to have a block also and I could recite some of my own difficulties, but I shall not do so. It would satisfy me if the minister would say a word in regard to the prosecutions in the city of Regina. I hope the minister also will consider the suggestion advanced by the hon, member for Swift Current, which I am making on my own behalf now, that the public generally should have some better understanding as to how these matters are being regulated.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am glad the making of the statement in regard to the cost of living index appears to have met with the approval of the committee. Personally I thought that even though it might take a little time it would be advisable to make a full statement on the matter because of its importance and the interest it has attracted, and I shall try
to see that the statement is given the widest possible circulation by the most efficient means.
With regard to the composition of the wartime prices and trade board and the suggestion that the farmers should be represented on it, as I have pointed out before, this board does not consist of representatives of any occupations at all; it consists entirely of senior government officials. On it there are two representatives of the Department of Agriculture, but it does not have representatives of any industry or occupation or calling. We have kept it strictly to government officials, because it is not a gathering place for persons who represent their own points of view or the points of view of various groups-


Ernest Edward Perley: I appreciate that, but it is
not any personal point of view I have in mind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not have before me
the information with regard to the rentals prosecutions by provinces, but I can get that information.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one
matter I should like to place before the minister, because I think it is of interest to every small retailer from the Atlantic to the Pacific. During the last few months there has been a marked trend toward a diminution in the numbers of small retailers throughout the dominion which, unless something is done to correct it, will ultimately lead to their general extinction. The reason for the failure of the small business man lies in the fact that he is unable to secure his fair and proper share of the consumer goods that remain to be distributed throughout the country as a whole. I hear this point raised on numberless occasions. It is said' that unless something is done very soon to put a halt to this trend, by the time the war is over the small retailer will be forced out of existence, to all intents and purposes, while on the other side of the equation we shall see an ever-increasing concentration in the hands of the large retail concerns throughout Canada.
I think every hon. member will agree that no group has done more for this country, in the remote settlements as well as in the more thickly populated parts, than the small merchant. We now have rationing of many of the necessities of life; we have rationing of gasoline, all under a body which has a large number of officials, and I should like to know what is being done to see that the small retailer obtains his fair and proper share of the consumer goods still available for distribution throughout the country as a whole.
4474	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
What is the scheme? What is being done to see that the various foods, the various kinds of clothing, and so on, are made available to the small retail stores which, after all, are the backbone of the business life of this country? What is being done by the wartime prices and trade board to see that these small businesses are treated fairly? This is a matter which deserves a complete answer on the part of the minister. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has said, the statement made this evening by the minister about the operation of the index number with respect to the cost of living will do much to clear up the misunderstandings that one hears expressed on every hand. The consumer, too, has an interest in the small retail store, and to-day consumers complain that they are placed in the position that in many cases they can lo longer go to their local stores, because those stores do not have the goods available.
Just in that connection I wish to mention a matter which I think should be brought to the attention of the committee, for it illustrates in concrete form the tendency to give preference to large stores as opposed to the smaller stores. Following the rationing of tea, an order went out as late %s September, 1942, with respect to the distribution of tea in the northern parts of Canada. Here is the strange thing about the order which was made. The Indians were made subject to the rationing of tea, provided they did not deal with a certain well-known company which operates in the north. If they were dealing with this very large corporation operating in northern Canada they were not required to have ration coupons.


George Hugh Castleden: What company was
that?


John George Diefenbaker: The Hudson's Bay company. If, on the other hand, they wanted to deal with the small, independent trader, they could not do it without ration cards. What was the result of that order? I do not know whether it is in effect today, but it was in effect as late as October, 1942, and it was admitted to be in effect by Mr. George Short, director of commercial and institutional rationing. The effect was that when the Indians came in to buy their supplies, if they had no ration coupons and they went to the company's store they were able to purchase anything else they wanted. If they went to the independent trader, that was denied them. They would not buy the rest of their supplies because they could not secure their tea.
That is an order which I find difficult to understand. It had the effect of arousing the
lMr. Diefcnbaker.]
antagonism of all the smaller traders in the north, those men who carry on trade from the Hudson bay to the Yukon territory. It is an order which is unfair add unjustified. An explanation was given that any Indians who wished to buy from independent merchants may be directed to the nearest Indian agency for a requisition enabling them to buy from such independent merchant. That order. I submit, is one that cannot be justified.
I point this out for the purpose of indicating that there is a feeling that sufficient consideration is not being given by the government, through the instrumentality of the board, to the welfare of the small business people. For them I make this plea, and I ask that machinery be set up in addition to that already existing, which will assure to the small business man and the small retailer a fair and proper share of consumer goods, reduced as they are to-day in amount, by the exigencies of war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This subject probably
deserves a fuller explanation than I am prepared to give to-night. But I do not wish to go away and take the time to prepare a set speech or statement on it. I want to deal with it now, because it is the favourite procedure of certain critics of the wartime prices and trade board to state that the small retailer is being sacrificed to the big one. That is a favourite criticism. It was hinted by the hon. member for York-Sunbury the other night.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking that
it be answered.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And I will answer it. I
wish to say this, that if it had not been for the wartime prices and trade board and its policy, and if it had not been for the policies which have been pursued, the small retailer would have been in a far worse position than he is in to-day. I wish to give the reasons for saying that.
AVhen goods in short supply are faced with higher war-time costs of distribution, suppliers tend to divert, if left to themselves, larger shares of supplies to preferred customers, and for various reasons-because of larger orders, because of the stronger financial position on an average, because of the ability of the preferred customer to pay higher prices, as the result of having higher individual ceilings in a great many cases, because of lower freight absorption, and because of other considerations favourable to the seller.
The board, in 1942, published a statement of policy, which appeared in the Canada Ganette, and which I think I shall have to put

II ar Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
on record. It will take a little time to read it into the record. But from the beginning, at least from the fall of 1941, when the ceiling policy *went into effect, the board made it quite clear that there would be as equitable a distribution of supplies to all retailers, both large and small, as could be effected. The basis of that distribution was a ratable distribution of goods in short supply to 1942 customers, in proportion to their purchases during 1941. It was recognized that no base period could be completely satisfactory, on the basis of quota between areas and between outlets, but 1941 seemed to be the most satisfactory basis available.
Representations have been made to me by the hon. member for Assiniboia who knows about conditions in that part of Saskatchewan, and he argues that in that area purchases, on account of economic conditions, were limited in 1941, and that therefore the application of that formula is unjust to that area, and presumably to certain other areas in Canada.
It may be that the formula has not allowed for the increase in purchasing power in that particular part of Saskatchewan, the increase in the relative prosperity of the people. It may be that it does not allow for that factor. Other considerations have, however, been allowed-not there, necessarily-but quotas in certain designated areas have been increased to allow for the marked increase in population caused by the war, and wholesale and retail trade administrators have given individual adjustments in cases of anomaly. But the equitable distribution policy applies only to unrationed goods. Normally, under rationing, other controls-for example, the coupon flow-back-meet the needs of the situation.
An analysis was made to find out the effect of what was happening to the independent stores, chain stores, and departmental and mail order stores, in respect of sales and in respect of inventories. There is a small table I should read, which was prepared from dominion bureau of statistics' figures. It shows the change in sales between December, 1941, and December, 1942. There was no increase in sales by the department and mail order stores between December, 1941, and December, 1942. Therefore the percentage of increase is zero.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the
amount of supplies they had on hand in each of said years?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will come to that. I am dealing now with sales. For the general stores there was an increase of 1-7 per cent in sales in 1942 over sales in 1941. For independent stores there was an increase in sales of thirteen per cent in December, 1942, over the same month in 1941.
Now, what about the change in inventory as between those two months? For the departmental and mail order stores there was a reduction in inventory of nine per cent. For the chain stores there was a reduction in inventory of -6 per cent. For the independents there was a reduction in inventories of one per cent. I gave some figures with regard to failures and so on when I introduced my estimates, but I should like to quote now from a speech delivered by Mr. P. K. Heywood of the Canadian retail federation at the retailers' war-time conference held in Toronto on Tuesday, April 6, 1943. The Canadian retail federation is an association made up largely, if not entirely, of small retailers. The chairman appears to be Mr. P. K. Heywood and the secretary is Mr. George S. Hougham. This is what Mr. Heywood said in his speech:
The federation has received a large measure of recognition, both by the wartime prices and trade board and by other agencies of government and, I believe, will be increasingly consulted on the vexing problems that have to be faced in the days ahead.
Now let us look for a moment at the position in which we find ourselves to-day and take a brief glimpse into the future.
As is usual when any sudden changes are encountered, there are many predictions of disaster and the institution of price ceiling legislation was not without such predictions. What are the actual results? In the first place, most classes of retail business have experienced a boom in sales unequalled in modern times and all classes would have experienced a similar boom had the civilian economy been equal to the task of production while also producing for war. This we know was not possible and many lines of household appliances, hardware, tires and the entire automotive industry are, in varying degrees, casualties of this war in a civilian sense. But the total impact of the war on retailing as a whole has so far been chiefly psychological. Government regulations, merchandise deliveries and man-power shortages seemed to be enormous difficulties-but the fact remains that most stores have been doing pretty well and have had a good year in 1942, with satisfactory profits even after taxes.
Many predictions have been, made as to the fate of the small retailer-that his doom was sealed-that 20.000 would go out of business this year. Such publicity is most unfortunate. Even in normal times over 12,000 retailers go out of business per annum but in normal times about an equal number start in business so the total remains about the same. During the present emergency none are starting in business and many more are going out because they can find more lucrative employment in other industries. The number of empty stores appearing in most cities is not nearly as serious as it might appear.


John George Diefenbaker: How many went out of business in 1942?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have no accurate figures on that.


John George Diefenbaker: As nearly accurate as nnssibW
4476	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Gordon Graydon: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: I would gather from that, tha.t the store with more than two outlets and a central warehouse is treated as a wholesaler and gets the wholesale price instead of the retail price.


Gordon Graydon: The wording of the order itself denies that argument because it says:
One-half cent per pound on purchases from him by a retailer.
That is on purchases by a retailer, not by a wholesaler, who operates more than two retail places of business and has a central warehouse for such place of business.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And a central warehouse, it says. It is quite usual for chain stores to be treated as wholesalers in the pricefixing system of the country. They discharge the functions of wholesalers. They have their own warehouse and distribute the goods among their branches, and therefore it is quite usual for them to get a Lower price. They have higher charges because they do their own warehousing.
4478	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


Mr. EDWARDS:: Do I understand that if the word "warehouse" were left out of the section, it would read differently. It is two distributing stores and a warehouse, and if the retailer does not operate the warehouse he does not get as large a discount.
M.r. GRAYDON: I would not mind continuing the argument if my hon. friend is going to get into it. As a matter of fact, we might as well be frank and say that the mark-up for the chain stores can be no greater than one-half a cent a pound. To be blunt, despite the explanation of the minister and the complementary remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West, the fact remains that the mark-up for any other retailer is 2J cents, and the arguments from time to time on this very point still stand, so far as I can see, despite the explanation which has been made.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It goes back to the old contention which used to be made, that the manufacturer should not charge any lower price to groups that did their own warehousing than to those who had no warehouse. That was all fought out in the price spreads committee, and there were different opinions.


Gordon Graydon: What was your view? You were on the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I forget about that, but I recognized, I think, the practice, which is practically universal and has been followed all through the years, of manufacturers giving a department store, a wholesaler, a chain store, and people who do their own warehousing or discharge the functions of a wholesaler a lower price than that at which they would sell direct to the retailer who did not discharge that function.


Mr. ESLING:: The interest of the minister is asked in a specific case of the administration of an order which not only results in hardship on the importer but is manifestly unjust. It will be recalled that in December last there was a broadcast, with some satisfaction to the corporation and with more satisfaction to the consumer, that oranges would be eligible for a subsidy, and the order was communicated to wholesalers. In the city of Trail there is a wholesale importing firm which does not resort to the railroads. Twice a week they go to the market in Spokane, which is the distributing centre for jobbers along the international boundary, and then they bring back their supplies, which, it will be readily seen, must be much fresher than those which come in the ordinary course by train. When this order came over the radio, the representative of the prices board resident

in Trail informed this particular wholesaler that he must reduce his price, which he did. He brought in three lots of oranges, and presented his application for his subsidy. Up to the time when the second lot was brought in, the representative of the board had not received any instructions as to the terms or conditions under which that subsidy would be granted, with the result that when the firm's application went in, the firm was told that the subsidy could not be paid to it for the reason that the application was not covered by the terms and conditions of the order of the board.
What was the firm to do? The representative had had no instructions; this firm acted in good faith, and the matter has been pending ever since last December, for the reason that the application was required to show, in order to cover the bonus, that these oranges were brought in, in carload lots, and that the importer had title at the source of production. What is a wholesaler on a small scale to do where he cannot afford to bring in carload lots? The nearest point to the interior where carload lots would be brought in would, I think, be Vancouver, 500 miles away, with two freights for the wholesaler to pay. This man complied with the principle of the order, which was to reduce the cost to the consumer. He has reduced the cost; he is out to the amount of his reduction on all three lots of oranges brought in, and yet up to to-day, notwithstanding the efforts of the representative of the prices board to secure an adjustment of the matter, that firm is still out of pocket. It is a small firm; it has been in operation for four years; its capital is limited, and it cannot very well stand the loss, nor can it afford to bring in oranges in carload lots.
It certainly means that communities in which there is not a large consumption must pay the old price and not have the benefit of the subsidy. I ask the minister if he does not think there is a direct injustice imposed, not only upon that importer, but upon the consumers in small communities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know anything about that case. I will take it up with the commodity prices stabilization corporation. I assume there is some explanation there. I have here a statement, though probably I had better not stop to read it, showing the treatment of oranges. We did not undertake to pay any subsidy, to start with, on oranges; we simply removed the duty; but later at some stage a subsidy was arranged for on carload shipments. I should not like to express any opinion about this case until I look it up in Hansard and bring it to the attention of the commodity prices stabilization cornnration. If

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
the hon. gentleman would like to take it up with them direct, I am sure that they would give him every courtesy and consideration in discussing it with him and dealing with it.


William Kemble Esling: I should like to impress upon the minister that the department's own representative has not been able to get this adjustment, although he has been trying to do so ever since December.


John George Diefenbaker: I think all of us must congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat upon the clarity with which he presents his argument, depending as he does upon someone to read to him.
There are a number of questions I should like to'ask the minister, arising out of his statement. They are these:
In how many' cases has an order been made directing that a quota be given to a retailer who had complained that he was not receiving his proper share of'goods?
How many retail stores in Canada have been allowed to commence business since the order was made freezing the stores then in existence? I should like that information by provinces.
Also I would press upon the minister the necessity of answering the question I asked a while ago, namely, how many retail stores closed in the year 1942. Information must be available. The minister was able from the reading of a speech by one of the officials of the retailers' association to say that a certain number each year were expected to close up in the ordinary normal flow of business, and that usually that number was compensated for by the number of new businesses which opened up. That being so, the information must be available, and I would appreciate being informed as to how many retail stores have closed down. That answer will indicate whether or not there is anything to the argument that retail stores are greatly diminishing in number and importance throughout the country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will get as much of that information as I can for the hon. gentleman and present it to-morrow.


James Arthur Ross: The minister has said that no new business can be undertaken without a permit. If a man engaged in general hardware decides to take on household furnishings, would that not be permissible?


James Lorimer Ilsley: He cannot do that without a permit.


Gordon Graydon: What is the regulation with regard to the delivery of ice throughout the country? Is there a definite restriction, and to what extent does it apply?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Two or three weeks ago I made an announcement on that question. It was restricted to two deliveries a week-I speak from memory-and was extended by order of the board to six deliveries a week to residential customers. That order was to be effective from the 1st of June until the 1st of October.


Gordon Graydon: The parliamentary assistant will find, I think, that it was originally three days a week, and not two, as he states.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; it was three.


Gordon Graydon: If it has been changed to six, there is no point in the question I was going to ask.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for
Shefford raised the question, and it was brought to the attention of the minister.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Since the rationing of meat, the retail butchers' stores have had a coupon bank in their local banks and they make purchases against the coupons banked with that institution. I am given to understand that in cutting up a carcase of beef there is anywhere from 75 to 100 pounds of waste. Has the board considered making an allowance for that waste to the retail butchers? If not, will consideration be given that matter?


James Lorimer Ilsley: My information is that the most detailed and careful consideration has been given and that a schedule of tolerances has been published.


Mr. SHAW:: I should like to have a statement from the minister with regard to the utilization of commodities which retail outlets are permitted to procure and which remain on their shelves for a considerable time. I come from an area where the lumbering industry is carried on extensively and where railroad ties, cordwood and so on are produced. I refer to the Rocky Mountain House area of Alberta. Rocky Mountain House itself serves a vast area and a tremendous industry, an industry producing commodities which are most essential to the prosecution of the war. They are having the most extreme difficulty in procuring equipment to carry on the industry. For example, they find it very difficult to obtain saws. The quota is ninety per cent less than pre-war stocks and their ability to produce is severely jeopardized. The board of trade of that town has communicated with me by resolution and by letter pointing out that there are communities of which they are aware which are securing ten per cent, as they are, of the pre-war quantities of such necessary tools, notwithstanding that the need does not exist for these tools in those communities. I

4480	COMMONS
War Appropriation

Finance-Prices Board
would assume from their letter that they are of the opinion that some check should be made upon these retail outlets, who are securing the allotment to which they are entitled but are not putting those commodities to use, though they are definitely required in some other area such as the one to which I have referred. What check is made upon the use of these tools that are allowed to go to these retail outlets?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The suggestion, as I understand it, is that these retailers get certain stocks which they do not need but to which they are entitled. Because they are entitled to a quota they get such stocks and keep them, though they do not sell them for some reason or another. Is that the suggestion?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Take Swede saws, for example, which are in popular demand in that area. In some areas you will see them on the retail shelf for a period of two years. The retailer procures them because he feels that he is entitled to a certain quota, but no purchaser comes to demand them, and he keeps them there. I say that a commodity such as a Swede saw, for which there is such a demand in the area that I have referred to, should be sold where it is needed. There should be some claim on that article where it is required, and the board should endeavour to see that such articles are placed where there is a shortage and where they will be made use of.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is some machinery for the exchange of dormant stocks. I do not know much about it, but I will get some information in that regard. I should be surprised if what the hon. member describes as a condition is a prevalent one, because the retailer does not have to take his quota, and he would hesitate before buying something in which his capital would be tied up for two or three years if he could not dispose of it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In the hardware line that happens frequently. Stocks are carried for two or three years, especially if the dealer thinks it may become more difficult to procure such stocks in the months ahead. Be that as it may, let us take the situation at Rocky Mountain House, where commodities such as I have mentioned are produced. Since production is jeopardized-users having encountered a ninety per cent reduction in the volume of the tools that are necessary to their production-what should dealers do in order to have their quota increased? What would be the procedure for them to follow?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They should apply to the
retail or wholesale trade administrator. If the stocks are available, there is jurisdiction under the order to increase quotas under certain circumstances. I would not give any undertaking that they would be increased, but that is the procedure to follow. There is a bulletin dated June 15, 1943, called the "Wholesalers' Bulletin," which gives instructions about this whole matter. One of the sections has to do with increased quotas for selected areas, and it has notes on alternative systems for distributing goods on the quota basis, and so on.
I keep undertaking to give information later on, and I want to carry out that undertaking. The hon. member for Mackenzie asked me this afternoon to say something about the truck distribution of soft drinks and beers. The purpose of the trucking restrictions is to secure economical and efficient transportation. Before the restrictions were put in force a very large part of the distribution of beer and soft drinks was handled by trucks. By a combination of the thirty-five mile limit and gasoline rationing, the reduction in the miles travelled has approximated sixty per cent. In the administration of the thirty-five mile limit, permits for 203 beer trucks and 222 soft drink trucks have -been granted in individual cases where the administration- was satisfied that it was efficient to do so. One factor taken into account in reviewing applications for permits is whether or not a full load will be carried on the round trip. Many trucks are loaded-only when making deliveries and are empty on the return trip. Soft drink and beer trucks normally carry a full return load of empty bottles. There are a great many factors to be considered in any particular case; but by way of illustration, rather than explanation, a number of permits have been granted to permit deliveries to army camps.
This afternoon the hon. member for Peterborough West read a letter which was sent by a wholesaler to a retail customer, if I understood it correctly, in which he purported to quote an order of the wartime prices and trade board to the effect that certain- kinds of cloth were to be used for making suits of clothes for members of the air force only and not for members of the other two services, and the hon. member asked for an explanation of that order. I have had inquiries made, but no one in the wartime prices and trade board seems to know anything about any such order. They have no record of it at all, so that I shall have to ask the hon. member to get a little more information. If he can direct me to the order; if he can give the number, or

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
tell me who issued it, I shall trace it further, but it may be that the wholesaler in question made a mistake when, he said it was an order of the wartime prices and trade board.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the minister given consideration to making it possible under certain circumstances to cut a ration coupon in two? Sometimes they do not fit in properly, and. it has been suggested that it might be advisable to be able to split them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: For what commodity?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I cannot say which one.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The coupons have been worked down to call for a normal sized package. For instance, I should not think anyone would want to use half a tea coupon, since a tea coupon is good for only two ounces in any ease. In the same way, I do not think anyone would want to split a butter coupon.


Mr. COLDWELL:: What about meat?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, the weekly ration is split; there are two coupons a week.


Major James William Coldwell: This is what I mean. If you go into a store to buy a roast of beef and it comes to say, four and a half pounds, the butcher will ask you to take half a pound of bacon, or something like that, to fill out tlhe coupon. My observation is that sometimes you are tempted to buy something you really do not need.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I had two things in mind, and one of them was the point mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The other is this. I would not advocate that a person should be permitted to use half a coupon by itself, but when you make a purchase of meat which requires two and a half coupons, either you buy more than you require or you buy something that you do not want. The only other alternative is to waste that half coupon. This was brought to mv attention, and it appeared to me that something might be done about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is just a question of how finely you should divide it. Certainly it would complicate the banking arrangements quite a lo,t to have a much larger number of pieces of paper. A great deal of thought has been given, to this subject.


Major James William Coldwell: Is anything being done with regard to the meat used for sausages and hamburg, which we discussed here some time ago?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a memorandum on that matter which I seem to have mislaid. 72537-284 J
A check was made at .the various regional offices of the board, and it was found that there was very little waste in connection with either sausages or hamburg. There were four or five areas, among them Ottawa and London, Ontario, which did report that in the first week or two there seemed to be a considerable surplus of sausages and perhaps some waste, but the genera! report throughout the country was that there was no abnormal waste.


Major James William Coldwell: Did that apply also to the meat going into hamburg?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: A very thorough check was made by the officials of the Toronto district, and after canvassing the situation very carefully they were of opinion that the waste is nothing more than normal for this season of the year. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox raised a question to which the minister said he would give some consideration. I just want to place on record my view that the only proper way of handling this situation is that now employed, the method of allowing a tolerance. If we were to try to ration the waste, the task would be almost impossible, principally because the waste is not all in connection with one commodity. There are many varieties of waste, perhaps not all pertaining to the commodity for which the ration ticket was issued, and there would be no way of separating one kind of waste, coming from a rationed product, from another kind coming from a non-rationed product. So that if you tried to issue ration coupons for waste, you would have confusion worse confounded. You might better continue to control the situation by allowing a definite tolerance on the rationed article, rather than to try to issue coupons for the waste.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Can the minister
give any information with regard to the restrictions on the delivery of bread beyond the thirty-five mile limit, either by truck or by rail, from bakeries in cities and towns?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no information on
that matter with me at the moment. If this item goes through, I think I could give that information on the next item without doing any great violence to the rules.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 11.03 p.m., until 11 a.m., Thursday, July 8.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 8, 1943