1944-05-30

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa, May 30, 1944.
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, June 1, at 5.50 ,p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City-for Mr. Moore).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. P. PICARD (Bellechasse) presented
the first and second reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I should like to know the necessity for this motion. If it is concurred in, the quorum of this committee will consist of a very small fraction of the membership. It seems to me that this committee has important functions to perform, and that therefore the quorum should be substantial.


Mr. PICARD:: The committee is composed of fifty members. There are many select committees sitting every day, and many of the

Naval Service Act
members of this committee are members of other committees as well. It was considered advisable to reduce the quorum in order that we might carry on the business of the committee in a proper way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: On behalf of the Prime Minister I should like to inform the house of the arrival in Canada of Prime Minister Curtin of Australia. Mr. Curtin reached this country this afternoon, and will arrive in Ottawa this evening from Montreal at 10.10 p.m. As hon. members may know, and will be glad to know, Mrs. Curtin, who accompanied Prime Minister Curtin from Australia to Washington, arrived in Ottawa earlier to-day.
Arrangements have been made for Mr. Curtin to address members of this house and of the senate on Thursday afternoon. It is my understanding that Mr. Curtin's address on that occasion will be broadcast so that all the citizens of Canada may have the privilege of hearing him.
It is proposed that when the house adjourns this evening the formal session will stand adjourned until four o'clock on Thursday, but it is anticipated that the members will assemble at the usual hour of three o'clock without going into formal session so that they may have the privilege of hearing, along with the members of the senate, the address of Mr. Curtin.
I am sure that I am speaking for all members of the house, and for the country generally, when I say that to us Mr. and Mrs. Curtin represent a sister dominion whose progress in peace and whose prowess in war have been a matter of pride and admiration on the part of the whole of the British commonwealth of nations. Therefore we feel particularly happy to welcome these two distinguished people on this occasion.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I just say in connection with the words which have been uttered by the acting leader of the government that the high standing of the Right Hon. Mr. Curtin and the nation which he represents will ensure for him and Mrs. Curtin a royal welcome while he is in Canada. We hope that our hospitality will know no bounds, while they are here.


Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: It is hardly necessary to add anything to what has been said already, but on
behalf of this group may I express our extreme pleasure at the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister of Australia.



NAVAL SERVICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 112, respecting the naval service of Canada.
Gordon Graydon: I think the minister
ought to explain.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Briefly I may say that this bill has two main parts. The first part is the present Naval Service Act with some few amendments, none of them substantial in character, which experience has shown to be desirable in that act. The second part is an adaptation of the British naval discipline act of 1866. That act applies now to Canadian naval forces simply by reference. It is proposed to take that act and make such changes as are necessary to adapt it to Canadian use, and have it as part II of the new Naval Service Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, of which I have given notice, in view of the statement made yesterday by Doctor Wilder G. Penfield, leading neurological surgeon on the North American continent and head of the Montreal Neurological Institute, who is reported in the Gazette of to-day to the effect that the offer to the government of the institute as a treatment centre had been turned down because of fear of the establishment of an embarrassing precedent. Doctor Penfield further said:
It is not for us to question this decision, but four and a half years of this war have now passed, and the Canadian government has done practically nothing to establish special centres for the care of war injuries of the nervous system; nothing at all in Quebec and the maritimes.
I would ask the minister to inform the house why this offer was not accepted.
3364	COMMONS
Armed Forces-Neurological Treatment
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health):	I received
notice of my hon. friend's question just before I came into the house, and hurriedly perused the article in the Montreal Gazette. Of course, as Your Honour is aware, it is entirely improper to quote from press reports on the orders of the day, though I am not making any point of that. Two statements are made in the article in question, the first having' to do with the lack of accommodation for the armed services. This statement is entirely inaccurate. At the present time we are operating 23,000 hospital beds in Canada, 15,000 by the armed services. In 1939 the Department of Pensions and National Health was operating 2,700 beds; at the present time it is operating 8,450 and will be operating 10,000 within a year.
In regard to neurological cases, I have the most profound admiration for Doctor Penfield, as one of the outstanding men of the world in his field; but in conjunction with the armed services we recently established four centres for the special care of neurological cases, in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Toronto. In Montreal neurological cases receive preliminary investigation at Ste. Anne's and are then moved to the Montreal Neurological Institute for major surgery.
With reference to the alleged turning down of the institute, I take it that my hon. friend's question refers to a suggestion that was made for an additional wing to that institute for the special care of such cases. This is exactly the sort of suggestion that was received in five, six or seven hundred similar cases all over Canada, from other hospitals, which in the very nature of things cannot be accepted. I can assure my hon. friend that every possible consideration has been given, is being given and will be given to the treatment and care of neurological cases in the armed forces of the crown before and after discharge.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Does the minister not think a man with the outstanding ability of Doctor Penfield should be given an opportunity of doing this work in Montreal?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I do not believe that question is in order, either. I said I had the most profound admiration for a man of the outstanding ability of Doctor Penfield, but he displayed a remarkable lack of knowledge of the preparations made both by the armed services and by the Department of Pensions and National Health in regard to the care of neurological cases in Canada. We are using his services now.
(Mr. Bruce.]



REPORT AS TO PERMISSION TO RECONVERT FROM COAL TO OIL FOR HEATING PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): In view of the report in the morning paper that householders in the city of Ottawa who changed from oil to coal could change back to oil, under permit, has the Minister of Munitions and Supply anything to tell us concerning the situation throughout Ontario and Canada with regard to fuel oil, coal and gas?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I did not see the item in question, but definitely those who converted from light fuel oil, the type ordinarily used for domestic heating, to coal, may not convert back. That regulation is very definite. There has been an easing in the supply of heavy fuel oil such as is used for bunkering ships and in larger heating plants. There has been a surplus supply of heavy fuel oil in consequence of using a lower grade of crude in our refineries, and therefore conversion from coal to heavy fuel oil is permitted. But I wish to make it clear that this means nothing at all to the householder, or to the owner of the ordinary apartment block, all of whom must necessarily use light fuel oil, which is in position of very acute shortage. Therefore no conversion of the type suggested can be permitted.


Mr. HOMUTH:: One of these days could the minister give a full statement of the situation with regard to fuels of various kinds?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to do that. INTERNMENTS



CAMILLIEN HOUDE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LACOMBE (Translation):: With reference to the reply which the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) made on Thursday last, May 25, 1944, to one of my questions concerning the review of Mr. Camillien Houde's case, will the minister kindly tell the house whether Mr. Houde has been released from an internment camp, as a result of the hearing he had before the members of the advisory committee in Fredericton on Friday last, May 26, or, at any rate, if the report of the committee is favourable to the release of Mr. Houde, when he will be discharged?
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) (Translation): In reply to the honourable member's question, I may say that:

War Appropriation-Finance
1.	Mr. Houde has not been released.
2.	I have not been informed that he had a hearing in Fredericton on Friday last.
3.	A report has not yet been made to me.
4.	When the report of the committee reaches me, I shall consider it, along with all the other documents on file, in the usual manner, keeping in mind the responsibility which devolves upon me under the Defence of Canada Regulations.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I wish -to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. When the minister's estimates were before the house on May 1, as reported at page 2509 of Hansard, I asked him if he would give certain information under ten different items in regard to man-power. He promised to give this information at an early day. May I expect that information this week?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to look into the
matter and see what I can do to expedite the information which the hon. member has asked for.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Customs and excise divisions-
185. General administration, $975,845.
Gordon Graydon: May I interject a remark with reference to procedure? I am not sure how many items are still to be called on the civil estimates, and we are anxious to know whether there are some departments left. The government will at once recognize this as one of the things which as a matter of protection, we as an opposition would ordinarily be entitled to know.


James Layton Ralston: There are two left. The item will stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are all in but two.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL WAR SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
193. Canadian travel bureau service, $77,950.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 29, 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, $15,600,000.
Mr. TUSTIN:: Will the parliamentary
assistant be good enough to give a breakdown of this amount?


Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The breakdown is:
Salaries	 $ 9,500,000
Travelling expenses	 950,000
Printing	 1,150,000
Stationery	 250,000
Telephones	 300,000
Telegrams	 75,000
Legal and audit	 150,000
Advertising	 1,000,000
Postage	 425,000
Freight and express	 50,000
Local ration board	 700,000
Ration coupon banking	 840,000
Sundries	 210,000
Total	 $15,600,000


George James Tustin: How many employees are working under the wartime prices and trade board? How many offices are there across Canada; how many employees are there on the inspection staff, and how many are on loan to this branch of the service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As at March 31, 1944, there were 5,112 employees. These are paid employees. There are fourteen regional offices and about 114 or 115 local offices.


George James Tustin: How many are employed as inspectors?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information at the moment but I will make a note of the question and get it later. In order that I may be clear as to what is meant, does my hon. friend mean enforcement inspectors or some other type of inspector?


George James Tustin: I think it is the enforcement inspectors. There are a great many of them travelling all across the country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised there are between three and four hundred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many young lawyers are employed?

War Appropriation-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I have not that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All the young lawyers in the country are working for them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We will get that information.


George James Tustin: Mr. Chairman, each year in the town in which I reside a poultry fair is held. A large amount of dressed poultry is brought in; as a matter of fact in two days last December the producers brought in ninety tons of fresh poultry. There was practically an army of wartime prices and trade board inspectors there at the same time. To my knowledge there were nine of them, and how many more I do not know. The point I am raising this afternoon has not so much to do with the inspectors as it has with the controls placed upon the poultry producers of that community. On those particular days wartime prices and trade board inspectors placed blackboards in the market square advising the buyers what the ceiling prices were at which they could buy poultry. In my estimation they were working exactly backward. A farmer would come in with a load of poultry that might grade A or B, and he was told definitely by the inspectors that he could not accept more than 30i cents for chickens and 351 cents for turkeys, the idea being that the poultry must be sold ungraded. Another farmer might drive in alongside the first man with a load of poultry that would not grade more than C or D. If the buyers saw fit they could pay him the same price because his poultry was also ungraded. From talking to the buyers I know that they were anxious to pay the producer considerably more than they were allowed to pay. A lot of the dressed poultry taken out of that town in those two or three days was shipped to Montreal or Toronto by truck and sold in the stores in those cities at a price of 43 cents for grade A and 42 cents for grade B. My contention is that the farmers were robbed of from 7 to 8 cents per pound due to the way in which the wartime prices and trade board handled the situation. I am protesting against that kind of thing. The men who purchased these fowl were willing to pay more than they were allowed to pay, and the result was that they were able to make an exorbitant profit of from 10 to 13 cents per pound, a profit entirely out of line with what the producer received.
I have no axe to grind about the price ceiling to the consumer. I think that is perfectly all right, but I protest against a price ceiling to the producer which is 13 cents below what the consumer has to pay. That is out of all proportion. My contention is that the ceiling to the consumer should be enforced, but

instead of the wartime prices and trade board saying to the producers of these fowl, "You cannot receive more than 30J cents for your chickens or more than 35| cents for your turkeys," they should say to the buyers, "You cannot pay less than those prices." If the large concerns that are buying this poultry are satisfied to take a smaller profit than 10 to 15 cents a pound, then I say they should be allowed to do so.
In my estimation this practice is doing much to discourage agriculture in this country. On the one side we have the government urging the farmer to produce more and, on the other, we have the wartime prices and trade board doing much to discourage that which is being requested by other branches of government. I felt it my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the department and to urge that this thing be not repeated. The order should be amended so that the farmer who is doing the work, who is producing at the request of certain branches of government, will receive a fair price. There should not be the spread between what is paid to the farmer and what the consumer pays as exists in this case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
authority did these inspectors have to take the stand they did?


Mr. BLAIR:: I think what the hon. member has just said should be considered. Fowl should be properly graded. At the present *time we are carrying on an extensive business in bootlegging and it ought to be controlled.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who are
"we"?


John Knox Blair: Poultry should be classified and graded so that the buyer knows exactly what he is buying. That would regulate prices. I think perhaps the farmer is being legislated against in this regard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox. There are three ceilings on poultry, as I have no doubt my hon. friend knows. There is a ceiling on the wholesale price, there is a ceiling on the producer and there is a ceiling to the retail trade. The producer of poultry is entitled to sell at the ceiling price according to who is his customer. If he sells to a wholesaler, he gets the producer price; if he sells to a retailer, he gets the wholesale price, and if he sells to you or to me as consumers, he gets the retail consumer price. That is the price ceiling policy with respect to dressed poultry.
As to what these inspectors were doing in my hon. friend's town, I must confess that I have no personal information. I am not an

War Appropriation-Finance
expert in the grading of poultry. The wartime prices and trade board has nothing to do with establishing the grades of dressed poultry; that is done either by the provincial agricultural authorities or by those of the federal government. In any case the grades are fixed and the prices board establishes ceilings for the different grades.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
authority had these men to step in?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 'Would my hon. friend tell me about what time of the year it was?


George James Tustin: It was December 3 or 4.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I asked one of my officials and he said just before Christmas there was a considerable-


George James Tustin: Possibly I did not make myself clear. I am not finding any fault with the grading of the poultry, but the poultry which was brought into the market square on these particular days, unless it comes through the pool, is not graded. Last year the pool did not function and none of the poultry brought into the market was graded. The farmer is not allowed to grade the poultry himself, and there were no inspectors from the Department of Agriculture there to grade it. The result was that every farmer was forced to sell the poultry at the ungraded price, no matter how good or how poor it was. That is what I am complaining of.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no knowledge of the particular facts my hon. friend is bringing forward. I take it that this poultry, turkeys, fowl or whatever it was, for some reason or other had to be sold as ungraded poultry and was therefore subject to the ceiling for ungraded poultry.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury asked, as to the authority for the inspectors doing what they were doing. I am not clear as to what orders they were enforcing, but I am advised that just prior to Christmas of last year there was a considerable tendency on the part of certain buyers in cities and elsewhere to push up the prices without too much regard for the ceiling, and that the enforcement division were instructed to keep their eyes open for that sort of thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that does not take care of the situation. What determined the price when the fowl was ungraded?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the order before me, but I am advised that under the order there is a price ceiling for ungraded poultry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No matter what may be the quality of the poultry?
100-212J


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That just illustrates once more the fact that when you set up regulations to interfere with the laws of supply and demand, as is being done by the wartime prices and trade board, great irregularities and injustices are bound to occur. Here is a man with grade A poultry, and he is told by the so-called gestapo that he cannot get the price for grade A poultry, that he must take the ungraded poultry price. I am satisfied that the regulations were made with good intent; I want to make that clear; but it is the operation of these regulations that brings about injustices and great discontent in this country. Make no mistake about it-the hand of every man who produces is against these regulations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not the hand of every
consumer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am talking about the producers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know you are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The producer has to have somebody stand up for him once in a while. The consumers of this country are not to be so greatly pitied. With a national income of ten billion dollars they have money enough to pay and are willing to pay, but I do agree that we should endeavour to keep prices within reasonable ranges. How do these regulations work? Here is another perfect illustration of the inflexibility of the rules and regulations laid down here in Ottawa by a group of white-collared boys who never were in the poultry business, who know nothing about it, but who sit around a table and draft a lot of regulations without knowing how the thing is going to work out, without knowing how it is going to affect both the producer and the consumer. That is what I object to, and that is what the people of this country are objecting to. The regulations are so inflexible, and then those who are administering them hold the fear of fine and imprisonment over the people. That is the kind of thing the people are rebelling against to-day, and this government will find it out when they go to the polls. I do not know anything that is going to drive this government out of power quicker than the way in which these regulations are administered. I am sure I am right. I can run my whole campaign in the next election if I want to on this very question, and I will be elected.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The regulations are drafted with good intent. I am not questioning the idea behind the scheme,
War App ropria t ion-Finance

although I have often said that at the beginning prices were frozen on a very uneven scale. I illustrate that by the freezing of the price of hay in my province at the October, 1941, price. Anybody who knows anything about hay, and we produce a good deal of hay in our part of the country, knows that October is the month when hay is at its lowest price level. That is just after the new crop has been pressed. The price of hay rises steadily from October to April, and the thrifty farmer, if he can, holds his hay until he can get the top price in April. But the price of hay was fixed by the prices board at the lowest price for hay, the October price. That is the price the farmer had to accept for his hay in the month of April, when the price ordinarily rises to its peak. The farmer will never forget it. That is the indictment that I make against these regulations. They are so inflexible. They are like the laws of the Medes and Persians. These bureaucrats are like the Bourbons; they never learn anything. They did not know anything to start with, and they never learn anything as they go along. They are never in touch with local conditions-


Mr. HATFIELD:: And they never ask any member of parliament for advice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, they never ask any member of parliament. I could have told them about hay. That is one thing I happen to know because in days gone by, on lands owned by me, I produced a great deal of baled hay. I was fortunate enough to get out of that market with the coming of the automobile, and I am glad I did. But hay is coming back into its own now, with all the restrictions on gasoline. Hay is a real commodity now in the Saint John valley.
Does the prices board ever ask anybody about the local conditions? Take the case mentioned by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox. There is a case where the farmer was robbed of seven cents a pound on his grade A poultry, and it was done because of government regulations which do not have regard to actualities. How does the parliamentary assistant defend that sort of thing? I know he is not personally responsible; it is the administrative officers who are responsible for that sort of thing.
I want to ask a question about salaries. You have nine and a half million dollars here for salaries, and the board has about five thousand employees scattered all over the country. That is an average of about 81,900 each. What is the ranges of salaries paid? How much does the chairman get? What does the secretary get? What is the number of employees in the high income group? The country would like to know what this organiza-
tion is costing them and what it is costing the producers, because they are being kept down although they are still taxpayers. I also want to know how many lawyers the board has. It has engaged lawyers to conduct prosecutions from time to time. I am not objecting to prosecutions for infractions of the regulations, but my observation is that the employment of these prosecuting attorneys in my part of the country is a form of political patronage. I know it is so in my county, and I am told it is so everywhere. I had someone look up for me the names of the lawyers in New Brunswick who were prosecuting infractions of these regulations. Would you believe it, there is only one lone Tory engaged to prosecute in the province; he is in the county of Charlotte, and the only reason he was appointed was that there is not a Liberal lawyer left in the county because they had all been given jobs. There are not many of them there in any event. The fact remains that only one Conservative lawyer in New Brunswick was employed by this board. I want to know how these lawyers are appointed and what their fees are. Are they appointed through the Department of Justice?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what I thought. They are on the patronage list of the Department of Justice? Correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not know about
that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, you could easily find out. I think the minister, perhaps, does know something about this. I make the statement that I believe there is a patronage list established in the expending of this money, which is voted under the guise of war, to pay Liberal lawyers, some of whom ought to be in the army. I am not going to name them. I understand that they are patriots to the extent of $25, $35, $50 a day, prosecuting infractions of this act. I should like to have a break-down of the employees in categories, and I want full information about the employment of the lawyers-what they are paid, how they are paid and who fixes their remuneration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: First of all I would like to deal with my hon. friend's remarks as to the price ceiling policy. He said in connection with these agricultural prices that ceilings were fixed by a bunch of white-collar boys here in Ottawa. I just want to point out to him that the person mainly responsible for fixing these agricultural prices is the administrator of meat and poultry, Mr. F. S. Grisdale, who, as my hon. friend knows, is a former minister of agriculture of Alberta and the head

War Appropriation-Finance
of an agricultural college, and who can hardly be described as a *white-collar boy who knows very little about prices.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is not a dirt farmer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In addition he avails himself, and so do the officers of the board, of the assistance of officials of the Department of Agriculture.
As to the criticism of the fixing of the price ceiling on hay, I am advised that hay has been exempt from the price ceiling since the early days of the controls.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was exempted after a roar went up from one end of the Saint John valley to the other.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The price ceiling was imposed in November, 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: October.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And hay was exempted from the price ceiling, I am advised, in December, 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
after they made the mistake.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A ceiling was placed on hay in the western provinces in November of 1943; I think in British Columbia, at the request of the provincial agricultural authorities, because the price was running up too fast.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That just shows a system of trial and error.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to the question of salaries, I can get my hon. friend the break-down which he asks. He will remember, not I think this session but in the last session, questions were asked-one, I know, by the hon. member for Lake Centre-as to the number of officials of the board in certain salary categories. That answer was given; it involved a considerable amount of *work; and I wonder if my hon. friend would be satisfied if I have the officials of the board check to see if there is any substantial variation from that return, which was tabled, I think, towards the latter part of last session. I doubt if there has been; but if he insists on the information, of course we can obtain it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a very large item-nine millions. I have not seen the return.
Mr, ABBOTT:	Perhaps my hon. friend
could let that stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I will do that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will send him a copy, and if he thinks it should be amplified perhaps we might do that.
Now as to the retention of lawyers, a certain number of lawyers are retained on a full-time basis by the board here in Ottawa and in the regional offices. There are regional enforcement counsel. I will get for my hon. friend the number of these lawyers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the names.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the names, and the salaries which they are paid. As to the local prosecutions, these are handled, as I understand government prosecutions have been handled for a great many years, by counsel retained by the Department of Justice, and I have no doubt that that practice was followed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why
should not the regional counsel handle it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that the number of prosecutions has now risen to some five thousand a year, some of them it is true, of a minor character.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Most of them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And that the number of local regional counsel we have, with the other duties they are required to perform, is simply inadequate to begin to handle these cases, which are scattered through different parts of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the whole picture. Most of these cases take about ten minutes each.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not had any personal
experience.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Neither have I, but I have noticed that most of the defendants plead guilty, and fines are imposed; in default of paying they go to prison. They come up in batches regularly in the police court at Fredericton. I wonder, if a man had ten cases in the one docket, how much he would be paid for the couple of hours that he spends on that. So much a case?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say that. I am advised that the costs are fixed by the Department of Justice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So much each case?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I really have no information. But they are settled by the Department of Justice, not by the wartime prices and trade board.
War Appropriation-Finance


Mr. WARREN:: In reference to grading of poultry, as to which the hon. member for York-Sunbury seems to be so terribly concerned, I wonder whether in the cases he has in mind the producers themselves have not been somewhat at fault. Certainly the officials of the wartime prices and trade board would have nothing to do in the matter of grading, and if control is to be exercised as far as the consumer and the producer are concerned we must have some basis. If we are to have ceiling prices we would naturally have those prices established, or ought to, according to grade.	[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: How can you?
Mr. WARREN i If they are graded, why not? What is to hinder establishing ceiling prices according to grade?


Mr. BOUCHER:: What if there is no possibility of having grading?


Ralph Melville Warren: Well then, whose fault is it? I do not know. In the village of Eganville, near which I live, a number of years ago we marketed our poultry and eggs in the usual haphazard manner. The federal Department of Agriculture, I believe, initiated this scheme. A young fellow was established in a very small office, some of the farmers got together and put up their notes as collateral, and this young man started in grading eggs, having first been trained by an official of the Department of Agriculture. For the first year or two that young man was operating the plant the business was very small, but over a period of just a few years it has developed to a matter of $100,000 or more a year. One advantage of this young man having been trained was that when he graded a crate of eggs that grade was accepted on any market. That was not true if a merchant graded the eggs; his eggs would be regraded at Montreal and they might be placed in a different grade from that fixed by the local merchant. In that neighbourhood there has been a gradual but continuous increase in production of poultry and a very marked improvement in quality. In the old days probably not twenty per cent of our poultry were grade A. Now eighty per cent are grade A. The same is true of eggs. Nobody is suffering because of it. The grader instead of working in a place by himself now has a grading machine and a half dozen or more helpers around him. In the fall of the year the farmers bring in their poultry which are left there, weighed and graded, and there is never much grumbling or dispute that I am aware of, respecting the grading of poultry. In some communities by a little cooperative

effort on the part of the producers what is thought to be a grievance can be very easily corrected.
The same thing is true of the village of Cobden. Within the last few years the grading and handling of poultry and eggs have become big business in that village, and the revenue in those districts must have increased tremendously. Instead of a woman raising say fifty poultry she handles them by the hundreds. The women make a job of it and they know how to dress their poultry. They go around in groups. The neighbours help each other. They find out the. proper methods to use in dressing poultry to have them grade properly. The result is there is not much dissatisfaction. I do not know why we should jump on the wartime prices and trade board officials with respect to grades. If we do not pay for our products according to grade we shall be doing the producers harm instead of good. A man ought to be paid for his products on the basis of quality.


George James Tustin: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Renfrew North. I am surprised to see him standing in his place and agreeing that the farmer should be cheated out of thirteen cents a pound on those chickens just because he was unable to have them graded. I made it clear a few moments ago that we agreed with grading. So far as producing poultry is concerned, more poultry are produced in my constituency than in any other constituency in Canada. I am not in the least disturbed about any successful contradiction of that statement.
We have had this fair at Napanee for many years and we have followed through the grading of poultry and eggs ever since the commencement of it. But the point I strongly emphasized to the committee was that last December it was impossible for the farmers to get their poultry graded because the Department of Agriculture could not send graders there or did not send them there. It made no difference how good the poultry were, all that the farmer was allowed to accept for them was 30i cents a pound. Those chickens were taken a hundred and fifty miles to Toronto and sold to the consumer at 43 cents a pound for grade A and 42 cents a pound for grade B. I say that should not happen. It is not protecting the farmer. The point I have tried to emphasize is that the inspectors of the wartime prices and trade board were on the market square and when the farmer drove up with his load of poultry it made no difference whether they were grade A. B, C, or D. the inspector walked up to farmer's rig and when the buyer came along the inspector said,

War Appropriation-Finance
"You can pay only 30J cents a pound for those chickens." I say that is dictatorship. Instead of the board saying to the buyer, "You cannot pay more than 301 cents for those chickens," it should protect the consumers who are paying 42 or 43 cents a pound.
In many instances the buyers wanted to pay more for this poultry last fall, but the wartime prices and trade board said it could not be done because the poultry were not graded. Instead of the board saying, "You cannot pay more than 301 cents a pound", they should say, "You cannot pay the farmer less than 301 cents".


Ralph Melville Warren: Have them graded.


George James Tustin: We are ready to accept
grading at all times. That is the way we should like to sell our products. We have done more in our district to improve the quality of poultry and eggs than any other district in Canada. I was amused to hear the hon. member for Renfrew North saying that the farmers in his constituency dealt in hundreds of chickens. In my part of the country they deal in thousands. I have one hatchery alone -that has been producing since the first of February and i;t will be producing until -the end of September. It is producing at the rate of 16,000 per week. I have three hatcheries in my constituency, but this one hatchery is producing 16,000 a week and will continue at that rait-e until the end of September.
I do not want to repeat these things, but I do wish to urge upon the parliamentary assistant to -the minister -the necessity of his seeing to it that the wartime prices and trade board are made acquainted with the difficulties that the farmers had last year, and that the same difficulty does not arise again this fall.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox with respect to the marketing of poultry. I have been convinced from the inception of -price control in this country, as has been pointed out -by other hon. members -to-day, that the primary- producer was -taken at an unfair advantage and a very uneven price structure. We of the opposition have battled continuously for some form of parity for the primary -producer. This applies not only to poultry -but to all primary products of the country. Beef -is a glaring example. Hon. members have taken advantage of every occasion to refer to the difficult situation of beef production in Canada. Beef and hogs and other commodities may come under some other department, but back of all the difficulties is Donald Gordon and his price control administration.
The beef feeder, the man who has been accustomed to finishing beef in Canada, has
been almost entirely -put out of business by price complications and controls. The price of grain to-day and the price of beef do not permit the feeder to b-uy cattle and finish the animal properly as he used to do.
The excuse that is always given to us is that we cannot now take advantage of our natural market to the south because it would be unfair to the consumer of this country. That market is on the average thirty-five per cent higher than it is in this country. The argument has always been advanced in this house by several ministers that in the case of hogs we m-ust supply the finest type to Britain in order to obtain -that market. Surely that same argument ought to apply to beef, but we have not been doing that. We have been shipping cow beef to Britain. True, that has -been -taken off the market recently, but surely we will not retain that market by supplying that -type of cattle to Britain. The set-up is not consistent.
We had a new system of hog grading put in force in recent months in Canada with bonuses for the select hog. I think that is all to the good. But on -the other hand we have controls by -the packers, and penalties which they impose. Under the old schedule up -to March on a heavy hog dressing 220 pounds there was a penalty of some -two cents a pound. This hog is a choice hog in the United States. Under the new set-up which prevails in grading -the settlements, in April -the packer penalized the producer 41 cents a pound on -the heavy hog. There is over twice the penalty -that previously applied on that 220-pound hog. Previously there was a penalty of $4.40. Under the present set-up of settlements on -the first of -the month the producer is penalized $9.35, -through no fault of his own. Besides, man-power enters into it because there was a glut in all of the abattoirs throughout western Canada.
A man with a select hog ready to go on the market was not allowed to market it; the hog became a heavy, and he was further penalized by the packer who took his product; there was no control at all. In addition, a great deal of that heavier pork is sold for domestic consumption in Canada, in many cases at a higher price than is paid for the select bacon by the bacon board. The government does not profess to do anything about that. I say that in many of these matters the price controls are very unfair to the primary producers of this country, who have always received secondary consideration. I have made it plain that I am in favour of price control for the benefit of the consumers, but in connection with many items the consumers have benefited to a far greater extent than the primary producers.
War Appropriation-Finance

While I am on my feet I should like to ask the hon. gentleman another question. I was not sure of the figure he gave in the breakdown in connection with ration coupon banking. I believe he gave some figure of about $800,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, $840,000.


James Arthur Ross: I believe this is a new venture; previously these coupons were handled on a different basis. I know that gasoline coupons were handled by the oil companies themselves, at no cost whatever to the country. I should like an explanation from the hon. gentleman as to why this change was made and what it cost the government last year to have these coupons handled in this way. I should like to know just what the banks receive for this service, which I understand was performed gratis by other people until this change was made, but which now costs the taxpayers of this country $840,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the earlier days of coupon rationing this service was provided largely by the retailers. It involved a great deal of work and a great deal of additional expense, and it was felt that this was perhaps an unfair burden to impose upon one particular class of the community.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Unless they were paid for it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is perfectly true, but that would involve a very difficult administrative job which probably would result in greater expenditure and less efficiency than is the case under the coupon banking system which has now been introduced, and which I think I am right in saying was adapted from other countries, particularly Great Britain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was the voluntary system efficient?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that under the voluntary system there was a considerable clutter-up of coupons and considerable difficulty both on the part of the retailers and on the part of the government in maintaining accurate records.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there not also the possibility of fraud?


Douglas Charles Abbott: And of course there was the obvious danger that the coupons might be handled improperly. This coupon banking system was based upon systems in vogue in other countries, including Great Britain, and the work was placed with the banks. It may be said that the banks should have done it for no'thing, but it was an additional service which the banks were asked to provide. In the case of the retail grocer or merchant, he was

getting the benefit of the rationing system in the sense that there was a reasonable flow of supplies, and he was maintained ini business, but it was purely an extra service as far as the banks were concerned and they are being paid for it on a cost basis.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think the retailer looked upon the rationing system with much favour, because his supplies were kept down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I dare say that is true; but I venture to suggest that the retailer would have looked with much less favour on the absence of rationing in connection with these very short commodities. He accepted the rationing system; he may have considered it an evil, but I believe he recognized that it was necessary, not only to assure equitable distribution to the people but for the protection of his own business. Very briefly that is the reason for this charge in connection with ration coupon banking.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What do you pay the banks?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The sum of $460,618.51 has been paid by the government to the chartered banks of Canada for their services in connection with ration coupon banking for the period from March 1, 1943, to November 30, 1943.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just how is it handled, and what are they paid?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The monthly charges have been running between $55,000 and $65,000. The board's estimate of $840,000 was made prior to the discontinuance of meat rationing and therefore may be in excess of need. However, it is felt that there should be some leeway in the event that other commodities may have to be rationed. The rates the banks are using at present were based on a time study of the actual operations involved, and represent only the banks' direct salary cost and out of pocket expenses in connection with stationery, supplies and so on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then they are doing it at cost?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, at cost.


Mr. MARSHALL:: What is the actual rate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has been running at $55,000 to $65,000 a month.


James Alexander Marshall: I know that, but what is the basis of the charge?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The rates are subject to review from time to time both by the board and by the bankers, through the Canadian

War Appropriation-Finance
Bankers' association. They are based on a study of the time of the bank's employees involved in providing these services.


James Alexander Marshall: How do you arrive at that figure of $55,000 or $65,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that the figure is arrived at on the banks submitting evidence of the actual time spent by their employees in handling these coupons. It is cleared through the Canadian Bankers' association to the board, and figures are submitted as to the time occupied by the employees of the banks and the amount of stationery, and so on, involved.


James Alexander Marshall: So that really you have to take the word of the banks for the whole
thing?
Mr. ABBOTT^ Subject to check by the officers of the board to ascertain whether the statements of the banks as to the time consumed are correct.


James Alexander Marshall: Surely the officers of the board know the basis.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Do they not get 25 cents in addition for each account?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not on the basis of so much for each coupon, or anything like that. The basis of remuneration to the banks is their actual out-of-pocket expense. That may not be determined to the. last cent, but as closely as it can be arrived at the work is done by the banks on a cost basis.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just to keep the record straight, not long ago I obtained some information from the department in regard to this very matter, and according to that information the banks were paid 25 cents for every account established in regard to these coupons. I have the letter up in my office.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will get more detailed information as to the way in which this is operated, but the general statement I have made is correct; payment to the banks is on the basis of the banks' cost. How that cost is arrived at, other than by the time taken, and so on, I am not in a position to say at the moment, but I will get the information.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister's information may be correct as far as the figure of $55,000 a month is concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Between $55,000 and $65,000. Let me say at once that this is not business for which the banks asked. They did not invite it at all; the government asked them to undertake it.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is so. At the same time, if I understand the situation correctly according to the information given to me by the department some time ago, in addition to the actual cost of this operation as far as the time of their employees is concerned-and that is in accordance with information I received-the banks are paid 25 cents for each account they have established.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall verify that. I think there is some misunderstanding there and I shall have to check on that and give an answer later.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish to direct a couple of questions to the parliamentary assistant on a subject about which we have heard something in the past couple of days, namely, strawberries. If I had known that this item was coming up to-day I would have reserved until this occasion a part of the remarks I made yesterday. May I say that it has never been suggested by anyone in British Columbia at any time that the ceiling should be lifted from strawberries, because we know that that is impossible at this date. We did ask that the price be based on cost of production. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it will be much more convenient to answer my questions to-day because it will not entail messages being sent up and down each moment in order to get a direction.
I wish to quote as an authority on this subject the minister himself. He stated that the reason for the ceiling was to prevent inflation. Now, we never suggested at any time in British Columbia that there should be an inflationary price. What We did urge Was that the ceiling should be based on cost of production and a reasonable profit for 1944. Last year for the first time in British Columbia the price was based on white labour and white production, and the price, according to the minister, was 33 cents. Let me repeat, the minister said that they were definitely setting the ceiling in order to prevent inflation. May I remark in passing that yesterday I said nothing that could be regarded as antagonistic to the officials of the board, though I must say that in my opinion they do not know the first thing about berries. They are human beings who are trying to do a good job in connection with something they know nothing about.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I know that the hon. member for Fraser Valley does not want to repeat what has been said before in discussions in the committee. Yesterday we had a discussion lasting nearly two hours in connection with strawberries and raspberries and

War Appropriation-Finance

this afternoon the question has come up again. I would ask hon. members to try as fax as possible to avoid repetition.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not want to repeat anything, Mr. Chairman, but I am quoting the highest authority in the house, the minister himself, who declared that the [DOT] prices were set with a view to preventing inflation. Let me read what he said as reported at page 3322 of Hansard of May 29:
In 1943 the average figure for Nova Scotia was 22 cents; New Brunswick, 19 cents; Quebec, 17 cents; Ontario, 18 cents; British Columbia, 33 cents.
Before I go on with my argument, may I say that on no account do I want prices reduced in other provinces. I do not know what their cost of production is. But the minister's statement is based on the figures he quoted, and if there has been an increase in all the other provinces and there has been no inflation, where is the inflation in British Columbia? Let us take the beautiful province of Nova Scotia, a province which is fortunately situated. In 1939 the price was 10 cents; in 1940, 11 cents; in 1941, 13 cents; and in 1942, 14 cents-the highest of any province of the dominion. Yet in 1944 Nova Scotia-and I do not say that the figure is too high-the price is set at 22 cents. My point is this: Why is it that British Columbia is the only province that is told it must come down? In every other province the price is higher than ever before, and that has not resulted in inflation; yet we are told that there is danger of inflation in British Columbia, where, as I say, we have the price based for the first time on the white man's production costs.	.
I am going to ask the officials of the wartime prices and trade board to take into consideration some of the facts which I am about to state. In British Columbia the minimum wages effective from a date before 1938, so far as the canneries are concerned were: at least 85 per cent of male employees, per hour, 38 cents; at least 90 per cent of women, 30 cents; not more than 15 per cent of male employees, 28 cents, and not more than 10 per cent of women employees, 25 cents.
I will not give New Brunswick, but let us take Ontario prices. In cities and towns with a population of from 5,000 to 30,000, the wages were 22 cents for women and 15 cents for girls under 18. Anyone who knows anything about the jam canneries knows that the average girl employee is under 18. As regards the rest of the province, in towns and villages with population from 2,000 to 5,000-and that is where the average farm cannery is situated -the wages for women was 20 cents and girls
[The Chairman.!
under eighteen, 15 cents. Compare that with a minimum of 30 cents in British Columbia. Can anyone contend that we have inflation in British Columbia?
The situation in Quebec is even worse. I did not think it was possible to have anything worse than I have already shown, but here are the figures for the province of Quebec, taking temporary employees-and the average employee in a cannery is a temporary employee. For men-mark this, men, regular employees-the figure is 25 cents; for women, 17 cents; and in the city of Montreal and outside Montreal the figures are, men, 20 cents and women, 15 cents. I thought that was bad enough; I did not think it was possible to have slave labour of this kind. However, we find that the average employee in Quebec canneries, between June 15 and October 15, received, men, 14 cents an hour, and women, 14 cents an hour.
I would ask the officials of the board to explain to me where the inflation comes in in British Columbia when every other province has had an increase this year as compared with last year and when we in British Columbia have to compete against such wages as I have quoted. I should like to know whether the cost of production is taken into consideration. When it requires 30 cents a quart to produce in Ontario, and when we find such disgraceful wages as 14 cents an hour being paid to men working in a cannery, how can we produce at 27 cents? I do not say that 30 cents is too high for Ontario and Quebec. I do not think the farmers are getting too much, but it is unreasonable to expect the farmers in British Columbia to swallow hook, line and sinker the nonsense that is put out by men who, as the member for York-Sunbury says, know nothing about berries and who evidently do not take these facts into consideration.
I defy the deputy or any official of the board to say that any farm organization or member of parliament was consulted in arriving at the figures. I admit that I am a little bit bitter about this, but I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing personal in my remarks, so far as the members of the board are concerned. Indeed, two gentlemen who have to do with jam come from British Columbia. I say, however, that the farmers of British Columbia, judging by the wires that I have received, are anxious to know, and they are entitled to know, how the figure was arrived at. I particularly wish the parliamentary assistant to tell me whether the cost of production was taken into consideration, when we are compelled to ship our berries, our processed fruit, where we are directed.

War Appropria lion-Finance
No doubt in war time that is necessary. How is it that the price in Ontario of 30 cents for fresh fruit is dropped to 19 cents?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thirty cents.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The price of 30 cents in Ontario is dropped to 19 cents after June 24. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was challenged yesterday by the Minister of Finance, but he was correct; he knew what he was talking about. They want the cream at all times. Why the increase to 30 cents and then the drop to 19 cents? I should like the parliamentary assistant to explain why that is. I will prove my point by their own figures.
When the time comes for canning, Ontario must import processed berries from British Columbia. The manufacturer in British . Columbia can pay up to 12 cents per pound after that date, but of course he is not going to pay that for jam berries. For argument's sake say that he pays 10 cents a pound, but 12 cents is the maximum he is allowed to pay. He will offer 10 cents a pound and say, "Take it or leave it; I have to compete with the cheap labour and cheap manufacture in the east." We are compelled to ship our processed berries to eastern Canada. I am not quarrelling with that because at the present time we do not have the manufacturing facilities in British Columbia. It is a peculiar fact that when you follow that through you find that 30 cents is being paid in Ontario with its cheap labour, and then 19 cents when they want to manufacture. It should be noted that at December 31, 1943, there were 8,200,000 pounds of fruit pulp in British Columbia as against 3,800,000 pounds in 1942. I doubt if any of the great producers' organizations in British Columbia were consulted. I doubt if any hon. member from British Columbia was consulted in connection with this price ceiling for berries. I doubt very much if the jam manufacturers of British Columbia were not consulted before this figure was arrived at. I want the parliamentary assistant to explain to me how they arrived at this. Was the cost of production taken into consideration? Were the jam manufacturers consulted before the ceiling was set?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought we had our strawberry festival yesterday. I am afraid I am not very well prepared to deal with the questions my hon. friend has asked. As I recall, he asked how the price was arrived at. It was arrived at by the fruits and vegetable administration, of which his fellow British Columbian, Mr. Chambers, is the administrator. I am informed that it was arrived at after consultation with the officials of the department of agriculture of British Columbia
100-213i
and after Mr. Chambers had visited that province. That was so far as the price in that part of Canada is concerned.


Mr. SENN:: Was the horticultural council called in?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a
question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I could cover the points raised by my hon. friend.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The parliamentary
assistant should be allowed to give his answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was just trying to cover the other question which was asked. The hon. member asked how the price was arrived at, and I pointed out that consultations had taken place before that price was fixed. As the minister said yesterday, the 1943 crop in British Columbia was about one-quarter of normal. Speaking from memory, it was some 2,500,000 quarts as against about 5,500,000 quarts for the year before and some 10,000,000 quarts for the preceding year. There was no price ceiling on berries last year, and to use a slang phrase, the berry growers in British Columbia went to town with their prices. I do not blame them, but the fact is that they got a very good price for their berries last year. There was no ceiling in effect and average price received in 1943 by the berry growers of British Columbia was 33 cents per quart as against 12 cents per quart the preceding year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do I understand you to say that the average price received for all berries was 33 cents?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that the Dominion of Canada Department of Agriculture reports show that the average price received in 1943 by the growers in British Columbia was 33 cents a quart as against an average price of 12 cents a quart in 1942. In other words, it was better than two and a half times the price received in the preceding year, and, as the minister indicated yesterday, about four times the average price for the preceding four years.
I think the cost of production of agricultural products is probably one of the hardest things to determine, but it is a pretty fair indication as to whether a return is reasonable when the price set is double the prices received over an average period. It is true that the ceiling price fixed this year for British Columbia strawberries is about nine or ten cents below the 1943 prices, but, as I have indicated, those prices were more than double 'the 1942 prices. In the judgment of the board, and
War Appropriation-Finance

particularly of Mr. Chambers, who is the fruits and vegetable administrator, that was a fair price, both to the producer and to the consumer. I am afraid I cannot give any more information as to how the price was arrived at. If I had to make the decision I certainly would not have fixed a higher price.
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv: I should like to follow that question through. As I understand the parliamentary assistant he said that the average price received in British Columbia last year was 33 cents a quart.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And he intimated that that is how they arrived at the figure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was one factor that was taken into consideration in fixing what was thought to be a proper price this year. As I think the minister indicated yesterday British Columbia was the only province in which there was a roll-back of prices, to use the jargon of price control. It was thought that the prices last year in British Columbia had got so much out of line with prices in other parts of Canada that some roll-back was necessary.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am afraid that that is just what I expected the board would use in arriving at their prices. I appreciate the fact that the parliamentary assistant is not a berry man, although I think he knows a great deal more-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not a question of berries; the same principle would apply to any other commodity.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think he has a great deal more experience with berries than any of the people on the board at that time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have picked a lot in my time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The parliamentary assistant tells me that 33 cents was the average price. That is not correct. Last year only approximately ten per cent of the berries were sold at 33 cents. That is according to the board's own figures.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am taking the figures of the Department of Agriculture; I have no personal knowledge of this matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am speaking from personal knowledge and I defy the board to correct me in Hansard or anywhere else. Only approximately ten per cent of the berries were sold at that price. It is unfortunate that these officials over there do not know anything about growing or selling berries.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am sure that every hon. member of the committee heard the same questions asked and the same answers given yesterday. After almost four months of discussion in committee I do not think there should be so much repetition. I know that is the sense of the members.


George Alexander Cruickshank: When I am out of order I will appreciate being told.
The 'CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of being out of order. [DOT] Surely the committee has reached a stage in the proceedings where there should not be so many repetitions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I ami repeating myself and I will have Hansard checked. The impression has been given to the committee that the berry farmers of British Columbia received an average of 33 cents a quart last year for their berries. That is absolutely incorrect, and I want to correct it. Only ten per cent were sold at that price. I shall quote some figures. In 1941 one factory at Haney shipped out 49,058 pounds of fruit in crates; last year, 1943, they shipped 7,017 pounds. Then they tell me that that is the average figure arrived at. Surely that cannot be the average figure arrived at. This is of vital importance, Mr. Chairman, to 3,000 berry farmers in the province of British Columbia. Now it is a question whether they keep their farms or not. This question could have been settled here in five minutes if the private members had been consulted before this order was brought down.
There is another thing about which I feel very keenly. It is not inflation to increase the price in Ontario and Quebec. Apparently Ontario and Quebec run Canada. Then in Nova Scotia, one particularly situated province where the price has been higher than in any other province in Canada, the price is increased-and that is not inflation! You can use your imagination.


Mr. RICKARD:: When we began this discussion this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, we were on poultry, and we have since wandered to beef cattle, strawberries and the like. I was very much interested in what the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox had to say. I live not too far from him, and I know that in his county they have a real poultry show every1 year. I hardly understand how it was that these producers had to sell their poultry at the ungraded price. In our county for some years we have held a little poultry show; we have had a government grader come to the show to grade the poultry, and the poultry was all sold on that basis. If the producers mentioned had to sell their poultry ungraded, that was unfair. We have been educated for

IFar Approprialion-Finance
years .to grow high-grade products, not only poultry but apples and all kinds of farm products, and surely we should be able to sell our products on a graded basis. While it does not come under the wartime prices and trade board, steps should be taken to see that the poultry is graded because the producers should not be compelled to sell poultry ungraded.
I hold no brief for the wartime prices and trade board. I do not think any hon. member does. This board brings possibly as much grief as any board we ever had.


Mr. REID:: You can be assured of that.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: But I believe in giving
credit where credit is due. The board has done some things well; it has done a real job. When I have brought individual cases to their attention they have always been courteous and willing to consider the situation, and when they see the situation as we see it we get pretty good results. On the other hand, a great many of these men on the wartime prices and trade board know very little about the thing they are trying to control. I do not suppose you could find on the board a man who had any experience in the production end of agriculture.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Grisdale.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: While I appreciate the
fact that the officials of the board will go to the federation of agriculture or some other organization for information and advice, at the same time from some of the decisions they give one must conclude that they know very little about what they are trying to control. But as I said before, they should be given credit where credit is due, and they have done some real good work.
There is too much spread between the producer and the consumer so far as poultry is concerned. There is no reason why the farmer should sell at 33 cents and the retailer sell at from 45 to 47 cents. That is too much of a spread. If the board is going to control prices it should step in and set the price at what the consumer has to pay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were you ever consulted by the board about anything?


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: No, but I have always
been received courteously by the board, and any case that I have brought before them has received consideration.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And no action.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: Yes, action.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why is the price of fertilizer, especially orchard fertilizer, set at from one to two dollars higher in the maritime
provinces than in the province of Quebec? In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island the price was set at $34 a ton, and in Quebec $32.50 a ton. In Ontario the price was set at $34.50 a ton. The laid-down cost of the raw material is the same in every province and at all stations because the government pays the freight on the raw material.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will try to get that
information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is it that in the maritime provinces the wholesalers are said to be allowed a larger profit than in the other provinces? That was given to me as one of the reasons why the consumer paid a higher price in the maritime provinces than in any other province. I would like to know why these wholesalers were allowed a special profit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is the hon. member referring to fertilizer?
Mr- HANSON (York-Sunbury): Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a memorandum
here which I would like to look over before I give my hon. friend an answer.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The committee realizes that this subject has been lengthily discussed on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and I believe that the answer which the parliamentary assistant may now be going to read is to be found in Hansard of a few weeks ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We had better hear his answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: With reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and the supplementary question asked by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, the point which the hon. member for York-Sunbury made probably has something to do with it. I am advised that the principal reason for the difference in prices in the maritime provinces and Quebec and Ontario is the difference in manufacturers' discounts to wholesalers, jobbers and retailers, which discounts were in effect during the basic period. All these prices are fixed on the basic period price.	[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: You see
the inequity that arises from that.


Heber Harold Hatfield: During the basic period the price of fertilizer in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island was four dollars a ton less than in the province of Quebec because of the water rate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not familiar with the price of fertilizer during the basic period or to-day. I will try to get a little more
War Appropriation-Finance

information on the subject. I have a memorandum here which indicates, as was suggested by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, that the differential was based on the difference in discounts in the basic period.


Heber Harold Hatfield: So far as discounts go, the volume is much heavier in the maritime provinces than in Quebec.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will get the information
and give my hon. friend an explanation later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to make
a few general remarks in connection with the wartime prices and trade board. What I say will be critical but I trust that the parliamentary assistant and his officials will accept my suggestions as intended to be constructive.
I think we all must agree, despite the many criticisms we may make about the work and the administration of this board, that its job has been a very necessary and very important one in this time of war. As previous speakers have pointed out, difficulties have arisen largely because of the way in which the policies of the board have been administered. I feel that in particular the fault has been the failure of the board to win the confidence of the Canadian people, and I offer that criticism in the hope that the board might consider taking steps even at this late date to try to overcome that deficiency by winning the confidence of our people.
One thing that strikes me and a great many other people is the fact that apparently the government and its boards are always right. It does not matter what question is asked or what complaint is made; the government, or a board as in this case, always has an answer which is supposed to set aside the complaint. It seems to me that one means of gaining the confidence of the Canadian people in the activities of this board would be for the board to admit that this is a terrific problem which they have undertaken, that the board is faced with difficulties, and that it needs the help and the understanding of the people.
Let me quote one or two examples. Until last fall, one of a number of restrictions which the wartime prices and trade board had imposed was that very silly one against two pairs of trousers with a man's suit and also prohibiting cuffs on a man's trousers; and as hon. members on the Liberal side of the house will recall, suddenly, following a meeting of the National Liberal Federation in Ottawa last fall, that order was changed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Pure coincidence.
Mr. KNOWLES. "Pure coincidence", of course. Similarly with the other relaxations which were effected at that time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What were those?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Such as rubber. I know that Liberal members of the house rather set aside what the parliamentary assistant has said, by claiming credit for what was done-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely,
they have, all over the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -because of the fuss they raised on that occasion. I suggest that that kind of thing does not build up confidence on the part of the people in the board's decisions.
Another matter is that of deterioration in the quality of goods. During the course of this war, as the cost of living has gone up- though admittedly kept in control by the board as compared with what happened during the last war-one of the things which people in general and housewives in particular have tried to point out is that there was a deterioration in quality. We have raised the matter on the floor of this chamber, and last year and the year before the Minister of Finance, of course, always had an answer-there had not been any deterioration in quality which the wartime prices and trade board had not taken into consideration. Well, the parliamentary assistant can make the statement again to-day, but the housewives of the country find it difficult to believe; and I am simply suggesting that if, in the propaganda the board puts out, in the radio talks, in its general appeals to the public, it would go so far as to admit that some of these unfortunate things have occurred, perhaps it would win some of the confidence which is so necessary for it in its difficult job.
The same is true in connection with the increase in the cost of living, another point which has been raised here a number of times. Material is always produced to prove that it has not risen any higher than the indices show, despite what the housewife and the average citizen may know. It does not seem to me that it is ever to the disadvantage of a government to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not only is that true with respect to the matters which I have mentioned but also with respect to the supply of goods available. From time to time hon. members representing different sections of the community have mentioned the shortage of clothing for people in the farming communities, or the shortage of baby clothing, and so on, and the minister or his parliamentary assistant always had an answer; the government is always quite efficient and always doing a perfect job.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no; we never laid claims to perfection-never.

War Appropriation-Finance


Richard Burpee Hanson: You never admitted an error.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I have admitted errors on occasions too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Never.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We certainly never laid claims to perfection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: Are these imported or
domestically produced?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are imported, but are made available in this country, and people are allowed to go ahead and purchase such luxury goods.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is a big tax on them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: People generally have the notion that the job of the wartime prices and trade board and the aim of government policy in general are to avoid the spending of money on luxury goods, so as to get down to the real business on hand. It seems to me that this sort of thing should be avoided if at all possible, and that when it is not, it works against the success of the job which the wartime prices and trade board is trying to do. This advertisement appeared, I might say, at a time when the victory loan drive was being launched. I saw it myself in Winnipeg papers which I receive every day, and it also came to me from several correspondents in Winnipeg who were quite incensed when they saw this advertisement in the papers.
I offer this suggestion in a critical vein; at the same time I do it in what I hope is a constructive manner, because I feel there is yet a long pull ahead as regards the price
control policy of the government, and if the board is to do its work effectively, in the light of the criticisms which the parliamentary assistant is getting from all over the chamber to-day-most heatedly from his own side-it must take every step to win the confidence of the people, and I trust that the parliamentary assistant will take seriously and pass on to his officials the suggestions which I have made.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River)1: I should like to make a small correction of the statement I made a few moments ago to the parliamentary assistant as regards bank charges for accounts established in respect of coupons. I stated that I had received a letter from the department. That is not so; I got letters from some of my constituents in this regard, and I was intending to write to the minister's department, but I recalled that the question had been asked at a previous time. I therefore telephoned the returns officer, and together we found in Hansard where this question was asked. I should like to read the answer; for all practical purposes it was the same as I indicated to the minister a while ago. The report is to be found on page 1990, March 30, 1944. It is in answer to the hon. member for Eglinton, who asked, with reference to gasoline coupon rationing, what service the banks render and what remuneration would be received. It is stated:
The basis of payment is as follows: 25 cents per account opened; 6 cents per debit or credit entry; 12 cents per 1,000 coupons handled. The basis of these charges is subject to review following an analysis to be made within a few months after gasoline rationing coupon banking becomes effective.
I would suggest, while we are on this subject, that this is a very substantial return for the banking service rendered. I was amazed when I looked up the answer to this question and found how exceedingly generous was the remuneration for this service. I think the committee will be really interested to know, when the parliamentary assistant brings down his final statement, the amount of money that is to be paid to the banks for this service. It seems to me it will be tremendous.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I said a moment ago I am going to get the information and give the hon. member a detailed answer on the coupon bank.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I think the parliamentary assistant to the minister will admit that the object of the wartime prices and trade board was to control prices?


Douglas Charles Abbott: And to assure adequate
civilian supplies. It has a double function, remember.
War Appropriation-Finance


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If it failed to control prices then it did not accomplish the object for which it was set up. Let us take the years 1928-29 and compare them with the present day. I think that would be a fair comparison. We had no wartime prices and trade board in 1928-29, and! yet we find in those years that the price of cattle was higher and the price of beef lower than it is at the present time. I cannot give the figures but I could get them from the statistics. But the price of cattle this year is lower and the price of beef higher than it was in 1928-29.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because
there is a ceiling.


Mr. BRYCE:: I do not wish to cover any of the ground that has been already covered, but I wish to add to what the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox said in regard to the price of poultry. Does the department take into consideration the grade? If that is not taken into consideration the grade can be stepped up at any time with a resulting loss to the farmer. I want to be clear on that point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does the hon. member want an answer to that now?


William Scottie Bryce: Yes.	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is a most elaborate scale of prices for poultry, depending upon the grades, starting with special, grade A, grade B, and so forth. It varies with the different parts of the country. It is all contained as a schedule to administrative order A-893. The schedule of ceiling prices covers a full page and fixes special ceiling prices for different grades of poultry such as special grade, milk-fed; grade A, milk-fed; grade B, milk-fed; special grade A; grade B; grade C, and so on, with different ceilings for each recognized grade as defined by the Department of Agriculture.


William Scottie Bryce: Does the inspector see that the grade goes to the consumer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That poultry is inspected
and graded, of course, by an inspector of the Department of Agriculture. The wartime prices and trade board has nothing to do with that. On the point raised by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox that it was not possible to get the poultry graded in the town of Napanee early in December because there were no inspectors there, I take it he would agree with me that if the poultry raisers had wished to do so they could1 have shipped the poultry to the packing plants and had them graded there and received the price for the grading. That is my advice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They could not bring them back to the show, though.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether they could show them or not, but they could ship them and get the graded price.


William Scottie Bryce: According to the statement of the parliamentary assistant to the minister, his department has nothing to do with seeing that the established grade is enforced; that is, if turkeys are sold, the men who get them cannot sell them as grade A if they were graded as B's?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The grading of poultry is clearly the function of the Department of Agriculture, and their inspectors establish the grade. If the poultry has been classified as grade A and the dealer attempts to sell them as special grade A, if our enforcement officers can catch him they would prosecute him. The wartime prices and trade board is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the ceiling. The ceilings are based on the grade of the particular bird that is being sold. If a dealer has purchased grade B and fraudulently attempts to sell it as grade A, the wartime prices and trade board would endeavour through its inspectors to catch him, and if he is caught they will prosecute him.


William Scottie Bryce: There is no law or order set up to make sure that the farmer's grade goes through to the consumer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is entitled to get the price which is fixed for the grade of poultry that he is selling. If he sells to a wholesaler and his poultry is graded grade A, he is entitled to get grade A wholesale prices.


William Scottie Bryce: I understand that, but there is no protection from the farmer to the consumer to ensure that the middleman cannot raise a B to an A. Your department does not do anything about it, to see that a man does not get away with that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a very serious offence. It applies to any commodity that is subject to grading. I do not know what my hon. friend means by "protection". The law is there. If it is broken and the offender is caught, he is prosecuted. That is the only answer I can give. It is a serious offence to alter the grades of poultry or any other agricultural product which is graded in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Agriculture.


William Scottie Bryce: My point is that it is as essential to see that the grades are maintained as that the price is maintained. When you alter the grades you alter the price. As far as ungraded poultry is concerned, progressive farmers think that field is the happy hunting-ground for private enterprise.

War Appropriation-Finance
I do not wish to cover the ground gone over by the hon. member for Souris, but I should like to add a little to what he said. Under the regulations to-day the farmer is deducted $3.50 for one pound overweight of pork. Those regulations have been set up by the wartime prices and trade board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to say that the wartime prices and trade board covers a very wide field, but it has nothing to do with the grading of pork products. I would suggest that my hon. friend direct his inquiries and criticisms to the Minister of Agriculture when he is here, because certainly I, personally, am not competent to deal with questions involving the grading of pork. The wartime prices and trade board has no control whatsoever over them.


William Scottie Bryce: Perhaps I am all mixed up here. The wartime prices and trade board appointed the meat board,


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; the Department of Agriculture set up the meat board.


William Scottie Bryce: No; it comes under the wartime prices and trade board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; it has nothing to do with the board. We have enough headaches of our own.


William Scottie Bryce: Donald Gordon was the man who dominated things in the meat board in Manitoba, and if he is in the wartime prices and trade board he is not in the Department of Agriculture.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that the meat board-


William Scottie Bryce: If the parliamentary assistant says that his department has nothing to do with it I have to take it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised, and I know it to be a fact, that the Canadian meat board was created and set up last June under the Department of Agriculture by order in council. There is nothing in this appropriation which has anything to do with the Canadian meat board.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: I put a question on the order paper about a man by the name of J. K. Smith, truck controller in the province of Quebec. I received an answer from the parliamentary assistant to the minister on May 22, 1944. My questions were as follows:
1.	Is Mr. J. K. Smith, truck controller for the province of Quebec, an employee of the dominion government or a dollar a year man?
The answer is:
An employee of the dominion government, wartime prices and trade board.
2.	In either case, since when?
The answer is:
May 1, 1942.
3.	What was his previous occupation?
The answer is:
From 1900 to 1920, Mr. Smith was engaged in various phases of freight traffic handling, becoming in 1918 assistant to the general traffic manager of the freight tariff bureau ot the Canadian Rational Railways. In 1920 he joined the Acadia Sugar Refining Company, Montreal, as traffic manager, and in 1922 was appointed manager of the transportation bureau, M.ontieal board of trade, from which organization he is presently on loan to this board.
4.	Will a bilingual employee be appointed in his stead?
The answer is:
No appointment is necessary as the position is now filled.
The majority of the people of the city of Montreal speak the French language. This parliament passed a law-I do not remember the year, but the measure was sponsored by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmoreney- under which the government is obliged, in making appointments to governmental organizations, to appoint men who speak the language of the majority of those living in the locality. Mr. Smith does not speak one word of French. If he can speak it he does not want to do so. When he is mad at something; when he differs with a visitor over a matter of policy, be it fascism or anything else, he asks for the police and wants the visitor thrown out. The hon. gentleman must be aware of that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I am not, but I will look into it.


Pierre Gauthier: That is what he did with Mr. Fillion, secretary of the Catholic union of farmers in Quebec. The question went on:
5. If not, why not?
The answer is:
Mr. Smith's services are quite satisfactory and he has several French-speaking assistants.
Well, his services are not satisfactory. The government is obliged to appoint a man speaking the language of the majority of the people in the locality, and Mr. Smith does not speak French. Why do we have to fight all the time for details? We are not tired of fighting, but we do not like it. The government should take care of that situation; it should pay heed when representations are made by serious people in regard to employees who are not able to speak both languages, especially in the province of Quebec. Imagine a government employee in Toronto or Winnipeg speaking French and not a word of English, able to give satisfactory service because he had English-speaking assistants!
War Appropriation-Finance

He would not last very long. Why should we be expected to put up with this sort of thing in Quebec? I know the hon. gentleman speaks French, so that I should like to read an article which appeared in Le Droit of Tuesday May 23.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Le Devori?


Pierre Gauthier: No; Le Droit. It would not be too bad if it had been Le Devoir, because that newspaper represents a good portion of the opinion of Quebec.
(Translation): Such a thing'would not happen in Ontario.
Some time ago, a French-language agricultural weekly, Le Terre de chest nous, upbraided Mr. J. K. Smith, director trucking in the province of Quebec under the dominion government. It charged that official, among other things, with inefficiency in the performance of his duties, because of his ignorance of the language spoken by four-fifths of the people m the province of Quebec.
The matter had an echo in the house-
That relates to my question.
Here is the reply made by the government on Monday. Mr. J. Iv. Smith has been employed by the Canadian government on the staff of the 1942^mf3 ^r*ees an<^ trade board since May 1,
The reply I have quoted a few moments ago is then given. The article goes on:
Of course, such a thing would not happen in Ontario. It would never occur even to the dominion government to appoint a director of trucking who could only speak French, and if against all possibility, that was done and should the government, in reply to a question asked by a member in that connection, state that the said director had assistants who spoke English the representatives of the Ontario people in Ottawa would surely not accept such an explanation. An uproar would be raised against the action of the government and the latter would hasten to rectify their blunder.
(Text):
So that I ask the parliamentary assistant if this situation will be cleared up, if Mr. Smith will be replaced. It is only fair to the people of Quebec, to the farmers of that province, that we have in Montreal a chief speaking both languages, or at least the language of the majority. French is official, as well as English, and we hope the government will listen to our representations. I trust the parliamentary assistant will look into the matter seriously, because we will come back.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Smith slightly, but I do not know whether his knowledge of French is good or bad. I was under the impression that he spoke both languages.


Pierre Gauthier: Well, then, he does not want to speak French.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to that I cannot say. Mr. Smith has had a long experience in the 
transportation business, as was indicated in the answer to the question asked by my hon. friend.


Pierre Gauthier: I do not deny that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Smith knows the work thoroughly, and I am advised that he has several French-speaking assistants. My hon. friend will realize that these special war jobs are not permanent positions in the civil service, to which men are appointed for a period of years. Many of these positions are filled by men who are on loan because of their special technical qualifications, and I believe that is the case with Mr. Smith. Because of his special knowledge of transportation problems he was appointed transport controller, or whatever it is, in the province of Quebec. I have no knowledge of the instances mentioned by my hon. friend of alleged discourtesy on the part of Mr. Smith toward people who came to see him, but most certainly I will make inquiries and see what there is in that particular charge. I have here a letter which was written by L'Association du Transport Interurbain Inc. of Montreal, signed by the secretary, Mr. Archambault, and addressed to the chairman of the board, with reference to Mr. Smith, and I should like to read it to the committee to indicate how his services are viewed by one association in Montreal, at any rate. The letter is as follows:
Mr. Donald Gordon,
Chairman,
Wartime Prices and Trade Board, 490 Sussex street,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir:
Our association has learned with the greatest surprise that certain representations have been made regarding the present controller of transport at Montreal, Mr. J. K. Smith.
Our association feels that Mr. J. K. Smith has been doing his utmost to uphold the interest of the public in general and to carry out the regulations that have been imposed by the prices and trade board in order to control the business of transportation iby truck and assist in the conservation of gasoline and tires.
It is obvious, in our opinion, that certain individuals feel that the present restrictions impose a hardship upon them and that the controller of transport should be the person to blame.
It has been resolved by the directors of our association to forward you an expression of their opinion to the effect that Mr. J. K. Smith has been serving the best interests of the public and that they do not recommend any change in .this appointment.
Yours most truly,
Association du Transport Interurbain Inc.
per C. Archambault,
Secretary.
The letter is dated May 20, 1944. As my hon. friend knows, I am just as anxious as

War Appropriation-Finance
anyone in this house or this country to have both languages spoken, and my hon. friend knows that my own facility in his native tongue is reasonably good.
I really deprecate that, in the case of a man who is doing a war job such as Mr. Smith is doing, and doing it well, according to my information, putting it on the basis that because he is operating in the province of Quebec, where admittedly the majority of the people speak French, that being their mother tongue, he must also speak French. I am not satisfied that he has not some knowledge of French, although I daresay, like a good many English-speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec, his knowledge of that language is not as good as it should be. Nevertheless, I venture to say that he understands French and probably understands it pretty well. He may not be able to converse in the language as fluently as he would like, but I have no doubt that he does understand it. That is about all I have to say. As regards the direct question which my hon. friend has put, as to whether Mr. Smith will be replaced or not, my answer at the moment is no.


Pierre Gauthier: I do not deny the ability of Mr. Smith, and I hope the parliamentary assistant does not deny that an official of any department should be obliged to speak the language of the majority of the people in the locality.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I should point out that, according to my understanding, this is not a civil service appointment. Mr. Smith was appointed, as many were appointed to these war jobs, by order in council and not on the recommendation of the civil service commission.


Pierre Gauthier: Then the parliamentary assistant says that Mr. Smith, not being a civil employee, is not compelled to speak French?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to verify this. I understand that this is not a civil service appointment.


Pierre Gauthier: If Mr. Smith understands French he should not get mad when anyone speaks French to him. He does not have to throw people out, and that is what he did. He called for the police. I do not deny his ability, but I deny his courtesy toward people who have dealings with the farmers. All the farmers in Quebec do not speak English, though a great many of them do. I repeat, no member of this house from the Englishspeaking provinces would stand for such a situation, and they would be right. Why should we have to stand for it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I promised my hon. friend that I would look into the statements he has made as to Mr. Smith's attitude toward people who came to see him. I have no knowledge of that myself.


Pierre Gauthier: I hope my hon. friend will look into it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I take it that my hon. friend is giving this on hearsay; he was not present at the interview.


Pierre Gauthier: I was not present but I have letters that prove it is true. Mr. Fillion of "Terre de Chez Nous" wrote himself that he had to go out of Mr. Smith's office, and we can believe Mr. Fillion as well as anyone else.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not questioning Mr. Fillion's word. I am saying that I shall have the matter looked into.
Mr. 'GAUTHIER: It is not hearsay on my part.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: The matter I am about to discuss should perhaps be brought up under a subsequent item, but seeing that we have wandered all over the place, perhaps it will not be objected to if I attempt to discuss it at this moment. I do not suppose there has been a session in the last forty years when at some time or another the question of sugar has not been considered in its many ramifications. One of the things that strikes me as peculiar, looking back over the records, is that the speeches as reported in Hansard ten and fifteen years ago on this question resemble the speeches of the last few years. This subject was debated at some length during the last session and it has been brought up once or twice again this year. During the years from 1930 to 1935 the question of sugar, in its relation to the sugar-beet industry particularly, was debated at considerable length and a special subcommittee was appointed in that period, from the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, to make a study into the sugar-beet industry and to report to the government of the day. An exhaustive study of the subject was made at that time. The records show that it was conducted here over many weeks and many witnesses were brought here, growers as well as refiners. After a thorough study of the subject they submitted to the house a report from which I will read a portion of the final analysis that was presented:
Your committee therefore recommends that in view of the existing tariff on sugar and in consideration of the substantial payments being made to agriculture and labour by the ibeet sugar factories at present in operation, the cane sugar refineries should undertake to provide for
33S4
War Appropriation-Finance

a gradual increase in factory facilities for the refining of beet sugar in Canada, and that, with the additional advantages in freight rates to points in the middle west, heretofore described, factory facilities should now be steadily increased in western areas where beets are grown, and thereby make it possible to produce from beets a more substantial percentage of the sugar consumption of Canada.
On March 20, when the subject was discussed in the house, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) read that statement into the record. The hon. member is no doubt a loyal party follower and it rather amused me to read this statement he made in connection with it:
I Tead from that report to show that the government of that day and the agriculture committee of that day were ready to encourage the production of ibeet sugar in Canada. Since that time there has been a considerable increase in the production of beet sugar in Manitoba. There is a splendid refinery located there and I suggest to all hon. members that they visit it. It is one of the best in Canada and it has great possibilities. I say these few words to show that the party of that day was interested in increasing the beet sugar industry of Canada.
There is no doubt that the majority of the members of the committee were taken from the government in power. That was the normal thing to do. But actions speak louder than words and there was no evidence that the party in power was favourable to the production of beet sugar, because nothing was ever done by the federal government to encourage that industry. At that time a delegation came from Lambton to interview the Prime Minister of the day because they could visualize another refinery or two in that part of the country. They had an interview with the Prime Minister of that day and he was quite conversant with the sugar-beet industry. They said that he talked intelligently on the subject, but he gave them the old stock in trade, which is given by a great many people: "You may rest assured that we shall go over this matter very carefully and give it every consideration."
At. that time the beet-sugar industry was at a very low ebb. The price of sugar was very low, and naturally the contract price of beets would be based on the wholesale price of sugar. There were many reasons for that. During the war of 1914-18 sugar production in the cane districts increased tremendously to take care of the sugar demands of the world. The beet industry in Europe at that time was very much disrupted and was out of production. After the war the sugar-beet industry came back into production and the cane industry kept up production with the result that there soon developed a world surplus of sugar. This became quite acute 
and in 1922-23 sugar became so cheap that it could be purchased in some of the cane sugar countries at as low as fifty-five cents a hundred pounds. That was a very low price and it was almost impossible to compete against it. In 1936 the retail price of sugar in our western districts was $4.80 a hundred or $3.80 a hundred without the excise tax. A conference was called to consider the world supply of sugar and, as was mentioned the other night in the house, this was held in London from April 5 to July 6. Twenty-two countries were summoned to the conference, and I have the report before me. I should' like to read an item or two from the report as follows:
The summoning of the international sugar conference was the direct outcome of efforts which originated in the world of the world nionetary and economic conference which met in London in June-July, 1933. The economic commission of that conference devoted special and detailed attention to the problem of securing better coordination in the production and marketing of staple foodstuffs and raw materials and the application of the principle to individual commodities-one of which was sugar-was considered by special 'subcommittees appointed for the purpose.
Most of the countries represented were either producers or large consumers of sugar. Canada was not particularly interested in the production of sugar or in the curtailment of production to keep in line with world demand, so that the Canadian representative did not sign the agreement that was arrived at. I quote from the report:
Mr. Massey stated that after a necessarily hasty examination of the convention, the Canadian government regretted that it had not found it possible to authorize signature at present. Canada was, of course, sympathetic with the conference's desire to avert uneconomic production but her position at the conference as an importer and consumer of sugar was so different from that of almost all other countries, that the^ Canadian government desired a further period of time to study the effect of the specific proposals of the convention on that position, and in the light of that study to decide whether it would be possible to accede later.
The votes allocated to Canada were given to the United Kingdom and the United States. The amount of sugar produced by Canada at that time was a mere bagatelle when compared with the world's needs. Prior to that time Canada had with Great Britain, a treaty known as the British West Indies treaty which took care of the sugar supply of Canada. That treaty was revamped and reshaped in 1925 or 1926. Under the terms of the treaty sugar from the British West Indies was given $1. per 100 pounds preference over all other sugar imported into Canada, with the result that practically all the sugar we imported came from the British West Indies. This treaty

War Appropriation-Finance
was a perennial treaty in that it could be terminated only by either country giving twelve months notice of termination. It was suggested by the Canadian officials that the treaty was out of date, that Canada was not getting equal value by the terms of the treaty, and the result was that in 1938 Canada gave notice that she wished to terminate the treaty and that a new arrangement should be arrived at.
At that time the then Minister of Finance referred the question to the tariff board for inquiry and report. Hearings were held in Ottawa during the summer of 1938. During those hearings reference was made to the possibilities of the sugar beet industry. The board was headed by the late Mr. Justice Sedgewick, and hearings were held in the justice building. Before the report could be submitted war was declared and nothing further was done.	.
After the declaration of war in 1939 Great Britain took over all British empire supplies of sugar and appointed a sugar controller by the name of Sir William Rook. Shortly after that time Canada appointed Mr. S. R. Noble as sugar controller. I do not know how he came to be appointed, but I do know that he had considerable experience in Cuba in connection with the sugar industry. The point I want to make is that up to that time there had been no encouragement given to the sugar beet industry by any federal government in peace time.
Nevertheless the sugar, beet industry did develop. One of the first refineries in Canada was established at Wallaceburg in 1903 with the help of a provincial subsidy. About three years ago a refinery was established in Winnipeg also with the help of provincial support or subsidy. In 1944 a refinery will go into production in Quebec which also has the support of the provincial government. In spite of all handicaps the number of sugar-beet refineries in Canada has grown and to-day there are six modern refineries.
There are two refineries in Ontario which have a processing capacity of 45,000 acres and a total aggregate sugar producing capacity at normal yield of around 110,000,000 pounds. The two refineries in Alberta have a capacity of 35,000 acres, and would have a normal yield of around 110,000,000 pounds. The tonnage is a little higher in Alberta and the sugar content is a little higher. The refinery in Manitoba has a processing capacity of 20,000 acres with a sugar capacity of around 32,000,000 pounds. The refinery in Quebec, which will come into production this year, has a processing capacity of around 20,000 acres with a total production of 35,000,000 pounds.
If we had our total possible maximum production of sugar this year, from 120,000 acres, it would total around 287,000,000 or 290,000,000 pounds. The normal requirements of Canada are around 1,100,000,000 pounds, so that we would still require about 813,000,000 pounds to be imported to meet our needs. In a normal year that would be about one-quarter of our total requirements, but under our rationing system it would be approximately one-third of our requirements.
Since the United States entered the war Canada and that country have cooperated in connection with the supply of sugar. At the moment our principal supply is from Cuban sources. During the last war our main sources of supply were Sumatra, Java, Malaya, the Dutch Indies, and the Philippines, all of which are now under Japanese control. According to the authority of Sir William Rook, the world reserve of sugar is gradually' fading away. In 1942 this reserve was 3,000,000 tons; in 1943 it was 2,000,000 tons; in 1944 it was
1,000,000 tons, and it is expected that in 1945 our reserve of sugar will be practically used up. In other words, we shall be starting from scratch.	_	.
I have a press release which was issued on April 20 by the wartime prices and trade board, which reads:
Warning that world supplies of sugar are so short that larger rations may not be expected for the first year or two after the war was given recently by Sir William _ Rook, British sugar controller, during discussions with wartime prices and trade board officers.
Not only is there no surplus of sugar in the world to-day but the present supply is insufficient to meet even essential needs without strictly rationing, Sir William said. He termed "incomplete and inaccurate" the view that all that is lacking is enough shipping space to transport sugar from producing to consuming countries.
In Ontario to-day we have a pretty fair contract for the sugar-beet growers, especially when compared with other days. During the depression days the price was around $4.50 to $5 per ton, and a fair price would be a minimum of 19 per ton. On a sixteen per cent beet it would be Sll a ton, and on eighteen per cent beet $12.20 a ton. Labour costs are very high in Ontario and in all beet producing districts. The cost of hand labour for thinning, hoeing and harvesting would be $30 per acre; seed $2.25 per acre; fertilizer $3 per acre; delivery $12.25 per acre, making a total of $47.50.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Has the hon. member the additional cost in Alberta for the delivery of irrigation water?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I shall have that a little later. If we have an average
War Appropriation-Finance

crop of ten tons of beets to the acre in Ontario, and that has been a fair average over the years, at $9 a ton the gross return would be $90 per acre, from which deduct total costs of $47.50 and you have a net profit of $43.50 per acre, which should be the profit in a normal year. That does not include the farmer's own work, the cost of the land or anything he may do in connection with cultivating the land, so that the profit would not be very high.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How is the Ontario
farmer able to compete with the Alberta farmer whose beets have an eighteen per cent sugar content?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The sugar content in Ontario last year was eighteen per cent. There is not a great deal of difference in that respect. -


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understood the hon. member to say twelve per cent sugar content in Ontario.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Ten tons to the acre of eighteen per cent beets at S12.20 per ton would give a good gross yield. That includes subsidies. The Ontario government this year provided a subsidy of $1.55 a ton to the beet growers, and the beet growers appreciate that. The Ontario minister of agriculture, when presenting his bill to the house last winter, announced, according to press reports, that the government felt obliged to assist the beet industry in Ontario because the federal government would do nothing. That statement is hardly correct. It would have been correct for him to say that the federal government refused to give any more assistance to the beet industry at this time because they have already given two subsidies in the last two years. The first subsidy of half a cent a pound was given in 1942 on the price of refined sugar, and most of that subsidy went to the producer, though not all. There is a straight half a cent a pound subsidy because there was a stabilization fund built up after the outbreak of the war which the stabilization corporation has in what they call their inner reserve. Like the banks' inner reserves, we do not know what that reserve is, but they have this inner reserve. The second subsidy of half a cent a pound was given on February 1, 1944. This all went to the producer. A ton of beets that would have a test of eighteen per cent sugar content would run close to 300 pounds of sugar to the ton. That would mean close to $3 a ton subsidy from the federal government. The federal subsidies apply to all beets produced in Canada. Alberta probably gets a little better 
price for her sugar, but they have added freight rates and higher sugar prices; and after all the contract price of beets is based on the selling price of sugar. Sugar is selling in the retail stores to-day at eight cents a pound, which with one cent off for excise tax would make it seven cents.
The outlook for the Ontario crop is not too good, for many reasons. Labour is quite a problem. The crop must compete for labour with other crops in the district, such as corn, tobacco, beans, tomatoes. Mechanized equipment can be used for many of these other crops, whereas a lot of the work of growing beets must be done by hand. Ontario has a total capacity of 45,000 acres for growing beets. But I do not think we shall have more than 15,000 to 18,000 acres in beets in Ontario this year.
We have two refineries in Ontario, one in WallacebuEg and one in Chatham, both of which should operate at full capacity.
It is a mistaken idea that if we produce
290,000,000 pounds of sugar in Canada we shall have all the sugar we need, because all this sugar must go into the pool and be allocated by rationing. It is estimated that the Cuban yield will be 5 million long tons. If we produce our maximum amount of sugar and the United States produce their maximum amount of sugar, we probably could have our sugar ration increased.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the United States maximum ?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Last year the United States had thirty-two beet refineries which never operated at all. This year they are trying to get them all into production. I am not sure how they are getting along. One of the things we tried to do to increase our sugar-beet production this year was to suggest to the wartime prices and trade board-I am going to find fault with the board in this matter because it seems the proper thing to do-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is fashionable at any rate.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I feel that I should find fault with the board because the United States in order to increase its beet sugar production offered ration-free sugar to producers of beets. Anyone who produced one acre or more of sugar beets would get a free ration of sugar of twenty-five pounds per person. We made the suggestion to the wartime prices and trade board that a similar scheme should be adopted in Canada. The sugar controller was of the opinion that it would help.

War Appropriation-Finance


John Ritchie MacNicol: What does the hon. member mean by twenty-five pounds per person? Does he mean twenty-five pounds per person on the farm?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: On the farm. Each extra acre of beets would produce around forty hundredweight of sugar, and if there were four people in the family, that would mean four twenty-five pound lots of free-ration sugar for them. They would put forty extra hundredweight into the pool and take one hundredweight out. That would mean that there would be thirty-nine extra hundredweight in the sugar pool.
The chairman of the board said that that would be discriminatory.	He asked, why
should people in fruit districts in Niagara, for instance, not get as much sugar as the people who produced sugar beets in Kent, Lambton or Essex? It would be discriminatory in the narrow sense, but if you produced a good many more acres of sugar beets you would be producing a lot more sugar, and in the long ran it would not be discriminatory. In the long ran we would have a greater supply of sugar.	We could have
adopted that policy which they are following in the United States. It is too late to do it this year. It would not probably have affected large operators, but it would have induced a great many small farmers who are not in the sugar beet business to produce one or two acres in order to get the free-ration sugar. Each extra acre would put forty hundredweight into the pool and probably take one hundredweight out. I am anxious to see how it works out in the United States.
There is one other thing I would mention in closing. If we want to get the industry back on a sound basis and want the beet growers to have confidence in the refiners, the Department of Agriculture should provide inspectors to go through the plants when the processing season is on for three or four months in the fall of the year and test the beets so as to assure the growers that they are getting a proper test of sugar content. The question is raised, of course, that that may be true of cream and what-not, but the fact remains that cream producers have a choice of where they are going to. send their product; the beet grower has none. I am quite sure that the refiners themselves would agree to that. It is the old story; people feel rightly or wrongly that the testing is all done by the refiners; there is no other way of shipping their beets; they must take it, whereas if the government had an inspector there to test those beets as they were processed and assure the growers
that they were getting full value, it would do much to restore confidence on the part of the growers.
I believe that we can grow sugar to-day in Canada successfully and economically. The refinery in Wallaceburg has operated successfully since 1903. The only year that it did not operate was 1942, owing to the lack of sufficient beets. Costs of production can be greatly reduced, with the new system of planting, with new split seed, by which they avoid the clusters. They are doing away with all the back-breaking labour; in Idaho they have a mechanized outfit which will pull beets, top them and load them in one operation. If that is developed in this country, I believe the government would be well advised to hang on to the beet industry, because it will play an important part in the post-war world and will absorb some of the labour which is bound to be a problem in the years of reconstruction. I call on the government to give the industry every assistance. Here are the figures covering the two refineries in Ontario for the 1940 crop only:
To beet growers-cash paid for crop	 $2,590,986
Supplies-coal, lime, bags, etc. ..	659,261
Freight to railways	 380,332
Labour-Factory and office payroll	 655,746
Total	 $4,286,325
The industry, I feel, is one which the government would be well advised to keep in operation and give all the support it possibly can.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the committee takes recess I wish to ask one question with respect to the sugar stabilization fund. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant has not the information, but this is what I want to know. It will be recalled that in the earlier stages of the war the sugar controller bought all the stocks in hand from the refineries and sold them back at an advance of half a cent a pound. The result was that several million dollars were collected; I had the figure once, but I am not sure what it is; perhaps the parliamentary assistant will let us know. I wish to be informed as to the purpose of establishing that fund at that time; has the same practice been consistently followed out to the present time; how much, if anything, has been disbursed in the interim; and how much remains? 1 should like to have a break-down of the disbursements; because, after all, the price of sugar was raised to the consumer to take care of that special fund; it did not come from the government
War Appropriation-Finance

or out of taxation; it was taken from the consuming public, who paid it in every purchase that it made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend will let that question stand I*will get the information.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I wish to bring before this committee a matter which comes under the heading of "administration", for which there is an appropriation of
815,600,000.	Under this heading the board makes expenditures of $156,600,000. Then there are additional subsidies of over $70,000,000 for food products in the Department of Agriculture, The board deals with the cost of living down to empty beer bottles and I am expected to discuss beer bottles although I am not an authority on this article.
The liquor business is the biggest business in which the government of Nova Scotia deals. Last year total sales amounted to $15,324,147.68. In this sum is the enormous outlay of $7,699,497.85 for beer. . It is estimated that the containers for this beer are estimated to be worth at least $1,000,000. The profits in handling the empties would be from $50,000 to $100,000 a year for the entire province. The wartime prices and trade board issued an order, No. A 236, in June, 1942, regulating the handling of liquor, wine and distillers' bottles, with no special reference to ale or beer bottles. This was a general order, I understand, applicable to the whole of Canada. It was cancelled soon after, since the supply of such bottles was sufficient to meet the needs of those requiring them.
On December 7, 1942, the wartime prices and trade board issued a further order, No. A-505, applicable only to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It controlled the purchase, shipment and sale of the empty beer bottles in the two provinces. * Prior to that they were sold without any control from the wartime prices and trade board and could be shipped out of the province. I am not objecting to that order if it were administered in the way it was intended so as to give producers of beer in those two provinces their requirements. New Brunswick administered this order in the spirit in which it was issued. They recognize nine dealers in the province, namely, Thomas Buraglia, Bathurst; A. Freedman and Son, Saint John; J. Omer Guidry, Campbellton;

Hachey Bros., Chatham; Fred Levesque, Edmundston; W. G. McIntyre, Saint John; J. A. Robichaud, Rexton; G. Rubenstein, Chatham, and Harry Ruch, Moncton. In Nova Scotia no such condition prevailed. The orders of the wartime prices and trade board have been grossly abused, creating a monopoly under the control and for the profit and patronage of a notoriously partisan political friend of the government of Nova Scotia, namely, W. B. Moriarty, for the whole mainland of Nova Scotia. Complaint was made to me. About three weeks ago, after several efforts, I got in touch with the chairman of the board, Mr. Donald Gordon, over the telephone. I told him that I was getting complaints and as a member of parliament I would like to get some information and justification for the order. He said that he had had complaints ad nauseam, that he was leaving the matter to the authorities in Nova Scotia to justify and that he did not wish to discuss it with me.
I have been before the public for twenty years as a member of the provincial legislature and of this house. I was a minister of a department for over eight years. In all that period I was never treated with such discourtesy by an official. I am not going to blame Mr. Gordon altogether, because I feel that he was put into a position that he could not justify, and that, therefore, he did not wish to discuss it. That is the only explanation I can give of his treatment of me. I told him that I was a member of parliament and that I wanted information in order to understand the complaint. After that I put certain questions on the order paper and asked for the return of all correspondence, which I have received and been able to look over to-day. It was brought down by the parliamentary assistant to the minister yesterday. He very kindly spoke to me about it and asked me if the information in the answers to the questions and in the return were what I wanted. They are what I wanted but I have not had time to stud}'' them fully. I did notice, however, that in some of the correspondence reference is made to other correspondence on certain dates, and that correspondence is not on the file. At a later time I shall be able to go over it and see what additional information I - require. I assume that the parliamentary assistant to the minister will see that I get it.
There is in this return of correspondence over eighty copies of correspondence and I have not had an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. I am now going to make a summary. First, there is the Minister of Finance. He is in charge. I understand he has general

War Appropriation

Finance
oversight of the wartime prices and trade board. I do not hold him responsible but I believe that he is being duped. Next, is the wartime prices and trade board under the chairmanship of Mr. Donald Gordon. Third in line of responsibility of handling these beer bottles in Nova Scotia is the chief commissioner of the liquor commission in the person of Mr. A. S. Mahon, of Halifax, who was a political appointee. As such I have no quarrel with him if he were administering the affairs of the province in peace time. But in administering a war order in war time under these circumstances, to prostitute the wartime prices and trade board as he has done, acting for Mr. Moriarty, I say it is discreditable to this war parliament, and I ask that he be dismissed from that position and that someone in whom the province of Nova Scotia and the country has confidence be appointed to administer that responsibility. I would suggest that Mr. Lee be appointed. He represents the board in Nova Scotia. I would favour his appointment or that of any capable man who has some sense of responsibility, free from political bias. W. Stanley Lee is the prices and supply representative of the wartime prices ' and trade board, Cunard building, Halifax, Nova Scotia. He would be satisfactory, or any man irrespective of politics who would administer these duties in time of war with some sense of responsibility. The fourth man in the line appointed by Mr. Mahon is Mr. W. B. Moriarty, president of the Provincial Bottle Exchange, Limited, who played outright politics and favouritism and does not represent that he does anything else. He does it for profit and he is doing it under the wartime prices and trade board. I hold the Minister of Finance responsible and I hold Mr. Gordon responsible. I hold all those who are over him responsible. This man Moriarty undertook to give instructions of a dictator as soon as the order was passed to those who were handling bottles in Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick they did not do that. They worked with those who had been in the business, but not so Nova Scotia. He made use of this order to put a legitimate dealer, with whom Mr. Moriarty was not in sympathy, out of business, a man who had the previous year shipped up to 200,000 dozen empty beer bottles out of the province and who the year prior to that had sold 170,000 dozen altogether, of which 110,000 were marketed in Nova Scotia and 60,000 exported. I have the exact figures of what was shipped during seven months of the year 1942, and it bears out the statement that I have made.
Now, when this order was put into effect Moriarty telephoned or got in contact with
this firm, John Ross and Sons, that had been in the business which I have just described in Truro and told them that they were not per mitted to ship any more. They had at thal time 50,000 or 60,000 dozen bottles on hand. They had a carload loaded on the rails, but they could not get a permit to ship that one carload. They had to unload it, and they were forced to do so in the name of the wartime prices and trade board order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Moriarty is not an official of the wartime prices and trade board.


Percy Chapman Black: He is, when they recognize him. The Minister of Finance recognizes Mr. Donald Gordon; Mr. Donald Gordon recognizes Mr. Mahon; Mr. Mahon appoints Mr. Moriarty as his representative on the mainland of Nova Scotia, and therefore I hold the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary assistant responsible.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall reply in due course, when my hon. friend has finished, but I am just pointing out that Mr. Moriarty is not an official of the wartime prices and trade board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is the only man allowed to buy bottles on the mainland. He has a monopoly.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Ross
wanted to come to an understanding with the wartime prices and trade board; he wanted to abide by the rules, and he endeavoured to obtain recognition. He continued to buy from his clients and accumulated a supply of almost one hundred thousand dozen bottles. He had $40,000 invested in these bottles and could not dispose of them. The question arose of what he was to do with them; he either had to go into bankruptcy or knuckle down; accordingly he knuckled down and came to terms with this man Moriarty in order to ship his stock on hand. This was shipped out of the province to Moriarty's orders at a profit to Moriarty of from $50 to $100 a car. His stock on hand ran to twenty-five cars or more at that time, with a very much larger quantity purchased afterwards. This man Moriarty never had to raise his finger, except to telephone and give shipping orders; yet he got a rake-off of $50 to $100 a car.
This order was passed under the plea that the bottles were required for the brewers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. That may be partly so. Mr. Ross was prepared to ship to the firm in Halifax, through Mr. Moriarty, but he wanted to ship out of the province to his own customers. Prior to this order A-505 he had been shipping a large quantity out of
War Appropriation-Finance

the province direct to brewers. When the order was put into effect he was completely cut off from that business and he either had to hold his goods or sell them to the firm of Moriarty. I have some correspondence here, giving further particulars with respect to this business. Prior to the original order of 1942 Mr. Ross was selling to firms in central Canada, and was sending a considerable quantity to Halifax by truck, handing them over to Mr. Moriarty. He was satisfied to do that, at a reduced price; he was getting a return load coming back, and the business was reasonably satisfactory. But while he was buying in his own territory he was being undermined and interfered with by Mr. Moriarty's other buyers. That was not sufficient to put him out of business, so that Mr. Moriarty or Mr. Mahon or those in authority were able to have this war-time order put into effect. I am now going to read from a letter dated June 26, 1942, to show the dictatorial manner in which this man Moriarty usurped the right to control the beer bottle business in Nova Scotia. The letter is addressed to Mr. Harry Ross, of John Ross and Sons, and I need not read it all:
I want it definitely understood from this date that you are not to shi.p any bottles out of Nova Scotia and I want you to let me know how many .bottles you have on hand at the present time. I don't wish to have any unpleasantness with you, and I ask your cooperation trusting it will work out to our mutual advantage.
J. B. Moriarty,
President.
On the letterhead is the "Provincial Bottle Exchange". Here is another letter dated June 17, 1942, I presume from the manager of Canadian Breweries of Quebec, telling the Ross firm that they require more empty beer bottles and indicating that they are prepared to continue to carry on business with them. I need not read the letter; it is available if needed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Are these letters being tabled?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member will hand them to you.


Percy Chapman Black: Yes. I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Mahon to Mr. Rosenberg, deputy administrator of used goods, dated June 30, 1942, one paragraph of which reads:
From the information I have Mr. Ross has 0nly recently been active in the bottle business, and I really do not think we are doing him any injustice in appointing him a B dealer-
That is a dealer who has to sell his bottles at forty cents a dozen as against the ceiling price of forty-five cents a dozen.
-as I do not agree with his statement that the bottle business is his mainstay..

I do not think it is for Mr. Mahon or even for Mr. Donald Gordon or the minister to say that because a man has or has not been in business for a long time therefore he is not entitled to sell, during war time, an article that is being salvaged and that is required to carry on our war-time activities. The fact is that Mr. Ross claims he had been in this bottle business for ten years; that he was shipping bottles by the hundreds of thousands of dozens when this order was issued; yet he was refused a permit to ship his goods out of the province, so that unless he came to terms he was put out of business completely.
Here is a letter from Oland and Son, Limited, brewers and bottlers, dated May 5, 1942, addressed to Mr. S.-Godfrey, used goods administrator. Oland and Son Limited control two breweries in Nova Scotia, and their main or only outlet is the Nova Scotia liquor commission. They have to be good; they have to do what they are told. They are told from whom they must buy their reclaimed battles. There is an old saying that there are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter. It was not necessary to have a war-time order to tell the Oland company or anyone else in the province from whom they would have to buy empty bottles. In any event they designate the Moriarty firm as the persons to act for them, and no one else would have any authority to sell beer bottles to a brewery in Nova Scotia. Here is a letter from Mr. H. S. Rosenberg, deputy administrator of used goods, dated May 19, 1942, and directed to Mr. A. S. Mahon. I need not read it all; but this is part of it:
I am quite prepared to appoint you as our representative in respect of bottles in your province and to give you authority on our behalf to determine what beer bottles may or may not be shipped out of the province, and by whom they should be shipped. Do the Halifax Beverages handle liquor bottles for you? If so, will they now have to turn them over to Mr. Moriarty?
The business is completely in the hands of Mr. Mahon and Mr. Moriarty.
If J. Ross handles liquor bottles, will he have
to do the same? As far as we are concerned, if we appoint Messrs. Moriarty and Cohen-
Cohen is the representative appointed exclusively for the island of Gape Breton.
-and it is our present intention to do so, all others handling bottles will have to dispose of them through and at the direction of the two authorized dealers. Mr. Cohen says that he is satisfied that Mr. Moriarty will treat the other bottle dealers fairly, and allow them good prices.
I need not read more of that letter. Here is another dated May 22, 1942, also addressed

War Appropriation-Finance
to Mr. A. S. Mahon, from the same gentleman, Mr. H. S. Rosenberg, reading in part as follows:
In my discussion with Mr. Ross I learned the following:	.
X. That for some years Mr. Ross has been in the business of reclaiming beer bottles.
2.	That his place of business is about eight miles away from camp Debert.
3.	That until recently he was paying the camp 30 cents per dozen for large bottles, and paying 5 cents per dozen to the man who arranged to get them, and that he was selling them to Mr. Moriarty for 40 cents per dozen.
4.	That Mr. Moriarty has commenced to purchase direct from the camp himself, and that he has raised the camp price by 5 cents and Mr. Ross has had to meet this price. Both of them, incidentally, have broken the ceiling which was established in the basic period.
5. That Mr. Moriarty and Mr. Ross are apparently unable to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement between themselves.
6.	That Mr. Ross, for his own protection, has had to arrange to sell bottles elsewhere.
7.	That Mr. Moriarty is shipping bottles out of the province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Moriarty?


Percy Chapman Black: Yes, Moriarty.
I go on:
... I was impressed with his sincerity and unselfishness and treated him as an unofficial representative of Mr. Moriarty and yourself.
I must admit that when Mr. Ross left me I had the feeling that it was unfair for Mr Moriarty to enter into Mr. Ross' territory and *to outbid him for bottles, forcing him to pay 40 cents per dozen, and then naturally, refusing to pay Mr. Ross any more than that, thus leaving him in the 'position where lie must either continue to pick up bottles and lose money for the privilege, or he must seek a market elsewhere. I felt, that having found the market elsewhere, it was unfair to prevent him from shipping the bottles out. I later learned that there was some 'feeling on both sides, and that the blame was by no means on one side alone.
The purpose, however, as I interpret it, was to drive Mr. Ross out of business. In the same letter the following appears:
Tlie .principle behind our desire to limit the number of authorized dealers is that we would like to find a small number of dealers with large facilities for sorting and handling bottles, and with facilities and equipment for washing bottles. We would then like those dealers to set up collection machinery in all the outlying districts and to pay the freight to bring the bottles in to their warehouses. We were hoping that that would be the case, not only with liquor bottles and wine bottles, but also with food bottles and pharmaceutical bottles as well. We are 'having pressure brought to bear on us by several members of parliament, asking us to appoint Halifax Beverages as an A. dealer. We are also having pressure brought on us on behalf of Mr. Whiteman. His name had originally been suggested by some of the distillers, and it had been placed on a few of our preliminary drafts.
I have one or two other quotations to read and I shall be through. There is a letter to A. S. Mahon dated July 24, 1942, addressed by Mr. Rosenberg:
I am sorry that you are being given so much trouble by Mr. Ross, but we are also being given trouble. Mr. Ross means nothing to this department. He is however, a citizen of the country, engaged in a certain business, and we have no more desire of hurting him and putting him out of business than of doing that to anyone else. We are anxious to continue existing channels. To put one man out and 'to put another man in is certainly not our function. I am very much interested in your statement that if I had followed your suggestions the bottle situation could have been cleared up some time ago.
I suppose that was to put Ross entirely out of business.
Naturally that is what I am very anxious to do I have no knowledge of any suggestions of that type. If I have missed them, would you be good enough to write to me by airmail as to what your suggestions are that have not been followed.	,	,,
I am proceeding immediately to draft an order in respect of beer bottles, and 1 shall submit it to you in draft form for your consideration and advice.


Mr. KINLEY:: Who wrote that?


Percy Chapman Black: H. S. Rosenberg, deputy administrator. Another letter 1 have here is dated October 31, 1942, addressed to Mr. Rosenberg and signed by A. S. Mahon, chief commissioner, Halifax:
We are in receipt <?f a letter from Messrs. John Labatt Limited in which they state that they have not received a fair distribution of empties from Nova Scotia. We placed before you as far back as May certain proposals which if they had been accepted I believe would have eliminated our troubles. Our organization that has been functioning in Nova Scotia for the past few years in connection with empties gave every satisfaction, and all that was necessary-in my opinion was to make a few changes, which, as I previously stated, was placed before your department without any results.	.
Is it not about time that this matter was finalized, as the present arrangement is very unsatisfactory.
That is signed A. S. Mahon, giving dictatorial instructions to the administrator.
Here is another letter dated December 5, 1942, signed H. S. Rosenberg, deputy administrator, to John Ross and Sons, Truro, Nova Scotia:
Dear Sirs: We have your letter of December 1st.
That letter is not on file.
The only thing we can say to you is that if you can sell your bottles in Ontario and Quebec, and not in the maritimes, we have no objection to your doing so. Apparently there is no great shortage of bottles in the maritimes at this time, and a number of the brewers in Quebec and Ontario feel that they have not received a proper portion of the maritime bottles for some time.
War Appropriation-Finance

That indicate? the willingness of Mr. Rosenberg and some of those in the wartime prices and trade board to recognize that Mr. Ross, as a Canadian citizen engaged in this bottle business, and having a large stock on hand, had a right to ship them, and they were disposed to grant him that right.
There is one more letter from which I wish to read some quotations. It is dated February 22, 1943.


Richard Burpee Hanson: From whom?


Percy Chapman Black: It is from R. Geddes addressed to Mr. A. S. Mahon. I quote:
Dear Mr. Mahon:
a Developments in the functioning of our order A-505 respecting empty beer bottles, have been such that the question of rescinding it and allowing the trade in these goods to return to the basis on which it was conducted prior to tlie adoption of our order arises.
The order was instituted, as you know, to ensure an equitable distribution of empty beer bottles collected in your province and in New Brunswick and, in particular to ensure that the supply for local breweries was not drawn away to central Canada markets where excessive demands for beer and potentially limited production of new bottles were then indicated. It was not intended that the order would become an instrument for immobilizing hundreds of thousands of bottles in the hands of a collector or collectors and place them in storage where they are neither at the disposal of your local brewers nor of the central Canada brewers.
That has, however, happened, not because of the order itself but of the administration of it-
I would emphasize that-"not because of the order itself but because of the administration of it."
-which has become entwined with informal arrangements for bottle collection and distribution which had been operative in your province but were neither recognized nor ratified by this order of ours. The order was designed, as mentioned above, to ensure equitable distribution of bottles and, since it is not doing so, but rather achieving the reverse, the question of rescinding it logically arises.
If the situation which now prevails in respect of these bottles is carried to its ultimate, huge stocks of bottles are going to be withdrawn from use and brewers' stocks will have to be replenished by the manufacture of new bottles, with attendant but unnecessary wastage of labour and materials in doing so. We do not wish to see this development carried further and to have one or more dealers become the unwilling hoarders of bottles.
We wished to notify you of our plans for rescinding the order before proceeding with them. Hie supply situation apparently no longer required the control which the order imposed; while these huge stocks have been accumulating, no evidence of shortages in your province have come to our attention. If it is demonstrated tbat some measure of control is still necessary, we shall, of course, reconsider the decision. We will await your advice in this connection until March 1st.

On the file there are letters from Mr. Mahon there may be others, I do not know-pleading with Mr. Geddes not to rescind order A-505 which they were administering under such dictatorial powers for the political and financial benefit of some people in the province and certainly not in the spirit of a war-time order that should have the support of everybody in the country, not as a government measure to be administered by partisans, but as an order to be administered in such a manner as to meet the wishes and command the confidence of the people of Canada. The order should command the confidence of those who have contributed to enlistments in our armed forces; it should command the confidence of those who have invested in victory bonds and of those who supported the plebiscite vote. That is what it should do, rather than be for the benefit of those who have for years past administered anything over which they had control on the basis of the greatest possible political advantage. I am sorry to have taken up all this time dealing with beer bottles, upon which I am no authority.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The gravamen of the charge made by the hon. member for Cumberland is not against the principle of the order of the wartime prices and trade board but against its operation. In the return made to the questions asked by the hon. member for Cumberland, which was brought down yesterday and from which he has quoted some portions, it is indicated that the purpose of administrator's order A-505 of December 7, 1942, signed by the administrator of used goods, Mr. Godfrey, and approved by Mr. Gordon, was to keep used beer bottles needed for the use of brewers in the maritimes in the maritime provinces and thus avoid the shipment of empties back to Ontario and Quebec and the shipment of additional quantities of new bottles to the maritime brewers. The order applied not only to Nova Scotia but to New Brunswick. For some reason unknown to me, and possibly with the 'best intentions, in each case the chairman of the provincial liquor commission was appointed the representative of the wartime prices and trade board. In the case of New Brunswick it was Mr. R. G. Fulton, and in the case of Nova Scotia, Mr. A. S. Mahon.


John James Kinley: For this purpose only?


Richard Burpee Hanson: For this
purpose only.


John James Kinley: Very natural.

War Appropriation-Finance


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it was natural; I am surprised it was done. As far as Mr. Fulton was concerned, I think he operated the order, not only to the satisfaction of the suppliers but to the satisfaction of the brewers and the public generally. He recognized all the established dealers in New Brunswick who were collecting beer bottles. I assume that he saw to it that the two New Brunswick breweries, which by the way are operated by the Oland family, who also operate one if not the two breweries in Halifax-it is an old family custom-were properly looked after. Permits were issued to each of the nine dealers to sell the breweries beer bottles. There has been no complaint either as to prices or otherwise.
However, in Nova Scotia, a different policy was adopted by Mr. Mahon. In the first place, Mr. Mahon recognized only one A class dealer, his friend, Mr. Moriarty, who was given a monopoly. The gravamen of the charge made by the hon. member for Cumberland is that a monopoly was placed in the hands of the Provincial Bottling company, if that is its name, owned and controlled by Mr. Moriarty and his friends, and that the other dealers who collected bottles in Nova Scotia were refused licences to sell direct to the breweries.


Percy Chapman Black: On the mainland of Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I must
limit my statement to the mainland of Nova Scotia. In Cape Breton my old friend Myer Cohen, who used to be a Conservative when he lived in Saint John and who became a Liberal after he went to Nova Scotia, was able to carry on. He was a very good worker in the ranks of the Conservative party when he lived in Saint John, but he is now a Liberal since he got this concession from the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no difference
between you anyway.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Maybe
there is not, but you are a poor judge. You are not going to interrupt me by saying that. As I say, a monopoly was created in Nova Scotia, and no one could ship a single bottle out of that province although bottles were accumulating that were not actually required by the breweries. That is one point that I wanted to make. Mr. Mahon refused to allow other dealers to ship surplus bottles out of the province to the breweries in central Canada which actually required them. The correspondence shows that they were asking for them. These breweries felt that they had not had their fair share of the distribution. That is the first charge, that a monopoly was created.
The effect of creating that monopoly was this. The selling price of these bottles was forty-five cents a dozen-I can be corrected if I am wrong-and Moriarty, without any investment of capital, without doing anything except using the telephone and keeping his books, was able to buy bottles from these people for forty cents. He thus had a rake-off of five cents a dozen, which is substantial because it would amount to from $60 to $100 a car. Not content with his monopoly, not content with his unearned profit or increment, lie went out into the territory and bid against the other dealers for surplus bottles whicbthey could not buy at the price at which they had to sell to him. That is to say, he was offering forty cents a dozen which was all the other men could get. He was assured of a profit without any sense of loss because he had a sure customer. All he had to do was to turn over the bottles to the brewers at forty-five cents a dozen and pocket the profit.
I am not going to blame Mr. Donald Gordon for the inception of the theory on which he was proceeding. He wanted to conserve beer bottles for the maritime breweries. It is the instrument which he set up to deal with the matter about which complaint is made. This has had the result of driving honest dealers out of business, while his chosen instrument- a common phrase in this house at times-was given a monopoly which gave him anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 a year. I hope he is paying income tax on that profit. If he is not, someone ought to direct the attention of the Department of National Revenue to the fact.
The time arrived shortly after when the situation which made necessary the order was no longer in effect. Because of the large number of newcomers to the province, especially to Halifax, and the two great military camps, there was always a surplus of bottles after a certain period of time after the order was passed. This correspondence indicates that there was no longer any necessity for the order, and responsible officials here in Ottawa sought to have it rescinded and indicated their intention of so doing.
But they were probably over-persuaded by Mr. Mahon not to do any such thing but to continue the arrangement he had made, under which his friend Mr. Moriarty obtained a profit of five cents a dozen on all the empty beer bottles which he chose to take and which he supplied to the brewers in Halifax, shipping the rest out of the province. He had a monopoly not only for the local market but for the surplus which he acquired from the sources I have indicated and which he shipped out of the province. The whole thing became
War Appropriation-Finance

a racket; there is no doubt about that, and it ought to be ended if it has not been ended before. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that if he becomes seized of all the facts he will recommend to Mr. Gordon that the order be rescinded forthwith, taking care that a sufficient number of bottles are provided for the breweries of Nova Scotia. But let them, buy the bottles by contract from the recognized dealers. They will get the beer bottles all right; there is no doubt about that, and the ceiling price will be adhered to. I have heard no complaint about the price. The complaint is that these men are no longer able to deal directly with the brewers who must deal through one funnel and pay a toll to the proprietor of that funnel. That is wrong if it be a fact, and I have no doubt it is a fact.
What should happen is this. The order should long ago have been rectified and permits should have been issued to these men to deal directly with the brewers and ship their surplus out of the province. That would be fair play and British justice.
I said in my opening statement that I have no fault to find with the underlying intent of the order at the time it was made, because no doubt it was passed on representations that were made by responsible people, we will say, to the wartime prices and trade board that there was a scarcity or threatened scarcity of beer bottles in Nova Scotia. That situation has been rectified. It no longer obtains. The necessity for the order therefore no longer exists. Certainly by the cancellation of that order a great injury to the local dealers on the mainland of Nova Scotia will have been rectified.
The plea I make to the minister is that he ask Mr. Donald Gordon to review the whole position and to put it on the same basis as the operation in New Brunswick, namely, that all the established dealers collecting empty beer and liquor bottles in Nova Scotia be recognized; that permits be issued to them; that they be allowed to sell at the ceiling price to the brewers direct, and not through one chosen instrument as is done in Nova Scotia, and that they be allowed to export the surplus to breweries in any part of Canada. That is a fair statement of the position as it ought to be and as it exists in New Brunswick, where there is not a single complaint so far as I am aware. That is the situation as it ought to be in Nova Scotia, where there is nothing but turmoil in this business owing to the fact that unwittingly-
I go that far-Mr. Gordon allowed himself to be led into this position. No wonder he refers to this beer bottle question, with all 	.
the complaints he has received, as nauseating. I have no doubt that it would be nauseating to any man who had found that he had made a mistake and did not rectify it. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the position can be very easily rectified, if it has not been rectified already. You cannot undo what has been done, of course, but I rather suspect that steps have already been taken to rectify the situation. I do not know. The parliamentary assistant shakes his head. Then he is perpetuating, I suggest to him, a gross injustice to a dozen dealers in Nova Scotia who are just being crowded out of business for the benefit of one particular pet of the chairman of the Nova Scotia liquor commission. I do not know anything about Mr. Moriarty's politics, but I know that my hon. friend the member for Cumberland is well versed on things political in Nova Scotia.


An hon. MEMBER:: Moriarty must be a good Irishman.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not make a bit of difference. If he is an Irishman or of any other nationality it is all the same to me. I do not know whether Ross is a Scotsman or an Englishman or of any other nationality. It does not make a bit of difference. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion like that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Be careful about the Ross's.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are a great clan, are they not? There are a good many here in this house. It is a good name so far as I know; I am not saying a word against it. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that unwittingly a monopoly has been created and that because of that a grave injustice has been done to some of the citizens of Nova Scotia, an injustice that ought to be rectified.


Mr. ISNOR:: Mr. Chairman, I have not had an opportunity of looking over this return.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Neither have I.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Therefore I am not in a position to discuss it as intelligently perhaps as the hon. member for Cumberland. I rose not to defend order A-505 but rather to protest against the narrow partisan attack made by the hon. member for Cumberland on a very fine citizen of Halifax, Mr. A. S. Mahon, chairman of the Nova Scotia liquor commission. The people of Halifax and, I believe, throughout the province of Nova Scotia will resent the very narrow partisan manner in which the hon. member for Cumberland has

War Appropriation-Finance
brought this matter to the attention of the committee this evening. Let us deal with the hon. gentleman's own record in handling affairs of this kind. He told the committee that he had been in public life in Nova Scotia for many years, and so he has been. I remember that I sat on the opposite side to him in the legislature of Nova Scotia when he as minister of highways of the province carried on in the most partisan way perhaps of any minister we ever had.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how far you are going to allow matters to be discussed that have nothing to do with the item under discussion, which has to do with the administration of the wartime prices and trade board. The senior hon. member for Halifax is now dealing with something that happened in Nova Scotia many years ago,' which has nothing whatever to do with the item before us.


Mr. POULIOT:: "Partisan" is the highest compliment that could be paid to a politician.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order raised by the leader of the opposition, I believe it is the wish of the committee that we keep as closely as possible to the item before the Chair and I would ask hon. members therefore to limit themselves to the discussion of empty bottles for the time being and complete it.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I propose, Mr. Chairman, to keep within the limits of the debate as carried on by the hon. member for Cumberland. He brought into the discussion the matter of his public life and I am simply answering his statement. I was going on to say that I consider him as of a very fine type, if the hon. leader of the opposition had restrained himself for a moment-


Gordon Graydon: I knew what you were coming to.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You thought I was going to play politics.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What you are doing is coming to the defence of your friend Mr. Moriarty.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I wanted to ask questions of both the hon. member for Cumberland and , the hon. member for York-Sunbury, who stepped out of his province of New Brunswick into Nova Scotia to support the political speech made by his colleague the hon. member for Cumberland, but I did not interrupt. I hope that the leader of the opposition will pay me the same compliment.
I should like to deal with the public life of the hon. member for Cumberland. He was minister of highways of Nova Scotia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. ROWE:: The Chairman has ruled
against that already.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member brought it on himself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not make any difference.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You started it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not start anything of that kind.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The same procedure was carried on after the introduction of the Nova Scotia liquor commission act, Which was brought into effect by the party to which the hon. member for Cumberland belongs.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, that was not done under a war-time order. A minister in war time represents all the people, all the taxpayers of the country. That is so even if your statement were correct.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member admits my statementis correct; and he appointed one.


Percy Chapman Black: I said, "if" it were correct.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: He appointed one person only to handle all bottles throughout Nova Scotia. He knows as does everybody else that the brewing concerns of Oland and Son and O'Keefe's buy bottles. From the questions and answers we find that two persons were appointed in Nova Scotia, one for the mainland and one for Cape Breton-a very easy method of taking care of the bottle situation.


William Earl Rowe: Evidently.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: We find that the hon. member has a friend in Colchester county, or a firm, of the name of John Ross and Sons.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that his name?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Well, I will not say; he goes under the name of "John Ross and Sons". Who was he in competition with? With whom has he been in competition in the short period he has been in the bottle business? He operates, as the hon. member for Cumberland says, just outside camp Debert. A returned man, a veteran of the last war, had been carrying on business at Debert; but John Ross and Sons were not satisfied with the business which they were getting elsewhere; they made a dead set at the business at Debert, thus doing the very thing which the
War Appropriation-Finance

hon. member complains of others doing. Ross tried to take the business from, this exserviceman who had already had connections at Debert camp. Not only did Ross try to take it from an ex-serviceman in Colchester county, but he went to New Glasgow, where another ex-serviceman with a large family was struggling along at the bottle businesp. John Ross and Sons came in and tried to take the business away from this ex-serviceman by offering to pay more for the bottles.
The hon. member for Cumberland has characterized the action of which he complains as done for political gain. Such terms should be used with a greater sense of responsibility as regards -these two fine citizens, men who are held in high esteem-the chairman of the Nova Scotia liquor commission, Mr. A. S. Mahon, and Mr. W. B. Moriarty, a man who has been a well known sportsman for years, a prominent oarsman, and is still closely associated with sport in general, as well as enjoying a high reputation in the business life of Halifax. As I said before, I believe that the citizens of not only Halifax but the whole province of Nova Scotia will resent the partisan attack made by the hon. member for Cumberland on these two gentlemen.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for York-Sunbury say that there was no expense in connection with this transaction, that there was a five cent per dozen profit. Surely he must know that if bottles are to be collected in large quantities for shipment, they must be stored.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They came in carload lots right to the brewery.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: He has a very large warehouse; he has equipment for washing them; he must collect these bottles and crate them. This necessitates help, which costs money. All these things add to the overhead. I do not know whether his overhead amounts to four cents a dozen or four and one-half cents a dozen, but to say that he does this without cost is ridiculous, and it shows that the speeches of the two hon. members are nothing more or less than partisan attacks.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much did he put in the campaign fund?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Unless you put it in your campaign fund?-somebody asks.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the hon. member repeat that? He hesitates to do so. We always hear these "yap yaps" from the bushes.
Another rather ridiculous statement was that the profit amounted to $100,000.
[Mr. Isnor.l


William Earl Rowe: It depends upon how many bottles he had.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not know whether the parliamentary assistant to the minister is going to be in a position to state the profit. The total shipments in terms of numbers of dozens at such and such a gross profit, less the operating expense, would be easy to compute. But I am satisfied that neither the Provincial Bottle Exchange at Halifax nor the Consumers' Bottle Company, Sydney, nor the two combined, would make anything like $100,000 in any one year; nor do I believe that the firm in Halifax would make $50,000, or $25,000. The profit is a long way from $100,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is your opinion. Do you know how much they make?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: My opinion is as good as yours in this case. I am talking common
sense.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are
trying to minimize it; that is all.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am just trying to be fair
to those whom I know. Apparently the hon. member who has just spoken does not know either gentleman very well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do not know them, and I do not want to, either.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am in a position to speak for them, and I intend to defend their good name.


William Earl Rowe: You are only guessing how
many bottles there are.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Order.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: We always hear a little roar from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Once a month.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: But he does not know a
thing about it.
Mr. ROWE; Neither do you. You do not know how many bottles there were.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I know quite a little about it.


William Earl Rowe: Maybe you had better tell the rest.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member speaks of a "rake-off". What does that mean? Just a political term, I suppose.

War Appropriation-Finance


An hon. MEMBER:: We all know what it means.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not think the hon. member means that. I do not think he would stoop to speaking in terms of insinuation. I should not like to charge the former chairman of the Nova Scotia commission, who was appointed by my hon. friend's party, with looking for a rake-off.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think he suggests that Mr. Mahon had a rake-off.


Percy Chapman Black: I rise to a point of order. I did not accuse Mr. Mahon of a rake-off. I said Moriarty got a rake-off from the Ross firm in Truro on bottles that he shipped, running to many, many carloads, which he never saw and never touched; all he did was to give telephone orders to bill them out, and he got a profit of fifty to a hundred dollars per car, and that is what I called a rake-off. Whether that is a proper description of the transaction I cannot say.


William Earl Rowe: And he did not even wash the bottles.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I think we will allow the record to speak for itself. I would deal with it in a business way and in a different manner. I would say that if Mr. Moriarty or this bottle exchange firm in Halifax is getting a commission of five cents a dozen, fine and dandy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Good
money, eh?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Good money-gross.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what we say.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Until we know what the overhead is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do you know?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No,but I have enough common sense and business experience to know you cannot run a business without overhead.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A telephone and office stool, I suppose.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member for Cumberland also used the term " any decent man," implying that neither Mr. Moriarty nor Mr. Mahon was a decent man. I did not rise, as I stated, to argue for or against order A-505. From what I have heard it appears to me that it must be an order that is bringing about the results desired, namely, collecting bottles in an .orderly way and disposing of them, whether
done through Mr. Moriarty, who is a good Liberal, and I admit it. He has good sense; I will say that for him. There is nothing wrong with that.


Gordon Graydon: Do not cast reflections on him now.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. members cannot take it. The hon. member says, "We do not want a Liberal; we want some other person." He then names another gentleman.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Another Tory.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No; we do not consider him as one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Recognize a Tory, that is all.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I have nothing further to say. I want to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that both these gentlemen referred to in such a slighting manner-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not refer to them in a slighting manner at all. I do not know either one of them.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member for York-Sunbury was not the only speaker.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought I was referred to.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Those gentlemen referred to in such a slighting manner are respected citizens of Halifax, and it is not becoming that any hon. member, particularly an hon. member from Nova Scotia, should refer to them in the terms used by the hon. member for Cumberland this evening. It is all the more surprising that the hon. member for Cumberland should have used that language because, as I said before, I sat on the opposite side of the house on more than one occasion when he was a member of the government of Nova Scotia. I sat on the government side when he was in opposition, and this evening I am sitting on the government side and he is sitting in the opposition. He has done to-night just what he has done in Nova Scotia in the long period of his public life service, namely, played party politics in a narrow partisan manner.


Percy Chapman Black: If we are going into the record of hon. members of this House of Commons I should like to have a little time and I would go into the hon. member's record, too. If he wants some exposure on the floor of this House of Commons, I will expose him.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I did not finish what I intended to say. In conclusion, may I say I was speaking in a political sense. I want it distinctly understood I was speaking of the hon. member in a political sense.

War Appropriation-Finance


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is part of the war effort-salvage.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was started on that side.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member is continually playing party politics.


William Earl Rowe: You should ration that part of it.


Mr. HAZEN:: It is quite apparent from this discussion that this order is being administered in Nova Scotia to create a monopoly and give one firm an opportunity of making from $50,000 to $100,000 a year and put out of business all other legitimate dealers. Now, that is plain party politics. If to complain of a situation of that kind is playing party politics, I do not know what party politics is.
When the ceiling price on strawberries in British Columbia was discussed yesterday afternoon in this house the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard used these words-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas King Hazen: We are in committee now. The debate yesterday took place in the house.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What the hon. member is reading took place in a previous debate and it is against the rule to read it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not in
committee; you had better read the rules.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The same rules apply to the committee as in the House of Commons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, they do not.


William Earl Rowe: That was only yesterday. The senior hon. member for Halifax was talking about what took place in the provincial house ten years ago.


Douglas King Hazen: We are in committee now, Mr. Chairman, and this is what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said:
Here you find a typical example of the sort of thing that emanates only from unbridled bureaucracy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is quoting from a previous debate of the present session which obviously cannot be referred to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is only when the 'Speaker is in the Chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend would give some little time to a study of the rules he would find the same rules apply to committee as when the Speaker is in the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN r I believe that the country, the press and hon. members of the committee are not going to stand very much longer for unlimited repetition. We had a debate yesterday, and I almost gave a ruling this afternoon against the hon. member for Fraser Valley for reopening a discussion that lasted almost two hours. I hope we shall not have any further reference to a previous debate but that we shall continue with the discussion of the item that is now before us.


Douglas King Hazen: I say this is a case in wrhich we find an example of unbridled bureaucracy and this is a case in which we find a violation of what was intended by this particular order. Surely the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary assistant will not say that this order was intended to create any monopoly in any province or in the provinces to which it applies, namely, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Apparently in the way it was administered in New Brunswick it did not create a monopoly there. But in Nova Scotia it did create one. It enabled one man to make a profit of from $50,000 to $100,000 and put every other legitimate dealer out of business.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Where are those figures of a profit of $50,000 to $100,000?


Douglas King Hazen: Here are the figures. They were given by the hon. member for Cumberland. He says that the figures show that the amount of beer sold in one year in Nova Scotia amounted to the enormous sum of $7,699,497.55. That was the price which was paid for the beer. He goes on to show that the containers of the beer were valued at about $1,000,000. Does it require any stretch of imagination to suppose that in the handling of those bottles there would be a profit made from $50,000 to $100,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no restriction on the sale of bottles in Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have to be sold through one dealer and only the brewers could take them.


Douglas King Hazen: Under that order only one man in Nova Scotia could get the regular price for the bottles. Any other dealer in the province who attempted to handle the bottles had to sell them to that man, and as the hon. member for Cumberland says, all that that man had to do was to telephone into one of those other dealers to put up a carload, and as a result of that telephone message he makes a profit of $60 to $120 on every carload of empty bottles that is shipped out of or in the province. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. The hon. member for Cumberland also said that during the

War Appropriation-Finance
twenty years he had been in public life-I am going to refer to this because he was dealing with one particular matter when he said that- he had never received such discourtesy as he had from Mr. Donald Gordon when he approached him about this matter. He told us about the conversation. Perhaps Mr. Donald Gordon was not feeling in a very good frame of mind when he had this conversation with the hon. member for Cumberland. I recollect that a little over a year ago an official of the provincial government came up to consult with the wartime prices and trade board. He was an official that had to do with dairy products. After he came back to New Brunswick he made a public statement in which he said he was told by the officials of the wartime prices and trade board that they did not give a damn for the little man or the middleman. I think there has to be notice taken of the rights of the middleman. I say that free competition has to be preserved and that a monopoly created under an order of this kind should not be permitted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not an expert in second-hand beer bottles or Nova Scotia politics, but I should like to place before-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Deal with Quebec politics.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nor Quebec politics. I am going to place before the committee the position of the wartime prices and trade board with respect to this order. As has been indicated by some of the previous speakers, in 1942 it was brought to the attention of the board that second-hand beer bottles were being shipped out of Nova Scotia to the central provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who
brought that to their attention; was it the brewers or Mr. Mahon?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was by the brewers.
The situation, as maritime members know, is that beer bottles or bottles of any kind are not manufactured in the maritime provinces, and for a good many years the practice has been, I understand, for maritime brewers to supply themselves with beer bottles which have been sent east from central Canada. In 1942 there was a shortage of beer bottles in central Canada, and the brewers represented to the board that used beer bottles in the maritime provinces were being shipped to the central iprovinces to such an extent that there was not an adequate supply for the brewers in the maritimes, which meant that new beer bottles would have to be shipped to the maritimes. Obviously this would mean double
transportation and inefficiency, and for that reason the wartime prices and trade board was justified in taking the action-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Can the
hon. gentleman tell me whether Canadian Breweries of Quebec or Montreal are allowed to ship beer to Nova Scotia?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say as to that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
another monopoly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know the situation was
that second-hand beer bottles were being shipped from the maritime provinces to the central provinces to such an extent that the supply was short.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You were told that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the information
which was given to the board, and I have reason to believe that they verified it. Then order A-505 was passed which in effect did prohibit the export of used beer bottles from the maritime provinces. I want to read to the committee section 4, subsection 2, which deals with Nova Scotia and which is in identical terms with subsection 1 dealing with New Brunswick. This is what the section says:
Except with the permission in writing, of the chief commissioner of the Nova Scotia liquor commission, no person shall
(a)	purchase any used beer bottles which are now or which are hereafter located in the province of Nova Scotia for shipment to any other province;-
In other words, that prohibits the purchase for export.
(b)	ship or cause to :be shipped any such bottles to any other province;
(c)	knowingly purchase, accept delivery of or have in his possession any such bottles in any other province which have been shipped out of the province of Nova Scotia after the date of *this order;
(d)	sell any such bottles to any person other than a brewer in the province of Nova Scotia.


Percy Chapman Black: Then the hon. member might tell the committee that these brewers are not allowed to purchase except through certain channels.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Certainly there is nothing
in the order of the wartime prices and trade board to that effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But there is under the order of the agent of the board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let me finish my statement. As I say, the wartime prices and trade board was interested in adopting an order which would prevent the waste of shipping facilities
War Appropriation-Finance

by sending bottles to central Canada and shipping bottles back to Nova Scotia. That was the purpose of this order, and it did not create any monopoly in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick as far as the sale of used beer bottles in those provinces was concerned. If any such monopoly exists it was not created by any order of the wartime prices and trade board. The board is not charged with administering the Nova Scotia liquor commission; or the New Brunswick liquor commission; and identical provisions were established for New Brunswick. The commissioner of the New Brunswick liquor control board has the same powers as the commissioner of the Nova Scotia liquor control board; and the only effect of that order, as far as creating a monopoly is concerned, is that the chief commissioner of the government liquor control board is empowered to say who can export used beer bottles from Nova Scotia. The wartime prices and trade board is completely justified in taking the word of the responsible head of the government liquor commission, who, I assume, is charged with the distribution of beer in the province. It has done so in Nova Scotia and has done the same thing in New Brunswick. I would point out what has not been made clear in any of the previous speeches, that there is no restriction on any dealer in Nova Scotia collecting used beer bottles and selling them to either of the two breweries in Nova Scotia, but he cannot export them without a permit. That is the position as far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned. The hon. member for Cumberland read a letter from Mr. Geddes, chief of the supply division, I think dated February 22, 1943, in which-


Percy Chapman Black: Would the hon. member not agree with my statement that the entire stock of almost one hundred thousand dozen bottles which had been accumulated by Ross was shipped out of the province by order of Mr. Moriarty, and not used by the brewers of Nova Scotia?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know anything about the details of how they were shipped; I am dealing with the order passed by the wartime prices and trade board to control a situation which, as I indicated at the outset of my remarks, was resulting in the inefficient use of transportation facilities. I do not know what stock was held by Mr. Ross, my hon. friend's friend in Truro, and I do not know how he disposed of it. I am pointing out to the committee that the wartime prices and trade board was justified in adopting this
[Mr. Abbott. 1
order; that the order did nothing more than prohibit the export of beer bottles from Nova Scotia, and that it is still in effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there the same necessity for it now as there was then?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is just the point I am coming to now. The hon. member for Cumberland read the whole letter, I think, in which Mr. Geddes stated that information received by the board would appear to indicate that the restrictive order was no longer needed; but following that letter the board received communications from the chief commissioner of the Nova Scotia liquor commission and perhaps others, I do not know, and from the New Brunswick liquor commission, stating that the order was still required, that this surplus in Nova Scotia was purely temporary, and asking that the order be not rescinded. Copies of these letters and telegrams were included in the correspondence which I brought down yesterday; my hon. friend has copies of them. As late as March 21, 1944, we had a letter from the New Brunswick liquor control board, again urging that the order be not rescinded. The information given to the board subsequent to that letter of February 22, from which my hon. friend quoted, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the officers of the board that this restrictive order was still necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did they take steps to verify that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that they did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
steps ?_


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot answer that, but I should think the assurance of the chairman of the provincial liquor commission Would be perhaps as good evidence as one could ask for as to the necessity of continuing this order in force. After all he is the man who is responsible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not so sure about that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not entering into any political discussion about this matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You know they changed the commission in New Brunswick and got a political appointee there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suggest that in a matter of this kind the chairman and officers of the wartime prices and trade board are entitled to accept the assurance of the chairman of a

War Appropriation-Finance
provincial liquor commission, whether the administration in power happens to be Liberal or Conservative. He is the man responsible for the sale and distribution of these beverages, and I suggest that he is a perfectly proper person to whom the wartime prices and trade board should go for information on these matters. As far as the board is concerned the order was passed solely for the purpose of conserving transportation facilities, and it does not affect in any way the sale or disposition of used beer bottles within the particular province concerned. That matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of the province, and as a matter of fact the order which I quoted imposed no restrictions.


Gordon Graydon: If the parliamentary
assistant is through I should like to bring one or two points to the attention of the committee in connection with this matter. Perhaps the hon. gentleman is carrying his argument a little far when he suggests that this order is being continued in effect because of the problem which exists in regard to the transportation of empty bottles from Nova Scotia to the central provinces.
One instance which will at once disprove any such contention is the fact that while this order was apparently being kept in effect for that purpose, at the same time, the firm which is referred to as the Moriarty firm-I am using that only as a matter of distinction from the others-had shipped empty beer bottles from Nova Scotia to the central provinces and apparently with the consent and by the authority of the Nova Scotia liquor commission or its head, who had been given a special job under the wartime prices and trade board. I point that out to the parliamentary assistant because it fairly well shatters the argument that this order was put into effect for the purpose of conserving transportation between central Canada and Nova Scotia. The fact that there was considerable shipment of empty bottles from Nova Scotia to central Canada also, I think, adds substantial weight to the case put up by the hon. member for Cumberland.
At one time there may have been some justification for order A-505; but, as time went on, the effect of transportation of this product and these commodities from Nova Scotia to central Canada fairly well dispensed with the necessity of continuing the order. That having been the case, the committee must look for the reasons why the order was continued, and those reasons have been supplied by those who know much more about the matter than those of us who have not made a close study of it. As the hon. member for Cumberland and the hon. member for
York-Sunbury pointed out, it would have the effect of giving the head of the Nova Scotia liquor commission the right to point his finger to one particular dealer and to say, "Only you may deal with other provinces by way of export of this commodity from Nova Scotia." That had the effect-and I say this in an endeavour to argue the case fairly with all concerned-of establishing a continued monopoly in so far as the man who was pointed to by the head of the liquor commission is concerned.
May I say to the parliamentary assistant, I can understand why the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board would feel very sick, as he said, of telephone calls and being bothered with the matter, because it seems to me, whatever may have been the underlying reason, and I am ascribing no untoward reasons or untoward influence with respect to this matter, that when the wartime prices and trade board saw fit to appoint the head of the liquor contmission of Nova Scotia-


Douglas Charles Abbott: And of New Brunswick.


Gordon Graydon: I am dealing with Nova Scotia, because apparently in New Brunswick they carry on their affairs a little differently and, perhaps, a little more satisfactorily, in regard to their empty beer bottles. In any event, I have no desire to join issue with my good friend from Halifax in what he has said to-night. In the appointment of the head of the liquor commission to a responsible position on the wartime prices and trade board, and the minister having some knowledge, as he must have had, that there was a situation such as this existing in Nova Scotia, what actually happened was that the fingers of the wartime prices and trade board and of this government as well were burned because of the situation that developed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nonsense.


Gordon Graydon: I do not say that in any offensive way. I am simply trying to explain the situation that actually exists because the delivery into the hands of the Nova Scotia liquor control commission of the powers of the wartime prices and trade board with respect to this matter, whether the dominion government likes it or not, placed the whole situation, from, the point of view of the government, right into Nova Scotia politics, and it is because of that that the weakness of the whole arrangement becomes so apparent. I rose to ask the parliamentary assistant to investigate the matter thoroughly, and I suggest that if he does so he will find that there is no longer any real necessity for order A-505 remaining in effect. Whatever may have
War Appropriation-Finance

been its advantages in the beginning, it now operates against the public interest. That I have gathered as I have listened to the convincing arguments advanced in this debate.


Mr. FAIR:: If we are now through dealing with second-hand beer bottles, perhaps we can return to the cup that cheers but does not inebriate. A year ago I took up the question of the increase in the price of tea, coffee and milk sold in restaurants in this city and elsewhere across the country. That question is still pricking the conscience of the minister and some members of the wartime prices and trade board as well, because only yesterday, in another discussion, the minister brought up the question again and told us that because the price of meats and other foods had gone up in restaurants they allowed an increase in the price of tea and coffee. This, I believe, was thrown out as a sop to some of the organized restaurant keepers and it did not take into consideration the effect it had on certain victims. I bring this question up now because to-day we have an increased supply of tea and coffee. There is no shortage of either of :hese commodities. Nor is there any shortage of milk at the present time. Prior to the time the order was put into effect we could go into a restaurant and get one or two or three cups of tea or coffee or we could get additional milk and we did not have to pay any extra money for the coffee we drank.
At the present time we are told that because prices of meat and other foods have gone up, an increase of five cents on tea, coffee and milk has been allowed. Very little consideration, however, has been given to the effect which this has on certain people. The number of people who can afford to eat some, of the more expensive foods, including strawberries-something that was discussed yesterday-are now getting away from the increased cost of meals, but those who have to use tea or coffee or milk, and peihaps a muffin or something else for breakfast, or lunch, or perhaps the evening meal, are paying the additional cost. I do not think this is fair, and I ask once more that some consideration be given the matter, because you are penalizing the wrong persons. You are penalizing the poor for the benefit of the rich. If the price of meat has gone up in restaurants, then let the people who have the benefit of the better foods pay the additional prices, and let those who have a cup of tea or coffee, or a glass of milk, and who, in some cases, at the end of the month, after paying their taxes, have little left to buy meat and some of the good foods, be allowed to get their tea and coffee without paying extra.
There is another matter I want to call to the attention of the wartime prices board.

Several complaints have been made to me that in the chart sent out by the board showing the different cuts of animals sold over the butcher's block, the price always quoted is that of the top quality beef or pork, and it does not make any difference whether it is the top grade that is being sold by the butcher or an old milk cow that has raised half a dozen children for some farmer, the price is the same. I think some consideration should be given to this and some attempt made to create a price range according to the grade of meat sold. If you go into a restaurant and order a ham or beef or some other kind of sandwich I think you will find out that what I am saying is correct. If you get your teeth into it you will be lucky to get them out again, and the price will be the same as though you were getting top-grade meat.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I suppose you would leave false teeth in?


Robert Fair: False teeth are better than none at all. If you have poor teeth, false teeth would be preferable. I do not know whether it is necessary to go on any further, but I ask the wartime prices and trade board to give this matter some consideration. I do not make this plea on my own behalf; I make it on behalf of some of our lower paid workers who, I am informed by those who work in restaurants, have not enough to eat when pay day comes around or for two or three days before. They are unable to buy *a decent meal; all they can get is a bowl of soup with muffins or something of that kind. We should take away the penalties from those who are not able to bear them and place them where they properly belong, namely, upon those who eat meat and other foods that have gone up in price.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Mr. McNEVIN:: Get a smaller car.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I like to ride in a comfortable car.
My last complaint is in reference to maple syrup. To my mind, producers of maple syrup have been greatly interfered with this year. I buy maple syrup in six-gallon lots. That required twenty-four sugar coupons, but after I got my coupons together I had to drive from one end of the city to the other in order to get some sort of certificate to mail to the farmer producer, so that he could express my maple syrup. That was just a nuisance; it is one of the many things that has interfered with maple syrup and other production and sale. I am quite sure that the same thing would apply to other commodities.
It has been said to-day that many of the officials in charge of the wartime prices and trade board regulations have had very little experience in dealing with the public or in dealing with the commodities under their control. This would not apply to all. I know many of them who are really big men, who have done a fine job, but on the other hand I would judge that many of them are more or less inexperienced. How they came to be taken on the staff I do not know.
Earlier in the day we were given the number of those employed1 by the wartime prices and trade board. I was just looking up the public accounts for 1943 and I notice it states that the number of employees drawing $2,400 a year and over was 4,769. It does not state how many were drawing less than $2,400. That is a tremendous staff. They may all be necessary, but I am undter the impression that this is just another case of governmental interference in business that cannot be controlled and where two men are employed when one is all that is needed.
I have always been an advocate of good salaries. The more a man makes, the more he
can buy. However, bpt I find that of that number of 4,769, between ninety-five and 1-00 were drawing from $4,000 to $5,000 a year; between twenty-five and thirty were drawing from $5,000 to $6,000; between twenty and twenty-five were drawing from $6,000 to $7,000; approximately five, if I have counted correctly in my hurry, were drawing between $7,000 and $8,000; another five were drawing between $8,000 and $9,000, and one was drawing over $10,000.
I have no doubt that the men in the high income brackets are A1 men. They must be or they would not be in those positions. Quite possibly their salaries are less than they should be, but in the aggregate it is a staggering payroll to anyone who has been connected with big business. I would like to compare this payroll with the payrolls of the New York Central, the General Electric or any one of those huge companies. I doubt if any of those companies has comparably such a colossal payroll, a payroll on which so many large salaries are paid. I am not going to find any fault with it because I like to hear of men getting good salaries. However, I ask this question: when the war is over, how is business to get its staffs back and have them comfortable and happy when they know that such salaries have been paid by the government during the war?
I have nothing further to say other than that I am not going to find any fault with any particular official. These men have had a strenuous time and they have done a very difficult job. I hope they have been doing the best they can, but I do know that the public everywhere are incensed because of regulations which do not seem to be sensible. There may be reasons for them, or for some of them, but the public are not conversant with them. I am thinking particularly of some of the things that were mentioned a short time ago such as buttons on coats, cuffs on trousers and so on. These are only small items in the aggregate. The amount saved in comparison with more or less reckless expenditures in scores of other directions does not commend itself to the public.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: I sincerely hope
that the wartime prices and trade board can survive the attack that was made upon them with empty beer bottles to-night, strawberries yesterday, coal and so forth.
I have moved about the eastern part of the country probably as much as most members. I have had occasion to visit a great many points in four provinces within the last six or eight months, and I am satisfied that in general the people of Canada are supporting
War Appropriation-Finance

the government's measures and the controls established by the wartime prices and trade board.
I have conversed with many scores of small business men who complain of difficulty in getting all the goods they want and of many of the controls, but a great many of them have admitted quite frankly that but for the controls of the wartime prices and trade board they would probably not be able to get enough to sell, that the fact that they can remain in business under the conditions that prevail in war time is due to the quotas established by the board which entitle them to get goods to sell. I have no doubt that the small business men of the country realize that in times such as these, without those controls, the larger business concerns, the monopoly interests of this country, would have gained a much greater control of our business life than they now have.
I am confident that by and large the consumers of the country are grateful for the rationing which has been adopted. I think the majority of our people, certainly those with limited means, realize that they are enabled through the rationing regulations to get a portion of the goods that are available for sale. I think the general population throughout the country realizes that these controls have effected a stabilization of prices which has had an effect upon the rising cost of living. We have only to compare the cost of living to-day with the cost of living in the last war to realize that there are a great many benefits to be derived from these controls. I certainly hope that the criticism which we hear of the wartime prices and trade board will not have -the effect of releasing all these controls too quickly or of releasing too many of them too quickly. I think everyone who has given much consideration to the problems that will face us immediately after the war realize that, in the interests of the country generally, some of these controls will have to be maintained for some time after the war ends, regardless of which government is in power.
I have heard criticism of specific regulations of the wartime prices and trade board and criticism of the -administration of specific regulations. I realize, as I think most members of the house do, that in the early days of the board a great many of the positions in its organization were filled -possibly by party workers, were patronage jobs, -but I have not heard in more recent months nearly as much complaint along that line as I heard at the beginning.
The board has unquestionably made mistakes. I well recall how infuriated the small retail dealers were at some of the regulations
CMr. Noseworthy.]
that were imposed upon them in the early days of the board, regulations regarding the delivery of goods and so forth, but these I th-ink have been largely ironed out as time went on.
I remember being in the maritimes last fall when -the new order relating to dressed and undressed poultry came into effect. It was the talk of the whole of at least two of those provinces. I doubt if any government ever received so much criticism from among the farming people as did this government because of -that order. I was asked by a certain number of people to get in touch with the -prices board, but by the time I could get around to doing it I discovered that the regulation had been modified.
There was still a great deal of criticism regarding the deterioration of goods. People all across this country are not satisfied that the wartime prices and trade board or some other government agency is doing all that could be done to prevent that deterioration. I have gone into many towns where retail merchants have showed me articles which, while the price remains the same, have deteriorated until in their opinion they were not worth more than half the price at which the article formerly sold. I have had instances of that in dry goods stores in connection with articles of clothing, and in many other stores.
The hon. member for Davenport has called the attention of the committee to the situation regarding coal. Only last week in an eastern Ontario town several citizens showed me their coal bills for this last winter as compared with their coal bills for previous winters, showing how they had been forced to buy several tons of coal more than they had been in the habit of buying. They were complaining that the coal they got last year, although the price was pegged, was much inferior in quality to what they had been receiving in pr'evious years, and many of them were also complaining of light weight, that a ton of coal contained a great deal of water and much less coal than it formerly did.
One suggestion I would like to make to the parliamentary assistant is that if there is any possibility of simplifying the type of returns or of reducing the number of returns that have to be made by business men and firms to the wartime prices and trade board, any attempt in that direction will meet with the approval of vast numbers of people across this country.
I have seen restaurant keepers and hotel managers, particularly, sitting up to the wee hours of the morning trying to figure out how many cups of tea and coffee they sold, how many customers they served, how many pounds of this and that were disposed of

War Appropriation-Finance
during the day-all of which apparently had to be recorded on a set form and forwarded to the officials. If the people of Canada are to accept the regulations which the wartime prices and trade board has to introduce, any orders which have very little value except a nuisance value should be eliminated. I have been told-I should like to know from the parliamentary assistant whether it is true- that the forms which have to be filled out are to some extent affected by the requirements of United States authorities in similar situations; that in order to obtain priorities, in order to work in line with the Americans, our wartime prices and trade board must be able to show to the entire satisfaction of United States authorities that we have effective control over goods and services, and that our board can satisfy these authorities only by showing them returns similar to their own. I hope that this is not true. I hope also that the wartime prices and trade board can take some measures to simplify and reduce these returns.
Last year a return was brought down showing the number of dollar a year men employed by the wartime prices and trade board. I wonder whether there would be very much work involved in bringing that list up to date. I think it would be interesting to the committee to know whether we have fewer or more dollar a year men, and who are thus employed by the board. It seems to me that by this time it should have trained men of its own who are capable of managing the affairs of the board, and that it should be possible to get along with fewer of these dollar a year men.
One further suggestion. Probably some of the criticisms or causes of criticism arise from the fact that there is not on the councils of the wartime prices and trade board adequate representation of the interests affected. That, I believe, was brought out in yesterday's debate. I believe it applies to a great many instances, that those responsible for the regulations pertaining to particular lines of business, particular commodities, are often familiar with large enterprises dealing in the commodity but not with the point of view of the small business man. 1 would like, if it would not involve too much work, to have that list of dollar a year men brought up to date.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have here the figures for both years. As a matter of fact this information was given in answer to a question of the hon. member for York East on May 18. The number of employees of the wartime prices and trade board serving full time without
remuneration on March 31, 1943, was 293, and on March 31 of this year, 329; approximately the same, or rather, over thirty more.
As to the simplifying of forms, I can assure my hon. friend that a constant effort is being made to do that. On the other hand, the board is carrying on a complicated and difficult operation, and has to have a considerable amount of accurate information in order to carry out its responsibility properly, and for that reason it has to require that a good many forms be filed. A committee of the board is constantly working on the question, reviewing these forms and endeavouring to see that they are made as simple as they can be, I do not know with what degree of success; but in any event, a constant effort is being made to do that.
As to similarity of forms with those in force in the United States, I am advised that there is no real justification for that suggestion. There is this point that in connection with textile supplies, in particular, we are dependent upon United States supplies now for priorities and so forth; consequently we try to make our application forms and that sort of thing conform as closely as possible to those in use in the United States. Possibly that is what my hon. friend had in mind when he referred to that point.
The hon. member for Davenport raised one or two questions in connection with coal and gasoline. The question of supplies of coal, as he knows, is under the Department of Munitions and Supply. The price ceiling is fixed and enforced by the wartime prices and trade board. I have heard that there has been some deterioration in the quality of the coal which we have been getting lately. I have not noticed it in the case of my own coal, but that is perhaps no fair test. As to gasoline, again I do not know. The question of supply, as the hon. member is aware, is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and so far as I know the price has not varied since September or October, 1941.


Charles Edward Johnston: The quality has, though.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I am particularly fortunate, but I have not personally noticed any variation. I drive a very light car, and I think I get at least twenty miles and sometimes twenty-five miles a gallon in the country at the lower speeds at which we drive. I am sure the hon. member for Davenport does not drive at any excessive speeds.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I try to keep within the law.

War Appropriation-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: There may be some deterioration in the quality of gasoline, and it is perfectly true that the price is the same.
On the question raised by the hon. member about maple syrup, I can sympathize a good deal with his views, because I was bom and brought up in the part of Quebec which produces more and better maple syrup than anywhere else-[DOT]	-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not "better"; perhaps "more".


Douglas Charles Abbott: -that is, the eastern townships. Being familiar with the processes of maple syrup making, and having bought and sold it for many years, I can sympathize with his views, and I heard a lot from my friends in the eastern townships regarding what they felt were the unnecessary restrictions upon the sale and distribution of maple syrup this year. Of course the reason, rightly or wrongly, for these restrictions was that maple syrup, maple butter and maple sugar were classed with what we call "sweet spreads", which include honey and jam; they are alternatives to these particular commodities, which, as my hon. friend knows, are rationed, and it Was felt that it would be unfair to allow maple products to go unrationed.
It would mean that distribution would not approach anything like a fair one; that people who were near the sources of supply or knew where to go would get the lion's share of the product and it would not be available for the general public. I am advised, and that is confirmed by what I learned out in this beautiful part' of Quebec to which I refer, the eastern townships, the maple sugar crop was good this year and apparently it has moved into consumption fairly smoothly. The selling price was higher than last year and I am told was sufficient to give a good return to the producer for his maple syrup. I am not going to assume the role of a prophet. I hope when the time arrives for the sugar crop next year it will not be necessary to ration this delicious commodity. I am sure that if it is necessary the sugar producers will put up with the relatively moderate inconvenience that they suffered this year and that those of us who, like the hon. member for Davenport, are very fond of this product, will also be willing to go to a little extra trouble to be sure that we procure it.
My hon. friend raised the question of salaries. I am not going into the details of the salaries now, but I wish to say to the committee that I do not consider the salaries paid by the wartime prices and trade board

to be in any way out of line with the salaries paid for comparable service in private business or in any other section of the community.
On July 7 of last year the Minister of Finance in answer to a question gave a breakdown in certain groups of persons in receipt of salaries in the employ of the board. While I have not a similar break-down here I am informed it has not changed substantially since that time. On July 7 of last year there was no one on the board receiving in excess of $8,500 a year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In what year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In July of last year. I think that statement still holds good to-day. There is no one in receipt of a salary of more than $8,500 a year. As the committee knows, the chairman of the board is the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada and is on loan to the board.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The name I had in mind was D. G. MacKenzie. He is down for $10,400.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I am informed that the gentleman named by the hon. member for Davenport was engaged on a special fee basis in the past. He still works for the board but at a very much lower scale of remuneration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have only the public accounts to go by.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And that is the only case. As I say, there is no one receiving a salary in excess of $8,500 a year. In the bracket from $5,000 to $8,500, there were forty-three. I am giving the committee the general picture. In the bracket from $3,000 to $4,000 there were 174; in the bracket from $2,000 to $3,000 there were 683; the remainder, those receiving $2,000 and under number 3,723, making a total of 4,965. The total to-day is some 5,100, and I doubt whether any are receiving high salaries; there may be one or two, but the majority of the increased number are in the lower income brackets, additional inspectors, enforcement officers and so on.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not find fault. I was asking for the number. Did the parliamentary assistant give the number receiving $8,000, $7,000 and $6,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. I said there were none receiving over $8,500 a year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, but $8,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: From $5,000 to $8,500 there were forty-three. I have not any smaller break-down, but in the bracket from $5,000 to $8,500 there were forty-three. I think my hon.

War Appropriation-Finance
friend and the committee are aware that some of those officers are performing exceedingly difficult and responsible duties. Not only that, but a great many of them have been lent to the board by their own private employers. They are not serving as dollar a year men. What is happening is that they are being paid the salary which they were receiving from their private employers. In most of those cases the employer continues to pay his own employee and is reimbursed by the board for the amount of the salary.


Charles Edward Johnston: They take it out of the excess profits tax when they pay their taxes. It is the same thing exactly as the government paying.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course it is the same thing as the government paying. I am not questioning that for a moment. I am simply pointing out that these men are not taking on a government job as a life job, as permanent civil servants. They have come here to do this as a war job. They are doing it at the same salary they were receiving from their private employer. The private employer loses the benefit of their service and he is neither ahead of nor behind the game. He is simply reimbursed for the salary.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is hardly fair to say they are dollar a year men.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say they were. In fact I prefaced what I said by saying they are not dollar a year men. The figures I have given for men serving without remuneration do not include men in the category to which I was referring. I made a statement that a great many of the men on the prices board included in the category of receiving, let us say, $5,000 to $8,500 a year, are men who have been lent temporarily to the board by their employers and are being paid the same salary that they would have continued to receive had they stayed in their own private business.


James Alexander Marshall: What types of positions do those men occupy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Administrators, chiefs of divisions. If the hon. member will look at the report of the wartime prices and trade board which I. tabled early in January he will see there a list of the principal officers of the board. The hon. member no doubt has a copy of the report before him. If he will look at pages 52 and 53 he will see a list there of the senior administrative officers of the board. For instance, the distributive trades coordination is headed by Mr. R. F. Chisholm.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Lent by whom?
100-215J


Douglas Charles Abbott: The foods coordination is headed by Mr. K. W. Taylor, who is sitting in front of me. Metal and wood products coordination is headed by Mr. D. P. Cruik-shank, and so on.
The committee no doubt realizes that the wartime prices and trade board is carrying on in fact one of the biggest and most important businesses in this country. The decisions of the various administrators, as hon. members of the committee know, affect the lives and fortunes of every one of us. I know a good many of those men who have come here to serve in those capacities. I know they have done it not out of a desire to have any government job but out of an honest and sincere desire to help their country in war time. I am satisfied that they are not being overpaid, and I frankly feel that without some accurate knowledge hon. members should be hesitant-I am. not suggesting that the hon. member for Davenport took that line-to throw out the suggestion that these officials of the board are getting salaries which are out of line with the service they render. I am convinced from intimate personal knowledge that they are not.


Charles Edward Johnston: They are getting the same salary that they were getting from their companies.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In some cases, but not in other cases, and there is no reason why they should not.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister how much refined sugar was damaged in Saint John while being held in storage by order of the wartime prices and trade board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I have not the information at hand at the moment. I shall make a note of it and see if I can get the information.


Mr. SOPER:: I should like to make a few remarks with regard to what the hon. member for Davenport said with respect to the coal business. If anything, the standard of coal we received in the past year was as good as or better than we have received in Canada for a long time. The hon. member referred to twelve tons being burned by certain people, three tons more than a year ago. That is contrary to the experience of most people. Householders throughout Ontario who last year used six to eight tons of coal used one or two tons less this winter. That was reflected in the amount of coal we were obliged to import; and if it had not been for that coal we never would have been able to get through the winter. The hon. member for York South
War Appropriation-Finance

praised the wartime prices and trade board, but then came along with a couple of little digs about short weight, and the coal dealers selling water. I do not know where these gentlemen from the good city of Toronto get their coal, but if I lived there I would move out of Toronto and go some place where I could find honest coal dealers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member may be quite right in saying that in the very mild winter through which we have just passed, one of the mildest in decades, some private houses in Smiths Falls may have used less coal, or may not have burned the coal, because in the first place it was hard to get and in the second place the price was high. However, I was speaking about people who owned apartment houses and duplexes, who had to supply the coal and whose tenants would not let the janitors cut down on the amount of coal used. I know what I said was correct. The next time I go to Smiths Falls I shall make a few inquiries and find out whether or not the coal sold by my hon. friend was so very fine.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to know if order No. 184 of the wartime prices and trade board, prohibiting the setting up of new cooperative associations and organizations is still in effect.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to get that information.


Mr. GERSHAW:: While the minister is looking that up I wish to draw to the attention of the committee some additional facts with regard to the beet-sugar industry. This afternoon the hon. member for Lambton gave a very fine review of the whole situation. He dealt with some of the assistance this government has given to the beet-sugar industry, but still I find that the quantity produced in 1943 was not as great as in 1942. For instance, the seeded area was 64,000 acres in 1942 and only 52,000 acres in 1943, and of course the yield was considerably less. This is an unfortunate situation, because some places in Canada are admirably suited to the production of sugar beets. There are the warmer areas of Ontario, the maritimee, the Okanagan valley and particularly places in Alberta where there is the maximum amount of sunshine, the richest soil, and good irrigation.
I want to make an earnest plea for an increase in the production of sugar from the home grown raw material, because we can produce these beets so well, particularly on irrigated land, and the benefits are so great. It will provide a great deal of employment in the immediate post-war period, which is surely an important coansi deration. A great deal of coal, a great deal of lime rock, a
TMr. Soper.]
great deal of coke; boxes, lumber, nails, bags, and various supplies of that kind are required. It produces freight for the railways and pays a good deal of money to farmers and factory workers. In giving evidence before a committee of this house the president of a large sugar company said that he knew of no industry which provided so much employment, not only for those actually handling the commodity but in connection with the materials used in the distribution of the product. Chemically there is no difference between cane sugar and beet sugar; they conform to exactly the same formula. At times it has been said that beet sugar has some disadvantages, but under modern refining methods there is absolutely no difference; I think that has been amply proven.
I particularly want to draw this to the attention of the parliamentary assistant because $35,000,000 has been spent in connection with irrigation in southern Alberta. Those irrigated districts are made much more profitable and the people on them are much more prosperous when there is a sugar-beet factory in the vicinity. There are such large areas as the eastern irrigation district around Brooks, and the western irrigation district farther west, where great quantities of beets could be produced, where the supply would be reliable, and where a sugar-beet factory would help greatly to assure the prosperity and stability of the people on the land. This industry means so much to the whole economic and social welfare of the people that I urge those in charge to give additional encouragement so that its benefits may be felt all through the Canadian economy, possibly in the way of freight rate reductions, tariff concessions, or further concessions in regard to the excise tax. I believe there are great possibilities for post-war employment and post-war reconstruction in making -use of water, which is now flowing down to the sea for irrigation purposes, and then stabilizing those irrigation districts with brct sugar factories.


Mr. STIRLING:: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to discuss the question of canned vegetables from the point of view of the orders which have restricted the amount reaching the public. On January 1 about nine and a quarter million dozen cans of vegetables were in the hands of canners and wholesalers, despite the fact that last year was less than an ample year of production. By April 1 that figure had been reduced to something under six and a quarter million dozen cans in the hands of canners and wholesalers, but that was a million dozen more than on the previous April 1, again

War Appropriation-Finance
despite the fact that last year's crop was not ample. It is true, I believe, that the restrictions were removed at the end of April, but the view I take is that the restrictions were maintained too long, because we have passed through those months of late winter when the consumer would have been glad to buy canned vegetables, and now that the restrictions are off and it is easier for the consumer to get the canned goods the fresh vegetables are coming onto the market.
I maintain that this is an unnecessary quantity of canned vegetables to have in the *hands of canners and wholesalers; and, with the restrictions having been kept on for so long, that quantity will probably remain in their hands instead of the quantity being reduced on the eve of what looks like a year of very big production. I know that one reason why these quantities have been held is to make sure that the very large quantities required for our forces and those of the allies shall be available. But I think that, with the experience of the past to guide the board, the restrictions have been kept on longer than necessary and that now there is an opportunity for the retailer to have rather more for disposal to the public than he should have. The public is moving on to buy the fresh vegetables and the stores of the wholesalers are having too many cans of vegetablese held on hand when it may be expected that a very large amount of canning will be forthcoming in this season.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will bring my hon. friend's comments to the attention of the board. As he has pointed out, the restrictions were removed on the 1st of May. It may be that they could or should have been removed a bit earlier, but as he himself has said, we often learn a good deal by experience. The point is that they are now removed. I suppose it is safe to say that they will not be reimposed unless it is felt that they are really necessary for the purposes suggested. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton asked about order 184, with regard to cooperatives going into business. Order 184 was subsequently amended by order 284 and finally amended on the 15th of this month by order 400. Order 184, originally imposed in November, 1942, imposed restrictions on the establishment, acquisition and extension of new business of all kinds, not only cooperatives but all new business, and when the original order was passed it was felt that there was need of a general curtailment of civilian activity to permit a more rapid expansion of war production. It was felt that the existing manufacturing and distributing facilities should be adequate, except in a few special cases, to handle available supplies
of civilian goods and that new productive activities should be devoted to meet the rapidly increasing war demands. To-day the war requirements remain heavy and must continue to have first call on production, but the rate of expansion of war production is not as great as during the period when orders 184 and 284 were in existence. Shortages continue to exist in many lines of civilian goods and these are unlikely to disappear for some time. However, there may be some types of civilian production that can be undertaken without interfering with the full war effort, and for other types preparations and plans must be made many months in advance of actual production. It was considered that decisions concerning the nature of so many new enterprises can be taken better by those who,desire to undertake these enterprises than by government agencies, and for these reasons the administration of order 284 is adapted in the light of conditions now applicable. As hon. members will no doubt have seen, the order was modified by order 400 to provide in effect that while new businesses must still get a licence to operate in order that a record may be kept of such new businesses, these licences will be granted, generally speaking, readily, almost as a matter of course, but on the understanding, as pointed out to the applicant when he gets his licence, that no assurance is given him in the granting of the licence that he will receive a quota of goods which may be in short supply. In other words, the licence to do business is more or less in the nature of a hunting licence, if I may so describe it. The applicant is free to go into business, but he must take a chance on being able to get an adequate supply of scarce goods and without reference to the board.


Mr. GREEN:: Does that apply to men discharged from the forces?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, if they come back and try to set up in business, do they get no assurance of supplies?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have to get a licence the same as anyone else. I am advised in the case of returned men that an attempt is made to give them a quota where they are reestablishing a business in which they were engaged prior to joining the armed forces. In other words, they are put in a preferred position. They get their licence, but in addition to that an attempt is made to provide them with a quota if they were in a line of business which used scarce goods where a quota is required.


Howard Charles Green: That is only in cases where they were in business before enlistment?
War Appropriation-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: It would not apply to a young chap taking his discharge who had not been in business previously?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In that case he should endeavour to go into a line of business which does not require articles in short supply. I am referring to things like sugar, tea, and coffee, which are rationed on a quota basis, and that applies to a good many other things such as hardware, where there is definitely a short supply. In the interests of the general stability of the civilian economy, you cannot have people coming in and establishing new businesses in those particular lines where there is a definite shortage of stock-in-trade. That situation may correct itself very quickly. Those articles in short supply to-day, in four or six months' time may be in adequate supply; but I do not think it can be said as a definite statement that the returned man going into new business which he has not been in before, can be assured of a quota of stock-in-trade which is of a type in short supply.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Should he not have a preference to become established in a new business?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Every consideration will be given if he has been in that line of business before, and an attempt will be made to give him a quota. But where a particular type of commodity is definitely in short supply it is subject to the equitable distribution policy of the board, and it would simply create a chaotic condition in the distribution system to allow an unlimited or even a large number of new entrants into that particular field.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Suppose he wanted to go into canning farm produce?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is not in short supply.
I am referring to such things as hardware, steel products. These are definitely subject to the equitable distribution policy, and the wholesalers are obliged to allocate available supplies to their customers in an equitable manner in accordance with purchases in the base period. It is a form of rationing, of course.


Mr. WEIR:: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance for the assurance he gave a moment or two ago that there was no discrimination in the . policy of the board with respect to the issuing of licences for new businesses as between cooperatives and other organizations. That is a desirable provision, and I hope it will be followed out. I have a little experience in that regard and I can confirm what he

has said this evening in this matter. Listening to the discussion this afternoon and evening, I wonder what the general public's reaction will be. I am bound to say that when one goes about the country, the one feature of the government's domestic policy that is held up with greater acclaim than probably any other is the price control arrangements; and when we consider that along with the government's attempt to avoid inflation, I do not see how the two features of the government programme can be separated. But when we have a discussion in the House of Commons that seems to be a pretty general condemnation, certainly of many features of that programme, I wonder how the public will react to it. There have been cases where controls have not been exercised and we have experienced runaway prices. I refer particularly to used materials such as farm implements, tractors, used cars and things of that kind. In these cases it was found necessary to take action afterwards.
There are two classes in the community which are deserving of special mention in connection with the carrying out of the government's programme of price control and of rationing. Rationing is not a thing that everybody likes, but at least it is the idea of sharing so that everyone will have an opportunity of getting the goods that are available. The two classes which I think are particularly deserving of credit for what they have done are the retail country merchant and the automobile or gasoline dealer. From my observation these two classes of trades people have had more details to take care of and more trouble with respect- to looking after coupons and that kind of thing than anybody else. I am bound to say that in the part of the country from which I come there have been few of them who have had any complaints. In nearly every case they have come forward and said that they hoped the" government would extend its rationing or sharing policies to other articles that they were finding it difficult to handle. Those two classes certainly supported the government's efforts in the carrying out of these control measures.
I am surprised when I hear individual items picked out and condemned. If there are weaknesses in the policy they should be eliminated. I have met people from the United States who look upon our accomplishments with respect to price control as being splendid. They are particularly pleased with the enforcement of the control. You cannot have one without the other. I was talking to a business man in my town not so long ago and he put it in this way: having regard to the policy that was being carried on during

War Appropriation-Finance
this period of the war as compared with the last war, we are better off to-day. As he said after the last war when the inflationary period had got under way and the bubble had broken, business men simply went to their offices every morning to look at their inventories in order to see what their previous day's losses had been. That is the experience they had. The reaction of these business men is that every effort possible should be made to maintain the price ceiling so that business and the community generally will not get into a condition such as occurred at the close of the last war.
I think the country generally is behind the government's price control measures. Where weaknesses have been shown up, where individual items have been dealt with in a manner that was not the soundest, they have been rectified. It was a new policy and mistakes were bound to creep in, but I think the whole thing has been handled in a creditable manner.
I wish to say one thing more with respect to the general condemnation that has been made of many of the officials of the board and its policies. I have had some dealings with these gentlemen and I am bound to say that I have found them to be courteous; I found them to be men who knew their job; I found them to be men who were able to give me a reasonable explanation for the policy they were pursuing. I do not want anyone to think for one moment that I was able to persuade them to my point of view with respect to any particular matter we might happen to be discussing, but they were able to present the job they were doing in an understandable and reasonable manner. I think that much should be said for them. They are carrying out the policy in a practical and reasonable way; they are reasonable in their approach to it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the parliamentary assistant give us the details of the recent amendment to the business order?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I described it, perhaps rather sketchily, a few minutes ago. It is order 400, which amends order 284, (which in turn amended order 184. Substantially the effect of the amending order is that while a licence is still required by a new entrant into business or for the expansion of existing business, it will be granted readily-I put it almost as a matter of course-but upon the understanding that the granting of a licence does not entitle an applicant to a quota of goods which are in short supply. In other words, the new entrant into business is given, as I put it, more or less
of a hunting licence. He is allowed to go into business as he would under normal conditions, but we have to issue a licence in order to have a record of the number of people in business. He gets his licence almost as a matter of course. If he is going into a business where inventories are in short supply he will have no assurance that he will be given a quota.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am grateful to the parliamentary assistant for giving that explanation. There should be no diffi- ' culty in a man who wanted to open up a new coal mine getting a licence?


Douglas Charles Abbott: None whatever.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad to hear that. There was an article in to-day's Journal-


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is so far as wartime prices and trade board is concerned; I cannot answer for munitions and supply.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am dealing with the wartime prices and trade board. This article refers to the shortage of coal, and it goes on to state that the coming winter may be one of the worst we have ever had as far as obtaining coal is concerned. I had a case which I took up with the wartime prices and trade board and the thing has been going along for some time. This man was trying to get a licence to operate a mine. He went to the board in Calgary and he was told that a licence could not be issued. This was a strip mine and he wanted to get it ready for this fall. He had spent a considerable amount of money in getting the mine ready for operation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This amending order 400 only came into effect on May 15 and perhaps the case to which the hon. member is referring was put forward before it came into force.


Charles Edward Johnston: Probably that is true, because I have a letter from the wartime prices and trade board dated May 20 in which they state that a new amendment had just been made. That would correspond with what the parliamentary assistant has just said. As I say, this man had spent a considerable amount of money in stripping this mine, several thousand dollars, I understand. He went ahead with this mine on the advice of an official in the wartime prices and trade board. I am not going to give his name because I do not think that is necessary. He continued with his work until he reached the point where he decided there was no use in going ahead and spending more money. Yet we are told that there is to be a shortage of coal this winter. There should be no hesitancy
War Appropriation-Finance

in granting a licence to this particular individual. As far as I know he has not as yet been given a licence.


Heber Harold Hatfield: They are paying bonuses to open up new mines.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the hon. member will give me the name I shall have the matter looked into right away.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will drop the parliamentary assistant a letter to-morrow giving him the details. I think this is a matter that can be cured with his assistance.


William Gilbert Weir: The matter to which I wish
to refer for a moment may not come strictly within the purview of the Department of Finance although, when one considers it from the point of view of rationing of food and the maintaining of food supplies, I believe it will be in order. I have had a number of complaints from ladies with respect to what has happened to their fruits in sealers. They claim that the rubber used last year in the jar rings was very poor. Many representations have been made with respect to this important matter judging from the number of complaints I have had, if no assurance can be given that the trouble will be remedied I fear it will mean that a good deal of canning and preserving will not be done this year. I should like to emphasize the importance of that to the parliamentary assistant, and if he can give any assurance I would certainly appreciate it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will be very brief. This
is a most important matter and has been receiving constant attention both by the board and by the Department of Munitions and Supply. As the committee knows, since Pearl Harbor one of the most critical materials has been rubber. Every effort has been made to conserve this very important commodity. The technical officers of the Department of Munitions and Supply, the Department of Agriculture, the wartime prices and trade board and the national reasearch council have all been looking into the question, and I am advised that several months ago they developed specifications which it is believed will provide satisfactory rings.


William Gilbert Weir: Are you sure?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are not sure. You can never be sure about anything. I asked my wife about this situation and she told me that last year we put up a good many jars of preserves and vegetables. Perhaps owing to her skill as a preserver none of them turned bad. She used the ordinary rings which were available. All I can say to the committee is that the problem is receiving the earnest attention

both of the Department of Munitions and Supply and of the board, and it is hoped that the rings which will be available this year will be satisfactory. Incidentally it has been decided that synthetic rubber is not suitable for these jar rings, and the very highest grade of reclaimed rubber is being used.


Robert Fair: May I ask what happens in
the case of a partnership of two men who have been in business when one buys out the other. The one who retains the business is all right, but what happens to the other fellow, if he wants to enter into business again?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He can get a permit to enter business, as I explained to the hon. member for Bow River.


Robert Fair: But he would not have a quota.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the business were one dealing with something in short supply he would have to take his chance on getting a quota. The partner who continued in business would retain the quota that went with that business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to deal with an item related to wartime prices and trade board order No. 223, which is an order respecting the distribution and use of print paper within Canada. I may point out that earlier this evening charges were hurled back and forth across the floor that members were indulging in partisan political debate. Before anyone makes any charge of that kind may I say quite frankly that I am going to speak briefly about a matter that has special reference to a political party. There is, of course, only one party that I would speak about. The Manitoba section of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, like a number of other sections of our party, publishes a paper. It is called the Manitoba Commonwealth. I have copies of it in my hand.
One thing is clear. This is a political paper and has been from its start. Its whole aim is to educate the people of Canada as to the superiority of the policies of the C.C.F. On May 16 of this year the director of publishing, of the Publishing, Printing and Allied Industries Administration, Mr. F. F. Macnab, wrote to Mr. Lloyd Stinson, editor of the Manitoba Commonwealth at 411 Confederation Life building, Winnipeg, Manitoba, informing him that during 1943 this paper had over-used its quota and that until some proposal came forward from the editor as to how this overuse was to be made good, permit would be withheld for the Manitoba C.C.F. to continue the publication of its paper. Mr. Stinson, the editor, and Manitoba C.C.F. provincial secre-

War Appropriation-Finance
tary, wrote back to Mr. Macnab on May 19 and sent me copies of the correspondence, following which I wrote to Mr. Macnab under date of May 27. I have not had a reply as yet, but I am not complaining unduly of that because there has not been a great deal of time.- I rise to bring the matter up to-night because, if I do not do so on this item and the matter is not dealt with satisfactorily, I shall not have another opportunity to do so.
May I point out to the parliamentary assistant that order 223 as a matter of fact may be a little over-generous. I am not complaining about the order at all. But its terms are such that there should be no restriction on paper for this publication because section 4 (b) reads as follows:
4. This order shall not apply to
(b) any newspaper or other periodical which, in the opinion of the administrator, is published by any religious, charitable^ philanthropic, educational, scientific, professional, political, labour or other non-profit organization.
I point out that the paper is published- and this is very clear from its masthead-by a political party, the Manitoba section of the C.C.F.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What about the proviso? My hon. friend appreciates that, "provided always that the exemptions granted," and so forth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will read the proviso:
Provided always that the exemptions granted by this section shall not apply to any newspaper or other periodical that is published primarily for advertiseing purposes, or derives its principal earned revenue from advertising.
The proviso does not affect this paper because it is not published primarily for advertising purposes, nor does it derive its principal revenue from advertising, but from subscriptions and from donations of members of the party to sustain the publication of the paper.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If those facts are as stated I am advised that the newspaper will receive a certificate of exemption under this section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to hear that. We were aware of the fact that other political parties seemed to get increased quotas of paper. The paper known as Public Opinion, for instance-


Gordon Graydon: It is the quality of that paper that gives it a preference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I may say to the leader of the opposition that it is partly because of the tremendous amount of advertising which Public Opinion has given to the C.C.F. that
there has been an increase in our subscriptions and we need more paper to meet that increase. The increase is due to the advertising which has been given to the C.C.F. not only by Public Opinion but also by the circulation of the Saskatchewan Liberal. These papers are giving the C.C.F. so much publicity that our circulation has increased, and that is the reason for the requirement of extra paper. I am very glad indeed to have the assurance of the parliamentary assistant that there will be no difficulty about getting it. I was sure that there must have been a mistake.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, $140,000,000.
Joseph William Noseworthy: When the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture were before the committee there was brought to his attention the subsidy that was supposed to have been paid on potatoes, and I think that matter should be brought up on this item. I have received a number of communications from the potato growing sections of New Brunswick which I visited last fall, and I have in my files a number of newspaper clippings pointing out that there was supposed to have been a subsidy paid by this corporation on early potatoes.
The information I have is that one dealer in this particular part of the province, and one private grower at least, received subsidies on the quantities of potatoes that they shipped out in July and August. I have information that one of the shippers distributed the subsidy to his growers and that this ran anywhere from $90 to $1,000. Apparently he is about the only shipper who took advantage of that, or took advantage in time to get a subsidy. Then something happened, and other growers and shippers have been unable to get that subsidy. The row which has developed over that is that, according to my information, the enterprising shipper who took advantage of the situation and secured the subsidy was a former Liberal candidate. That has raised considerable political turmoil. I think the parliamentary assistant should give us some information as to what the situation is.


James Alexander Marshall: I think that, with a corporation such as this, spending so large an amount of money from the treasury, we should have a full and complete report from the minister. I should also be glad if he would bring the financial statement of this Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation up to date as to the operations. Has he the figures
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot

with respect to the operations of this company, we will say to the end of the last financial year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the point just raised by . my hon. friend, I had not anticipated that we would be fortunate enough to reach the estimates of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation this evening. However, we have done so. It is five minutes to eleven. I expected to have the officers of the corporation on the floor in front of me in order to assist me in explaining some of these figures. Perhaps in the circumstances the committee would be willing to call it eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Ralston the house adjourned at eleven o'clock until Thursday at four o'clock p.m.
Thursday, June 1, 1944