1946-04-15

FARM IMPLEMENTS


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it desirable to make a statement to the house in regard to the supply and price of farm implements. Throughout the war years, and continuing through to the present, the question of ensuring an adequate, supply of farm implements is one which has consistently been given special attention by the government. Towards the end of 1941 when the needs of war caused acute shortages of steel and component parts, hon. members will recall that a rigid control and allocation of all forms of steel and components was found necessary and a far-reaching priority system was set up. When doing so, however, particular attention was given to the needs for farm implements and they were placed in the very special position of receiving a priority as high as essential war production in regard to production programmes agreed upon from time to time. A special international committee was formed cpmprising representatives from the United States, United Kingdom and Canada to screen the requirements of the allied nations for farm machinery and equipment so as to determine minimum essential needs in relation to agreed food programmes. This committee worked out the allocation of available materials for each country aqd maintained a fair balance in its distribution. When this had been accomplished it became the responsibility of each country to determine what machines and equipment were produced to meet essential needs.
Through these special measures hon. members will be interested to know that despite the most urgent pressures for direct war equipment the government was successful in providing for Canada a steady flow of farm implements throughout the course of the war.
Notwithstanding this fact, however, it is true that a greatly expanded agricultural production, obtained despite a serious decline in farm labour, has meant that the demand for machinery and equipment continues far in excess of available supply. A significant barometer of the demand in this field has been the fact that in farm auction sales, prices bid for used machinery and equipment have been often far in excess of maximum ceiling prices on new equipment.
[The Governor General.]
Immediately following the cessation of hostilities the question of diverting all possible industrial production facilities towards meeting the demand for farm machinery and equipment was taken energetically in hand. The urgent need for food is so apparent that I need not emphasize it. Suffice it to say that it is the obvious duty of all producing countries to increase agricultural production to a maximum and all practical steps toward this end must be taken.
In studying the measures necessary to secure a maximum production of farm machinery and equipment the wartime prices and trade board, to whose administrative jurisdiction this question is entrusted, has reached the conclusion that some recognition of the uncontrollable war-time increases in the cost of materials, labour and general overhead is simply inevitable if vitally needed machineiy and implements are to be secured. This decision was reached after a careful study of cost information submitted by the farm implement industry. Accordingly, on Saturday, April 13, the board announced that maximum retail price ceilings for Canadian-made farm machinery and parts will be increased by twelve and a half per cent. Naturally, this step was taken with considerable reluctance. However, faced with the plain fact that increased costs of materials and component parts produced in Canada, or imported for assembly here, together with increased labour and other overhead costs, could not be absorbed at present price levels, it was obvious that a maximum production of farm machinery and equipment could not take place unless some relief was afforded. I/should add that the analysis of costs conducted by the prices board indicated that a price increase of upwards of 30 per cent above 1941 levels would have been required to regain 1941 profit percentage margins for the farm implement industry. Consequently, the price advance of only 12i per cent means, admittedly, a serious profit squeeze upon the industry, but in this transition period the government believes the prices board approach in the case of farm implements to be fully justified in view of the imperative need for holding down to a minimum, cost adjustments in the important basic industry of agriculture.
With one minor exception of a 5 per cent increase to adjust an anomalous situation on a small volume of implements (principally imported items) at the commencement of the price ceiling in the fall of 1941, prices have been held at or below the ceiling prices of the basic period in 1941. This rather remarkable record was made possible partly by

Farm Implements
reason of large war contracts which expanded the volume of the industry and partly by insisting that increasing costs be absorbed by the industry instead of being passed on to the farmer consumer. Now that war production has swung over to normal supplies, however, the cost increases, as I have already stated, can no longer be absorbed and a reasonable price adjustment had to be worked out. In their submissions the companies disclosed increased costs since the basic period of 1941 averaging, roughly, materials and components 20 per cent, labour 28-J per cent, and general overhead 23 per cent. Unit costs in the coming year will run higher than this for some time due to premiums on castings, increases on imported components and higher than normal overheads which bring the over-all cost increase close to 30 per cent. In fixing the increase in the ceiling price at not more than 12i per cent the board has in mind that only through volume production can the Canadian farm implement industry survive, under the present level of costs and selling prices so that the price increase now authorized means that the companies must do their utmost to achieve a maximum volume of production. That I should add is exactly what is needed to meet the chronic shortages of farm implements which exist to-day. It will be of interest to recall also that on July 1, 1944, the exchange tax and all customs duties were removed from imported farm implements so that farmers are now assured that the Canadian price level must be fully competitive with other markets. I am further informed that retail farm implement prices in the North American continent are at least 25 per cent lower than in any other market in the world to-day.
To sum up, I wish to say that with the price adjustment now authorized and with the steps taken to give priority assistance in the securing of raw materials, such as steel, castings and component parts, I believe that the serious shortage in farm implements will begin to be remedied this year. I must warn, however, that with the best will in the world all shortages cannot be overcome immediately and that factors beyond our control, such as, for example, the recent strike in the steel industry in the United States, and the present coal strike, can seriously upset all forecasts or plans. It follows that strong inflationary influences are present in this field, both here and in the United States where about 50 per cent of our supplies of farm machinery and implements are obtained. For example, the United States farm implement industry during the months of January and February, 1946, showed a production decrease of, roughly,
20 per cent over the same months of 1945, or figured in dollars a total of some $110,000,000. Because of the dependence of the Canadian farm implement industry upon the United States for certain essential components, such a sharp decrease there inevitably affects production here.
The squeezed down price increase which has been allowed in the Canadian field of manufacture will, with the cooperation of the farm implement industry, ensure a maximum production in our own field of manufacture to the full extent that materials and labour are available, but there remains a very definite hazard that more serious price advances in import prices, over which we, of course, have no control, may yet be witnessed. *


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just made a statement with respect to the announced policy of raising the price ceiling- on farm machinery by 12J per cent. He has sought to justify that policy on the grounds of increasing costs to the manufacturers and of the need for human food.
I want to commend the minister for making this statement, because it gives us some idea of the justification the government offers for this proposed increase. When the house adjourned on Friday evening we learned of the forthcoming announcement to be made through the press-and I am sure we are pleased to hear from the minister to-day. But I do not think I should let this opportunity pass without saying two or three things about the matter.
Speaking for those around me on this side, I think the government is going about the process of removing controls in the wrong order. Here is an increase in the price of farm machinery with no corresponding increase in the price of farm products. It is an increase in the price of farm machinery at the time that farmers are starting to seed their crops, and at a time when the world is short of food. As I say, I think the government's policy is to be criticized for the way in which the government is going about it, and for the timing of the announcement. The machinery which the farmers need to-day is already in the shops, and yet the prices to be paid for it are tomorrow's prices and not yesterday's. I welcome the minister's statement, but I am afraid we cannot support the policy or the reasons he has given for it.
It follows an announcement of a few days ago of an increase of $5 a ton in the price of steel, at which time there was no announcement that anything would be done to make possible an increase in the wages of steelworkers. I submit that the plans for the
Farm Implements

removal of these controls ought to be better correlated than they are, according to the evidence we have.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman. I permitted him to make a few remarks but, as he knows, statements made by ministers at this stage are not debatable. That is a rule of the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thought myself that debate was not permissible, but I should certainly like to say something in answer to what my hon. friend has said.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Could not an arrangement be made whereby this particular matter might be discussed by the house? There are many of us representing agricultural constituencies and we should like to say a word and incidentally to revise our whole attitude towards the stabilization of agricultural prices. An opportunity should be given before the house adjourns to discuss this subject.


James Horace King: As I have already pointed out, statements of this kind made by ministers are not debatable. I understand that hon. members are of the view that it is necessary to debate the question. If they will consult Hansard they will see the information which the leader of the house gave on Friday night when he intimated that the . house would probably be called upon to-day to resolve itself into committee of supply. When a motion to that effect is put to the house by the Speaker, hon. members will have an opportunity to discuss this matter. I consider it the duty of the Speaker to point out to hon. members that the minister's statement is not debatable.


John Bracken: We accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whatever it is. I simply wish to point out, however, that the minister has been allowed to make a statement and the house is denied an opportunity of saying anything about it.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Under the rules he is allowed to make the statement.


James Horace King: Again I regret the necessity of interrupting the hon. member, but I think it is my duty to refuse permission to the hon. member to make the remarks which he is submitting to the house. It is a well-known practice in this house, and one which is observed every day, that ministers may be allowed to make statements of the kind under discussion, but such statements are not debatable. That is not a matter of ruling by the present Speaker; it is a practice of the house. As I pointed out a moment ago, however, hon. members will have an opportunity to

discuss their grievances to-day when the house is asked to resolve itself into committee of supply.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word with regard-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Either this is debatable or it is not.


James Horace King: I am afraid I cannot give the minister permission to engage in a debate.


John Bracken: In view of this announcement to-day, and the fact that we are not allowed to debate the matter, I wish to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the government's policy as announced last Saturday of permitting an increase of 124 per cent in the ceiling price of farm implements, without permitting a corresponding increase in the price of farm products and thus imposing on the farmers extra production costs just at the time when they are preparing maximum production to meet the critical food situation.


James Horace King: The hon. member wishes to avail himself of the privilege afforded by standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter which in his opinion is urgent. Before going any further I ryould call his attention to a ruling given by the Hon. Mr. Rhodes, then Speaker, on April 5, 1918, which wrill be found at page 744 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition:
There is one point mentioned by the hon. member to which I would reply, and more especially for the benefit of proper decorum in the house on the matter of urgency. Urgency, within the meaning of the rule, is not a question whether the matter proposed to be discussed is of urgent importance-
And I insist upon these words.
-it may be of infinitely urgent importance to those affected-the question is whether it is urgent within the meaning of rule 39: in other words, whether it is a matter of that urgency which would cause harm to the public interest if the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house were not able to permit the subject to be brought on early enough.
It is the duty of the Speaker to point out to the house that we have before us now routine proceedings and orders of the day and that preparations have already been made for the consideration of to-day's business. It is my duty to see that these orders of the day are followed. Hon. members, have been apprised since Friday last of the business
1" that would come on to-day and have prepared themselves accordingly. I realize that it is the privilege of every member to avail himself of standing order 31 and to move that

Farm Implements
the business prepared for to-day shall be set aside to enable him to move the adjournment of the house. It is for the Speaker to decide whether the matter which it is proposed to discuss is of sufficient urgency and of sufficient public importance to warrant the suspension of the order of business. On this question the Speaker has not to decide "whether the matter proposed to be discussed is of urgent importance," but to decide whether it is urgent within the meaning of standing order 31. If hon. members will look at Hansard of Friday they will see that the leader of the house stated that probably on Monday the house would be asked to resolve itself into committee of supply. Every hon. member knows that, except on Thursday or Friday, before going into supply the question is put by the Speaker, and any member has then an opportunity to rise and discuss grievances. I would ask the hon. gentleman to wait until there is a motion for supply, when he will have the opportunity to discuss this matter. For that reason, I must rule that there is no urgency sufficient to justify setting aside the orders of the day to enable the hon. member to discuss the matter.


John Bracken: Then Your Honour's
decision is against me?


James Horace King: Yes, it is.


John Bracken: May I have an opportunity of saying a word with respect to the ruling?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Perhaps I might intervene just for a moment. I noticed His Honour the Speaker mentioned that there would be an opportunity to discuss this matter on the house going into committee of supply, and drew attention to the fact that I said we might go into supply to-day. But I preceded that possibility by a statement to the effect that we would go into supply if we concluded the measure dealing with the United Kingdom loan and also the measure on citizenship. I do not believe there is a possibility of concluding either of those measures to-day. In these circumstances, I would direct the attention of the house to what His Honour the Speaker said in the first instance, namely, that leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussing any definite matter of urgent public importance must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and before notices of motion or orders of the day are entered upon.
My hon. friend has brought forward a perfectly proper motion, but again at the wrong time. If he will wait until the daily routine of business has been concluded and
before questions, notices of motion or orders of the day are entered upon, I would submit he might then bring forward his motion.


John Bracken: If Mr. Speaker would like me to bring it forward again, I shall be very glad to do so. I thought it was proper to bring it forward after the minister had ' made the statement. I would point out to Mr. Speaker that there was no undertaking by anybody that we would go into supply to-day. That order stands on the order paper every day throughout the session.


James Horace King: I have called the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it was announced Friday by the leader of the house-


Mr. CASSELMAN:: The Prime Minister denies it.


Mr. COLDWELL:: If Your Honour will read what the leader of the government said on Friday evening it' will be seen that there was a full day's business announced. The leader of the house then said, with a smile, as I remember it, "Probably that will be enough; if it is not, we can fill in the time with estimates." We shall certainly have 'no time to fill in if we follow the government's programme.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows that the Speaker's decisions are not debatable.


Major James William Coldwell: The motion was made at the wrong time; therefore, the Speaker's decision will probably have to be given again.


James Horace King: I must call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that I have not to' question when the motion for the house to go into committee of supply will be called. But it is my duty to remind the house that the motion is on the order paper of to-day, so whenever it is called, any hon. member will have the opportunity to discuss this urgent matter.


Major James William Coldwell: With all due respect I am pointing out that the business of the house is so heavy for to-day there is almost no chance, in the Prime Minister's own opinion, to reach estimates. This is a matter of urgent public importance and should not be blocked by such a ruling.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the following reports in English and French:
C.N.R.-Annual Reports

Annual report of the Canadian National Railway system for the year ended December 31, 1945; annual report of the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust for the year ended December 31, 1945; report to parliament of George A. Touche & Co., auditors of the Canadian National Railway system, for the year ended December 31, 1945.
Copies of the reports are being distributed to lion, members this afternoon. By leave of the house I move:
That the annual reports for 1945 of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust and the auditors of the Canadian National Railway system, tabled this day, and the annual report for 1945 of Trans-Canada Air Lines which was laid on the table of the house on April 11, 1946, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following items of estimates for 1946-47:
Vote 422, Maritime Freight Rates Act-Canadian National Railways;
Vote 423, Maritime Freight Rates Act-railways other than Canadian National;
Vote 469, Prince Edwiard Island Car Ferry and Terminals-deficit 1946.
And that the resolution passed by the house on March 28. 1946. referring certain estimates to the committee of supply, be rescinded in so far as the said resolution relates to votes Nos. 422, 423 and 469.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 54, to amend the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1942.
Mr. FRASER:: Explain.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I expected that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We expected it, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: We are in unanimous agreement. In 1942, parliament passed1 the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, to provide assurance to members of the armed forces of their right to reinstatement upon discharge, in the employment they were engaged in at the time of acceptance for service. The act provides that such reinstatement shall be on conditions not less favourable than if such persons had continued in the employer's employment without interruption.
In administering the act at earlier stages of the last war, a number of uncertainties arose on matters of interpretation and on the application of the act to circumstances which probably were not contemplated at the time the act was passed. It was, of course, important that reinstatement should not be held up on account of these uncertainties. Therefore

regulations under the authority of the War Measures Act were passed in January, 1945, which included not only matters of procedure under the act but also provisions designed to clear up the uncertainties relating to the interpretation and application of the Act. These regulations have now been in effect for some fifteen months and I am advised have been found suitable and effective to carry out the purposes of the act.
Employers andi labour organizations have extended the utmost cooperation in reinstatement of veterans and have shown much initiative in working out plans to this end in individual establishments. In consequence, the number of cases requiring the intervention of the officers of the Department of Labour ad^ ministering the act have been comparatively few to date. The purpose of the bill is to incorporate at this time the regulations approved by the governor in council under the War Measures Act as part of the provisions of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act and thus give statutory effect to them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
. SENATE BILLS-FIRST READINGS
Bill No. 17, respecting the marking of articles containing gold, silver or platinum-Mr. MacKinnon.
Bill No. 29, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929-Mr. Claxton.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, a' moment ago I made a motion which was declared out of order, possibly on the technical ground raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it had not been brought in at the proper stage of proceedings. If the motion is out of order I think that should be made clear on its merits, rather than on any technical grounds. I understand this is the proper time to bring it in. I would therefore move the motion again; and if on its merits it is out of order a ruling can be so made and it will be obeyed.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the government's policy as announced last Saturday of permitting an increase of 12J per cent in

Farm Implements

the ceiling price of farm implements without permitting a corresponding increase in the price of farm products, and thus imposing on the farmers extra production costs just at the time when they are preparing maximum production to meet the critical food situation.


James Horace King: A few moments ago I had the opportunity to give to hon. members the 'practice followed in this house as far as these matters are concerned. Now, since there is some objection, and since the house is master of its own proceedings, I will put to the house the question whether or not the hon. gentleman shall have leave to proceed.
And leave having been given:


John Bracken: There is very little more I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I said a short time ago. Had the house permitted me to make that brief statement we would have let it go at that. I simply wish to point out that the best order was not followed in removing these controls, and that the timing was not well considered in this instance. At the very time the producers are starting to sow their crops they learn that farm machinery is going to cost them twelve and a half per cent more.
One other criticism is this. Last Friday evening we heard of a forthcoming announcement to raise farm machinery prices, which was carried in the newspapers on Saturday morning, and to-day we have the decision of the wartime prices and trade board explained by the minister. He brings it in at the opening of the house, with hon. members given no opportunity to debate it. I took what opportunity there was to say something against it; when I was denied the privilege of saying a word or two more, this motion had to be moved if others were to be allowed to speak.
I simply wish to say that the way these matters are handled

with decisions made outside the house, then explained here by a minister at a time when they are not debatable-it simply makes of this parliament with respect to these matters nothing more or less than a listening post.
I have said all I wish to say. Here is a measure increasing the cost of farm machinery without permitting an increase in the prices of farm products, just as two weeks ago another government decision was made which increased the price of steel by S5 a ton without at the same time making provision for some increase in the wages of steelworkers. That is my criticism. The policy is most unbalanced and inequitable. I could
take longer, but this is the protest I wished to make, and those are some of the points I had in mind.
Mr. M- J- COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar): I want to support the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) in his criticism of the procedure, though I know it is in conformity with the rules of the house. When an ahnouncement of this importance is made I do believe hon. members should be given an opportunity to debate it; and I am pleased indeed, Mr. Speaker, that you have afforded hon. members that opportunity, because of course I realize that it was quite possible for you to deny hon. members the right to discuss this matter under the usual procedure of this house.
May I say to the government through you, sir, that we in this party have been warm supporters of the idea that the government must have certain powers in order to exercise control to stabilize prices generally so that there shall be no runaway inflation, and we have supported that policy both in this house and in the country. But several things that have been done recently by the government have tended to increase the cost of producing agricultural products. Recently in western Canada we had increases in the cost of gasoline, fuels and so on. Now we have an increase of 12J per cent in the prices of agricultural implements. May I add, here that while I rise this afternoon to protest against this increase, we recognize that if the price ceilings are to be removed from one set of commodities, the prices of all other commodities will have to be adjusted as well. There must be no inconsistency in our attitude in that regard. Some of my hon. friends of the official opposition who have been urging the removal of price ceilings are now protesting against the removal of the price ceiling on agricultural implements. We are not in that position of inconsistency.
May I say this, while I am on my feet, that in 1938 this house established a committee, of which I was a member, which went into the question of the high prices of agricultural implements. We found at that time that in many respects the high prices which then existed on agricultural implements could not be justified. We made certain recommendations to the house and to the government with a view to lowering the prices of farm implements in the interests of agricultural producers. So far as I know, up to date at least none of the major recommendations of that committee has been adopted either by the government or by the companies.
Farm Implements

I wish to support very strongly the protests made against this increase. At a time when we are trying to maintain a certain measure of stabilization in our economy we have this increase in prices of farm implements. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) has mentioned that we have also had an increase in the price of steel. Again I agree with him that this increase of S5 a ton in the price of steel was exactly the same increase as was made in the United States. But in the United States that $5 increase was granted on the condition that a certain increase should be made to the workers in the steel industry. In our country there has been no conference with the workers and no such condition. But the $5 increase has been handed out, and probably to some extent it is reflected in the announcement made to-day that the prices of agricultural implements are to be allowed to increase by 121 per cent. That is not the kind of policy we expect from the government, or that the people of this country expect from parliament. If we are to have stabilization, then let us have stabilization. If the farmers are to be compelled to accept stabilized prices for their products-prices well below American levels, as has been pointed out incidentally-then I say that other industries upon which farmers rely for their supplies should also be held at proper levels.
I can see no justification for this-either for the increase in the price of steel, or from my recollection of the results of the inquiry into the high prices of farm implements. We found then that the cost of distributing farm implements was excessive. We found that the costs shown as charged to farmers for service rendered by implement companies were excessive. Now we find ourselves faced with an increase which is indeed very serious. We know that tariff adjustments have been made in the interests of manufacturers; the' matter of diesel engines was discussed at the last session. In all these things it is indicated clearly that while workers are being held at certain wage levels, and farmers are being held at certain price levels, some of these large manufacturing concerns are to be allowed to increase their price levels. This house, every side of it-at least those of us who represent constituencies which are agricultural-should protest against the putting into effect of this kind of policy.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in protesting against this increase in the prices of farm machinery, which comes as the result

of an order made last Saturday by the wartime prices and trade board. I had intended to raise this question at the proper time, and to move the adjournment of the house as has already been done by the leader of the opposition.
I am pleased to note, sir, that you have been good enough to grant us this time to discuss a most important matter-because I do believe it is important. It is a matter which [DOT] should receive the earnest and full attention of every hon. member.
My reasons for preparing to ask for the adjournment were as follows. In the first place the order will have no less effect than to increase the cost of the production of farm products. The farmers will simply have to pay higher prices for their machinery. Everyone knows they have been paying too high prices already, owing to the protection afforded farm machinery manufacturing in Canada. The farmers in our country have certainly been at a great disadvantage owing to the high prices they have had to pay.
In the second place, in my judgment the increase in the prices of farm machinery threatens to defeat the all-out food production programme announced by the government just about a month ago. I feel certain, from the reaction of farmers already indicated, that this doubtless will cause widespread consternation among them. They certainly will not be ready to go forward willingly-as I am sure they were ready to go forward at the call of the Prime Minister in his food programme.
In my judgment the board's order intensifies the already serious handicap under which farmers have been operating for some time past, that of having their farm produce prices stabilized at levels lower than world price levels. It has put them at a terrific disadvantage as compared with the position enjoyed by farmers just across the line immediately to the south of us. Not only are our prices stabilized at levels lower than world price levels, but the border is closed to the export of cattle and live stock generally. This makes it difficult for our farmers to carry on in competition with their American neighbours. Unless remedial action is taken at once, this order of the wartime prices and trade board will have the effect of curtailing the production of agricultural goods at a time when every pound of foodstuffs is of the utmost importance in filling the world shortage, the great world need.
This is even more serious, coming as it does at a time when the spring work is about to begin. The farmers have already made up their budgets and plans for the year. It comes also at the end of six years of shortage

Farm Implements
of farm machinery, and at a time when farmers find it absolutely essential to increase their depleted stocks and to replace that which has been worn out.
The board's order imposes upon the Canadian farmers a burden of cost which they simply cannot 'bear, particularly so long as the level of taxation remains as it is in Canada, and so long as the farm commodity price stabilization policy continues in effect at present levels. In my judgment the board's order has precipitated a crisis in agriculture in this country. Therefore it does become a matter of grave urgency, and one to which the house should give its closest attention.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has said in his statement, it may be that some revision of prices should be made at this time. I am not fully convinced of that yet. I should like to have further figures to supplement the statement already made by the minister. However, I have always taken the position, in connection with the control of prices, that should it become necessary to revise, let us by all means consider the revision carefully. Let us do it along sane lines, and make certain that any increase in prices is justified. That is why I am certain that hon. members, and particularly farm members throughout Canada, are anxious to take part in this discussion to see to it that these price adjustments are justified. Should it be found that the increase of 12J per cent is justified then, to ease the minds of farmers, and to make certain that they will feel like continuing an all-out effort to relieve the food shortage throughout the world, I suggest that the government take into immediate consideration the absorption of those price increases by continuing the present prices'of farm machinery to farmers, the difference being made up by a subsidy gathered through taxation from all the people of Canada. That is the only justifiable way of handling the situation.
My colleagues and I strongly urge that this action be taken to set at rest the minds of the farmers, to let them understand that we are aware of their problems and that we are attempting to assist them in their all-out effort to produce food in large quantities sufficient to satisfy the need.
I am happy to join in this effort to understand the whole problem, and in the discussion of it. I do not wish to say more at this time.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSFIANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to speak briefly, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want the house to think that this side is unanimously in favour
of this price increase. I do not know whether it was the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) or the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) who said that this increase of 12| per cent would not materially increase production of machinery so far as this year's output is concerned. The increase is in the retail price, and these implements to a large extent are already in the hands of the retailers, and so I agree with the hon. member that this price increase will not materially increase the production of farm implements this year. I disagree with the leader of the opposition on many things, but I certainly agree with him that the wartime prices and trade board are starting at the wrong end of this thing. They are trying to build the roof on the house before they have laid the foundation. I think it is the duty of the Department of Agriculture once more to run agriculture and not to let it be run by a bunch of clerks down in the wartime prices and trade board.
I am also in accord with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of the Social Credit 'party, when he says that if it is necessary to increase the price of farm machinery for these firms to operate, all right, let us do that. But again reverting to the leader of the opposition, let us do it from the proper angle. For instance, how long will the farmers have to wait to get this increase of four cents a pound on butter? That does not go to the farmer immediately. And now, overnight, without any consultation with the representatives of agriculture, this increase of twelve and a half per cent in farm implements is made. As representing a rural riding I definitely protest against this increase under present conditions.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITXY (Dauphin):: This is a very important question, especially for those who come from agricultural ridings, and I do not want to let the opportunity go by without saying a word.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) characterized this price increase, if I understood him aright, as a squeeze-down price increase. I do not know just what that means, but it seems to me that the minister is busily engaged in pushing down prices in an upward direction, because that is what it amounts to. I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister of Finance. In telling us of price increases in steel and in labour he told us only part of the story, and we are entitled to hear the whole story. He did not tell us, for instance, that the cost of selling farm machinery in the last few years has gone down almost to the vanishing point, and that
Farm Implements

advertising and salesmanship, if any is done at the present time, is now unnecessary to sell farm implements. It is no longer a job of selling the implements but rather of finding a place where you can buy them. So the cost of selling should not be a factor at all in the price increase. A dealer with any implements on hand does not have to run around among the farmers, burn gasoline and spend time trying to make a sale. All he has to do is to sign the order when it is made out by the applicant.
I think also the house is entitled to know what has been going on behind the scenes, and who are the people applying for this price increase. We should be told to what extent these implement companies are losing money,' if they are losing money. We have not been told the whole stpry, and unless the minister is prepared to give us a much fuller statement than he did to-day, it is up to us as representing the farmers to register our protest in the strongest possible terms against this price increase.
The minister has not told us whether before this decision was taken the members of the party which supports the government were taken into the confidence of the government. We have already seen that one evidently, was not consulted, and that he does not care for this decision. I should like to know how many more members of the party are of the same opinion. I should like to know how many members representing western Canada are in agreement with this price increase. Were they consulted, and what is their opinion? This is a matter of great importance, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think the bouse should let this opportunity go by without squeezing, to use the minister's own word, a great deal more information out of the government than has been so far given.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: I should like to add my voice to those who have already protested against 'this increase in the price of farm implements. I was very much surprised that the government should take action that would be likely to discourage production at a time when increased farm production is urgently needed to help the devastated areas of Europe, and for that matter all countries of the world.
It will be remembered that during the nineteen thirties thousands of our farmers became bankrupt, and a great number of them financially embarrassed, and as a result they were not able to buy the farm machinery which they badly needed. They were also unable to replace buildings that had become

dilapidated. During the war the farmers found themselves in a better position, but owing to the lack of supply they still were unable to buy farm machinery. Now that the farmers are in a better position to buy machinery, because in the first place they have the money and because in the second place the machinery will become available, we find that the price is to be increased by 12( per cent.
I am not satisfied that there will be no increase in the price of machinery that has already been produced. I-am afraid that we shall find this increase placed on machines already in transit or in the hands of the dealers. That has been our experience in the past, and I should like to know what guarantee the minister will give that there will be no increase in the price of any farm machinery already produced. The member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) does not think that this increase will add very much to the price of farm implements. But on a tractor, for instance, it means an increase of S235.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Pardon me; I never said that at all.


Victor Quelch: The hon. member did not think that the farmers would have to pay this increase on implements already in the hands of the dealers.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Pardon me. What I said was that I did not think it would materially affect this year's production. I was following the argument of a previous speaker. I would ask the hon. member not to put words into my mouth that I did not use.


Victor Quelch: Certainly not. I understood the hon. member to say that he did not think the price would be increased on machines already in the hands of dealers.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Victor Quelch: That is fine.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I say that this price increase relates only to farm implements made in Canada. Tractors are not made in Canada; therefore the instance given by the hon. member does not apply.


Victor Quelch: The price of tractors will not be increased?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This order does not affect the cost of tractors at all. It applies only to Canadian-made farm implements.


Victor Quelch: Does it affect the price of combines?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the list.

Farm Implements


Victor Quelch: They are produced in this country. It will mean an increase of from $250 to $350 in the price of a combine, which is a very considerable increase.
I want to deal for a moment with the position of the machine companies. We remember that during the depression no substantial reduction was made in the price of farm machinery. There was a substantial reduction in the production of machinery, but not in the price. The reduced production arose out of the reduced demand because the farmers did not have the money to buy the machines. In 1937-38 the price of farm machinery went up 7-8 per cent, and the excuse given at that time was that owing to the lack of sales the overhead had increased and the price must be increased. One may well ask if there was any justification for an increase in price even at that time. I recall that the committee which was set up in 1937 found that the profits earned by the International Harvester company from 1926 to 1935 were 6-5 per cent. That,"at any rate in the later years, was a period of low production. Yet in spite of the fact that they earned a profit of 6-5 per cent up to 1935, they increased the price by 7-8 per cent in 1937. Incidentally this increase in price came just after the report of the farm implements committee, which was very critical of the high prices, was tabled in this house and concurred in-the increase showing an utter contempt on the part 'of machine companies apparently, for the opinions of this house. At that time an interesting report was given to the house on the operations of one of the large machine companies in this country. I hold in my hand a volume of Hansard of 1938 containing the report of a speech made by the chairman of the farm implements committee when moving, on March 11, concurrence in the report. This is what he had to say regarding the operations of the Massey-Harris company, as reported on pages 1238 and 1239:
We find that the Massey-Harris company does 60 per cent of its business outside of Canada. In 1891, when the Massey and Harris interests were merged, together with some other manufacturers, they had a capital of approximately $3,500,000. of which only $300,000 was put up in cash, the remainder being given in exchange for the assets of the constituent firms that were merged. In that period. 1891 to 1912, the capital remained at $3,500,000 leaving out of consideration for the moment another $1,000,000 that was put in in 1911. What do we find happening during that period? On a capitalization of $3,500,000 this company was able to pay cash dividends amounting to $11,212,349 and stock dividends of $8,500,000, or total dividends of $19,712,349; to create a rest account of $6,500.000; to set up a special contingency account of
$1,680,000 and to retain unallocated in surplus account $1,061,000, or a total of $28,959,349. That is a very substantial return, on a capital which amounted to $3,500,000 at the inception of the company and which remained at that figure until near the end of that period, when an additional $1,000,000 was put in. I am sure no one would say the prices this company charged its customers during that period were not sufficient to pay them a good rate of interest on the original investment, to give their stockholders sufficient in the way of dividends and still leave a very, very wide margin. Such is the situation with regard to that company, and broadly speaking it may be said to apply to many of the other companies, with perhaps a little less force.
That is from the speech made by the chairman of the committee which had been investigating these companies; I think therefore it bears a fair amount of weight.
I do not suppose there is any doubt that these companies have done pretty well for themselves during the war. It is not likely that they have been producing at a loss. In the earlier stages of the war I read reports in the Financial Post as to their profits, which at that time appeared to be very satisfactory. What is the situation to-day? Unquestionably the volume of business for the machine companies will be very heavy, and the greater the amount of their business the larger the reduction, of course, in their overhead cost. It was brought out in the committee investigation in 1937 that costs of collection and losses incurred through bad debts were quite heavy, representing in the neighbourhood of five per cent. As I understand it, that loss will be entirely eliminated, because as a result of certain legislation passed in this house farmers will be able to pay cash for their machines, as they can go to the banks and borrow the money. Machinery companies will not be selling their machinery on time, so losses such as they suffered in the past as a result of bad debts and heavy collection fees will be wholly eliminated. This should make it possible for the companies to reduce their costs quite considerably. If, however, as the leader of this group pointed out, it should be found that the companies must be allowed to increase their prices in order to carry on, we shall have to do one of two things; either remove the ceiling on the price of agricultural products so Ihat the farmers will not be obliged to sell at a loss, or have the additional cost absorbed by the people as a whole instead of by the farmers alone, as we did during the war. We imported goods which cost more than the price at which they were sold under the price ceiling, and the government subsidized those firms so that they could sell at a discounted price in this country without losing money. If the govern-
Farm Implements

ment feels that the machine companies must increase their prices by 12J per cent in order to avoid loss, let the government subsidize them to that extent and let the cost be borne by the people of Canada instead of by the farmers alone.
This government has unfortunately contracted the habit of subsidizing the people of this country and the people of the world in respect of agricultural produce and putting the full cost of the subsidy on the farmer alone instead of distributing it among all the people. We have a good instance of that practice in that we are selling wheat to Europe at $1.55 a bushel. Our party do not object to that for a minute, but in view of the fact that the world price is around $1.98-that is the selling price in Chicago-if we are to sell to Britain at $1.55 the farmers should not have to absorb that loss alone; it should be absorbed by the people as a whole. Indeed, the farmers are not even receiving $1.55; they are receiving $1.25, though of course they hope that at some future date the participation certificates will make up the difference.
I should like again to emphasize that we feel the government should do one of two things. If the government is going to take price ceilings off goods which form part of the cost of farm production, it should take the ceiiing off agricultural products. You cannot continually increase the cost of the implements of production while keeping a ceiling on the price of the articles produced. If, on the other hand, the government is not prepared to do that, it should, as the leader of this group has pointed out, allow a discount on the price of machinery and subsidize the machine companies to that extent.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: My remarks will be very brief. I assume that the minister will be taking part in this debate before it is concluded, and if so, I shall appreciate it if he will answer at that time one or two questions I want to ask.
To-day I met a delegation of workers from Toronto. The position of those who are working in agricultural implement plants came up, and I asked them whether these plants were increasing or reducing the number of their personnel. Their reply was that the staffs are being reduced. My second question to them was whether wages were being increased or lowered, and the reply to that question was that wages are being lowered.
Those who represent agricultural constituencies have done a very fine job so far. I represent a working man's constituency, and many, perhaps a thousand, of my constituents work in one or other of the agricultural implement
[Mr. Quelch.l
plants of Toronto. I should like to know whether the information I got from the delegation is correct. Are the staffs being reduced, and are wages being reduced? If wages ! are being cut, then I1 should like to know why the workers cannot be given more if the price of implements is being increased.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I should like to say a few words on this matter. What I notice especially is that the government has gone to great pains to put up a case for the manufacturer of agricultural implements and to explain the necessity for this increase. When I see the government going to great pains to explain an increase in the workers' wages then I will understand there are some changes being made in this country for the benefit of the people as a whole. In Sydney, Nova Scotia, the workers tried for a period of from two to two and a half years to get an increase, and then they were told to go and renegotiate and they would get it. They got it the other day, but it took them approximately five years to get it. These* manufacturers have the friendship of the government and the workers have not. When the workers come to the government and ask for higher wages they get treated to a Dutch-uncle lecture by the Prime Minister. But the manufacturers get favoured treatment.
In the United States there was a $5 increase in steel-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member says that when the workers come to the government they get a Dutch-uncle lecture from the Prime Minister. I hope he does not assume that one organization speaks for all organizations in this country or for labour generally. I have met three or four labour delegations within the past week or two and I may say to my hon. friend that by three of the four my attitude was highly commended.


An hon. MEMBER:: "That ain't the way we heerd it."


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I thank the Prime
Minister for his contribution, but as my hon. friend says, "That ain't the way we heerd it." In the United States a $5 increase teas given in the price of steel, but there was a corresponding increase in wages. In this country the price has been advanced before any increase in wages. Now when the workers go on strike -and it looks as though they will have to- and ask for an increase in wages, they will be told they are encouraging inflation; and the companies will demand a further increase, and this will have a tendency to split the farmer from the worker. Buit it will not work, and there is one group in this house who will

Farm Implements
see that it does not. The C.C.F. is that one. This action will have a tendency to affect every home in Canada. We listened to lectures during the war telling us how to keep down inflation, to buy bonds, and all the rest of it, but as soon as the war is over-here we go again. The manufacturers are to get their pound of flesh, and the people of the country have to give it.
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Agriculture is big business. Ii do not know who designed these chairs, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I wonder if those who erected and furnished these buildings had any imagination. Walking down these corridors I get a smell from the match factory across the river, and I say to myself, "What a Hull of a smell 1" I sometimes wonder what imagination, sir, the individual had who gave you the title of Mr. Speaker; for I notice that you do the least speaking in the house, although I must admit you say more when you do not get on your feet than many hon. members do who speak from the floor. Instead of giving you a black gown as a symbol of your high office, had I the opportunity I would give you an old fashioned golden ear trumpet about the size of a fog horn, so that you could hear what is being said in the house.
I said that agriculture was big business, with many branches. There are the primary producers, and there are the farm implement manufacturers, the packing plants, the transportation companies, the wholesalers, the retailers, all serving the consumer. I do not think I can do better than to read from Hansard of December 14 last at page 3491. I may be criticized for agreeing with this, but I believe it was the statement of a great man:
A member of parliament represents the people of the nation at large-all classes.
That statement was made by the Prime Minister, and I raise my hat to him for those words. If hon. members will appreciate the truth of what he said on that occasion they will realize we are not here to represent the farm machinery companies. We are here to represent the farmers as well-all classes. I do not see how any human being could utter greater words than those, and if the individual members of the Liberal' party realize their significance, we would go far. In fact, I honestly believe that we in Canada would accomplish a great deal, if the Prime Minister meant what he said, and I am taking it for granted that he did. I am not listening to what other people tell me. He says that we are here to represent all the people, all classes, and I can assure the house that if we get behind the spirit indicated by those
words and fight to represent the people of Canada, all the people, we shall go far. Indeed,
I believe we can show the world that we in this great dominion can lead mankind out of dhaos and into a period of prosperity and happiness such as has never been known before in human history.
The Prime Minister told my wife and me that he was seventy-two years of age.
I believe he has an opportunity to leave his name with us for generations to come as a great man; for he has the opportunity to-day to see that all the people of Canada are represented here. I am not a Liberal. I do not believe in liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism or any other "ism". I believe in results, and I will join with any individual or group df individuals-I think I can speak for this group when I say this- who will truly represent the will of the people. We will join with any party who will represent the will of the people, and we will give that party our whole-hearted support.
Let me read some more. The Prime Minister said:	[DOT]
I do not think it is desirable . . . that any man should come here to represent any organization except his own constituency. I do not care whether it is a trade union organization or any other organization, a man ought to be here to represent the general interests of his constituents.
As things are to-day, with this 12i per cent increase, there is only one way that it can be paid and that is by the farmer, through a . lowering of his standard of living. And the farmer, of all people in Canada, is the one who has suffered most during this war. I know that, because I was farming during the war, and so were my wife and children and the wives and children of other farmers throughout Canada. They toiled and sweated, the majority of them without pay or remuneration of any kind. During the war our neighbour's boys were taken out of school to work on a farm, as was many a son, and those boys worked not for a mere eight hours a day but for ten and sixteen hours a day. I remember one night, when it started to rain those boys could not go to bed but had to continue working up until midnight in order to protect their crops and they were working with old worn-out machinery. Three of these boys did not want to bother their mother, who was already too tired from the day's work. They were too tired even to go and wash. They went to sleep in a shack which was filled with the fumes of a motor used for charging batteries, and the next morning the mother found her sons there, cold and dead. This is just an indication of the sacrifices that were made by farm boys, farm


women and men during the war. Those who are trying to carry on are now being asked to pay, and pay in hard-earned money, to replace their worn-out machinery.
What results do we desire? We want to live here in Canada, and we can live. The method that we are now using in dealing with this problem is not the only one. There are alternative methods, and I can assure you, sir, that we can reward the farm machinery companies with a 12) per cent increase, enabling them to continue the service they are rendering to the workers in the factories and at the same time sell the machinery for less than 12) per cent higher. We can cut the price twenty-five per cent lower than pre-war prices and sell to the farmers without loss to ^nyone. It is merely a matter of method. There are a dozen methods, devised and known, some good, some bad, which will enable us to do that. What is more, we can cut the price of farm produce to the consumer; for the ultimate object we have in producing is to enable the consumer to enjoy the fruits of the production. Just as we produced war materials to the tune of billions of dollars, shipped them overseas and delivered them to the enemy, absolutely free, so we can produce farm machinery and give it free to the farmers without loss to anyone. It is merely a little different method; that is all.
We can double the production of all farm [DOT] produce at any time agriculture is free to go ahead. The machinery companies will produce the necessary machinery; I have no doubt whatever of that. They are the experts, and if they are given the opportunity to do so, they can produce machinery which will enable one farmer to produce as much as a hundred farmers did before. I can guarantee to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that if farmers are given their freedom to produce, we can do more than double production; we can produce ten pounds of butter and ten quarts of milk for every pound of butter and quart of milk produced before, without increasing the number of live stock on our farms, without increasing the acreage in production, and at no additional cost to the consumer. In fact we shall be able to sell even cheaper. It is merely a matter of method. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is wrong to force the farmer to pay more for his farm machinery. He can be given the finest machinery and pay less for it than he is paying now.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCO IS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, in this case it is quite evident that the ruling was decided upon after the representations were made by the

manufacturers of implements. I doubt very much whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) sought the advice of the farmers or any farmers' organization. I should be greatly surprised if they had approved it. There is more to it. I have often complained that members of parliament are not consulted. If we had been consulted we would have informed the government of the difficulty that the farmers endured during the war. They have been striving very hard not only to farm the land but especially to secure machinery. How many times did I write to secure jeeps for the farmers? The answer was no. How many times did I write to secure trucks and trailers for them? The answer was wait, wait. Sometimes I received one permit but there are many farmers who got nothing.
I was shocked the other day when I saw that in spite of the fact that the farmers of our community cannot get not only what they want but what they need, that boxes of trucks were shipped to Finland, for instance, a country with which we do not yet know whether we are stilt at war. It goes on like that. Everything is good for the outside and our own people are told to wait, to wait, to wait, and that they will be looked after in due course.
The increase in price may affect the farmers only if they can buy the implements. It may look a little strange, but if the farmers are precluded from buying the farm implements that they need the price may go up but it will be a matter of indifference to them. They will have to cultivate with their hands. Well, we have passed that age. I hope that farmers will be given due consideration.
I cannot congratulate the chair, but I shall tell Mr. Speaker of my appreciation of the fact that he has given hon. members of the house an opportunity to give some information to the government about the situation of farmers throughout the country. I complained many times about the dominion Department of Agriculture which serves no purpose in eastern Canada. I want the department to be abolished and the expenditures of the department to be distributed proportionately to the farmers in each province. This may be the view an extremist, but until that is done I hope that the farmers of the east will be given the consideration to which they are entitled. I hope that the department will not insist on putting into force a ruling such as the one we heard read a moment ago.
There is another point that I want to insist upon. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) said j-ust a 'word about it. We

Farm Implements
are told that all the financial machinery of the government is there to prevent inflation. If there is an increase of 12i per cent for the manufacture of farm implements that 12-J per cent increase should be for all, and then it will be a 12i per cent step toward inflation. Now I use reasoning to the Minister of Finance and all the experts who surround him. We should not make prices higher because the country will be at a loss in a very short time if we pay more for this and if we pay more for that. If the farmers cannot get more and if labour gets higher wages that will be inflation. If that is not inflation, what is it? I am puzzled about it. I want the minister and the government to give the farmers the same consideration that they give to any other group.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words on this matter. When I heard the minister announce a twelve and a half per cent increase in the price of farm machinery it seemed to me another example of the patchwork quilt policy of the wartime prices and trade board. They set up a price ceiling scheme shortly after the beginning of the war. Since then they have found it necessary to change that ceiling from time to time, to change something here and change something there, until it has become a fearful and wonderful thing to see, so that at the present time no one knows Where they are at.
I am sorry indead that the minister's statement is not yet in print, because I should have liked to study it a little before making up my mind as to whether or not this increase is justified. I am not going to condemn the increase in the price of farm implements until I do know whether or not it is justified. I recall that a few years ago this house set up a committee of which I was member, to investigate the prices of farm implements. I know at that time a real attempt was made to prove that the prices of farm implements were too high, but I was never convinced of this. I thought the companies made out a very good case to show that their profits were fairly reasonable, and1 that they could not continue to produce if prices were reduced to any considerable extent. I also recall that at about the same time the present government saw fit to allow agricultural implements to come into this country free of duty, stating this was done in order to lower the cost of the implements of production used on the farm. The present increase does not look very much -like lowering the cost of these implements of production If I were to make 63260-55
an offhand suggestion I would say that present prices may be legitimate and fully justified, byt I want to point out that once more, in relation to this price increase, the farmer is the forgotten man, because his interests have not been taken into account. I know the minister will say there have been increases in the prices of certain farm products. It is true that we had a recent increase of four cents in the price of butter and 82 in the price of hogs, but that does not begin to establish a balanced economy in this country as far as the farmer is concerned.
To a very great extent the farmer bore the brunt of increased costs of production during the war. Lately he has been getting a lower price for his wheat than is being paid in the United States. He has been getting a lower price for his beef cattle than he would obtain if he were permitted to dhip them to the United States. He has been getting a lower price for cheese than he would receive if it were sent to the United States. I could go on down the line showing that the farmer has lost out in a great many ways. Now we are told that there is to be an increase in the cost of his implements of production. I wonder if this twelve and a half per cent increase will guarantee that the farmer will get sufficient implements with which to carry on. During the war the farmer was not able to buy the implements he required, and to day many of his machines are obsolete. Labour is also very scarce. In my own riding an investigation was made which showed that in this dairy county there was an average of only twelve men to every thousand acres. The farmer needs new implements, and unless he can get the money with which to buy them he will not be in a position to carry on. During the war the farmer was loyal enough to work twelve or fifteen hours a day in order to produce foodstuffs, but now the war is over he is inclined to sit back and take things a little more easily. That I think is what he intends to do, unless he is given a better deal.
I do not intend to say anything further, but I do believe that if this increase in the farmers' cost of production has been found necessary, there should have been corresponding increases in the prices of the things the farmers produce.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house when the minister gave his explanation for the increase in the cost of farm machinery; possibly if I had been here I would not have found it necessary to speak now. However, since eighty per cent of my constituents are farmers I know this is going to be a heavy burden upon them. In

Farm Implements

the maritime provinces we have very little manufacturing of farm implements. Years ago we manufactured our own farm equipment, but as everyone knows this industry is now carried on in the central provinces, so with us it is all pay out and nothing coming in, as far as farm machinery is concerned.
It seems to me this twelve and a half per cent represents a very large increase in the prices of farm machinery. We all know that such machinery is very scarce, and we all know that during the war farmers worked with worn out machines. We also know that as a result we must have mass production, for there must be a tremendous need for farm equipment throughout the country, which also should mean mass sales. As some one has pointed out, this in itself should mean that the cost of farm machinery ought not to rise to any great extent. I mentioned that farmers have had to carry on with worn out machinery. We all know that if there is a farm auction anywhere in the district the farmers flock to it by the hundreds in order to purchase whatever machinery may be available.
My main reason for rising, Mr. Speaker, was to point out to the minister that one particular class will be greatly affected by this increase in price. I refer to the soldier settler, the man who has just returned after five years of service overseas; the man who is being encouraged .by the Department of Veterans Affairs and by the government in general to take up farming. He is beginning from scratch, as it were. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) knows, we in the veterans committee are trying to make things as easy as possible for these soldier settlers, and I fear this is going to be a direct slap at these men, who have planned on buying their machinery at current' prices. Now they will find they must pay twelve and a half per cent more, which I am sure will be a great disappointment to them. I hope that some further arrangements may be made *which will be equitable as far as the veterans are concerned.
I might also point out to the minister, as other hon. members have mentioned, that here in Canada we are trying to stem the flow from the farms to the cities. Our cities and towns are greatly overcrowded; we have thousands of men and women in them without homes, while in the country we have hundreds of homes without people living in them. I think everything possible should be done to encourage the trek not from the country to the cities but back from the cities and towns to the country. Otherwise I fear we are going to have a very unbalanced

economy, and a very unbalanced situation in this country. Increases such as these are going to make this great problem harder to solve, instead of helping us find a solution.
I do not think I have anything further to say. As I said before, I was not in the house when the minister made his explanation. There may be some good and sufficient reason for this increase; but as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) said a few moments ago I feel that this burden should not be placed upon the agriculturists of this country alone but that some way should be found of having it borne by all the people. We should encourage our farmers. They are given four cents per pound increase in the price of butter, but the farmers in my constituency-and in that constituency they are chiefly dairy farmers-do not consider that increase was enough. They have tried to produce butter during the war at ceiling prices, with the result that thousands of them went out of butter production and sold their raw milk, or engaged in the production of cheese.
These matters should be carefully considered. I hope it has been well considered, and that it will not react unfavourably-as it seems it might-to the farmers of this country.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: 
Major James William Coldwell: That recommendation
was in the Ottawa report, too.

Farm Implements


Mr BENTLEY:: Farm Implements
prices are on top of the reduction that was made in the tariff from 25 to 12^ per cent by the dominion government in 1936, I believe.
In the face of that kind of evidence I urge the minister not to allow this increase in the price of farm machinery until Canadian Cooperative Implements Limited have got going to the point where they are manufacturing and having an influence on the cost of manufacture and distribution of farm machinery. Then, when we have a cooperative concern operating in competition with the combine of private companies-and that is what it is- there will be far better evidence to' show whether or not an increase in the price is warranted. I can assure the minister and the government that, while that competition is going on, none of the big implement manufacturing companies in Canada which have made representations to him and the wartime prices and trade board to have this 124 per cent increase put into effect will give up in despair. On the contrary, they will find some way to get along without this 124 per cent increase.
I wish to bring one more matter to the attention of the minister. Every time that an increase in price has been granted to the implement manufacturing companies-I could cite many more tables from this little booklet which is good Sunday reading when you come home from church or at any other time- that price never goes down; it always stays there or goes up. If you grant this 124 per cent increase, there it will remain, not considered by them as a concession on your part to help them over a difficult spot but as something they have a right to; and you will find them coming back again in a few months for a further increase in price. Whatever increase in price is granted to them they hang on to with a fist of iron. Then in a few months they will come back again to the government to sympathetic ministers like the Minister of Finance with evidence to show that their factories are going to tumble down, their homes be destroyed and the whole economic structure go to pieces if they are not granted a further increase.
No evidence has been produced to show that the implement manufacturing companies need this increase which the minister is authorizing at this time.


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few observations on this question because in my riding farm implements are produced and many of my constituents are employed in their production. My observations, therefore, will be particularly directed toward the point of view of workers' wages. Before dealing with that, may I say that I believe it will be only a matter of
minutes before some member of the government will rise in his place, look across at this side and say: What are you complaining about? You have been advocating the removal of price ceilings from many products
I would therefore remind the government at the outset that foremost in our programme for raising ceilings is the raising of the ceiling on workers' wages, and, second, raising the ceiling on the price of farm products. Both of these policies are at complete loggerheads with the present policy of the government. Therefore the government must not be surprised if they find the Progressive Conservative party advocating that the present policy be given further thought. I believe the minister should tell us whether there is a wage increase for the workers in the farm machinery manufacturing companies which is to be discovered, perhaps, by the same means that the steel workers discoverd theirs, or whether this is a direct advance in price and the manufacturer will get the complete benefit. The minister should also tell us whether the wartime prices and trade board have any machinery of coordination with the national labour board, because it seems to me that the government is out of step with itself all the time; that these two boards do not coordinate their work, and that as a result, when the price of a commodity increases the workers must separately seek their share of the price increase.
But my real reason in rising, Mr. Speaker, is to deal with this as a fundamental question and not as one purely of the wages of labour or of an increase of price. In my opinion, there are three possible reasons for this price increase. It may be the result of pressure group action upon the government; it may be, as the minister says, to stimulate full production; or it may be to meet a corresponding rise in prices and costs in the United States. I do not believe that the government would submit to a pressure group at this time; at least I will give them credit for that. I do not think the minister can be convinced that a 124 per cent increase of the selling price of farm machinery will result in full production or, indeed, increase it. I submit that this price rise is probably caused by the inflation of United States economy which is having its effect on us at the present time and which is being felt all across Canada. The position of this industry is only one instance of the ways in which our country is being influenced by United States prices of accessories and finished parts. The government are not tackling this problem from its fundamental cause; when they permit a rise in the selling price of one group of articles

Farm Implements

they are not going to the root of the matter. The root of the matter is that our Canadian economy is not so organized that it can protect itself against the economy of the United States of America. Fundamentally, it cannot protect itself because the United States is suffering inflation at the present time, and in my opinion this is only a beginning of its effect on Canada. We are going to meet this problem in connection with many other lines of goods especially in cases where we find ourselves dependent on the United States for either fully manufactured products, semifinished products, or articles which are assembled in this country. Instead of putting the wartime prices and trade board to work figure out various price increases, we should put them to work to figure out ways to protect our Canadian economy from these dangers of inflation; and it should be the job of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) to see that all these products which we have to import, to assemble and to use in the manufacture of this machinery should begin to be produced by ourselves here and now. Then the minister will be protected, and he will not have price rises forced upon him by inflation south of our border.
I rise simply to submit these two points to the house: that no mention has been made of wage increases; that no mention has been made of the fact that the Massey-Harris Company of Canada, which was on war work, has been unable to increase its wages, and actually, at a time of rising prices, workers are receiving less for their money than they were during the war. The minister should also try to find ways of protecting the Canadian economy from the dangers of inflation in the United States.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is talking about the Massey-Harris company. May I ask him a question?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Has he any knowledge whatsoever that they have reduced the wages of their employees?


Arza Clair Casselman: He did not say that.


Humphrey Mitchell: The inference is there.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I have not exact knowledge, except this, that I have been so informed by a number of constituents; and I know one man, whose income over a period of a month was $80. He has approached me and asked if I could find him some other employment. I can give the minister his name if he wishes it.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: I wish to say a few words on this particular question, in spite of the advice of my doctor, who told me not to take part in any debate. However, I can say that my memory is still very good, and I remember what the government has done for the farmers.
I do not wish my words to be taken as an approbation of higher prices for farm implements. On the contrary, I believe the price of those implements should be lowered. But I am surprised at what I have heard and seen this afternoon. Apparently there are quite a number of people whose memory is not very good or whose memory is quite convenient. I notice that the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) has stated that the farmer is again the forgotten man. Then hon, member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) reminded the house of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said at one time, that a member, once elected, was a member for the country at large, and he invited the Liberal members to realize that, once a member is elected,'he represented the whole country. I also notice that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) stated that the government was proceeding the wrong way in allowing farm implement companies to raise their prices. If the leader of the opposition had come to the house earlier instead of being a political rover a few years ago, he would have known that the government had thought of the farmers before this proposition came before the house to-day.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They thought of them but
they did not do anything for them.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Let my hon. friend have a little patience. It would seem that his memory is failing, because he was here in 1944 when the government passed the following measure; an act for the support of prices of agricultural products.


Mr. STIRLING:: What did they do with
it?


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: The act, which was cited as the Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944, was assented to on the 15th of August of that year.


An hon. MEMBER:: What good is it?


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Just wait until it becomes necessary for this act to be put into operation. I would remind hon. members that the government did think of the farmers in providing that the prices of agricultural prod* ucts be stabilized. That, act was passed in 1944. I have heard complaints to-day-that the government was not thinking of the farmers. I repeat that the government did think of the

Farm Implements
farmers in 1944, but apparently a great many members who were not then in the house did not know of that act, while other members who were in the house previously had forgotten about it. Let me quote section 3 of the act:
There shall be an agricultural prices support board under the direction of the minister consisting of three members, including a chairman and a vice-chairman, to be appointed by the governor in council and who shall hold office during pleasure.
I quote next from section 9, which deals with the powers of the board. When one farm product does not bring to the farmers a sufficient or adequate or profitable price the board shall have the following powers:
(a)	to prescribe from time to time, with the approval of the governor in council, prices at which the board may purchase agricultural products in the market;
(b)	to purchase at such prices any agricul-* tural product, if such product, on inspection,
meets standards as to grade and quality prescribed by or under any act of the parliament of Canada; provided that any agricultural product, for which dominion government standards have not been established, may be purchased by the board on such basis of quality as the board may prescribe;
(c)	to pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly or through such agent as the board may determine the difference between a price prescribed by the board with the approval of the governor in council for such product and the average price, as determined by the board, at which such product is sold in the market during a specified period if such average price is below such prescribed price.
After hearing the remarks that have been made this afternoon, particularly those of the last speaker, who addressed himself to the Minister of Finance, accusing him of siding with the big interests in this country, I thought it was only fair that someone should show that the Minister of Finance and other ministers as well were looking after the interests of farmers before this date.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I am very happy to be able to make a few observations on this particular item, representing as I do, for the most part, an agricultural constituency. When this announcement was made on Friday, through the radio and the press, I could not help thinking that here was another piece of glaring evidence of the result of government by bureaucracy. Over andl over again, during my experience in this house, I have had to ask myself why we are here anyway. Particularly during the war years, even though we permitted a certain amount of authoritarianism to exist in government administration, I have wondered just what power parliament itself has really had. Announcements are made from time to time. Nobody seems to know where regulations
come from. Ministers seem to reach into the air and suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, an announcement is made. No one is consulted. Parliament may be sitting at the time but parliament is never consulted. Things are done by somebody who sits at a desk behind the scenes and I almost have to ask myself, who on earth is running the country. Do the people's representatives after all have anything to say in the matter?
This particular announcement, involving as it does an increase in the price of farm machinery by 12% per cent, is no little thing. It means a great deal to the farmer because 12% per cent is quite a rise, quite a slice. If it had been two or three per cent they would, I am certain, have objected. Rut 12% per cent is a lot. I do not believe that the method by which these price increases are made is the right one.
Take, for instance, as a comparison the matter of tariff items. When there is to be a change in the tariff the matter is brought before the tariff board, a body appointed' to look into all such questions involving an increase or decrease in tariffs. Very often there comes to our desks a notice that the tariff board will be sitting on a certain date on a certain item, and the matter is known throughout the country. People can appear before the board and make their submissions as to why or why not such a tariff item should be increased or decreased. After that, it is included ini the annual budget. It is brought into the house and debated and becomes part of the legislation of the country. That is all right. I do not complain in that event. But in comparison, here is a matter the effect of which is the same as an increase in the tariff structure and yet we have not had an opportunity of discussing it. An announcement is made. It is virtually the law of the land. When the minister is replying I wonder if he would mind telling us what the process is, what procedure is followed when it is decided to raise the price of a particular item. Does the wartime prices and trade board sit behind closed doors? Is the country aware that it is considering such an increase?
Will the minister tell us whether farmers' organizations were invited to make a submission on this particular matter. I should like him to tell the country what the procedure is when the wartime prices and trade board wishes to take certain action. I desire to know why such a matter as important as this

and it certainly is important-is not brought before the house in some way by which the minister can get the sense of the house by a vote. To my mind, a matter of this kind should have
Farm Implements

some such procedure. A tariff item would. Why not this one? Notwithstanding all the government's technical, financial and economic arguments, I wonder whether they would take a chance on getting the support of the members of this house who are the representatives of agricultural constituencies, by putting this to a vote. I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government dare not do that. I will suggest what the government is doing. I will suggest that it is attempting to hide political party weakness behind bureaucratic authoritarianism. Now is the time when we can see democracy in action. Here is the opportunity for democracy to cut across party lines and I declare to you, sir, that it is my firm opinion that the government dare not take that chance. I challenge it to take it.
One of the minister's arguments for the rise in price-if I heard his announcement correctly-was that secondhand machinery had been selling at auction sales at a good price. I admit that is so. I have attended at some of these auction sales and I must say that I marvelled at the prices some farmers were paying. But that is no argument in this case, because at an auction sale there are some farmers who have a wad of money to spend, but there are others who have not and at an auction sale the small farmer may be at a disadvantage.


An hon. MEMBER:: He always is.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes. Action is taken in this matter Which affects all farmers, small ones as well as large ones. I protest because of that. I protest because of another matter. I do not know whether the minister will consider this to be important or not, but the increase in the price of farm machinery comes at an unfortunate time. It comes when the farmer is commencing his year's operations. Perhaps he will have to obtain a line of credit at the bank. I do not know what the procedure may be, but perhaps he will have to finance the year's operations. He now finds before he starts that he is likely to have a further burden in the rise in price of his machinery. Let us remember that to-day farming is carried on almost entirely by the machine. I do not know whether I should mention this, but it was not veiy long ago that this house took action to raise the salaries of certain people in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: In this house.


Ernest George Hansell: My hoi}, friend reminds me that I should say, "in this house". I was in favour of that. As a matter of fact, we have been fighting for the farmer for a long time and neglecting ourselves. When I went
<Mr. Hansell.]
back to my constituency I found a certain reaction to that in some places. I thought I could explain it all right to some of these people. Nevertheless it did leave a bad taste in some of their mouths when our indemnities were raised. My reply to that was that they should have spoken before because the resolution was on the order paper for several months waiting to get the sense of the country. Be that as it may, we took that action, and I believe we did the right thing. But if it left a bad taste in some mouths, what will the taste be now when they realize that parliament can raise their own salaries and also the price of farm machinery? It is not good. I say it is unfortunate that it comes at this time for that reason. Whether the argument is a sound one or not I do not know.
There is another unfortunate thing about the timing. This is the month when the farmers are making out their income tax. They find that they have to fork out their money in payment of their income tax; they also find themselves faced with a 12t per cent rise in the price of the machinery which they have to buy.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is poor political
strategy.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says that it is poor political strategy but I have never known the Liberal government to be far behind when it comes to political strategy. Do iion. members not see the strategy? It is not a party matter. That is what I said a moment ago. The party can hide behind some bureaucratic board and say, "Oh, we did not do it; the party did not do it. We have the wartime prices and trade board. They are competent men. Here is Mr. Gordon, a respected gentleman who is paid a large salary. He is deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. These men know their business. They have gone into all this. It was the decision of the board; it was not the government." That is the political strategy, and the government, which in the final analysis must take the responsibility, can now hide behind the bureaucrats.


Mr. PROBE:: The government may have
in mind reducing the price again by, say six per cent just before the next election.


Ernest George Hansell: That may be the idea.
Perhaps they have a tong-range policy.
In conclusion, may I say that all these things will happen just so long as the government remains confined to the present financial system. They are going to meet this over and over again. They are going to find they have solved one price problem only to find that

Farm Implements
another bobs up somewhere else. I have made my observations. I shall repeat what I said a moment ago. Let the government bring in some little measure now whereby this house can vote on this matter and see whether the people, through their elected representatives, want this thing to happen. I challenge them to do so.


Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: Farm Implements

(Mr. Zaplitny) threw out the challenge to rural members on the other side of the house. 1 shall be interested to hear what they have to say. For instance, I shall be interested to hear the opinion of my respected neighbour, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who represents the rural community next to my home city. I shall listen with interest to find out how the other rural members on the government side react to this order, which evidently has come to a great many of them with as much surprise as it has come to us.
As far as the arguments are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I feel that they have been well and sufficiently covered by hon. members on this side, and I shall let it go at that for the time being.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it necessary to say very much, but I should like to comment briefly on some points that have been overlooked by those who have already spoken. First, I should like to remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that on Friday last I asked him what action was being taken by the cabinet to reduce or remove tariffs on farm implements. At that time he told me these announcements were not made until the budget was brought down, and that therefore it would be out of order to make a statement at this time. Perhaps he had me in mind when on Friday evening the announcement was made of this 12J per cent increase in prices of farm implements manufactured in Canada. Perhaps we shall get a 21 per cent decrease in some of the tariff items; then in response to that we may have another increase of ten or twelve per cent in the prices of our implements, as has happened since the investigation of 1938.
Dealing with tariffs, I feel that we are forgetting these matters, which is something we should not do. From personal investigation I know that many of the things we are using in Canada can be purchased in the United States for one-half their price here. Why shoufd that be so? At the same time farmers in the United States are being paid much higher prices for their produce than we are receiving in Canada. Perhaps that is what we get for the privilege of living in Canada, paying high interest rates, and taking the skim milk that is handed to us as farmers right along. Some reason or another may be found for not providing us with specific information as to the actual cost of our tariffs. The only information I have been able to get was away back in 1931, when the late Hon. Norman Rogers made an investigation

which showed that the tariff cost Manitoba a net amount of $29,185,740, or $13.20 per capita. In the same year it cost Saskatchewan S29,-228,285, or $28.16 per capita; it cost Alberta $27,909,396, or $26.93 per capita, and British Columbia, $37,737,247, or S22.33 per capita. I would remind the house that in 1931 we had a very low income because of depressed prices for farm produce. In the same year the province of Quebec had a net gain of $31,685,885, or $11.03 per capita. In the case of Ontario the gain on account of the tariff was $51,989,761, or $15.15 per capita.
To come back to 1938 prices, it will be remembered that there was considerable discussion in the house and in committee on the subject. I regret that I was not a member of the committee in that year. The hon. members for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) have placed certain figures on record; however, very little notice was taken of those figures, although on two occasions, while the investigation was taking place, the machinery companies increased their prices.
Perhaps the minister is not aware of the fact that one of the large manufacturing companies had a secret reserve of $40 million which was ferreted out by the investigators at that time. But did the minister, or the wartime prices and trade board, take advantage of this opportunity to learn whether the companies which are demanding these increases have secret reserves? Secret reserves seem to be all right for some people, particularly some of the machine companies and the chartered banks.
An appeal has been made by the government for increased production. As on many other occasions, the farmers of Canada have responded and have done their share. What would happen if the farmers at this time went on a sit-down strike, as did industry back in 1939, just a couple of weeks before the outbreak of war? If the farmers took that action it would be said that they are unpatriotic. I am not sure what they are going to do. Certain sections of the farming community are considering sit-down strikes or non-delivery strikes, if present conditions are carried on.
I am not in favour of that course of action, because I do not believe that in a democratic country we should be placed in a position where we have to do that sort of thing, and particularly so at this time, when food is so greatly needed in Europe.
In the speech from the throne we find this:
Every encouragement is being given to increasing production.

Farm Implements
On the night of March 17 the nine-point programme was announced. Then on March 18 there was an increase of two cents a gallon in the price of motor fuels. That is sabotage of the agricultural industry, that, and other things which have happened since, have been unjust to agriculture. These things have been the means of helping to starve out still further those people in Europe who need food so badly.
What is the matter with this country, when we find intelligent business men carrying on a programme of that kind? In addition to the two-cent advance, we were also carrying a three-cent war tax which, it had been expected, would be removed when the war was declared to be at an end. The official pronouncement respecting the end of the war was made on January 1, but we still have our three-cent war tax, plus the additional two cents. Then, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Swift Current, cooperative associations have shown that it is not necessary to increase the price of gasoline.
I believe I need not say much more, However, again on behalf of the farmers of Canada I demand a percentage of the national income which will compensate them for their contribution, an amount of that national income to which we are entitled.
I believe there should be an adjustment of our income tax set-up for all the people in Canada, something which has been long overdue, and which might take care of this price increase. First of all. however, the increase should be investigated honestly to find out whether it is necessary. If it is found to be necessary, then the provision offered by the hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Low) and Acadia (Mr. Quelch) should be accepted.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a few brief remarks, because even now I am fairly well exhausted, having risen thirteen times in an effort to take part in this debate.
May I express my disappointment at this increase in the price of agricultural implements, and at the manner in which this has been done. If labour requires an increase in wages, it has to submit proposals and figures which are made known to the public generally. Everything is done in the open. The press carries the facts concerning arbitration or conciliation boards, and nothing can be hidden. If the farmers want an increase in commodity prices they must come out in the open, give their evidence publicly and attempt to prove that they are entitled to increases in their prices, because of increased) production costs. In the present instance, however, through the method of handling price increases 63260-561
by the wartime prices and trade board the increase is presented to us as a fait accompli.
I fully appreciate the difficulty facing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and I believe persons who discuss matters of this type should be constructive in their criticism. It is very easy to make general statements or offhand remarks. As I said in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, I believe we are entering into another phase of capitalism. We are developing in Canada a form of state capitalism, and if we are to negotiate the years ahead safely we shall have to use new techniques and develop new methods. This we must do, if we wish to prevent the vicious circle of prices, wages, and inflation.
I suggest that the Minister of Finance and the government consider the possibility of arriving at these decisions in a more democratic way. When it comes to a consideration of prices and wages I suggest that the government, the Department of Labour, the wartime prices and trade board and the ministers involved should call in for consultation representatives of labour, representatives from the farming community and representatives from industry.
I see no way of avoiding economic chaos unless we develop some technique of that type. Then, if we are to reestablish confidence in the country and in one another there must be frankness, and a placing of all the facts on the table. In this way I am sure decisions acceptable to the country at large and receiving its support can be arrived at. The government would still have-and must have- the responsibility for governing the country, but I am sure if we are to negotiate safely the years lying immediately ahead we must develop a technique of that type.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock we were discussing the proposed increase in the price of farm implements. We have listened to a number of very good addresses on this important subject and I am glad to say that not one member thus far heard has spoken in favour of this increase. As a member representing one of the agricultural constituencies in western Canada I, too, wish to protest strongly against this increase in the price of agricultural machines. I fully realize the great difficulties in which the minister finds himself in dealing with such matters.

Farm Implements
These are difficulties which are probably an aftermath of the war and I expect that they will increase in the future.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that the increase will not apply to the cost of farm tractors. The farm tractor is an important machine in agricultural production; but, as most hon. members are aware, it is not the only machine which the farmers use. Farmers have to buy many other implements, and their purchases will be large because within the next three or four years the farm implements in western Canada will practically all have to be renewed. That is one reason why I am opposing this increase in price.
I consider it a breach of contract to increase . the price of farm implements at the present time. The agricultural industry of western Canada, indeed of Canada generally, was stabilized at a certain level during the war years. We had fixed prices for agricultural products, fixed prices in the labour market for wages, and fixed prices for agricultural implements.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member speaks of fixed prices in the labour market. Where does he get that idea?


Ronald Stewart Moore: What I meant to say was that it was done through negotiation under P.C. 1003.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; the hon. member is wrong. There has been a measure of negotiation. It is easy for my hon. friend to say these things when he is back home, but he cannot say them here and get away with them.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I will accept the minister's correction, but I understood that labour negotiations took place under P.C. 1003.


Humphrey Mitchell: That deals with labour relations.


Ronald Stewart Moore: It is practically the same thing.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, it is not.


Ronald Stewart Moore: It looks to me as if we were quibbling, hair-splitting.


Humphrey Mitchell: No. The hon. member was wrong; that is all.


Ronald Stewart Moore: To proceed, Mr. Speaker, I say that the farmers of western Canada will consider this action of the government in raising the prices of agricultural implements a breach of contract, and they would have sound reasons for so thinking. We have set prices for most agricultural products, so that it is practically impossible to-day for these prices to vary except within certain limits'.

Now, by reason of this increase in the price of farm machinery, it will be extremely difficult for farmers, especially in western Canada, to produce. That is the position in which they find themselves.	*
Western economy is largely based on agriculture and on stabilized prices. There was very little objection from Canada, last fall when this government proposed a ceiling price on wheat of $1.55 and a floor price of $1 a bushel for a five-year period.


Mr. TUCKER:: The price was not set at $1.55.


Ronald Stewart Moore: 
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on this motion, I wish to say first that I am neither unmindful nor unappreciative of the difficult task that confronts the government in maintaining a stable price structure at this time. I would not rise at all at this moment were it not for the fact that I wish to draw the attention of this house to this fact. In maintaining prices and1 wages, which, after all, is the same thing because wages is the price of labour-or, as the Marxians would put it, the price of labour power-labour is the misery one goes through while delivering labour power.
Quite recently the steel manufacturers came to the wartime prices and trade board! for an increase in their commodity, steel. That increased price was granted. Now we have the farm implement manufacturers coming to the wartime prices and trade board, and they have had their request for an increase ini prices granted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Only about half. Not what they asked for at all.
Mr. MacINNIS': I did not mean to say they got everything they asked for. In fact, no one knows what they asked for.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes. I said so.


Angus MacInnis: The minister knows, but I do not know. I mean that the ordinary rank and file member does not know, but just the men at the top. That is one of the things to which I object. Take the position of organized workers asking for an increase in wages. Generally they first have to take a strike vote. This procedure is to show that they mean business, that if something is not done they will go on strike. But that is a procedure which they have to go through. Then they have to make an application to the regional war labour board.. On that board will sit the representatives of employers, representatives of the workers, and a supposedly neutral or impartial chairman or representative of the government. Then that board makes a finding. But that is not the end of it. After that finding is made it must be reported to the national war labour board. Either side, of course, may appeal to the national war labour board against the finding. There again you have the same thing; there will be representatives of labour, representatives of employers, and a representative of the government. But when the employers come for an increase in prices they go into a closed room. There is no representative of labour there. There is no representative of the consumer there. There is
nobody there except the officers of the wartime prices and trade board and the people who are asking for the increase. We have one law and one procedure for the workers; we have another law and another procedure for business. And business during the entire war controlled the whole of our economy, and have come out of the war much better than they were when they went into it.
One case which has been brought to my attention is that of the Guelph Stove company, owned exclusively, I believe, by the T. Eaton company. The employees of this company asked for a raise in the basic wage from fifty cents to fifty-five cents. They went to the regional war labour board of Ontario, which granted the increase. The company appealed to the national war labour board. The national war labour board wiped out the increase granted by the regional board; it allowed the employees a few small concessions, something on overtime and .perhaps holidays with pay, but denied them the basic increase which had been granted by the regional board. Why do manufacturers and business men, when they want an increase in price, not have to go through the same procedure, a procedure at which the public and labour are represented? If it is proper that employers shall have a voice in decisions on wages, I maintain it is proper that the workers should have a voice when it is a question of prices, because ultimately labour has to pay its share of the increased prices. The case I mentioned, that of the Guelph Stove company, is the first decision, I think, made by the national war labour board since P.C.9384 was amended to make it easier to get an increase in wages. That just shows how "easy" it has been made. I suggest that if we are to have a reasonable, rational, fair deal in this matter of wages and prices, before any increase of either is granted, both applications should go through the same process.
I believe it was the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn) who, in speaking this afternoon, said that in the farm implements investigation during the session of 1937 the committee was not sure whether prices of farm implements were too high or not. I have before me the journals of the house for that session. I wush to quote from page 500, a part of the lengthy report which was made by the committee of the house. There are thirty-six recommendations. I will read just three:
28. That the profits to the farm implement companies on the sale of replacement parts is excessive, and the price of these to the consumer should be materially reduced.
Farm Implements

29.	That the increases announced by the companies in January, 1936, were not justified by an increase in manufacturing or distribution costs or by the financial results of the companies in so far as these were affected by the price level of farm implements.
30.	That over the period 1891 to 1936-
That is, for forty-five years.
-retail prices of farm implements have been maintained at too high a level as shown by the financial returns to the companies engaged in the industry during that period.
With facts like these before us, surely before an increase of price is granted to the farm implement companies there should have been some other investigation than one behind closed doors where no one was present excepting those who were asking for the increase in prices and the members of the wartime prices and trade board. It is time we had a new deal in this matter of prices and wages.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to say only a word or two. I shall not keep the house very long, but I think there are some things which should be said. The hon. member who has just spoken talked-no doubt with the best intentions in the world-about the "supposedly impartial chairman" of the war labour board. He said that it was necessary to have a strike, and that you had to do all these things, which were unfair, right down the line. But let me say this to my hon. friend, in a kindly way-*


Major James William Coldwell: Don't say it in a "kindly way".


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, in a kindly-


Major James William Coldwell: Don't. You so often say it that we are getting quite used to it.


Humphrey Mitchell: You should get used to it. But it is sometimes as well to meet a jury of your peers here in the house, because so often we have to sit here while the boys are up and down the line making speeches.


Major James William Coldwell: We are here torday.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know, but six months in the year you are roaming up and down the country making speeches in the little red schoolhouses.


Major James William Coldwell: We keep in touch with our people.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not interrupt my hon. friends. We are sitting here trying to administer the affairs of the country, and I think it is admitted on all hands that we are defending the living standards of the working people. You cannot have it both ways. My good Conservative friends say, "Lift the lid

and let the thing go to pieees." That is what they say in effect, because they do mot admit it outright. Then you get the other point of view, the point of view of people who want us to sit on prices and let wages go up. Well, we are all grown men, and I think we all recognize that, as I have just said, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot eat your cake and still have it.
My hon. friend said something about an impartial chairman, or a supposedly impartial chairman. All human institutions have their weaknesses. There is nothing perfect, though some people seem to think that they are and that others are not. I said once before that I sometimes get sick of people wearing their conscience around their necks as a woman wears a lavaliere-or a halo around their heads, whichever way you like to have it. As one hon. member says, the halo sometimes gets a little worn and we get sick of seeing it.


Gordon Graydon: Sometimes it gets tight.


Humphrey Mitchell: This, I think, can be truthfully said, that in a broad way our system of wage stabilization has worked for the protection of the working men and women of the country. We have representatives of organized labour and of employers and a supposedly impartial chairman. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnds) was a little mixed up in discussing the machinery for appeals to the national board, but we will let that go for the moment.
Something has been said about the freezing of wages. I do not believe that those people who use the phrase believe it themselves. However, since the institution of these boards the total increases granted through their instrumentality have amounted to $222,222,912 a year. That was started on November 15, 1941, and continued up to December 31, 1945, and the number of employees affected was 1,918,892. I should like -to know what my hon. friend is saying under his breath. If he will say it aloud I will try to answer it. Of course we had the telescoping of the cost of living bonus into the basic wage, which aggregated $43,682,436, and I believe that of the cases before the different boards 83-5 per cent were granted in full-that is, the applications-9-7 per cent were granted in part, and only 6-8 per cent were denied; which is some indication that these boards have not been as arbitrary as some people would have us believe.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) spoke about steel to-day. Let us look at the record, and I do not say this with any intention of trying to influence the judgment of any board which is sitting on wages in the

Farm Implements
steel industry. But I received these figures this afternoon from the national war labour board: Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, percentage of increase since 1939, 36-7 per cent-that is in wages; Algoma Steel Corporation, Sault Ste. Marie, increase, 54-4 per cent; Steel Company of Canada, Hamilton, [DOT]38-7 per cent; average for the three plants, 43-6 per cent.


Major James William Coldwell: What are the basic hourly wages?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are 59i cents for the Dominion in Sydney, 64i cents for Algoma, Sault Ste. Marie-that is the low Tate-and 644 cents for Hamilton, Ontario, the average for the three being 62-8 cents.
Let us take another figure which I think is illuminating. The cost of living index in 1939 was 101-5, and wage rates index, taking the base of 100, was 105-7; 1943, 118-4, that is the cost of living index, and wage rates index 139-5; 1944, cost of living index, 118*5, and wage index, 144-7; and I am informed today that, with the 1945 figures not all in the cost of living index is 119-6, while the wage index is slightly higher than in 1944.
I tell hon. members these things because I know they want to be fair, and I believe that statement goes for all parties in the house. We all want to raise the social conditions of the working people and of the farmers, and we want to raise them as high as possible. I do not 'believe that any party has a first mortgage on the desire to bring about that condition, but if I might use the language of the street-


Major James William Coldwell: Better not, now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will. When I read the declarations of my good friends of the Conservative party, who want the lid lifted off everything so that their friends can make the fortunes-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: No!


Humphrey Mitchell: Their friends have a knowledge of- markets and prices, and we know that after the last war it was their friends that made the fortunes. But let me say this to the undying credit of this party, taking this war in comparison with the last war, that we have not had the scandals that we had after the last war, nor have we had the war profiteers. If there are any I should like some member to rise in his place in this House of Commons and point the finger of scorn at this war administration. It may be that some got under the barrier, but if they did I have not yet heard of any.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We cannot find out.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course you cannot find out because there are not any. My hon. friend who was elected by that crowd says, "We cannot find out."


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, because the War Assets Corporation is a hush-hush proposition.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not getting mad; my hon. friend need not worry. When it comes to taxation, we may have made our mistakes, but let this be clearly understood. The only people in this country that I know of who make no mistakes are my good friends *the Conservatives. But the taxation policy of the government, I submit, has, in the main, been fair. We have been like the Quakers; we have gone where the money could be got. We have gone to the richest people in the country and even to members of the House of Commons and have taken half their salaries in taxation.
An. hon. MEMBER: How about the 85 per cent-


Humphrey Mitchell: If my prairie chicken would just shut up-[DOT]


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That is nice.


Humphrey Mitchell: I remember the budget of two years ago when my good friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) heard the taxation proposals as laid down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). I felt like saying, "Brother, can you spare a dime?" Well, I believe that any nation which permits enormous riches at the top and poverty at the bottom is in for trouble. I believe the policy of any government in a democracy, if it is to remain a democracy, must be based upon the fairest distribution of the wealth that it owns. I believe this government has done that. I believe it has done it in a sincere way. I rose to say these few things to put the record straight as I see it. _


An hon. MEMBER:: In a roundabout way.


Humphrey Mitchell: We talk about putting the record straight. This evening one hon. member spoke about another hon. member who has to do with labour relations. He made those remarks without any knowledge of the other side of the picture which has to do with wage relations. I believe these things should be said. When I take my seat I hope it will not be said that I am a friend of the big interests. In administering legislation you cannot have one law for the rich and another one for the poor on the same subject. You have to try to be fair to both sides. I believe this government is endeavouring to do that in a big way.
Farm. Implements


Mr. McCUAIG:: How about the income tax and the $660 exemption?


Humphrey Mitchell: Nobody likes to pay taxes. I detest it myself. When the motion was before the house giving my hon. friend and all the other hon. members $2,000 a year free of income tax he voted for it. I have no objection to that. I believe the only hon. member who did not vote for it was the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis).


Duncan John McCuaig: It was a government motion.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend cannot get from under by saying it was a government motion; it was not a government motion; it was the decision of the House of Commons and of this parliament of Canada. If my hon. friend does not like what the government did, my advice to him is that he return the $2,000 to the treasury.
I believe that it will take the greatest degree of discipline and cooperation to maintain a stable price structure in this country. We all know that wages have gone up; we all know that prices for agricultural products have gone up right across the board. But we shall need the greatest degree of discipline in the months that lie ahead. While we might talk of powerful employers' organizations and powerful labour organizations, the duty of any government in a democracy is, in my judgment, to protect the weak from the strong. We have endeavoured to do that and we shall continue to endeavour to do it. The attitude adopted by my hon. friends directly opposite reminds me of an old song to the effect that we are only chasing rainbows.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait a moment.


Gordon Graydon: He is "forever blowing bubbles". That is what the minister has in mind. The minister is not blowing bubbles; he is just kidding himself; that is all.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend talks about blowing bubbles. He has been doing that for the last twenty years. I just rose to say these simple things that the working people of this country will understand, notwithstanding my good Conservative friends or my hon. friends to the left of them.


Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: I should like to say a few wordls on the increase in the price of farm implements. This increase has come about when there is a pent-up demand for farm implements. I am opposing the increase. Used1 tractors are being sold in the vicinity of my home town for $1,200.

These tractors are three and four years old. Dealers are buying these tractors and reselling them to farmers. Take binders which have been, used for some years. They are becoming dilapidated and will have to be replaced. There is a large pent-up market for farm machinery. This increase comes at a time when an increase in food is needed. Farmers are short of labour. Many farms of 200 acres are being worked by a man and his wife. The wife drives the tractor and the man drives the team on the drill and the harrow. They do the chores at night. I know of a casei where a man and his wife are working 200 acres of land. They cannot get help; they could not get it last summer and have not been able to get it for two or three summers. They have given a lot to feed the empire in the last few years.
This increase in price will mean that a binder which sold at $325 will now cost around $44 to $50 more. That is quite an increase in the price of a binder. May I give the house an instance of how scarce farm machinery is. Last fall there was sold in my district a sleigh which was twenty-eight years old. It sold for $65. There is really no machinery for sale at all now. It is pretty nearly all worn out. I should like to ask the minister what effect this increase in price will have on machinery already ordered by the farmer and not taken delivery of. The dealer may not have the machine to deliver but he has the order from the farmer. What effect will this increase have on the purchase price?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will find that out.


Lewis Menary: Returned soldiers are buying farms. It will now be difficult for them to get machinery to operate these farms. They need the machinery and they have not too much money to spend. Every dollar of an increase in the price of machinery will have an effect on these returned soldiers. It will be harder on the returned soldiers than on other farmers, because the returned soldier is just getting started. He needs all the help he can get. He needs the help of the government and of his neighbours and of all people in the district. I just wish to register my opposition and to ask the minister to answer my question.


Mr. D. S. BARENESS (Calgary East):: Without being quite as verbose as some hon. members who have risen to say a word or two in connection with this matter, and without chasing any rainbows like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), I should like to register my protest against this increase in the price of farm machinery. Ever since I was a small boy in western Canada I can remember that.

Farm Implements
the farmers of that area looked on the price of farm machinery as a very sore point. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will bear me out in that,. Probably the question which caused more discontent and more anger on the part of farmesr in western Canada than anything else was the excessive price of farm machinery. I can think of nothing at the present time which would cause more anger and a greater loss of morale and more discontent on the part of the farmers of western Canada than an increase in the price of farm machinery without a corresponding increase in the price of farm products. In my opinion a policy of that kind is the 'surest way to cause a decrease in the produc-tipn of agricultural products. If the government had racked their brains from now until Christmas they could not have found a policy which would cause more discontent and, as a result, bring about a greater loss of production on the part of the farmers of western Canada than the very policy that has been announced. I am by no means convinced that a price increase of 12i per cent on farm machinery is necessary to bring about an increase in the production of that machinery. If such an increase is necessary for that purpose, well and good. But in the name of all that is reasonable let the government couple that increase in the price of farm machinery with an increase in prices of farm products. If they do not do so, I personally am absolutely certain they will get a decrease in agricultural production.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is well that the house has had an opportunity to discuss this most important question. I must say, however, that I was disappointed in the hon. gentleman who brought this matter to the attention of the house. After having made a motion that parliament should be adjourned to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, and having been given the opportunity, the hon. gentleman did not discuss it for very long. I presume he was inspired to raise the question by the same reasons which inspire me to speak now; he feels he has an obligation to agriculture, and perhaps particularly to his constituents. I hope it was not a soft feeling in his heart for the manufacturers concerned that influenced him to repress his noble rage.


Gordon Graydon: That is hardly fair. Play ball, now.


William Irvine: Well, I just made a goal. What I meant was that I believe a matter of such importance, raised by the hon. gentleman who occupies the most prominent position to your left in this house, Mr. Speaker,
should have been gone into more thoroughly. The whole situation should have been laid bare, and all the facts available should have been brought to the attention of the government and of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: What have you said so far?


William Irvine: I hope to say something before I am through, if my hon. friend will give me an opportunity; and if I say anything out of the way I am sure he will take the opportunity to chastise me in the proper parliamentary fashion. I hope my hon. friends to my right do not take what I said as an insult, for I had no intention of even questioning the honour of the hon. gentleman to whom I referred.
I wish to say a word now'about what was just said by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) before I go on with what I have to say for myself. The minister repeated the old saying that we cannot have our cake and eat it too, which is such an obvious truth that comment is hardly necessary. But I would point out to the hon. gentleman that in this instance the farmers are neither getting the cake nor have they eaten it. I presume the minister's idea was that it is not possible, on the one hand, to raise wages without, on the other hand, raising prices. I do not think that necessarily follows; it all depends upon the relation wages had to prices in the first instance. But assuming his statement to 'be true, then I take the objection that this is exactly what the government is doing. It has allowed an increase in prices without a corresponding increase in wages and without a corresponding increase in the income of farmers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not correct at all. I do not want to interrupt, but that is so far from being correct that I must interrupt.


William Irvine: If that is not correct I Should like to be corrected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will correct you; certainly.


William Irvine: But the minister is going to correct me when I have no opportunity to point out the weakness of his correction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There will be no weakness in it.


William Irvine: I do not presume that the right hon. gentleman is any more infallible in that regard than the rest of us, and it is just possible that I may find a hole in his reasoning as he supposes there is in mine.
I believe, sir, in the government having some control over the national economy and, when the occasion arises, having control over
8S2
Farm Implements

prices. Particularly do I hold that view in a time of crisis. In fact, not so long ago I voted for the extension of such powers to be exercised by the present government. Nor do I think, as was suggested by an hon. member in this debate, that such procedure necessarily means the establishment of a bureaucracy because, as I understand this situation, no board in Canada has absolute authority to do anything, 'but the minister and the government must accept responsibility for the statement which was made to-day by the minister. That responsibility rests with this government and with this parliament. The same hon. gentleman said that the increase proposed was negotiated by the wartime prices and trade board, and he branded that body as a bureaucracy. It may be a bureaucracy, but I would rather submit to the findings of that board than to the bureaucracy of monopoly capital Which, without any board, would be raising prices without any question and without this parliament even having a chance to discuss the matter. It would be very interesting for this house to know whether the trades board gave the advice to the government in this matter or whether the government gave the advice to the trades board. I do not believe the board initiated this increase in prices, and when the minister speaks I hope he will prove my point by taking full responsibility for the statement he made, as I believe he will.
Nevertheless I was amazed at the statement itself, indicating an increase of 12J per cent in the price of farm machinery, and that this was done without those directly affected being given an opportunity to be heard, either by the board or by the government, or by both. It means, of course, an increase in the production costs of the farmers, without, as has been pointed out by nearly all the speakers preceding me, a corresponding increase in farmers' incomes. Similar increases have already been granted to other companies, without any corresponding increase in the wages of those employed in the plants privileged to raise their prices. So that I desire to protest against this increase. I protest against the principle; I protest against the method by which it was put into effect; I protest against the result it will bring, both to farmers and wage-earners.
For the past few years, during war time we have had what I might call stabilized prices. I suggest that it is unwise to alter any price in a stabilized system unless there is a complete revision touching all industries and all wage scales affected. It is not possible to alter the price of one commodity without adversely affecting all other indus-

tries and all other individuals. To do so, therefore, means that we are entering the vicious circle of inflation.
For instance, we had first of all an increase in the price of steel. It follows naturally that industries requiring steel in their production will seek to have an increase in their prices. Then it will follow that working people will ask for corresponding increases in wages; farmers will ask for corresponding increases in their income. When that is done the steel companies will ask for a greater increase to offset the increased costs brought about through increased wages and increased farm incomes, thereby effecting a complete circle. So that the dog of inflation will chase its own tail around the circle of our national economy, but never get a chance to catch it.
If there is to be any alteration in prices, then it should begin with workers and farmers, because they are at the lower end of the system. Their incomes are now and in the past have been relatively much less than those of the manufacturing fraternity. Manufacturers had much the best of it during the war. They made greater profits in that time, in spite of the profits tax, than they did in peace time. They vastly increased their reserves; they increased their capital assets and they decreased their corporation debts. In fact, profits in the war-time period took the form of increased assets and increased reserves. Still they are not satisfied.
In the second place, I am opposed to this increase because of the method by which it has been achieved. It has already been pointed out that there was no real inquiry. If there was, then it was all one-sided. I believe the minister indicated that the evidence warranted the action taken. But the evidence is not all in; it was one-sided. The evidence of agriculture and that of the workers was not there. I believe one hon. member emphasized the fact that when an increase in the tariff was to be made, the tariff board gave notice of an application. Then those who were interested were permitted to appear and to say why such increase should not be effected. In this instance, however, there was no such inquiry. Therefore I am opposed to a method which fails to give an opportunity to the industries directly affected to bring their position to the attention of the board, to point out how they would be affected by the proposed change.
Then I am opposed to the results. One hon. member has said he was out for results, and cared nothing about methods. Well, this is a result. But I submit that anyone who is out for a result cannot afford to ignore the only method by which a desired result can be

Farm Implements
obtained. I am opposed to this result. The minister may say I am wrong in this, but I still await a refutation of what I say, namely that a 12J per cent increase in the price of farm rqachinery will certainly not reduce farmers' costs of production. If the minister can show how that is possible, I shall be greatly in his debt. Not only will it not reduce the cost of farm production, but I insist that if there is an increase in the price of farm machinery it must of necessity increase the cost of farm production.
As an hon. member to my right pointed out a few minutes ago, all our returned soldiers who intend to go farming must buy all their machinery. They have none. For that machinery they must pay the extra 12J per cent. Without doubt, those seem to be the facts in the case.
For some time there has been what I would call a systematic campaign put on by big business to influence the government, if possible-and probably the board-and to prepare . the public mind for acquiescence in a desired rise in prices. They have carried on this campaign to the extent of discouraging, as far as possible, the continuation of price controls by the administration. In this connection, let me mention some of the headlines which have appeared in the Financial Post, and then I would ask hon. members to draw their own conclusions as to what would follow from them. One says this, "Say growing goods famine is caused by price ceiling"-not caused by a shortage of material; not caused by a shortage of labour, but caused by the price ceiling.
Another heading states: "Output of essential goods slow as ceiling 'bonus' luxuries".
And another: "See black market booming if price controls maintained".
Those are headlines which suggest the campaign of industry and of big business to remove from the government all controls whatsoever.
I conclude by asking the minister what the facts are. He has said that the evidence was sufficient to justify the action taken, which was announced this afternoon. But, as I have said, only half of that evidence was heard. What are the facts? Will the minister put on record the actual financial position of the companies which have been permitted to raise their prices? Industries claiming the right to raise prices should be able to make public the facts showing the financial position warranting the increases demanded. If the minister can show such facts I am sure the house will receive his statement with a great deal , more grace than it can accept the position as it now stands.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those who have already spoken in protest against the 12) per cent increase in the cost of farm machinery.	*
The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) said that he would like to see the statement or figures of the machine companies showing their present position. I agree with him, and I should like to see alongside those figures the income of our farmers from 1929 to 1939 and on up to the present time. I am sure that if the incomes of these two groups were to be compared we would find that it is the farmer that needs subsidizing and not the machine companies: It is my view that the government should not allow, should not even think of making this gift to the machine companies at the expense of the farmers, but if the minister still desires to make a gift to the machine companies he should look for another source of revenue from which to do so. It has been pointed out on many occasions by members of this group as well as by other groups in the house that the farmers of this country have been worse off than any other group of our citizens.
Surely after what our farmers had gone through during the depression years we should give them an opportunity now to get on their feet. During the past six years of war the farmers had to struggle along with a shortage of labour; they had to repair their old machinery, and now they are all in the market for new machinery. This is the time apparently when a number of the gentlemen in the farm machine business got together and thought that now is a good time to clean up on the farmers, to skin them alive. If members of this house representing agricultural constituencies do not stop this price increase they will have failed the farmers of this nation. If this is the type of new order* that was promised to our agriculturists during the war, who can tell what will happen to them five years from now? I protest as strongly as I can against any increase in the cost of farm machinery I feel that this is the time to be demanding a reduction in the price of farm machinery-not an increase.
I also wish to join with other hon. members in protesting against the method of arriving at this decision. I am going to be frank and say that this is the backdoor method. Why did the government not bring in a measure, place it openly before the representatives of the people in the House of Commons and let the people's representatives
Farm Implements

debate it? Then ii could have been sent to a committee of the house,, where witnesses could have been called so that we could have ascertained exactly what the situation was and in the light of the facts adduced arrive at the' proper decision. As it is, we are permitting a board to make a decision of this importance, to decide an issue which affects about thirty per cent of our total population. It is about time that we learned that the farmers of this nation are not going to keep on taking it on the chin as they have had to do in the past. It is about time they were consulted'. But I understand that the minister consulted no farm organizations, nor did he consult the members of parliament. Not a single farm organization was consulted, although this is a measure that directly affects agriculture. It seems to me that this is not the proper way of handling this problem.
As the leader of this group, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), has pointed out, should conditions warrant an increase in farm machinery it would then be up to the government to find ways and means of subsidizing the increased costs. Surely the farmer should not be expected to bear the whole burden.
Agriculture in this country, as we all know, is a basic industry. If agriculture prospers, Canada prospers. Should agriculture suffer, Canada will suffer. I for one would never like to see agriculture go back to the position in which it found itself between 1929 and 1939.
There has been a campaign carried on in the press and I have heard a number of speakers over the radio stating that Canada should get as many young Canadians as possible to go into agriculture. It is a back-to-the-land campaign. But if the government begins by increasing the price of farm machinery by 12J per cent it will simply be turning the boys away from the farms. If the government wants to deplete our rural population, this is the best way to do so. It would be a healthy sign if more of our young men were interested in agriculture. But when you put agriculture in the position where farmers have to pay more for their implements, and levy additional costs( you cannot blame the young men for going into the cities.
One further thought. If the government intends to discredit private enterprise, this is the best way of doing so; and if the government continues to pursue this course it will do just that, discredit private enterprise.
For the past number of years pur farmers have fed approximately 16,000,000 people. That is no small achievement, and surely this price increase is no small issue to be lightly brushed aside or decided by a board.

We should review farm income over the past fifteen or twenty years and at the same time review the earnings of the machine companies, so that we can arrive at a satisfactory comparison whether it is the machine companies or the farmers that need to be subsidized. Let us not forget that the farmers have carried on their farming operations during the war with old machinery, and that they are now all in the market to buy new farm implements. This decision of the board is a blow at agriculture which will bring no credit to this government. I am not so much concerned about who is going to clean up on this price increase. I want to see agriculture in Canada placed on a sound basis so that our farmers will get their share of the national income and so that their children will be able to attend schools and live like human beings, instead of being driven from place to place by the mortgage companies. If our farmers have to buy the machinery they need at increased prices and have to go into debt, then when prices of agricultural products fall it will be only another few years before the mortgage and trust companies will again be racing after our farmers up and down the country trying to collect.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if the representatives of western Canada and the representatives of central Canada and of eastern Canada as well permit this increase to go through they will be failing their constituents; they will be failing our basic industry, and failing our nation at a time when the world is demanding greater production than ever before. At a time, when millions of human beings are starving in Europe, this is the action which the government takes without even giving it much thought.


Mr. T. B. BARRETT (Norfolk):: I wish to put myself on record, as a farmer representing an agricultural constituency, in endorsing what has already been said by so many hon. members disapproving these increases in prices of farm machinery. I am absolutely sure that the minister is convinced that this increase is justified in relation to the increased cost to the manufacturers; but in relation to the cost of farm products, farm machinery has been altogether too high for the last twenty-five years. Just because farmers have bought machinery is no indication that the price has not been too high in relation to the prices which they have been receiving for their products, and it is becoming increasingly evident now, since the war, that farm prices are far too low. This is evidenced by the decreased production in certain lines, and by the number of idle farms which anyone can see in driving through the

Farm Implements
country. Farms containing the very best of agricultural land are lying idle, for the simple reason that farmers cannot afford to work them. This is particularly evident in my own constituency. In one part of my riding the farmers are engaged in tobacco growing, and because of the regional character of this crop and certain circumstances under which tobacco growers work, they have been making money. Nobody denies that. You can go through the tobacco area and you will find no idle- farms; - in fact the price of farm land in that part of the country has risen over 100 per cent in the last few years. But in the other part of my constituency, not so much in the dairying districts as in the general mixed farming areas, you will find farm after farm lying idle, simply because the farmers are not making money and they simply will not bother to work the land, and cannot get anybody to take over the farms. All through the country farmers are experiencing great difficulty in getting sufficient help to work their farms; and this, in spite of the fact that there is unemployment in all our towns and cities. Plenty of young men who are experienced and quite able to farm refuse to go on the farms because of the reduced remuneration they will receive. If they are fortunate enough to obtain jobs in town they will get far bigger wages, work far less hours and have a much easier time than if they work on the farms. If this added burden of increased prices of machinery is put on the farmers, I am sure it will result in a further decrease of production instead of the increase which is so much desired.


Mr. J. L. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: After listening to the discussion here to-day I should like to offer to the house for their approval my own solution of the question. I believe it would add a great deal to the speed with which we get through this debate and take care of our whole price structure in this instance, if I introduced the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley).


George Hugh Castleden: I understand from what the minister has said that the increase in the price of farm machinery, announced to-day, means in increase of 124 per cent in the price of farm machinery made in Canada. I hope that the minister in his statement to the house will make it clear how the dealers in selling these articles are to distinguish between machinery which is imported and machinery which is actually manufactured in Canada. A good deal of farm machinery, such as binders and
combines, is imported from the United States, but binders and combines are made in Canada as well. Is there to be a distinction of price between one and the other? I hope the minister will make that point clear when he speaks. Furthermore, to what extent is farm machinery to be deemed to be manufactured within Canada? Does the minister mean, manufactured wholly in this country, because a great deal of machinery manufactured in this country has component parts manufactured in the United States, the material being brought over and assembled in Canada? I believe that practically no tractors are manufactured in this country. Am I right, then, in assuming that this does not include farm tractors?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


George Hugh Castleden: There will not be ah increase in the price of farm tractors?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not as a result of this.


George Hugh Castleden: We are opposed to granting this increase in the price of farm machinery. The fact that it adds to the cost of production to the farmer upsets a great deal of the faith which the Canadian people have had in the government's policy of price control to prevent inflation. The minister, or the cabinet, or whoever advised this step have taken the wrong course, because they set ceilings on prices of farm products when the old prices on machinery were in operation, and now that the cost of production is increased to the farmer, the same ceilings remain on farm products. In all fairness to those concerned in the big business of raising food when the world needs it as it does today, this should be accompanied by an announcement on the part of the government that they are permitting an increase in the selling price of farm produce. This measure takes all the security out of agriculture, and without security people will not go into agriculture.
Further, I think the announcement was ill-timed from the point of view of the thousands of young men whom this government is trying to entice back on the land as they return from the war. Hundreds of thousands of young men wishing to take up agriculture as their life pursuit will say, "What security is there in this? What is the use of my undertaking a twenty or a ten-year agreement to pay back borrowed money if overnight it is to be announced that machinery prices will go up 12i per cent? To-morrow the price may go up another 15 per cent." They will begin to ask, "Where do we fit into this thing?"
Farm Implements

The farmer is commencing to wake up to the fact that what has been wrong with him in the past is that, whenever he went to town to buy anything-and in these days he must buy in order to operate-those who had commodities for sale always told him exactly what he must pay; he had to pay it or he went without; because he had to have it he had to pay what was charged, and he accepted the idea -that those who were selling should name the price. It is a funny thing, however, that when the farmer took his produce into town to sell it, instead of being able to say what price he should get, he usually had to go around and say, "Please, mister, what price will you pay me?" Until you put a floor under farm prices there can be no security, and there ought to be a guarantee against such increase of production cost as this, or some guarantee of the actual cost of farm machinery, so that the farmer will know over a period of years what his costs will be in this line. What assurance has he that in another three months the price will not again be increased with the government's consent?
The greatest harm which will be done is the loss of faith on the part of the people who are doing the work, and, after all, the people who toil are the people who produce the wealth from the land. Without the production of the men and women in the factory, without the production of the men, women and children on the farms we cannot have any wealth in this country; that is, any real wealth-the food and clothing and the shelter that man requires.
The other circumstance that makes the situation particularly serious is that the great-' est need of the world to-day is food. This government has so stated. It is recognized by all, and UNRRA and the united nations organization are emphasizing it. But this policy goes to the very root of production, which is falling off badly. I have here the figures for creamery butter and cheese production. If we take 1946, in January, creamery butter fell off 15'6 per cent and cheese, 27-8 per cent; in February, 1946, there was a drop of 18-3 per cent in creamery butter and 26-5 per cent in cheese. This is in comparison with the same months of 1945, and that has con-fallen off 19-6 per cent as compared with last year, and cheese, 35-5 per cent.
In these provinces we have the hay and the necessary materials, but the people are not producing. What is the trouble? There are a good many causes. It is time the government realized that the production of farm commodities is not an eight hour day job. If you are raising cattle or milking cows your job

starts early in the morning. A good many people are in the bams working at five o'clock in the morning and they work until eight o'clock at night. And it is not a five-day week that they put in, but a seven-day week, 365 days in the year, without any holidays and often without any pay. The government tells us that we are to have another cut in butter rations when we should be producing more than ever before. There are more men to go into production. The boys are returning from overseas. But they are not going on the farms. Why? We find the answer in just such legislation as this.
I wish to criticize the government also on its farm machinery policy in this regard, that they do not put any ceiling on the sale of secondhand machinery by agents. Recently in, my own city some ten thousand farmers came from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to the city of Yorkton because an enterprising agent there had advertised that he had some sixty-nine reconditioned tractors for sale, and according to the press reports the bids ranged from $200 to $1,000 over and above prices of new tractors. So serious is the need for machinery. Without the labour, men must have the necessary machinery to save them toir, and the machinery companies cannot provide what is required. The farmers need these things, and to permit a 12^ per cent increase is bad enough, but to compel the farmers to get their machinery at 100 per cent increase is something that should not be tolerated. Ceilings are put on secondhand cars; why not on this machinery?
This is the last straw on the camel's back. Many things have been gradually added to the farmers' burden since the end of the war, one thing after another. There is the difficulty in getting labour and the increase in the wages the farmer has to pay. His returns are so small, and he has to pay income tax. I am glad the Minister of National Revenue is in his place. I have seen farmers go out of production in the west overnight in recent months when they found out the manner in which their income tax is to be collected.
A farmer I know came to me in December and said, "Is this what you call justice in this country? I operated this farm in 1942 and by the government regulations I was not permitted to sell my grain because there were quotas on it. My cash operations for 1942, owing to the fact that I could not sell my products, was $150 of a loss and my bins were full of grain. The year 1943 came along and the quotas were lifted slightly so that I sold part of the 1942 crop and part of the

Farm Implements
1943	crop. I had to build more bins to keep the stuff, and I was not allowed to sell it in view of government regulations. The result was that once again my bins were full. The year 1944 came along; we had a big crop and the government told us to sell grain and stock and cattle because this was necessary to feed the armies." Well, the farmers -went and sold stuff. These people have never known what it was to pay income tax because so many years of their lives have been spent in making losses. They would make $130 cash income for a year's work.
The farmers do not understand the intricacies and the complicated forms of income tax, and as to knowing what an accrual basis is, well, they do not know anything about it. One day this farmer whose case I am stating was ordered to appear and report on his income tax. When he told them what had happened in 1942, they said, "We are not interested in 1942; what about 1943?" They also inquired about 1944. He had kept his records and on the sale of 1942, 1943 and
1944	wheat his income had come up to $3,800 that year. He was taxed on the sale of parts of his crop for 1942, 1943 and 1944, all in one year, and he was charged income tax of about $400.
I do not know what the members of this house would say if they were paying income tax on three years' income in one year. There would be rebellion. I do not know what the big machinery companies would say if you took all their profits for three years, lumped them into one year, and charged excess profits tax on three years' earnings in that one year. But that farmer had toiled long hours, had gone out early in the morning and milked his cows and fed his hogs, raised chickens, sold eggs and worked long hours overtime without pay. When he and other farmers like him thought they were doing something for the welfare of the country they found themselves having to pay income tax in the way I have described.
This man did not raise any hogs last year and is raising none this year. He is not bothering to milk cows except for his own use. The farmers are not producing butter. Why? The results of their overtime work are taken away from them. They may come up to the $1,200 with war prices as they have been if they happen to strike a good year. This man wrote to the income tax office and said, "I understand I can do this on the accrual basis". The only reply he got was a statement to this effect, "We hope you will make arrangements for settlement of the $400 because interest '* 'wruvng at the rate of eight per cent."
The government does not need to have me tell them all this. They can read the report handed to them recently by the Canadian federation of agriculture with regard to income tax. Among the recommendations regarding farm income tax I suggest that the government implement what appears there and that something more be done as is suggested in paragraph 1, which reads:
That the income of the farmer for income tax purposes be assessed on the basis of average over a period of at least four years. We submit that a moving average plan might be adopted which would assist the taxpayer in meeting payments in years of loss or low returns. We were encouraged by the statement of the finance minister in his budget statement of October 12 last year, that he was prepared "to give the most sympathetic consideration to the inclusion of a provision of this sort in a revised income tax law."


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


George Hugh Castleden: The question is asked, "When?" I hope he starts operating it very soon. These are the things that break a man down. I continue with the recommendations:
3.	That the exemption for single persons be raised to $1,000, and that for married persons to $2,000.
4.	That more adequate allowance be made for the labour of farmers' wives, sons and daughters in connection with production on the farm.
7. That payment of arrears of interest and principal on the home farm, due before 1940, be allowed as deductions for income tax purposes.
These are the things that have taken away everything that these farmers have earned, and they are unable to carry on any longer. The hearts are gone out of these people. The young people see it and they do not want to go on the farm.
Until agriculture is put on a firm basis where there is security against the kind of thing that happened in the announcement that was made in the house to-day we shall find the agricultural producers of this country stopping. They are going to quit on us. I would not be surprised if that was what is behind the drop in production we have in Canada to-day. Instead of discouraging production in the country, now is the time we ought to be going on with the same effort which this cabinet did so ably during the war in so far as food production was concerned. We should be in war production to-day in agriculture. We need every encouragement that can be given to increase production. The farmers ask for bread and they are given a stone.
We have supported price controls. We believe in them when they are properly used for proper purposes; but if this type of thing is to be used to promote monopolies of any
Farm Implements .

kind to take the last drop of sweat and work from people who are already overworked, then we are going to oppose it with everything we possess. Monopolies have no right to come in here and get concessions such as these without the cards being placed on the table and the reports and financial statements of all these companies and their actual cost of production placed before parliament. They should be brought before us and proved before this house. I would advise the minister to give sympathetic reconsideration to this demand for an increase until it has been proved to the people of Canada that it is essential, and until the farmers themselves have been given something to offset this terrific increase in their cost of production,, without which offset they cannot carry on.


Mr. L. E. CARDIFF (Huron North):: I
rise to-night to take part in this debate for three reasons. The first is that I am a farmer and believe I should voice my opinion. The second is that I should like to speak for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) because I feel that he would be embarrassed if he spoke for himself.


Mr. GARDINER:: The hon. member is not able to speak for me; I shall speak for myself.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The third reason is that I do not agree with the announcement that there should be an increase in the price of farm machinery; not that I do not think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) can justify his position by quoting figures to show that it is necessary to raise the price of farm machinery. I believe that he can. All through the years the price of farm machinery has been increased so substantially that it is not necessary now to increase it again. Before we can pay more for farm machinery it will be necessary to raise the price of farm produce an equal amount. The price of farm produce has been far too low for far too long. During the war years farmers generally carried on because we were at war. No one in this country will contend that they did not do a good job. A census taken in our community in the county of Huron showed that during those years the average age of farmers was fifty-six years. That will give the house some idea of the age of some of the farmers who were trying to farm. Many men seventy years of age and over were trying to run a 100 acre farm. These men carried on all through the war years because we were at war, not because they were able to do it. They now find their health impaired and they cannot carry on any longer. They have tried to get help but, because farming is not attractive, they could not get help. One has only to look at the 
number of returned men who have applied for farms to undertake farming to understand. It is true we have had some make application, but they do not amount to a large percentage of the boys who came back and who want to start farming. Many of these boys saved a couple of thousand dollars. They would rather put it into a wartime house costing S6.000 and depend on their monthly pay check to pay the remainder, than put it in a farm. I should like to suggest that the boys who are putting all their savings in wartime housing and are depending on industry to pay the remainder will, in seventy-five per cent of the cases, lose every dollar they have. These boys could take the money they have saved and go to the country, and while prices are not as good as some think they should be, they would at least save that portion of the money they tried to save during the war years.
Labour is demanding more money; the machinery companies are demanding more money and many other people are demanding more money. I should like to know what good money will be if we reach the stage where we cannot buy food. Take the devastated countries of Europe where they are starving. Money is not of any value when you cannot buy anything to eat with it. That is what we shall be faced with here. In almost every farming community in Canada we find house after house and farm after farm vacant. There are at least two or three in every mile and a quarter. Why? Simply because farming is not attractive enough to bring people to the farms. Many farms were made vacant during the first years of the war. People left these farms to go into industry, munition plants and the like. These farms are still vacant. The government should know where these men are. If they are still in industry they should be driven back to the farms to operate them, and the jobs they are occupying should be made available to the returned men.
Farmers in this country have always been the last to get consideration from any legislation, and the first to be penalized. That condition cannot prevail longer. It is the duty of every farm member in this House of Commons to voice his protest against this rise in the price of farm machinery. Every member representing a farming community should voice his protest. If that is done I am not afraid that this increase will be allowed to standi.
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my voice to the protest against the proposed

Farm Implements
increase in prices of farm machinery. The farmers have always believed they were being overcharged for their machinery, and I can well imagine the dismay and consternation that will be felt when particularly the western farmers hear of this price increase. I represent an agricultural district, a constituency said to be the largest in the dominion, and I know exactly how these people feel when they come to discuss machinery prices.
The point has been made that an increase in prices of machinery will bring about an increase in the production of the machines. I doubt very much whether that is so. I made application some time ago for some farm machinery, and I have in my possession letters from the manufacturers stating that they are unable to supply what I require. One of these machines is a drill, and my information is that there will not be any drills in the west until June. Well, one can imagine how useful a drill will be in June! If, because of this increase, should it go through, drills are available before that time, it will simply confirm the suspicion in my mind that the whole thing was prearranged and, on the part of somebody, probably the machinery companies, some form of hold-up. I do not believe that point was well taken; as a matter of fact I do not believe it will increase the production of machines.
While we are talking about drills, I should like to make this point. We are told that there has been an increase of $5 a ton in the price of steel. This drill, with certain equipment that I desired on it, was going to cost me in the neighbourhood of $500; it is a big drill. An increase of 12^ per cent would mean something like $62. The drill itself weighs about 1,600 pounds, representing about $4 extra in the cost of the steel, whereas the additional price I shall have to pay will be be some $62. So that I suggest there is really no justification for an argument of that kind.
It is most unfortunate that almost every time agriculture comes under discussion some form of unpleasantness or unhappiness for the farmers seems to result. When I came here * last September one of the first things we talked about in which I was peculiarly interested was the Hudson Bay railway. The improvement of the railroad and the use of the port of Churchill were to be of great advantage to the western farmers, but we completely failed to gain our point. Nothing was done; nothing has been done about the railway or the port. Soon after that, we had an announcement about the price of wheat which, instead of being allowed to follow the world price, was fixed for the time being at $1.55 a bushel. I wonder if hon. members
appreciate just what this price of $1.55 means to me, for instance. They may think I get $1.55 for every bushel of wheat. That is not so. I get as an initial price $1.25, f.o.b. Fort William. At my elevator where I deliver wheat that means to me, if it is No. 1, the best wheat that can be grown, $1.05 a bushel, not $1.55. We hope to get $1.55 eventually, less the charges, but at the present time what I get at my shipping point is $1.05.' Then, shortly after that, meat rationing was ordained, and immediately the price of hogs on the western market slumped $1.25 a hundred, or roughly $2 a pig. After that, coming into this year, the price of gasoline went up two cents, and now we have a suggested increase in farm machinery prices of 12J per cent.
You have already heard, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the production of butter and the production of hogs. I wonder exactly what the government is trying to do. Butter production is down twenty per cent. Last year the production of hogs was down forty-three per cent, and in my opinion, this year it will be down another twenty-five per cent as far as my province of Saskatchewan is concerned. Yet the need for hogs is very great. The farmers are feeling such irritation, aggravation, disappointment and frustration that they are just about ready to let things go. I wonder if we could warn the government as to what is taking place on those western farms, that the situation is serious and should be carefully considered. In my opinion, a step like this, increasing prices of machinery, is entirely wrong. Last year I tried to make the point that those nations which could grow commodities of quality most economically would get the market; in other words, that those countries which could keep down their production costs would eventually get the world markets. All these things I have been mentioning, the failure to make use of the Hudson Bay line, the price of wheat, the price of machines and so on, mean an increase in production costs and greater difficulty in getting and keeping the markets of the world.
All these matters should be taken into consideration and given careful thought. I hope the minister will reconsider this matter of increasing prices of machinery, because it is an important point. When you are dabbling wdth an industry that grows products to the value of $2,146 million, which are the figures for agriculture for the last year as to which we have available data, it is big business which requires careful handling, for that is a great deal of money. On behalf of my constituency I protest against this increase in
Farm Implements

prices of machinery. It is a most untimely move and an unwise step under any circumstances.


Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North):: 
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, while I am anxious to go home for the Easter recess, I would not dare do so without offering my protest while this matter

is before the house. I suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who represents a large agricultural community, might take advantage of the Easter recess to visit some of his constituents, so as to get their reaction. Rightly or wrongly, the farmers of Canada ' will not accept his statement that the agricultural implements industry cannot operate longer without this type of increase. Investigations carried on in Ottawa and Saskatchewan a few years ago into the whole farm implements industry gave us some informa-tioq we cannot easily forget.
This afternoon the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) referred to a report presented by the Saskatchewan government. At page 9 of that report we find a break-down of the factors which enter into the cost of a binder for which a farmer in Regina paid $281. The raw materials cost $71.06; labour, $22.62; freight, $26.08, making a total of $119.76 for materials, labour and freight. The overhead or burden was placed at $33.93; experimental work, $2.55, and commission, $45.50.
There is another break-down respecting the price of a cream separator. This separator was manufactured in Sweden by the De Laval Company, which organization apparently has a plant at Peterborough, Ontario, in the constituency of the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). The price laid down in Peterborough was $17.65. By the time the separator reached Winnipeg the price was $44.58, or an increase of $25.63. This represents a profit of 135 per cent. But my real reason for taking part in the debate was to protest against the yielding by the Minister of Finance to the pressure to put the skids under the wartime prices and trade board.
I have been following very closely the pressures in the United States which have been prompted 'by reactionary forces there to get rid of all controls. In the issue of PM for Tuesday, March 12, I find that the landlords have -been .spending fabulous sums to try to get all restrictions removed. One of their representatives suggests that it was bad business to have controls which were making it impossible for landlords to get the sort of rents they might have. Apparently they were prepared to build apartments which would rent for $2,000 a month and upward. When the question was asked as to who would use these apartments the calm reply was that the people who made money during the war were anxious to move into new quarters. Then they were asked what would happen to the old quarters,

Farm Implements
and the reply was that [DOT] they would be quite good enough for the veterans who were having trouble to get settled.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is talking about the United States, not Canada?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know of anyone who is paying that much here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the minister had been listening he would have heard what I said.


Thomas Miller Bell: It was the S2,000 that got the minister's attention.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: 
Duncan John McCuaig: Mr. Speaker, I am firmly opposed to this increase in the price of farm machinery. I am at a loss to understand how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) can justify this increase to the machine companies, particularly in the face of the financial statements of two of our Canadian farm implement companies. I have here the Financial Post, which shows the net profit of the Massey-Harris company. The net profit in 1937 was $1,043,728; 1938, $1,065,639: in 1944 and 1945, after deducting all war taxes, the net profit was, in 1944, $1,413,396, and in 1945, $1,800,000.
Take the Cockshutt Plow company. Its net profit in 1937 was $183,091; in 1944, after all war taxes had been deducted, it had a net profit of $399,244. That was not too bad a war effort. The stock market quotations of the stock of these two companies also show something. The stock of the Massey-Harris company in 1939 was quoted in the daily press at from $3.25 to $3.50. According to the Ottawa Evening Citizen, the closing price of that stock to-day was $29.
The stock of the Cockshutt Plow company in 1939 was quoted at $3.50, and to-day, according to the Evening Citizen, it was quoted at $19. That does not look so bad.
Only recently the price of gasoline which the farmer uses in his tractor was increased by two cents a gallon.
Again in to-night's Citizen I notice that the net income of the Imperial Oil company, after all deductions, was $16,616,583 for 1945. That was not so dusty a war effort.
Let us compare that with the financial position of the farmer. The situation of our farmers from 1937 to 1940 was a crime. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) had a little joke about the $2,000 free of income tax for members. But what I am concerned about is the young boy who is starting up on the farm and has an exemption of only $660. I should like to see it raised to $1,200, and the exemption of the married man and his wife raised from $1,250 up to at least $2,400.
I have heard it stated in. the house that eighty-five per cent of the people of Canada work for an income of $1,500 or less. They do all the manual work, all the serving, and they are the salt of the earth, the backbone of the country. I also see in the press that the finance minister collects half of the total income tax from this eigthy-five per cent.
I feel sure that Canada will be on the way out under this kind of national economy. Where lies the strength of the nation? In good homes, in health and in all these things that make for a prosperous countryside. How is the boy who is just starting up going to get

anywhere with an income tax exemption of only $660, or the man who is trying to build a home? How can the boys who are coming back buy a- farm and pay for farm implements at these increased prices? How are they ever going to get started? LTsing the simple logic of a simple farmer, I would say that this Canada of ours is on the way out and that it will not take long to get there if you impoverish rural Canada, the source of all supplies. This is a matter of the greatest importance, and I should like to see the government give it its most serious consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, the time has perhaps come when I should answer some of the statements that have been made in the numerous speeches to-day. I do not hope to be able to deal with all the numerous speeches, but I wish to clear up some misconceptions that are in the minds of hon. members and to answer some questions that have been asked.
One aspect of the discussion, that is gratifying is the support that now comes from most members of the house for the principle of price control. At least it seems to be popular. We started a general price ceiling in 1941 and at the same time instituted a system of wage stabilization. We had an- uphill fight to have the principle of over-all price control accepted by the Canadian people, either by agriculture or by labour. As the years went on, perhaps the wisdom of our policy became more apparent, and when recently it became obvious that if we w7ere to avoid a complete break-down of price control and wage stabilization there must be some yielding in some places, we discovered that when and to the extent that we yielded at all we met with tremendous protest. I have tried on several occasions to explain to this house that it is utterly impossible to maintain indefinitely rigid price control. To begin with, we have to get out of this field constitutionally some time; we have not the power to stay in this field indefinitely, and there must be a certain amount of decontrol. This was explained on numerous occasions.
As I understood the position taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) this afternoon, he said that if this authorization of a raising of the price ceiling on agricultural implements w'as necessary, it was in the wrong order, that other ceilings should be raised first, the ceilings on agricultural products, or on wages, or on both: I think he mentioned both wages and prices of agricultural products. Other speakers said that we had put the cart before the horse. I want to point out that we have not put the cart before the

Farm Implements
horse. Both with regard to wages and with regard to farm prices there have been repeated and extensive upward adjustments from 1941 down to the present time.
First, with regard to wages, one of the reasons why there has to be an upward adjustment of the ceiling on farm implements at the present time is the increase in wages in the farm implement industry. I said in my statement this afternoon that wages in this industry had increased by 281 per cent. I was asked by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) whether it is true that in the agricultural impfement industry in Toronto wages had been reduced and some of the men had been laid off. I made inquiries between six and eight o'clock, and I find that the western plant of the Massey-Harris company, which was engaged on war production, has been closed, and that the war workers were given the option of transferring their activities to the agricultural implement plant, where the wages may have been lower than in the war plant, but that there has been no reduction whatever in agricultural implement wages. As a matter of fact, the increase in wages paid by the Massey-Harris company, according to information which I have obtained, is as follows: 1939, 511 cents an hour; 1941, 59-7 cents an hour; 1945, 79-4 cents an hour; 1946, about 80 cents an hour is the average present wage rate of the employees of that company. This indicates a wage increase of approximately 331 per cent. With regard to wages generally in Canada- and I say this on the point that the government has put the cart before the horse, and in rebuttal of the accusation that the government meets the wishes of big business, or business generally, before it meets the demands of labour and agriculture-I wish to point out that, according to the Department of Labour figures, the average hourly wage rates in all industries in 1944 were forty-four per cent above the average of 1935-39 and eighteen per cent above 1941. I say that because some hon. members have gone rather far in stating that I as Minister of Finance am particularly amenable to the appeals of business, or big business, rather than those of other classes in the community. That is not so, nor is it true of the wartime prices and trade board. The whole record and history of the wartime prices and trade board shows that it is consumer-minded. There is not anybody in Canada who knows anything about the record of the wartime prices and trade board and has followed it through the years who can deny that it is consumer-minded. So much so, that it has been [DOT]denounced at times by agriculture; it has
been denounced at times by labour; it has been accused of being obsessed with the idea that we must have low wages and low prices in this country. I do- not think the wartime prices and trade board has gone too far, but it has been accused of going too far along those lines, and certainly nobody can deny that the first and paramount interest of the wartime prices and trade board is the interest of the consumer, which in this case is the farmer consumer.
We have to leave these matters to somebody. The government cannot conduct the exhaustive investigations which are necessary to bring to light every detail in these investigations. The body which has been set up to consider what prices are proper under the circumstances is the wartime prices and trade board. I have faith in that board because I have worked with it over the last five or six years, and there is one thing I know they will not do; I know they will not authorize a price increase unless that price increase is absolutely necessary. The reason that a price increase was authorized in this case was because of the great cost increases.
I said a few minutes ago that there had been repeated upward adjustments in prices of agricultural products. I must, I think, place on record some of the increases which have taken place, in prices of agricultural products since 1941, merely by way of reply to the charge that we do not meet other groups but meet the claims of business. I am not saying for one minute that the increases were excessive. I am not saying for one minute that price increases over the level of the fall of 1941 were not desirable, because the price level before the war was low, and while it rose somewhat between 1939 and the fall of 1941 it did not rise as high as it should have. But since 1941-and these are figures given by the bureau of statistics- average prices of farm products, including subsidies, in 1945 as compared with average prices for 1941 showed the following increases: wheat, 67 per cent, or, if an estimated participation of fifteen cents be included, 87 per cent; oats 65 per cent, barley 62 per cent, hogs 51 per cent. The recent adjustments in hog prices would increase this to 70 per cent. Cattle, 40 per cent; fluid milk, 28 per cent; butter, 29 per cent; with the recent price increase, 40 per cent; cheese, 53 per cent; eggs, 28 per cent; potatoes, 135 per cent; all [DOT] farm prices, 48 per cent, farm machinery, three per cent.


Duncan John McCuaig: Will the minister allow me a question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid-
Farm Implements


Duncan John McCuaig: I was going to say, with the ridiculous price of farm products in 1941-


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: In 1921 they were 96 per cent above; in 1922 they came down to 61 per cent above 1914. I have not the figures beyond that. I do not know whether they came down below that or went up again or not. Prices were lower at that time than they are to-day. If I remember correctly, and if the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) were here, he would know, steel workers were getting 16 and 18 cents an hour in the 'teens. Workers in the implement industries were getting 22 cents an hour as against 80 cents an hour to-day. In regard to wages they were working twelve hours a day in the steel mills in Nova Scotia and getting 16 and 18 cents an hour. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Farmers were getting
S3 for wheat.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, they never got $3 for wheat. That is the situation we would have in this country if we had no controls. There has been no control that has been more rigid, and few controls that have been as rigid, as the farm machinery control. When we were adjusting farm prices upward in 1942 we were keeping farm machinery prices down. When we were adjusting farm prices upwards in 1943 we were getting farm machinery prices down. When we were adjusting farm prices upwards in 1944 we were getting farm machinery prices down, and putting them down below what they were at the time.


An hon. MEMBER:: At that time-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I listened to twenty-five speeches to-day and I did not interrupt very much. In 1944 we pressed them down below the ceiling at the time we took the duty off. In 1945 we kept them where they were. In 1946 with the rise in the steel price, with these rises in wages, with these rises in overhead costs and so on, we think the time has come for us to be fair, and to get production we think the time has come that we have to allow this moderate increase of 12| per cent, which over the whole field of agricultural implements amounts to only nine per cent, because about half of the agricultural implements are imported.
In the debate to-day it was pointed out that selling costs were less than they were years ago. I made inquiries about that and I was informed the fact that the selling costs are down was taken into account in fixing the figure of 12^ per cent. I was asked whether the increase in the price ceiling applies to inventories. The answer is that it does for one reason, namely, that when you raise a ceiling it is administratively impossible to select certain machines and say this machine came on the floor before the ceiling was raised, and this machine came on the floor after the ceiling was raised, and put a tag on one machine at one price and on another machine at another price. The important fact in reference to inventories is that there are practically no inventories. The machines
Farm Implements

are snapped up. The demand is so great that they melt; they go right out into the hands of the public.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister sure that they have not been held for this price rise?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think they have been held.


Major James William Coldwell: I heard that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is one objection to the suggestion that sounded reasonable to-day, and is reasonable in principle, that before you change any ceiling you ought to have a public hearing. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) put that forward very strongly. If we were to have changes in the ceilings taking place all the time-they have been taking place all the time over the last two or three years, and they are taking place more rapidly recently-it would be utterly impossible from the administrative point of view to have public hearings on all these price changes. If we selected some of the more important ones-I was thinking about this as I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver East for whom I need hardly say I have much respect-I do not know where we would stop. Each person who was heard would say: "Well, I am entitled to a public hearing on this matter." It would have to be advertised and so on. But it seems to me there is this big difference between a price hearing and a wage hearing. In the case of a wage hearing the wage increase, if it is eventually granted, may be dated back to the time of the application and very often is. The price increase cannot. If you had a hearing that lasted as long as some of the wage hearings have lasted, and if you had a price hearing on this matter that lasted several months you could not, of course, date the price back. Therefore, if you had a situation where the producer of the article really needed the increase in order to operate you could not do anything effective for him at all. The suggestion that there should be public hearings is impracticable. We have to have faith in the wartime prices and trade board. Their record and their outlook have been such that, however much people desiring higher prices may dislike them-and they have taken a great deal of abuse all through the years from people who desire higher prices-those who desire low prices, prices as low as can be maintained, can trust them.
These were some of the questions that were brought up this afternoon. One other question was asked by the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Menary), namely, what happened in the case of an article which

was purchased before the effective date of the increase in the price ceiling? I made inquiries and attempted to get the information in that regard. The increase came into effect on April 13. If a man has a contract for delivery the ordinary law of contract applies; but if a sale takes place on or after the 13th day of April the vendor may sell at the new price.
There is one point which perhaps I ought to make clear. After listening to a number of the speeches this afternoon, one would1 have thought the government was raising these prices. The order of the wartime prices and trade board does not raise the prices; it merely authorizes an increase in prices, raises the ceiling on the prices. The circumstances at the present time are such that the producers can take advantage of that. We removed the duty from agricultural implements; we removed the war exchange tax and so on from agricultural implements, so that no advantage whatever can be taken of the tariff. We get the advantage of the competitive United States market, to the extent that it is an advantage, and I presume it is of some. The tone of some of the speeches was that we were just going in and saying, "You have to pay these increased prices." We are just removing the control of the prices to that extent, raising the ceilings to the extent of 12% per cent.
I have a great deal more material here, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know that there is very much more I could usefully add.


John Oliver Probe: Might I ask the minister a question which would fit into this discussion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. ILS-LEY: Very well.


John Oliver Probe: Would the minister inform the house whether or not he is taking steps to see that we are now going to get machinery on the Canadian market, so that these large inventories I see listed here will not be allowed to trickle out of Canada at the same time? What precautions are we taking to keep our Canadian inventories at home, as well as building them up in the United States?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to find out just exactly what some other agency of government is doing about that. I think a certain proportion is allocated for export in order to hold our export markets, so that we shall not lose our foothold in those markets. That is a matter which, as I understand it, and I think I am correct, is arranged between the wartime prices and trade board and those agencies of government which are interested in export.
I am reminded that some question has been raised as to whether the wartime prices and

Farm Implements
trade board advised the government in this matter, or specifically whether they advised me, because I am the responsible minister; or whether the government told the wartime prices and trade board to raise this ceildng by 1Z1/) per cent. I might as well tell the house how these things are done. No implement company has approached me at all. Personally I have not seen any representative of any implement company, nor have they communicated with me except by protesting to-day at what has been done in regard to these increases. However, they have made their representations to the wartime prices and trade board over quite a period of time. Those representations have been analyzed and gone into, with the result the house knows. The wartime prices and trade board advised me last week they were convinced that this was absolutely necessary and should not be further delayed. They then made the announcement themselves. I did not know what time they were going to make the announcement, but I understand it was on the radio on Friday evening and in the newspapers on Saturday morning; but I consented to the increase and take the responsibility for it.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making one or two brief observations and a suggestion. The suggestion is not wholly new; it is very similar to the one made by the hon. member' for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). The reason I do that is this. It seems to me that it is important not only to do what is believed to be the right thing but to make people believe it is the right thing. If anything were needed to support the statement made this afternoon by my leader that this matter was not carried out as well as it might have been, it is the debate we have had; when we have seen what, to a new member like myself at any rate, seems an unprecedented spate of protest against what the government is doing.	.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) has made a statement to which we have all listened with respect. Personally I would not presume to disagree with it because I do not know enough about the facts. On the other hand, we have had a great many people here who do disagree with it, and so I come to this. I agree with what has been said that it is in the highest degree unfortunate that a decision of this kind has to be arrived at by methods fair-minded men have to-day described as in camera, secretly, and so on. I fully realize the force of the minister's statement that we cannot have a debate in parliament on every 63260-57
decision that has to be made, but nonetheless I suggest that there are certain basic principles underlying the de-controls which must come within the next few months. So that I submit for the consideration of the minister and the government whether it would not be possible to have some body, I do not know whether it should be the agriculture committee, the banking and commerce committee or a combination of the two if you wish, which would ask to appear before it people who are supposed to have competent opinions on these important questions, which I recognize as very difficult, and to ask also representatives of labour, of the farmers, of the manufacturers and of all the other people interested. The minister may say, "Oh, well, you would just have a kind of debate which would lead to nothing." I am not suggesting that, this body could proceed to decide on this and this and this de-control in Gatling-gun fashion, but I suggest that at the present time there is a great deal of misapprehension in the public mind, and that if we are to have merely one announcement after another that this and this and this has been . de-controlled, it is not the best way of trying to get across to the public mind what, it seems to me, it is so enormously important that we should get into the public mind.
The thing that has distressed me to-day and harrassed my mind beyond words is the statement we have heard in this house as to farms abandoned, as to people unwilling to leave the cities to go to work on the farms. I heard a figure as to the percentage of men who had come from farms and were now unwilling to go back to them, which was so high I simply could not credit it; nevertheless there is the problem. It seems to me one of enormous importance, and therefore with great respect, not with any desire to complicate this difficult question but because I believe at the present time it is not being really met, I offer this suggestion. I believe the debate we have had to-day shows that the problem is not being met, when once there is this widespread measure of protest. I realize that the protests come from farming constituencies. I represent one myself, though it will be observed that I have not made a protest. Nevertheless I feel there are basic principles here which might well be discussed in open forum, so that the citizens of Canada might have a better understanding than they now have of the problems and the basic principles which are to be followed in dealing with the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it was suggested

Farm Implements

a few minutes ago that it might be necessary for one of the members of the opposition to speak for the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is pretty well understood, however, that I usually speak for myself.
There are one or two reasons why it would be necessary for me to say something in a debate of this kind. The first is that I do not think that in the ten years I have been here I have allowed a debate on a question involving an increase in the price of farm implements to go by without my saying something. If I were to do so on this occasion it might be misunderstood.
In addition to that, like many other hon. members I intend to go to my constituency during the Easter recess, and I am certain again that if I did not express myself upon this question I might be misunderstood there -and I have seldom allowed myself to be misunderstood in my own constituency.
Another reason for my rising is that one or two of the suggestions made require a little analysis. We have talked a great deal this afternoon and this evening about a 12^ per cent increase in the price of farm implements. I think I am as much opposed as anyone in Canada-and every farmer is opposed-to an increase in the price of farm implements, believing as I do and as most farmers do, as has been stated a number of times this afternoon, that farm implement prices, if anything, have always been a little too high. So that one has to have proven to him the fact that they are 'as low as they ought to be, in order to be entirely satisfied.
But on this occasion perhaps too great emphasis has been given to the increase of 12j per cent, and more particularly by my hon. friends directly opposite, in view of the statement I have heard them make on many previous occasions. Each time that I have been attempting to prove that we should have lower prices for farm implements, I have always been told that it does not involve more than from three to six per cent of the farmer's cost of production. I think the report that was read this afternoon on so many occasions bears that out-and probably accepts the higher figure of six per cent. If that is true, what we have been talking about this afternoon is three-quarters of one per cent of the farmer's cost of production, when we speak of a 12^ per cent increase. I wish to make that statement only in order to have the record straight in so far as what we actually do is concerned.
If there were no other considerations I would think that even three-quarters of one [Mr. Gardiner. 1
per cent of an increase in farm costs of production at the present time would be a most important matter, and that it should be justified on some ground or another. I consider the statement made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) was a very fair statement of the relationship between farmers and the implement industry, and a very fair statement in respect of what has happened since 1941 to the farmers as compared with what has happened to the farm implement companies.
But I wish to emphasize a little more

and he emphasized it-the fact that these increases, so far as the farmers are concerned, began at a very low level, and did advance eventually to a fairly high level. Considered, of course, in terms of percentages, that can be represented in very high figures.
There is another argument which is being used in the country, but which was not used in the house this afternoon. I wish to refer to it because it has been used in the country, and more particularly in some of the financial papers. The suggestion has been made that farmers are very well off. I do not find any more common statement. Indeed I find it quite often in the corridors of this building- the statement to the effect that farmers are well off. Because of that statement being made, we have been arriving at conclusions which are not justified by the facts.
One of the most apparent reasons for making the statement is contained in a table which has been issued, indicating the extent to which farmers have paid off their indebtedness for farm machinery, and on mortgages. I was just reading this evening one statement which indicated that thirty mortgage companies in Canada-and some hon. members opposite know very well the records of some of them- had had the indebtedness of farmers reduced by S102 million. That is, early in the war the indebtedness of those farmers was $168 million, while at the end of the war or last year, it was down to $66 million.
I should just like to make an analysis of what that means. It certainly does not mean that the farmer has $100 million more in cash. It does mean that farm-era have worked hard for long days during the years of this war to produce products which have been sold at reasonable prices under arrangements made through the wartime prices and trade board. They have worked long hours and long days, and by doing so have accumulated $100 million which has been paid into the treasuries of thirty loan companies in Canada.
That is a partial job well done. They still owe $66 million. Any man or any group of

Farm Implements
men which still owes any debt, particularly a group owing $66 million to thirty mortgage companies, is not yet well off. That statement ought to be emphasized. Until that other $66 million is paid off, the farmers who owe that money are not well off. Every farmer in this country, or every farmer who farms in this country, knows that a farmer has only one ambition, if he is ever going to be well off, and that is to have his farm clear of deist. His second ambition is to have his farm implements clear of debt.
If any farmer in this country with an average, family-sized farm, has his farm clear of debt, and his implements and stock clear of debt, then I venture to say on the floor of this house that there is not any nicer way of living than living on the farm. But if the farmer is loaded down with debt, even to the extent of a few thousand dollars, it is hard for him to make a living on the farm, with people Phasing after him from morning to night to get him to pay his debts. That farmer will not have a very comfortable time on the farm, nor will he enjoy working there.
So that, I think, while he has taken off $102 million from a debt of $168 million owed to some thirty mortgage companies-and owing a great deal more in some other directions-that we should pay attention to that fact, when considering his present position, rather than pay attention only to the fact that he has paid off- that amount of debt.
There is one other point I wish to make, and it is this: As the Minister of Finance , pointed out, we have made recently some increases in farm prices. There has been an increase in the price of butter of four cents which, after all, is an increase of ten per cent. It is not three-quarters of one per cent, and it might be fair to compare it with the 12i per cent increase to implement Companies. But to the farmers who produce butter it is an increase of ten per cent. In both cases it is an increase on top of the price at which he was probably at least getting by prior to getting that increase. So that I am sure it is acknowledged in the country as a very helpful increase; at least' it is as much as the organized farmers asked for.
The other increase which was made was the six per cent increase on hogs. Many of us are going home to our constituencies during the Easter recess, and many of those constituencies are agricultural. I am speaking as a member of the government because there are only two of us on this side from Saskatchewan and I think any message we have to give out should go to that province, namely, 63260-57$	*
that the prices board cannot make all its adjustments at once unless it is prepared to agree that the position taken by the official opposition is the correct one, that we should make all our decisions at once to close the whole thing up. If that were the case, then, of course, you could make all your adjustments at once. But barring that, there is only one other way, and that is to do it partly, one at a time; then work along with the job until finally you have it completed. I am confident whether other members of the house are or not, and I am going to exercise any ability that I have to spread that confidence, that the adjustments which have been made will be followed up by more adjustments. I am also satisfied and confident that when those adjustments are all made, a good job will have been done and that our farming population can at least during the next few years proceed to pay off the remainder of the debt. When they have that debt paid off I hope we shall be able to say that the farmer is well off. Because for Canada to be well off, the farmer must be well off. When he is well off, others are well off in common with him. Then we shall be able to go back to our constituencies, wherever they may be, and say that we have taken some part in doing a job that will be of some assistance to this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is customary, Mr. Speaker, where a motion has been made such as that moved by my hon. friend, that he ask to withdraw his motion in order to close the proceedings.


John Bracken: What is the alternative? We do not want to vote the government out of power. The purpose of the motion has been achieved. A good discussion has been had; protests have been made, and the minister has made' his answer. That is a good thing for Canada. The difficulty was, Mr. Speaker, that prior to this time decisions were made outside this house, and then the minister would come in and explain them under conditions where there could not be any debate; That is what I protested chiefly against to-day. Our protests have now been made and the minister has made his answer, and better than he ever did before in any statement he has made. I think the purpose of the motion has been achieved and, as is customary under such conditions, I ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.
It being seven minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Foods and Drugs

Tuesday, April 16, 1946