1946-05-06

Mr. R. N. JUTRAS (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In an article in the Winnipeg Tribune dated May 1 of this year, questionable and unfair motives were imputed to me, and I wish now to deny them emphatically. I want to make it clear that the appreciation of my responsibility as a representative of the people, and that alone, is the motive that prompted me to expose the numerous adverse and detrimental effects that bill No. 5 would have on the Canadian wheat board and, ultimately, on the farmers of western Canada.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I gave you notice of my intention to speak on that bill at the last session, but that the time expired before my turn came. Any suggestion that I took the floor last Tuesday to talk out Bill No. 5 is totally unfounded, untrue and unfair. I still have six minutes to go when this debate is resumed, and I propose to avail myself
of those few minutes to make my position perfectly clear. I hope Mr. Dick Sanburn will then be in the gallery to listen.



WAR EXPENDITURES


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Murphy be substituted for that of Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario) on the special committee on war expenditures and economies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce) moved the first reading of bill No. 59 (from the senate) to incorporate Canadian Acceptance company.
He said: Under the Small Loans Act of 1939 licences may be granted for the carrying on of the business of lending up to $500 ou personal notes and the like. The act is administered by the superintendent of insurance, and, apparently a dominion corporation is required to form another company if they wish to carry on that type of business. This application is by some of the officers of me Canadian Acceptance Corporation Limited- well known, I think, to most hon. members- and the purpose is to incorporate a company which will carry on small loans under this act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Rupert's land tr.ading company
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the first reading of bill No. 60 (from the senate) respecting Rupert's Land Trading company.
He said: This is an amendment to a charter which was granted by the parliament of Canada some few years ago, to clarify certain rights which had been believed until recently the company already possessed, the company owning land in various places. It is, I may say, a successor to the company which has been in existence for a great many years known as Revillon Freres, well known fur trading organization. But some question within perhaps the last year has arisen about the right of the company to own land. It is not clearly' enough stated in the charter, and it is to clarify the position in that respect that these amendments to the charter are now being introduced.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Questions

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

Mr. HATFIELD:: How many milch cows were exported to the United States from March 31, 1945 to March 31, 1916?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 51,683 dairy cattle.


PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. FLEMING:: How many persons were in the employ of the dominion government on (a) a temporary basis; (b) a permanent basis, on each of the following dates:
1.	September, 1939; 2. September 1, 1940; 3. September 1, 1941; 4. September 1, 1942; 5. September 1, 1943; 6. September 1, 1944; 7. September 1, 1945; 8. January 1, 1946; 9. February 1 1946; 10. March 1, 1946; 11. April 1, 1946; 12. May 1, 1946?


James Angus MacKinnon: Number of permanent and temporary employees in the civil service.1
		Temporary		Permanent
			(a)	(b)
1.	September 1,	1939	15,608	31,3632.	September 1,	1940	25,987	31,3363.	September 1,	1941	42,459	30,6644.	September 1,	1942	61,288	29,8585.	September 1,	1943	79,691	28,9466.	September 1,	1944	83,492	30,3057.	September 1,	1945	85,759	30,3998.	January 1, 19462	106,717s	31,0399.	February 1,	19462	85,360	31,00210.	March 1, 1946 Information not available11.	April 1, 1946 Information not available12.	May 1, 1946 Information not available
lit is to be noted that the following include only those persons who are classified as "permanent" or "temporary" employees according to the civil service regulations and therefore employees whose work is of a casual nature, described at "non-enumerated classes" are not included.
2Unre vised.
includes over 20,000 employees taken on for the Christmas rush in the Post Office department.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	When reopened, will the Royal Military College at Kingston be conducted on a basis similar to that existing in 1938-39?
Questions

2.	What provision is being made (a) to conduct officers training courses for university graduates; (b) to include men from the ranks of the active army who have been recommended for commissions?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	The basis on which the Royal Military College will be reopened has not yet been decided. The system by which officers for Canada's post-war army will be provided, the educational standards required, and the manner in which the necessary military and educational training should be carried out will depend to some extent on the recommendations to be made by a committee, under the chairmanship of Brigadier Sherwood Lett of Vancouver, presently inquiring into these matters.
2.	See answer to question No. 1.


LOANS TO PROVINCES
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What was the amount of the loans, each year, from 1927 to 1939, by the federal government to each of the provincial governments?
2.	What was the interest on these loans?
3.	What amount has been reimbursed on these loans ?
4.	What was the outstanding balance for each of these loans on April 1, 1939?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1. 1931-	32	
1932-	33	
1933-	34	
1934-	33	
1935-	36	
1936-	37	
1937-	38	
1938-	39	Manitoba ... S 4,331,486 37 ... 6,476,710 51 ... 4,127,000 00 ... 4,720,655 26	Saskatchewan $12,034,934 12 9,734,337 38 6,960,065 88 11,434,811 47 14,291,043 82 6,059,461 48 11,604,786 48 13,767,910 75	Alberta $ 5,142,586 39 2.840.000	00 4,068,524 31 3.895.000	00 13,117,000 00 974,450 00 200,000 00	British Columbia $ 5,784,164 69 5,382,500 00 3.535.000	00 8.225.000	00 12,566,000 00 4.044.000	00 2,000,000 002. 1931-	32	
1932-	33	
1933-	34	
1934-	35	
1935-	36	
1936-	37	
1937-	38	831,960,852 14	S85,887,351 38	S30,237,560 70	$41,536,664 69... 409,059 27 ... 536,833 48 ... 515,814 37 ... 642,794 38 656,481 34	$ 715,574 99 1,094,897 86 1,360,668 23 1,632,050 31 1,747,056 98 1,228,747 33 1,424,640 34	$ 278,675 17 319,988 22 518,598 99 738,627 55 848,338 03 757,007 49 763,516 69	$ 308,640 77 295,162 36 454.487	15 744,546 23 1,048,675 66 956,518 01 996.488	43$ 3,548,947 71	*8 9,203,636 04	$ 4,224,752 14	8 4,804,518 61* Includes Dominion.	interest paid by issue	of additional Provincial Treasury Bills in	favour of the3. 1931-	32	
1932-	33	
1933-	34	
1934-	35	
1935-	36	
1936-	37	
1937-	38	
1938-	39	.. $ 1,542,674 71 .. 1,304,806 77 .. 110,716 77 .. 1,252,369 18 .. 2,324,429 48 .. 1,000 00 .. 22,811 74 [DOT] .. 906,500 65	8 1,100,592 66 2,155,781 82 1,490,825 76 1,293,797 45 45,565 39 582 48 59,063 56	$ 1,044,845 95 937,959 01 17,781 43 1,968,524 31 13,000 00 169,252 00 7,000 00	$ 971,040 81 4,469,863 53 2,213,239 52 258,286 10 7,554 63 71,600 38 458,363 23 129,505 94$ 7,465,309 30	$ 6,146,209 12	$ 4,158,362 70	$ 8,579.454 14
[Mr. Isnor.l

Questions
4. Owing to several amalgamations which have taken place with respect to a great number of loans to each of the western provinces, it is not possible to answer 4 precisely as asked. The following are the net amounts outstanding on April 1, 1939:
Manitoba	 *$ 23,690,645 82
Saskatchewan	 * 62,058,984 65
Alberta	 26,079,198 00
British Columbia	 32,957,210 55

After write-offs pursuant to debt adjustment scheme which in the case of Manitoba amounted to $804,897.02 and in the case of Saskatchewan amounted to $17,682,157.61.


WHEAT OF CONTRACT GRADES
Mr. BENTLEY:: What are the total amounts of wheat of contract grades visible and/or estimated in the following positions as at April 1, 1946 (a) in country elevators; (b) in store at Fort William and Port Arthur terminals; (c) in store in Pacific seaboard terminals; (d) in store in Atlantic seaboard terminals; (e) in store in inland terminals; (f) in store in bond in U.S.A.; (g) in transit; (h) in mill elevators; (i) on farms in western Canada (estimated) ?


James Angus MacKinnon: Red spring wheat of all grades in following positions at March 29, 1946:
Bushels
(a)	Country elevators	 35,245,000
(b)	Fort William and Port Arthur 22,439,543
(c)	Pacific terminals	
6,005,034(d)	Atlantic terminals	
434,566(e)	Inland terminals	
1,751,478(f)	United States of America .. 2,181,435(g)	Transit	
11,593,583(h)	Mill elevators and interiorprivate terminals	
4,693,000(1)	Churchill	
1,877,737(2)	Lake and upper St.	[DOT]Lawrence ports	
8,736,964(3)	Lower St. Lawrence ports 8,314,002
103,272,342
(i)	On farms in Canada, estimate,
101-7 million as at March 31, 1946.


OWEN SOUND TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES- SUBSIDIES
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Did the dominion government pay any subsidies to the Dominion Transportation Company of Owen Sound, and the Owen Sound Transportation Company, or either of them, before January 31, 1943?
2.	If so, in what amounts and for what purposes ?
3.	Were any subsidies paid to the abovemen-tioned in 1943, 1944 and 1945?
4.	If so, what amounts and for what purposes?
5.	Who are the officers and directors of the above named companies?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes. To the Owen Sound Transporation Company.
4.	1943, $35,000; 1944, $35,000; 1945, $35,000; for subsidized steamship service between Owen Sound and ports on Manitoulin Island and Georgian, Bay.
5.	Officers:	Ivor Wagner, President and
General Manager; W. W. Barnard, VicePresident in charge of operations; W. A. Alexander, Secretary-Treasurer; William Owens, Chief Engineer.
Directors: Ivor Wagner, W. W. Barnard, W. A. Alexander, William Owens.


AIR TRANSPORT BOARD-LICENCES
Mr ISNOR:: How many licences have been issued by the Air Transit Board to private companies since January 1, 1946, showing (a) number of licences in each province; (b) names of companies; (c) dates on which licences were granted; (d) whether passenger, freight, or passenger and freight; (e) scheduled routes?


Mr. HOWE:: 1. By the Air transport board:-
(a) A total of 11 licences as follows:-
Prince Edward Island	 1
Nova Scotia	 2
New Brunswick	 0
Quebec	 0
Ontario	 5
Manitoba	 1
Saskatchewan	 0
Alberta	 1
British Columbia	 1
North West Territories	 0
(b), (c), (d), and (e).
Prince Edward Island
Maritime Central Airways Limited, March 7, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
Nova Scotia
Pulsifer Brothers Limited, April 1, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
Pulsifer Brothers Limited, April 10, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
Ontario
Austin Airways Limited, Jan. 16, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
Inter Provincial Air Services Limited, March 21, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
Leavens Brothers Air Services Limited, Jan. 14, 1946, passenger and goods, scheduled.
Questions

Leavens Brothers Air Services Limited, April 1, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
Laurentian Air Services Ltd., March 20, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
.	Manitoba
Johannesson Flying Service Limited, Jan. 9, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
Alberta
Associated Airways Limited, Feb. IS, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.
British Columbia
Spilsbury & Hepburn Limited, April 1, 1946, passenger and goods, non-scheduled.


WAR ASSETS
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	What kinds and quantities of materials, goods and equipment formerly used or intended tor use on the Alaska highway were purchased by the province of Alberta between April 30,
1945,	and March 1, 1946, from the War Assets Corporation, or departments of government, and what were the amounts paid?
2.	What kinds and quantities of other war materials, goods or equipment were purchased from the government of Canada by the province of Alberta from April 30, 1945 to March 1,
1946.	and what were the amounts paid for same ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	In a declaration of surplus assets, the original use ' or intended use of the items declared surplus is not designated. It is, therefore, impossible to obtain the answer to this part of the question from the records of War Assets Corporation.
2.	The following statement of sales, by War Assets Corporation to the provincial government of Alberta, covers the period July 12, 1944, to February, 28, 1946:
	No. of	
Category	Invoices	AmountReal estate	1 S	9,000 00Buildings without land ..	6	70,300 00Office furniture and equip-	ment 	3	127 41Bunkhouse, cafeteria and	camp equipment 	9	1.666 89Kitchenware and cutlery..	1	387 03Textiles and textile	products 	1	2.990 00Chemicals and explosives.	9	434 50Miscellaneous consumer	goods 	3	145 89Scrap-metal	1	3 00Scrap-all other 	1	71 10Hardware 	2	341 78Electrical equipment ....	3	16,760 00
IMr. Howe.]
No. of
Category	Invoices Amount
Trucks, trailers and
tractors 	3	9,450 00Passenger cars 	2	679 10Automobile equipment ..	1	141 65Machine tools and equipment 	2	11,488 53Hospital and firefighing equipment 	3	105 92Ships 	1	450 00Aircraft raw materials ...	1	103 2053	$124,646 00


WARTIME HOUSING- LIMITED-EAST YORK
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	How many houses were projected by Wartime Housing, Limited in East York?
2.	When was building commenced?
3.	How many houses were occupied by April 1, 1946?
4.	What was the cost of the land?
5.	What was the total cost of development?
6.	What was the average cost of each unit?
7.	How much was paid by the dominion government or a dominion government agency?
8.	What work was done by other political
bodies?	,
9.	What does each type of house rent for?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	197.
2.	July, 1945.
3.	22. However, 9 others were ready and allotted to servicemen but not yet occupied.
4.	$43,108.00.
5.	$900,136.95 as at March 31, 1946.
6.	Average cost not yet available as construction not completed.
7.	Answered by 5.
S.	(a) The city of Toronto is in process of constructing the following:	Public roadways
(paved), concrete curbs, public sidewalks, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water-mains and hydrants; (b) the township of East York agrees to supply schools and street lighting.
9. 4-room house, $27 per month; 5-room house, $33 per month; 6-room house, $37 per month.


MOBILIZATION ACT-FAILURE TO REPORT
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: How many men, by provinces, are listed as having failed to report following callup under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Prince Edward Island	 2
Nova Scotia	 5
New Brunswick	 74
Quebec	 5,726
Ontario	 1,293

Questions
Manitoba	 150
Saskatchewan	 98
Alberta	 23
British Columbia	 261
Total	 7,632
N.B.-Figures are as of March 31, 1946, and include men who did not comply with mobilization orders received and men whose mobilization orders were returned undelivered and who are as yet unlocated.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many employees are connected with with the National Film Board of Canada?
2.	What does their work consist of?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1.	742 as of March 31, 1946.
2.	The production on behalf of the departments of-the Canadian government of films, filmstrips, still photographs, photo displays, posters, and other graphic materials, and their distribution in Canada and in many other countries.


*SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND MATERIALS IN HAMILTON AREA
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Has an investigation been made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police into irregularities in connection with the sale or resale of government property and materials in the Hamilton area ?
2.	If so when will the result be made public?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As soon as the police have completed their investigations and have taken appropriate action.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. DROPE:: 1.	What is the International Joint Commission ?
2.	What is the personnel of this commission?
3.	What salaries do they receive?
4.	What are their duties?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. A commission, created by a treaty signed at Washington, January 11. 1909, to be composed of six commissioners, (three on the part of Canada and three on the part of the United States of America) having jurisdiction in questions relating to the use, obstruction or diversion of certain boundary waters or waters crossing the boundary and in matters of difference arising between Canada and
United States interests along the common frontier. Only two commissioners have been appointed on each side.
2.	A. Canadian personnel: two commissioners, a secretary, an assistant-secretary and the secretary to the chairman. B. United States personnel: two commissioners, a secretary, and a staff appointed by the government of the United States.
3.	A. Salaries of the Canadian personnel are as follows: (a) Hon. Charles Stewart, Commissioner (Chairman), 17,500; (b) J. E. Per-rault, Commissioner, $7,500; (c) Lawrence J. Burpee, Secretary, $4,620; (d) Miss E. M. Sutherland, Assistant Secretary, $2,358.12; (e) Mrs. J. L. Montgomery, Secretary to the Chairman, $2,178.12.
B. The salaries of the United States personnel are determined and paid by the government of the United States.
4.	The two Canadian commissioners sit with the United States commissioners to consider the questions submitted to the board. The Canadian secretary acts as joint secretary of the commission with the United States secretary, and also as the executive officer of the Canadian section. The assistant secretary assists the secretary in carrying out his duties, and carries out related clerical duties. The secretary to the chairman carries out normal secretarial duties for the chairman.
timber CONTROLLER-SHIPMENT OF LUMBER BEYOND PRAIRIE PROVINCES


Mr. BURTON:: 1.	Has the timber controller offered special inducements to the saw mills operating in Manitoba. Saskatchewan, Alberta and southern British Columbia to ship lumber beyond the prairie provinces?
2.	If so, what are such inducements?
3.	Have further concessions in this respect been recently made by said controller?
4.	What provisions have been made to assure the prairie provinces their fair supply of lumber?


Mr. IIOWE:: 1.	Yes, with respect to two by eight and wider rough-dimension lumber, which is not produced in any quantity in Ontario.
2.	The inducements are the same as for lumber shipped to any point on the prairies, namely, that for two cars of lumber shipped to Ontario one carload is permitted to be exported.
3.	No.
4.	No special provisions are necessary. Lumber of this particular class is generally surplus in most prairie yards. I may say that Saskatchewan, more than any other province, is dependent upon lumber shipped from other provinces, and it would be unfortunate for

Questions as Orders for Returns
that province if each province were dependent on its own internal economy so far as lumber is concerned.


WAR GRAVES COMMISSION-VISITING OF GRAVES SERVICEMEN
Mr. FRASER:: Have any plans been made by the War Graves Commission in regard to the relatives visiting the graves of servicemen who have been killed during service, and buried in foreign countries?


Mr. ABBOTT:: The imperial war graves
commission has always assisted visitors arriving in Great Britain with guidance and advice. Transportation from Canada or other facilities would be outside its purview. The present is a time of reorganization and new cemetery construction and it is not known what means for the comfort and convenience of travellers are available or likely to be so in the near future.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Who are the members of the National Film Board; where does each one live and what are their regular occupations?
2.	In what -way is the board organized and what office, if any, does each member hold?
3.	Who is the government film commissioner, and is he a member of the board?
4.	How often did the board meet in 1945, on what dates and who were present at each meeting?
5.	Are the board meetings open to the public?
6.	Have any persons other than board members attended the board's meetings? If so, who are these persons, and on what occasions did they attend?


Mr. CLAXTON:: Return tabled.


MARTELLO TOWER, HALIFAX
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Is there a building owned, or controlled by the government, known as Martello Tower, in Point Pleasant Park, Halifax?
2.	If so (a) when was it built; (b) by whom; (c) what was the cost; (d) what were the maintenance costs for the years 1940 to 1944 inclusive ?
3.	Is it open to the public?
4.	Is there a caretaker in charge to show tourists through the tower?



VETERANS LAND ACT-CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES AT BRANTFORD

Mr. CHARLTON:: How many applications have been received by the Department of Veterans Affairs for houses now under construction at Brantford, Ontario, under the Veterans Land Act?



POLYMER CORPORATION-POLLUTION OF WATERS OF ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Have any complaints been received by the government regarding the pollution of waters of the St. Clair river resulting from the operations of the Polymer Corporation Limited, or any of its subsidiaries or plants since October 1, 1945?
2.	If so, what is being done to remove and abate this nuisance?



VETERANS LAND ACT-LAMBTON COUNTY

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many applications for the purchase of farms under the Veterans Land Act in Lambton county are now pending awaiting inspection?
2.	How many farms have been purchased in the said county since the act came into force?
3.	What was the acreage in each farm and the price paid for it?



PAYMENTS TO OTHER COUNTRIES FOR WAR PURPOSES

Mr. POULIOT:: What is the total amount of all payments made each year for war purposes in other countries outside of Canada by the dominion government or any one of its agencies since September 1, 1939?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Clearly the preparation, of answer to this question will take some time and it should be made an order for return.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Indian Affairs and the inspector of construction of Kootenay Industrial School, St. Eugene Mission, British Columbia, during the years 1911, 1912, 1913, regarding the construction of the said school.


Mr. GLEN:: The records branch advise me that, acting under authority of the minutes of a meeting of the treasury board held on March 16, 1944 (T-260350 B), the files containing the above correspondence were destroyed and consequently it is not possible to comply with the hon. member's motion.
Motion dropped.



HOUSING-APPLICATION OF ACT TO FARMERS AND RESIDENTS OF TOWNS AND VILLAGES

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: Perhaps the house will permit me to answer a question asked the other day by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross):
I would like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction a question. Will he indicate to the house the arrangements which have been made to en-

Business oj the House-Precedence
able farmers and residents of towns and villages to take advantage of part 3 of the National Housing Act.
The answer is that lending institutions are authorized to operate under part 3 of the National Housing Act and will accept applications for loans from farmers. Part 3 of the act does not apply to loans to residents of towns and villages. Such loans fall under part 1 of the National Housing Act and the lending institutions are authorized to accept applications for these loans.
It is recognized that administrative difficulties and problems of inspection and appraisal have tended to make the lending institutions reluctant to enter outlying areas, and consequently coverage under the National Housing Act has not been all that could be desired. Recently the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has secured agreement from the major lending institutions for better coverage and it now appears that the fullest cooperation will be forthcoming from the lending institutions to ensure a complete coverage in these areas.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Wednesday the 8th May to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence on Wednesdays over all business except introductions of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
He said: I have put this motion on the order paper largely to allow hon. members to express their own views if they so desire, but primarily for the purpose of meeting what I believe is the general wish of the house to get on with its business as rapidly as possible. I recall that when I introduced the motion with respeet to taking Mondays the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) suggested that when we considered Wednesdays again the government should perhaps give a little more latitude than it otherwise would. No doubt that was my hon. friend's feeling at the time. But I am sure that hon. members will realize that we are getting on into the months of the session now and I would say that in regard to practically all the questions that come up on private members' motions there are other opportunities during the session where hon. members can discuss these particular questions, as for example, on the estimates, in connection with some of the public bills that come before the house, and the like.
The experience thus far this session has not shown that discussions on private members' resolutions on Wednesdays have led us very
far. I do not wish to press this motion at the moment, if there is any strong objection to it. I shall be prepared to modify its wording to accord with what appears to be the wish of the house; but I hope hon. members see the wisdom of getting on with government business if they really are concerned about not having the work of the session run too far into the months of this year.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Speaking for this party I may say we shall be glad to support the motion of the Prime Minister.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: We decided last week that we would support a similar motion, but I should like to add this word, that we did that before last Friday evening. Between eight and nine o'clock last Friday evening I think we all felt that the time of the house was not being occupied in the manner in which it should be. I make this mild protest in that regard, but we are anxious to facilitate the business of the house.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): The house surely has the support of this group in facilitating the business. Having in mind, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has, the way in which private members' hours have degenerated until they are practically useless, I suggest we support the motion.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I am the first private member to rise to speak on this motion. The Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition are certainly not back-benchers; neither is the leader of the C.C.F., nor the leader of the Social Credit party.	.
It is not easy for a government supporter to oppose a government measure, and it is especially difficult when the measure is personally sponsored by the Prime Minister. 1 should like to be regarded, however, not as a private member differing from his leader, but rather as a private member differing at the moment from government policy.
The standing orders set aside Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays for the first four weeks of the session as private members' days. During the war we gave up that right because government business came first. In the first session after the war we gave up the right completely; and in this session, of the first four Thursdays the first three were devoted to the speech from the throne, which after all wTas government business. It is quite true that a private member had wide latitude in speaking on the address, but as government business had priority with the consent of the house, it left us only one Thursday for the

Business of the House-Precedence
discussion of private members' business. Shortly afterwards the Prime Minister put a motion on the order paper asking that Wednesday be given up. When the motion came before the house on April 9, the word "Wednesday" was changed to "Monday"; therefore we lost a full day instead of a half day, and once again the members of the house all agreed that government business should have priority. Now we are asked to give up our last effective afternoon, because one hour on Tuesdays and Fridays for private members' bills is not the same as two and a half hours on Wednesday. The argument used, of course, is first of all that government business should have priority. In that we have shown a fair measure of agreement, because we have given our Mondays to government business. The second argument used by the Prime Minister is that there are other opportunities to bring forward the matters we wish to discuss, namely, on going into supply, on the budget, and on the estimates.
Of course the house will note that I am concerned because my resolution will be the first one to be cut off. If I speak on that subject on the budget or on going into supply I shall make my comments on behalf of the three municipalities in my riding which are concerned in the matter referred to in the resolution. The next speaker may speak, and probably will, on some aspect remote from that, and there is no obligation on the minister, either in supply or on the budget, to answer anything I have said.
If I wait for the estimates I can wait until the Ottawa grant of 1100,000' in lieu of taxes comes up for discussion; but that will probably be on some steamy, sultry night late next August or early September, when the desire of the house is not to listen to debate but to push the estimates through in order to get home. On the other hand if we do have an afternoon to discuss what to my mind is important-even more important now that the dominion-provincial conference has been temporarily adjourned-the financial relations between the dominion and the municipalities, and certainly the municipalities are the hardest pressed of any of the governments in Canada at the moment, then not only can I state my case on behalf of the hard pressed municipalities of Vancouver North, but other parties can state their case and the government must make a reply. This is public business; it is not just a private member's business.
I wish to give one other illustration of the need of private members' day. Several hon. members have said to us: "Why do you British Columbia members not present a concerted story on the Japanese problem in-

stead of sniping away at the citizenship bill, the labour estimates, and the army estimates?" One of the reasons, of course, is that we lack this opportunity. The other night the hon. member' for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) and myself presented an amendment which was ruled out of order, and one of the ministers sitting near me at the time said:	"If you
want to deal with that you should have brought in a private bill." Judging from the way things are going, if we had brought in a private bill it would never have seen thfe light of day.
My resolution was put on the order paper on the third or fourth day of the session. If a resolution which is put on the order paper on the third or fourth day of the session is never discussed in the house,, obviously a private bill introduced this week would also fail to be discussed here. The opportunity for logical and coherent discussion of a public measure which is not on the government's program, but is brought forward by a private member, is more important to the government private member than to the opposition. As a matter of fact I envy my colleagues from British Columbia, the young member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and others, in the opportunity they have to speak on government measures. The government speaks particularly on government measures, and we who are in the background must either praise or damn. If we praise too much, we may be called sycophants; if we damn too much we are called rebels; if we do both we may be called inconsistent. Generally we keep silent,


Mr. HOMUTH:: Come over here.


James Sinclair: I am happy where I am. If the government needs more time, as a private member I am prepared to give it to them, but not on Wednesday afternoon. I am quite willing to sit on Wednesday evening and give them three hours instead of two and a half. As a matter of fact the western members are willing to sit on Saturday mornings, because we have to stay here anyway.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Since the Prime Minister has indicated that the reason he has introduced this motion is to give members an opportunity to discuss the matter, may I just take one moment? I am willing to vote in favour of the motion, but I do not like the idea at any time of doing away with private members' day, because I believe if this parliament is to be effective it must function as a democratic parliament, with members sitting here representing their people and not their party.

Business of the House-Precedence
It is stated also that this motion is made so that we may get on with the business of the house. What are we doing if we are not getting on with the business of the house? Surely that is what we are doing all the time. We have these private members' days, but under our present parliamentary procedure what do they amount to? They amount to just nothing, except to allow the private member to let off steam and enable him to go back and tell his constituents, "See, that is what I said." May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to hon. members of this house, that it does not amount to a row of pins what a member says here on private members' days, and that goes for all of us; it goes for myself too. Unless there is some revision of our parliamentary procedure by which a private member can present a matter and then have it voted upon, we shall not have a truly democratic parliament. What we require is to have a vote on private members, resolutions and action taken as the result of the vote.
My own impression is that to-day parliament is subservient to the government. In a real democratic parliament the government should be subservient to parliament. But in the ultimate results here, that is not so. I object to a party parliament; I want a real democratic parliament. I believe that the private members' days should be democratically conducted, that decisions should be made on the matters brought before the house and the government told, by those decisions, what the people want.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: As a back-bencher of the official opposition let me say that I agree with the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) when he says that members from distant points would be willing to sit here on Wednesday evenings and Saturday mornings if necessary to expedite the business of the house.
Despite the fact that I have a resolution on the order paper closely following his, I have also to agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), who has just taken his seat, that private members' days as they are conducted here are scarcely worth while. When I first came into the house I certainly was concerned over losing private members' days but with all due respect to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) who raised an objecion this afternoon-and I will exempt him because he expressed himself

on many occasions when private members' resolutions were being discussed in the house I have seen a scurrying about to round up members to speak on a certain resolution.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Macleod, if we conducted these private members' days efficiently we might accomplish something, but as it is they do not accomplish much, and I should be quite willing to forgo them until we have a more democratic procedure so that we can get on with the essential business of the country.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I rise briefly to support the opposition presented to this resolution by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). I do not quite agree that private members' days are useless. At the present time it is the only opportunity that the back-benchers have to hear both sides of any current issue discussed, and I am sure that up to the present the debates on private members' days have been of advantage to the members and informative to the public at large. That is my experience from listening to the debates themselves and from communications I have received from constituents.
There is no necessity to repeat the arguments presented by the hon. member for Vancouver North, but I think that we can still retain private members' days and sit on Wednesday evenings, which I think a good many members would be willing to do; and as my hon. friend has said, the western members would be willing I think to sit also on Saturday morning. If we did that, and some hon. members would curtail to some extent their excessive language, I am sure that we should make progress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to run the risk defeating my own motion when it is on the point of being accepted by all political parties, but I should like to say to my hon. friend the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), who has said that his resolution would be the first to be slaughtered, that there are two resolutions ahead of his on the order paper and if the house took up either of them I am afraid that would mean on each the whole afternoon would be taken up. However, I can sympathize with my hon. friend in his wish to present the subject of his resolution to the house and have it discussed, but I believe there will be other opportunities in the session for him to develop further what he has in mind.
May I say a word to my hon. friend the hon. member for Macleod, the outstanding democrat who spoke of giving a chance to everyone to launch an attack on the government, that I have just given him that
Loan to United Kingdom

opportunity, go he can hardly say that I have tried to take away any right of speech from him this afternoon.
Speaking of democratic government, unless I am entirely mistaken about what is being alleged as to government at Westminster having become more democratic of late, I would point out that during and since the war the government at Westminster has taken away private members' days altogether in order that headway may be made with government business. We have not gone that far. We have allowed several days as private members' days but I would be the last to say that the government at Westminster is not a democratic government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. He is not in his seat at the moment, but perhaps the question will be conveyed to him. Is it the intention of the minister to evict, on May 31, some sixteen families from the London block in Saskatoon? If so, is the government prepared to take responsibility for finding shelter for these families at that time? The building is being used by the Department of Veterans Affairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stand as a notice.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McIvAY (Weyburn): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources, of which I have given him notice. What steps have been taken by the Indian Affairs branch to provide homes and a livelihood for the Indians left destitute by the recent disastrous fire which swept through the Assiniboine Indian reserve No. 76 in Saskatchewan?
James Allison Glen: The damages incurred by the fire a week ago are being thoroughly investigated by officers of the Indian Affairs branch. When the report of the investigation is received at Ottawa I can assure the hon.

member that the necessary steps will be taken to rebuild or repair the property destroyed or damaged and to alleviate any suffering among the Indians affected by the fire.



LOAN TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 16, consideration in committee of bill No. 28, respecting the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom signed on the 6th day of March, 1946-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
last sat it was considering section 4, dealing with the continuation of the interest-free provision of the act of 1942.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, I am now in a
position to answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata when this matter was before the house. I apologize to him for not having had more success in my attempts to answer his questions when the matter was before the house. I did answer some of them, but I must confess my answers were incomplete. To answer his questions completely will of course take some little time.
His first question, I think, related to the credit of the Netherlands East Indies, and was whether that country had been supplied only with money, or with some ammunition and arms; and with whom the Canadian government dealt in making this credit. The answer is that the Netherlands East Indies was not supplied with ammunition and arms but with funds for the purchase of ordinary commercial commodities in Canada. The deal was negotiated with the representative of the government of the Netherlands East Indies, and the agreement was signed by duly authorized representatives of the Bank for the Netherlands East Indies.
The second question referred to my statement that by 1950 the British would have wiped out their deficit and would be getting back to equilibrium, and then asked what about Canadian equilibrium. I referred briefly to this question when the bill was discussed by the house before, and explained what I meant by "deficit" and "equilibrium":	The
deficit I was referring to was not a budgetary deficit in the sense of an excess of government expenditures over government revenues, but an entirely different thing, namely, deficit or

Loan to United Kingdom
disequilibrium in the United Kingdom's balance of payments on current account. Let me put it a simpler way. During the next few years the United Kingdom is not going to be able to get enough foreign exchange from her exports to other countries, her earnings from shipping, insurance and financial services rendered to other countries, the earnings on her outstanding foreign investments, tourist expenditures in the United Kingdom, etc., to enable her, without borrowing, to pay for the goods and services which she will require from other countries, the interest on her foreign indebtedness and other current account liabilities to other countries. In other words there will be a deficit in her current account balance of payments, which will have to be met primarily by borrowing from foreign countries. This deficit will be huge in the first year or two, but is expected to decline to small proportions in 1949 and be wiped out altogether in 1950. That is what I was trying to say at page 766 of Hansard.
Canada of course has no deficit in that sense. On the contrary Canada is in better than equilibrium to-day, and we expect that over the next two or three years Canada will have surpluses of substantial size in her current account balance of payments. That, indeed, is why we are making these loans or export credits-to enable other countries to buy from Canada goods and services which they would not otherwise be able to buy, at least in the same volume.
I may add that if we do not make it possible to sell our surplus production abroad in the next few years, if we are not able to build up and maintain on a high level that export trade on which so large a proportion of our people depend for a living, then we are likely to be unable to avoid continuing to show very substantial deficits in the other sense of that term-deficits in the budgetary sense.
Another question asked by the hon. member related to the deficit in the British balance of payments not covered by the proposed loans from United States and Canada, and my statement on page 766 of Hansard that this remaining amount would have to be found elsewhere. The question was: "Does 'elsewhere' mean all the other dominions and the other countries of the empire?" I meant "elsewhere" in this connection to cover all other countries-all countries other than the United States and Canada.
The fourth question referred to a quotation I gave from the report of the United States national advisory council to the effect that in the United States-United Kingdom financial
agreement of December 6, 1945, the British agreed to the removal of trade restrictions within one year from the effective date of that agreement. It then went on to ask: "Then, what about our British preference in trade?" The hon. member also asked the same question again on page 907 of Hansard in connection with certain other quotations from my own address. The removal of trade restrictions to which the national advisory committee's report referred, did not relate to tariffs but to quantitative import restrictions -that is to say, import quotas and foreign exchange restrictions. The United States-United Kingdom financial agreement does not deal with tariffs, which are what are involved when you speak of preferences.
Again the hon. member asked "What payments did the United Kingdom make to Canada since December, 1940?" Well, if I .understand it correctly, it is impossible to answer this question literally because many thousands of transactions would be involved. In other words the United Kingdom-I am speaking, of course, of the country or the people, not just of the government-makes a mass of payments to Canada every day- using for the purchase of Canadian goods or services or the payment of liabilities here the Canadian dollars she receives from her export of goods to Canada, the ocean freights earned by transporting Canadian goods, the interest and dividends paid on her investments in Canada, the earnings from insurance and financial services rendered to Canadians, and the expenditures of Canadians and the Canadian government and armed forces in Britain. Since December, 1940 there has been a myriad of such transactions, and it would be quite impossible to catalogue them. However, what I think my hon. friend had in mind was the statistical information which one finds in a balance of payments statement, including the receipts to United Kingdom of Canadian dollars from exports and other major sources. These Canadian dollars were all spent in Canada, and they had to be supplemented by a very large amount of additional dollars from mutual aid, and so on, to enable Britain to make all the payments she had to make in Canada.
With the permission of the committee I shall place on Hansard a table prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics showing how United Kingdom and other sterling area expenditures in Canada were financed during the period January 1, 1941, to the end of last year. The table is as follow:
Loan to United Kingdom

Financing of United Kingdom and Sterling Area Expenditures in Canada 1941 to 1945
(Millions of Canadian Dollars)
Total 1941 to 1945
, Sterling area expenditures in Canada
(1)	United Kingdom Account
Merchandise exports	
Travel in Canada	
Interest and dividends to Canada	
Freight and shipping	
War services in Canada	
All other current payments to Canada	
Purchase or sale (-) of munitions plants .. Withdrawal (-) of working capital	
, Sub-total United Kingdom expenditures in Canada as above	
(2)	Other sterling area account	
2. Sterling area receipts from Canada
(a)	Current receipts (1) By United Kingdom
Merchandise imports	
Travel in United Kingdom	
Interest and dividends to United Kingdom
Freight and shipping	
Canadian war activities overseas	
All other current requirements	
Total current receipts by United Kingdom (5) By other sterling area	
Sub-total current receipts	
(b)	Other methods of financing sterling area
expenditures
Canadian official repatriation of securities ..
Canadian private repatriation of securities ..
Sales of gold and United States dollars to
Canada	
Canadian accumulation of sterling balances..
Loan of $700mm. by Canada to United Kingdom	**	
Billion dollar contribution by Canada	
Canadian mutual aid to sterling area	
Interim advances to United Kingdom	
All other capital transactions1 incl. errors and omissions	
Total ((a) + (b))	
1 Included in this item are currency settlements and other adjustments which were particularly large in 1942, 1943 and 1945.
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Inclusiv914	1,424	1,636	1,796	1,623	7,3932	2	1	2	2	94	5	4	8	8	29110	114	128	139	113	60445	96	105	96	65	40718	16	15	22	34	105157	58	-205	-2	-1	-182-190	-J	1,250	1,715	1,494	2,061	1,845	8,365228	169	177	244	364	1,1821,478	1,884	1,671	2,305	2,209	9,547137	116	100	94	100	5472	2	2	2	2	1066	50	51	55	53	27528	41	40	28	31	16897	191	499	1,085	696	2,56829	34	48	53	43	207359	434	740	1,317	925	3,775157	123	110-	111	119	620516	557	850	1,428	1,044	4,395188	296	4	2	1	49146	38	36	59	70	24923	143	55	33	254728	-818	-4	1	-93700	-18	-57	-64	5611,000	1,000503	834	838	2.175164	16488	153	-12	122	3511,478	1,884	1,671	2,305	2,209	9,547
It will be seen from the table that the United Kingdom's expenditures in Canada totalled $8,365 million, and that in addition to the transfer of gold and United States dollars to 'Canada amounting to $254 million during the period in question the United Kingdom used $3,775 million for payments in Canada, which dollars were obtained from exports to Canada, interest and dividend payments, freight and shipping services, travel expenditures in the United Kingdom and Canadian war activities overseas and other current items.
[Mr. Ilsley.l
The hon. member also asked, as reported on page 907 of Hansard, "What about Canada?" in connection with the statement I made that-'
British policies wall influence and largely determine the policies of many other countries, including particularly the countries now in the sterling area and probably the countries of western Europe.
I think my meaning was clear. I was talking particularly of the great influence which British policies inevitably have on the policies and the economic prosperity of other countries,

Loan to United Kingdom
because Britain is the world's greatest importer. I was thinking particularly, as I indicated, of the countries of the sterling area and of western Europe, and I was trying to show that unless Britain were assisted and encouraged to follow a liberal trade and currency policy she would be forced into restrictionist and discriminatory policies which would 'have an extremely bad effect on Canada, both directly and indirectly-the latter because of the effect which Britain's course of action would have on many other countries which constitute good markets for Canadian goods.
Dealing with the proposed cancellation of the British commonwealth air training plan indebtedness, the hon. member asked, how can we expect any repayment of a new $1,250 million loan if one of our reasons for suggesting cancellation was "the conclusion after much consideration that repayment of this $425 million was beyond the United Kingdom's capacity to pay within any reasonable period." The simple answer to that question is that we could not expect repayment of both the book debt and the new loan within a reasonable period, but w'e did feel that the United Kingdom would be able to repay the loan-over the long period and on the terms stipulated-and we were convinced that the new loan was necessary if our trade interests were to be protected. Attempting to make the United Kingdom pay off the $425 million debt on top of the $1,250 million loan, we were convinced, would have placed an altogether too heavy burden on Britain's balance of payments.
Another question asked what about "the gradual and orderly repatriation of Canadian securities owned in the United Kingdom". I am not sure thal; I get the point of this question. In my address-see page 770 of Hansard-I described this process of orderly repatriation of British-owned securities which has been going on and the undertaking given by the United Kingdom that the proceeds therefrom would be used to pay off the interest-free loan. Already repayments had amounted to over $161 million, and if they keep up at levels of the recent past it should not be long before the loan will be entirely paid off. From September 15, 1939, to December 31, 1945, total repatriation of Canadian securities from the United Kingdom aggregated $990 million.
Finally, the hon. member for Temiscouata asked about the detail of the settlement of war claims. This is a very complicated matter, but I shall do the best I can to answer the question, even though the agreement regarding the settlement of war claims is not part of
the agreement before the house. It will be recalled that when introducing the legislation which is before the house I pointed out that the agreement on the settlement of war claims is a separate and distinct agreement from the one to which the house is now giving consideration. The agreement does not need to be made under the authority of special legislation; it can be made under the authority of existing legislation. I pointed out that the settlement agreement is essentially a measure to settle promptly and with a finality a large number of outstanding claims between the two governments, an objective which might otherwise take years to achieve.
As the house will no doubt realize, when the armed forces and the procurement departments of two countries have cooperated as closely and fully in the prosecution of total war over a period of six years as have those of Canada and the United Kingdom, there accumulates between them a large number of financial claims of various kinds. Some of these claims are simple in nature and definite in amount. This is true of the largest number of the claims covered by this agreement, and in such cases all that is necessary in order to reach a proper basis of settlement is normal accounting procedure.
On the other hand, many of the claims arising out of the war are more difficult to determine. In some cases, for example, the prices that should be charged for equipment or supplies cannot be settled in advance, and should be based on costs which it may take a considerable time to determine with accuracy. In other cases it is completely impossible to keep records of actual transfers, because they took place during the course of military, air or naval operations and it was not considered wise to interfere with these operations and to tie up the necessary man-power to the extent that would be necessary to keep accurate books. In still other cases, equipment intended for one purpose may be laid aside and replaced by other equipment, and that which is laid aside may be lent or transferred to other armed forces for use by them without waiting for negotiations regarding the terms on which the transfer is made. I cite these merely as general examples of the types of difficulty which one inevitably runs into, and as I go over the list of claims hon. members will see specific cases in which these difficulties have to be faced and surmounted.
There is, therefore, an inevitable lag in settling the financial consequences of all the various operations and transfers that are necessary in conducting war. The working out of these settlements might well have taken years and been the occasion of endless
Loan to United Kingdom

disputes over the nature, magnitude and validity of dozens of claims between Canada and the United Kingdom.
The Canadian, government and the United Kingdom government, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was sensible to survey without delay the large number of claims of various types the two governments had against each other as a consequence of the war, and settle them by a payment of a round sum forthwith. The results of such survey convinced both of us that the payment by the United Kingdom to Canada of a sum of $150 million would be a fair and reasonable settlement of the balance of claims outstanding, and that on such payment all the claims as specified in the agreement could then be cancelled against one another.
The United Kingdom has now made this pa}'ment, the claims are cancelled, and we are proceeding to reflect these settlements in the various accounts in our books. The public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946, when they appear, will give a detailed record of these transactions and there will be ample opportunity for the house to discuss them in detail when the estimates of the departments concerned-army, navy, air, reconstruction and supply, agriculture, fisheries and trade and commerce-are being considered.
I might explain that the method we are following in order to make clear the process in our accounts is to establish what we call a United Kingdom general settlement account, to which are credited the payment made by the United Kingdom and the various amounts that would have been owing by Canada to the United Kingdom but for the settlement agreement. The account is then charged with the amount of the , claims which Canada has on the United Kingdom.
The simplest groups of claims covered by this settlement are those in the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Fisheries in respect of supplies furnished to the United Kingdom after September 1, 1945, when Mutual Aid ceased, and up to February 28, 1946, the end of the period covered by the settlement agreement. The amount debited to the settlement by the Department of Trade and Commerce, mainly in respect of wheat and flour, is $147,045,633. Similarly the figure charged by the Department of Fisheries for fishery products provided to the United Kingdom is $12,354,895. In both cases these amounts had been advanced under the authority of section 3 of the War Appropriation Act and the War Expenditures and Demobiliz-

ation Appropriation Act. Both amounts mentioned, as well as some of the amounts hereafter mentioned, may be subject to some slight revision before the books for last year are closed.
In the Department of Agriculture there were advances made on behalf of the United Kingdom for the procurement of agricultural products, mainly meat, eggs and cheese, of $113,604,894. In addition, there were cancellation charges on contracts for dehydrated vegetables which were cancelled on short notice late last fall, amounting to $350,000. On the other hand, the Department of Agriculture has a credit to make to the United Kingdom account of $2,600,000, on egg contracts.
The Department of National Defence for Air- has a claim against the United Kingdom of $12,736,060 in respect of the cost of training R.A.F. personnel subsequent to March 31, 1945. This was calculated on a capitation rate. On the other hand, there was a credit to the United Kingdom for equipment furnished in this training and in training Canadians in the same period, of $14,058,939. There are also credits to this account in respect of air force items of $14,225,873 for equipment purchased in the United States by the British air commission for Canadian account, and of $71,601,871 for the balance owing in respect of reserve stores and stores in pipeline behind R.A.F.. squadrons overseas. This last item must be offset by an amount representing the disposal value of these reserve and pipeline stores on hand at the end of hostilities on V-E day. While the amount of such stores is known or can be estimated, it has not yet been possible to determine a proper figure for the value of them, mainly because this value depends on the price at which such stores can be liquidated in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. There is also a charge to the settlement account, .now' reported at $24,034,421, for equipment originally obtained from the United Kingdom and for which payment was made in the first instance to the United Kingdom, but which in fact originated in other countries to whom payment will finally have to be made when the proper prices are determined. In addition, there is a considerable number of miscellaneous debits and credits on air force account, which result in a net debit to the settlement account of $27,653,358.
The naval accounts, although intricate in detail, present no great problems, and there are no large items still to be determined. The settlement account is to be debited with

Loan to United Kingdom
$12,351,048 for various accounts payable by the admiralty to Canada, mainly for services furnished by the dockyards at- Halifax. The account will be credited on the other hand with $6,938,884 by the navy for accounts payable by the navy to the admiralty, mainly for stores and services furnished overseas to Canadian ships.
In the case of the army, the major credits to the settlement account are a balance of $160,236,844 owing to the United Kingdom by the army for the maintenance of Canadian troops in the United Kingdom and in theatres of operations between April 1, 1943, and February 28, 1946. The payments in respect of all the supplies and services obtained by the army from the British army war office and other departments were made on the basis of capitation rates agreed between the two countries. It is impossible to keep records, particularly in the field, of all the equipment, ammunition, rations and other supplies obtained by the army, or to determine accurately rates of wastage and the proper division of costs for the various services provided by the United Kingdom to the army. There is also an amount payable by the army for initial equipment of $43,775,678, and an estimated payment in respect of westbound ocean passages for December, 1945, and January and February, 1946, of $6,000,009. On the other hand, there are debits to the settlement account of $27,037,768 for Canadian ordnance supplies transferred 'to the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom during the war, and of $91,997,769 for various types of stores supplied by Canada but covered under the general capitation rates for maintenance of the Canadian army, as already described. The. account is also to be charged with an estimated amount of $17,800,000 in respect of operating and rental charges for joint facilities in Canada. There are various miscellaneous debits and credits on army account, which add up to a total debit to the settlement account of $16,087,532.
I should draw attention to two large items which were offset one against the other and accordingly it was not necessary to compute a money value for the purpose of the settlement agreement, namely, Canada's obligation to the United Kingdom for reserve stores and stores in pipeline behind the Canadian army formations in Europe and Canada's claim on the United Kingdom in respect of certain ram tanks which, after being taken overseas by the Canadian army, were subsequently turned over to British forces to serve as armoured troop carriers after turrets and guns were removed. When the detailed role 63260-78
of the Canadian formations was decided upon and the types of equipment to be used by other formations were known, it was decided that the Canadian formations should be equipped with the same types of tanks as those used by the American and British forces with whom they were co-operating. The ram tanks were, therefore, left behind, and became obsolete.
The United Kingdom owes the Department of Reconstruction and Supply some well defined amounts for various items furnished to the United Kingdom after V-J day, while the United Kingdom has some quite large potential claims on the department of a general nature very difficult to determine accurately, as they include shares in profits and reserves accumulated on the accounts of the department and its corporations attributable in part to payment by the United Kingdom before mutual aid of prices in excess of the actual cost of goods to the Canadian government. Claims of the department against the United Kingdom for supplies delivered after Mutual Aid had ceased are computed at $33,636,843, including an estimate of accounts still to come for payment.
In addition, the Indian government owes the Department of Reconstruction and Supply $48,813,929 for locomotives provided the Indian government under section 3 of the War Appropriation Act. In reaching agreement for the settlement which has been made between Canada and the United Kingdom, it was arranged that this obligation of India would be assumed by the United Kingdom and form part of the settlement. The claim of the United Kingdom for the balance of equity in the general working capital fund as at August 31, 1943, has been established at $32,795,385. In connection with the United Kingdom claims to reserve accumulated in various pool projects of the department representing prices paid by the United Kingdom on pre-Mutual Aid deliveries in excess of actual cost of production, it is difficult to determine precisely the amount properly attributable to the United Kingdom. We believe, however, that when a final valuation has been reached it will be between fifty and fifty-five million dollars. In addition, there are a number of miscellaneous debits and credits on reconstruction and supply account, including a balance in the United Kingdom cash receipts account which result in a net credit to the United Kingdom of $31,681,248.
I have given some tedious explanation of this because it is probably necessary for the record, but it can all be summarized briefly now in a small table:

Loan to United Kingdom

Owing to Canada
Loans and advances under section 3.. $343,752,545 National Defence-
Air	
National Defence-
Navy	 5,412,164
National Defence-*
Army	
Agriculture	
Reconstruction and
Supply	
Cash payment by United Kingdom .
Indicated balance in Canada's favour .	3,410,571
Owing by Canada

107,772,983*
150,000,000
$352,575,280	$352,575,280
*United Kingdom share of reserves included at $55,000,000.
That will give the committee an idea of the complications and extent and the number of transactions which had to be balanced against one another; but the more we go into them the more we think that this was a reasonable settlement so far as Canada was concerned and that $150 million was just about what was due to balance those accounts.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. All direct government obligations and Canadian National Railway obligations were repatriated and brought back to Canada, including these bonds.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Before asking the questions I referred to, I have here a paper published in Toronto, though it is not listed in the list of Canadian newspapers, and I will not name it because that would give publicity to it, I presume it is read by only a very few people. It was sent to me by a friend in Toronto among my fan mail. It has an article written by Mr. Donald M. Fleming, M.P., the member for Eglinton. I quote:
When the chairman called the fourth section,-
Speaking of the last debate on April 16.

-Mr. Pouliot, the irrepressible Liberal member lor Temiscouata, took the floor and delivered a storm of invective against the bill and against Mr. Ilsley and talked out the bill at the eleven o'clock adjournment.
I never used invective with reference to the Minister of Finance, who is an old friend of mine. The only insult that I was responsible for was to compare him to major and minor prophets, and I do not think that is enough to constitute libel. On the other hand, I had a compensation for what was written by the member for Eglinton. I have received a brotherhood card of Comox-Alberni Federal Liberal Association, together with a very fine letter, and I appreciate it the more because that constituency is so well represented in the house.
The minister and the Prime Minister have stated that the committee is the proper place for the discussion of the details of a measure such as the one now before the committee, and I understand that. That is why we have lo ask questions, and before asking questions I should like to have the minister understand my point of view. I am not prejudiced about the matter, but I always want some information in order to be able to answer those who come to us or write to us from all parts of the country wishing to know what this is about.	[DOT]
I understand perfectly well the magnitude of these financial transactions, and dealing with billions of dollars is something that is more than most of us will ever do. I am interested in the trade relations of individuals of various countries, but perhaps one question which the minister answered was not properly stated because what I wanted to know was what Canada as a country did for Great Britain, and what Great Britain, paid for it, during the war.
Of course, it is a question of supplies and services. Here are two questions I have on to-day's order paper, and I am not satisfied with the answer that has been given to a question of the same trend at page 358 of Hansard. It is a short question but it will establish our position:
40.	What amounts have been (a) given; (b) loaned: (c) advanced, in virtue of each act of parliament of the dominion of Canada to any other country from September 1, 1939?
This question seemed to me to be of importance. I thought it was important to know what we have done for other countries.
41.	What is the total amount of all payments made each year for war purposes in other countries outside of Canada by the dominion govern-IjUcnt^or any one of its agencies since September

Loan to United Kingdom
It seems to me to be of the utmost importance, because last December the minister stated that we are not a creditor country. Therefore we must know what we have spent without receiving anything in return. I appreciate the more the information given because the agreement was signed on March 6, eight days before the opening of the session, and it was made public immediately after its signature. Naturally it was given to the press, and what we had afterwards when we came to Ottawa was just a booklet in which the agreement was published. Therefore the agreement as it stands now binds only those members of both houses of parliament who are members of the cabinet. It does not bind any other member, nor does it bind those who have expressed themselves in favour of it, if they consider later on that they have not sufficient information about it. They have an opportunity to reconsider their opinion in the light of new factors which may be brought to their attention.
To understand the subject matter of the present discussion, its threads should be disentangled because the subject matter of any discussion must be reduced to a formula. In this case it is obvious that the only question is: Shall the Canadian dollar continue to be a blood donor to the pound sterling? The minister spoke of the need of a credit of this magnitude on these terms. Well, have we the right to impose a new mortgage of this magnitude on generations of unborn Canadians until the year 2000? How many of us will be alive then? Perhaps the hon. member for Wood Mountain, who is twenty-five and who in the year 2000 will be seventy-nine and probably a great-grandfather. In that year the minister will be 106 and the Prime Minister 126. I have some birthdays here. The leader of the opposition will be 117; his financial critic will be 116. The leader of the C.C.F. group will be 112. The leader of the Social Credit group will be 100, just a centenarian. The former leader was born on the eve of my own birthday and will be 110. The Minister of National Defence, formerly parliamentary assistant to the minister, will be 101. The Minister of Justice will be 118; the hon. member for St. Paul's, 117.
I now come to the new ginger group, the young men of the Conservative party. The member for Kamloops will be 84; the member for Vancouver-Burrard, 92, and the member for Eglinton 95. I wish them all to live until then so that they will have the satisfaction of seeing the last payment of the loan.


Mr. LOW:: How old is the hon. member?
63260-'784


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for
Lethbridge was born on the eve of my own birthday. I will be the same age less one day, or 110 years old.
The question is not the future of Great Britain or that of the British empire. The paramount and in fact the only question is the future value of the pound sterling or the establishment of the supremacy of the pound sterling over the Canadian and the United States dollar, which may happen, but only later, and incidentally become a question of trade; now first consideration is given to a non-Canadian currency.
This so-called loan will be made in addition to the facilities extended to forty-five countries-including the United Kingdom-by the Bretton Woods agreement to establish the par values of their currency. I shall now ask the minister if he will be kind enough to tell why the Bretton Woods agreement is not used by Great Britain to have some facilities to keep the pound sterling at par, and why we should make the loan in addition to it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All facilities will be needed by the United Kingdom. The borrowing power from Bretton Woods is limited by the constitution of the fund and1 the constitution of the bank.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his explanation; but if the purpose of the Brettom Woods agreement is to establish par value for currency it cannot be half par; the work, should be done completely. I cannot understand how the Bretton Woods agreement would work only fifty per cent of what it is. expected to do.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it is fair to say that if the two North American loans, the United! States loan and the Canadian loan, fail, or if a certain portion of the United. States loan: fails to go through, the United Kingdom would not remain in Bretton Woods; it could not remain in the Bretton Woods institutions. It would be useless for them to try to live up to the obligations imposed upon them by the constitution of these institutions.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister again, but it shows how unsatisfactory Bretton Woods is. If that should happen, all the other nations will complain that they did not receive enough. If we look at the whole scheme we shall see it was made by the big powers. It was made not only for them but for the whole world. If the big powers are not satisfied with what they get from it, the smaller powers will not be satisfied, and Bretton Woods will mean nothing. I was interested when the matter
Loan lo United Kingdom


James Lorimer Ilsley: The answer to that question is that those deposits in the banks in Great Britain are of no value whatever to the depositors if they wish to use them for the purpose of buying goods outside the United Kingdom. They have no value whatsoever for that purpose. But let us move opr consideration ever to the Dominion of Canada.
We have increased our deposits here very considerably since the outbreak of the war. The hon. member for Terniscouata gave the figures. They are between five and six billion dollars, I think. But if they were twice that, they would never enable us to buy goods that we want from the United States unless we had in this country a sufficient quantity or accumulation of gold in United States dollars. If we were all out of gold in United States dollars and we had ten billions of dollars of deposits in our banks-that is, if we owed each other that much money in Canada-it would be of no value whatever to us in buying machinery in the United States or in buying cotton or in buying coal or in buying oil or in buying any of those things that are necessary for our economy. That is the reason there have to be loans from other countries to the United Kingdom so that they will have the means of importing. It is very much more important that the United Kingdom have those means of importing than it is for this country because it has such a large population and such limited natural resources that it has to depend very largely upon imports. That is the answer to the hon. gentleman's question. It does not increase the power of the United Kingdom to buy from Canada if the deposits which one resident of the United Kingdonr make in the bank of another resident of the United Kingdom go up and up and
up. If you multiplied them ever so much, if their gold and United States dollars go down, they are out of the market as an importer.


Solon Earl Low: With one exception, and that is if in Canada we had sufficient goods of a type which the people of the United States wanted to pay for the goods we wanted to bring back.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes; that is the way we get United States dollars with which to buy goods in the United States. If the United Kingdom can expand its exports to us, and get Canadian dollars by multiplying and in- * creasing those exports, it is then getting something it can use for the purpose of purchasing our goods. But these goods they are multiplying in such dimensions, this large volume of eurrency in their own country, are of no use to them for the purpose of buying our goods.


Solon Earl Low: It is that deficiency of goods in the United Kingdom which makes it impossible for them to get dollars here to buy the things they want.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the deficiency.


Solon Earl Low: The deficiency of goods in the United Kingdom to send to us to pay for them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The more their exports are limited, the harder it is for them to make imports.	.


Mr. LACROIX:: I have gone carefully through the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the
United Kingdom, and I do not find any section which compels the United Kingdom to spend all that money here in Canada. Is that correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member is right about that, and there is no such clause in the United States agreement. It probably would be a bad thing for Canada if there were such a clause in the United States agreement. There is no such clause in the Canadian agreement, because we know from the orders which have been placed here, and from the negotiations which have been carried on, that they are going to spend more than that in Canada, and they will have to get some of that surplus from other countries.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I understood that the agreement between the Canadian government and the English government, so far as the production of food is concerned, expires in 1947 or 1948. I am referring to the buying of food from this country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is 1946.


Wilfrid Lacroix: After that they will be free to buy anywhere they like.
Loan to United Kingdom


James Lorimer Ilsley: We know from the very nature of things that in 1946, 1947 and 1948 they will be requiring great quantities of goods from Canada.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I am speaking about the agreement which has been signed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Which was made between our Minister of Agriculture and officials of the government of the United Kingdom.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Our minister was speaking in the name of the Canadian government, of course.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Wilfrid Lacroix: And it is clearly indicated that after 1948 they may buy elsewhere. In fact, I understand they are doing that right now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We know that condition will continue into 1948.


Mr. PROBE:: I do not wish to be considered as supporting in any way the remarks of my genial orator friend the hon. member of Temiscouata, across the floor; but when the Minister of Finance was explaining to the hon. member why the export credits built up in the United Kingdom, of British currency, were of no help in trasactions on this side of the water, it occurred to me that at no stage in the present deliberations has the Minister of Finance given us a picture of the holdings of Canadian stocks or bonds by English investors.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I did.


John Oliver Probe: For instance, as the minister knows, preferred stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway company is held to the extent of 96-67 per cent by English investors, and in respect of common stock the percentage is 47-24. When we were overseas a couple of years ago some of us well remember having read in the London Times a criticism by English holders of the city of Montreal and city of Moose Jaw bonds. They were critical of the financial arrangements proposed by Canadian cities to get out of their local difficulties with the bondholders.
It seems to me the Minister of Finance is a bit remiss in not considering the holdings by United Kingdom investors of Canadian securities. Would he give us a picture of the present set-up of British-held Canadian securities?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did that carefully in the
speech I delivered in the house. I am now trying to find that part of the speech.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister referred
to it in connection with the loan of $700 million, but I do not think he gave us a full account of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister told us what the reduction was.


John Oliver Probe: That was only in respect
of bonds held by the dominion, and for which the Dominion of Canada was responsible. I am thinking of securities other than those for which the dominion is responsible.


Jean-François Pouliot: No list was given.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is estimated on the basis of the various sources of information at present available that the value of British investments in Canada at the present time is approximately $1,500 million. Counterbalancing this it is estimated there are private Canadian investments in Great Britain of $150 million, in addition to the amount owing by Great Britain to Canada under the 1942 loan, which will be approximately $500 million, after recent transactions have been adjusted by repayment of this loan.
Of the total of $1,500 million of British investments in Canada it is estimated that about one-half is the value of securities payable in Canadian dollars in common stocks; about $500 million is the value of securities payable in sterling, and the remainder of roughly $250 million is the value of direct investments in branch plants, subsidiary companies, real estate and so on.
At the end of 1939 British investments in Canada, as estimated by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, were approximately $2,500 million. Of these, securities to the value of approximately $1 billion were repatriated or sold to Canada during the war. Of this $700 million represents the value of dominion government securities and Canadian National Railways securities repatriated through official arrangements, and the balance were private sales and sales by the United Kingdom government in the Canadian market early in the war.
The proceeds of $200 million worth of securities that have been sold since 1942 have been used, or will be used, to repay a corresponding amount of the 1942 loan from Canada to the United Kingdom.
fMr. Lacroix.]

Loan to United Kingdom
The question that is suggested, although not directly raised, is whether Great Britain should not have been forced to sell her securities in Canada to finance-


John Oliver Probe: Well, I would not put it in that way. But I should like to have the minister explain to the committee why these were not used as a method of barter. I would not suggest that we should put the thumb on them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will not ascribe the word "forced" to the hon. member. The question was as to whether Canada should not have required the United Kingdom to sell her securities in Canada in order to finance her purchases here instead of getting this credit from the Canadian government, or as a condition of getting the credit. This matter was most carefully and fully considered by the government after discussion with the United Kingdom representatives, and the government reached the conclusion that if Canada forced the United Kingdom to liquidate her remaining assets in Canada in order to finance her purchases here, other countries would be led to follow Canada's example, and that our action and theirs in this matter would so damage the future balance of payments position of Britain that they would be unable to follow the trade policies which we wish to see them follow and which it is in their interest to follow if these loans are available. Consequently the government considered that the proper course to adopt in regard to these securities was the same as that adopted in 1942, that is, to see that no liquidation of securities would be forced on the United Kingdom but that in so far as United Kingdom residents sold Canadian dollar securities outside the United Kingdom, and in so far as any Canadian securities held in the United Kingdom were redeemed, the proceeds would be used to pay off the 1942 loan made by Canada to the United Kingdom. In this way a gradual, orderly and limited reduction in Canadian investments of the United Kingdom is achieved, and also at the same time and to the same extent, this 1942 loan is repaid.
Britain's overseas investments represent the fruits of the savings of many generations of British people, and the means by which Britain has participated in the development of the resources of many countries. These investments added greatly to the productivity of Canada and of other countries and. indeed, the speedy and effective development of Canada was only possible as a result of the large amounts of savings which Britain invested here. Britain's overseas assets correspond
in certain respects to the natural resources of other countries. Britain does not have great resources of her own, and is able to support her own large population only because she has shared in the development of overseas resources of other countries by providing machinery' and equipment and skill for the development of these, and in return has obtained an equity or a security from which it derives income.
Before the war the net income of Britain from these overseas investments was approximately $1 billion a year, and this enabled Britain to pay for foodstuffs and raw materials for the British people, since Britain has been unable to export goods to a value as great as the value of her imports. As a result of the war, Britain has had to liquidate $5 billion of her investments, and to incur heavy debts. As a result, her income from her overseas investments after the war will be very greatly reduced. If we reduced it further by forcing her to sell her remaining Canadian securities, we should thereby thrust such a heavy continuing burden on the British exchange situation that she would not be able to follow the trade policies and exchange policies that we wish to see her follow. Perhaps that is not a sufficient answer for the hon. gentleman.
Then the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency asked a question a few minutes ago. This was just a simple question which asked if there was anything in the agreement which obliged the United Kingdom to spend the proceeds of this loan in Canada. That question was raised before by someone, I think the leader of the opposition, and my answer was that the understanding was that Great Britain will use the proceeds of this loan for the purpose of purchasing goods in Canada. The answer I gave was this, as reported on page 931 of Hansard'.
It is true that it is not provided in this loan that the $1,250 million must be spent in Canada. It was considered that in the case of Great Britain this restriction was neither necessary nor desirable.
It is not necessary because we know that Britain's purchases in Canada, requiring to be financed by some means other than its current receipts from Canada during the period in which they can use this credit, will exceed substantially the amount of credit. If they use the credit for other purchases, they will need to use other funds for purchasing here, funds derived, for example, from selling to Canada gold or foreign exchange that Canada requires.
It is not desirable because in the agreement, through the operation of article Y, we require the United Kingdom to provide Canadian dollars to countries in the sterling area and to other countries in return for sterling which these countries acquire from their trade with Britain, in order that these other countries may be able
Loan to United Kingdom

to ti-ade with Canada. If we are imposing this obligation on Britain to provide Canadian dollars to other countries which need them for buying in Canada, then we should make it possible for Britain to use the Canadian dollars we lend her for this purpose.
I direct the hon. member's attention to the remainder of that column which I do not think it will be necessary for me to read.


Mr. QUELCH:: Have we any understanding with Great Britain that Canadian securities held by Britain will not be transferred to the United States?


James Lorimer Ilsley: So far as the S500 million loan is concerned, until that is paid off the securities held in Great Britain and payable in Canadian dollars must be accounted for. That is, if they go out of the United Kingdom, if they are sold outside the United Kingdom or if they are redeemed, the proceeds must be applied to the liquidation of the loan.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think a good many people in Canada are interested in these Can-dian securities because we understand that a large block of them consists of Canadian Pacific stock. We made a loan of S700 million without interest. The minister tells us that that has been reduced to about $500 million. Apparently this large block of Canadian Pacific stock is owned in Great Britain. I am not sure that it amounts to $500 million. A few years ago I did ask a question about this but I have forgotten the answer. I believe it is in the neighbourhood of that figure. When this loan without interest was made we took no securities as collateral against the loan although that was suggested at the time, as the minister will remember.
Now the agreement is that when Canadian securities that are British owned are sold, we get the proceeds. I find it difficult to understand how that if any different in any great degree from asking the British to pledge these securities as a sort of collateral against the loan, so that we may, if we wish, exercise the option, as it were, of bringing these securities back to Canada.
I noticed that the question asked by the hon. member for Acadia was not answered in the affirmative. He asked the direct question, whether these securities could be sold to persons other than Canadian or United Kingdom nationals; or, in other words, whether this large block of stock in which so many Canadians are interested might be transferred to owners'in the United States of America. That was the purpose of the question asked by the hon. member for Acadia, and I believe many of us are interested in that.
I think the loan of $700 million was justified, and I think the terms upon which that

loan was made *were justified. I think that as these securities are tied up to some extent with this loan we should try to see to it that if they pass out of the hands of the owners in Great Britain, they pass into the hands of owners in Canada. As I said before, I should like to have seen them put up more or less as a pledge or collateral against this loan.
I do not want to see these securities pass irom the control of Canada-we have a certain measure of control, as it were-to the control of a foreign country. I named the United States because that is the country in which they might possibly be sold; I did not name the United States because I thought that country was more objectionable than any other country. I think that was the point the hon. member for Acadia had in mind and it was not answered by the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a much more drastic
thing for a government, such as the government of the United Kingdom to requisition securities and then give what they call a positive pledge of those securities to another country than it is to give what they call a negative pledge-that is the term which is used-which leaves much more freedom to the holder of the securities. If the holder of the securities wishes to hold them, he does. If he wishes to sell them, he does. It does not involve that stepping in by the government and taking them at a particular time which the owner may regard as being a bad time for' him. As a matter of fact, had there been a requisitioning-


Thomas Miller Bell: It would have been a good time for the railways.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Had there been a requisitioning of those securities i-n 1942 the British holders to-day would have, I think, been bitter beyond expression.


Mr. CASE:: When we begin to count noses we are drawing the line pretty close; and after listening to the leader of the C.C.F.-Soeialist party it seems to me it is very bad policy indeed to make a loan and then attempt to tie the hands of the borrower. It is not very long ago that we looked to Britain as the champion of the greatest cause which civilization had ever been called upon to defend. We weTe willing at that time that she should bear the brunt of the battle with what help we could give from our resources, and we poured out our treasure and sacrificed many brave young lives to defend their cause. I think we are overlooking one of the most important features of this loan, namely, that we in Canada should desire to make this loan as much as that Britain should seek to secure it.

Loan to United Kingdom
The minister has already referred to Britain's wealth in her banks in the nature of deposits and has explained that this, after all, represents only domestic wealth and can be used only as a credit for trade within the confines of the United Kingdom; it cannot be used outside the British isles; if it could, Britain would soon seek to discharge some of her obligations, even within the sterling bloc. Britain during the war became indebted to the sterling bloc to the extent of '$14 billion, and this will have to be paid.
But the thing which impresses me most about the proposed loans, particularly the loan they are seeking from the United States, is the undertaking given by Britain that she will seek to make it possible, within a year, to exchange dollars for sterling and sterling will be changed into dollars. In other words, Britain, I believe, could carry on without this loan, even though she had to tighten her belt, but her trade would naturally be developed within the sterling bloc, to which she is already heavily indebted. Britain has already obtained a credit from Argentina by saying in effect to that country, "You can use this credit wherever sterling is acceptable", and if necessary in the post-war period Britain may, as I say, have to tighten her belt and do without things and make certain sacrifices but she will seek to repay her obligations. Not only will she seek within a year to make dollars exchangeable into sterling and sterling exchangeable into dollars; but if we grant this loan and if the proposed loan is granted by the United States of America she will be put in a position -where she can go to her sterling creditors and seek to pare down all her debts, which now are top-heavy and have a tendency to depress trade. I do not know whether all hon. members appreciate this, but I have lived long enough to know that the very life blood of a nation depends on trade. This is particularly true of Canada, which produces sufficient goods for from fifty to one hundred million people. If we do not secure some outlet for this production I do not know how we shall be able to keep trading with ourselves very long, because our granaries will soon be bulging again with wheat; our agriculture will languish, and our workshops will be closed. Unquestionably the post-war period offers a tremendous buyer's market. I w-as interested in noting that there is a great scarcity not only of what we refer to as consumer goods, but even of durable goods of the nature of rolling stock and machine tools. Many factories will have to be retooled for machine work in the post-war period.
Britain is the hub of the trade of the world. One-fifth of the world's trade in the prewar period moved in and out of British ports. We must seek to maintain that contact because, though Britain is in a rather rigid position to-day, she is very resourceful; and I may remind the hon. member for Temis-couata, in view of the reference made to the United States by some hon. members that when it was suggested that the United States should seek some concessions by way of military bases from Britain, the answer of the British was, either that the loan must be granted according to the terms already laid down, or, no loan at all. Those who can foresee the prospects of the future know that the world would face a grave situation were we to allow this to develop into a vicious trade war. and I see nothing else for it if this line of policy is to be pursued. My answer to the member for Rosetown-Biggar is, if you seek to have Britain pledge her securities that she may at present hold, I think it is a breach of good faith toward Britain; and I say to hon. members that we must be prepared to make this loan in a spirit of fairness, or otherwise we shall forfeit the substance for the shadow.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I interrupt the
hon. gentleman? I did not suggest that we should ask Britain to pledge her securities against this loan. The hon. gentleman misunderstands me completely. I was trying to inquire about the disposition of certain securities held in Britain in relation to other loans. If the hon. gentleman would pay some attention, probably he would not be so frightfully mixed up.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: My hon. friend is pretty hard to follow, when he tells us that, of all countries in the world he would hesitate to see these securities go to the Lnited States.


Thomas Miller Bell: I did not say that. I said I was not singling out the United States as a country to which I would not wish them to go. Again I say if he would listen he would ge.t the thing straight.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I do not know that it is going to help us any if we become too sarcastic in the matter. The fact remains that any effort made to regulate or deal with Britain's securities that she now holds would be a breach of good faith in Britain. We must seek to make the loan in the spirit in which it is sought. I feel that if we can deal conclusively, deliberately and quickly with this loan in the House of Commons of Canada, and with a degree of unanimity, it will have

Loan to United Kingdom

a good psychological effect on the prospects of the loan now pending in the United States. For that reason I believe we should come to grips with this as quickly as we can, dispose of it, and make sure that Britain can trade with us, because in days gone by she has always been one of our best customers.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is a most absurd
argument, that Canada should serve as a decoy.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I merely ask the
minister for information. Would it not be possible for the British government to pass legislation forbidding the export of capital from Britain and thereby enable themselves to purchase the securities from British holders when there was danger of those securities going to the United States? As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has expressed himself, I feel unhappy about the fact that Canadian securities held in Britain have gone to the United States. Our difficulties with respect, to trade with the United States are sufficient already without having them hold any more of our securities. I wonder if something could not have been done, or could not be done now, to make it possible for the British, government to. steer the securities our way, anyway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, the market for Canadian securities is in Canada, but of course that does not prevent Canadians who buy them from then selling them in the United States. That happens to some extent: It happened with some C.P.R. stocks, though not a very large amount. The United Kingdom controls the export of capital from its own shores and manages that control in its own interests, but hon. gentlemen need have no worry that there will be a substantial direct sale of Canadian securities to any other country than Canada, because the market for those securities is in Canada.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Is the minister aware of the fact that the South American states, when they receive United States dollars in payment from England, keep those as a guarantee for the issuance of their own paper money? Does he not think they may do the same with Canadian dollars if they receive any from the United Kingdom?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think they will be receiving Canadian dollars from the United Kingdom. It is probably true that South American countries accumulate, if they wish and to the extent they can, gold and United States dollars as reserves, just as we do, for that matter, in this country. But I have never heard it suggested that they accumulate Canadian dollars.
IMr. Case.]


Wilfrid Lacroix: They may do so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know just how
those Canadian dollars can get there.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Suppose the United Kingdom sent them Canadian dollars in payment of merchandise purchased from the American states? According to the agreement between, the United Kingdom and Canada, there is no provision which compels the United Kingdom to spend the money in Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The United Kingdom will need most of its Canadian dollars for purchases in Canada. They will need more than the, amount we lend them for purchases in Canada. Some Canadian dollars may go to countries that require Canadian dollars for purchases in Canada by themselves; but I cannot see, and I have never heard, that any accumulation by foreign countries of Canadian dollars has taken place as part of their reserve.


Wilfrid Lacroix: But the minister has heard about United States dollars?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. We speak of gold and the United States dollars as the natural form in which to keep our reserves, but not Canadian dollars. Canadian dollars would be used at once for purchases in Canada by any country that obtained them.


Victor Quelch: I have the report of the Canadian Pacific Railway company for 1945, and I find that United States holdings of C.P.R. stock increased by seven per cent in tlm past year, while holdings decreased in the United Kingdom by five per cent and in Canada by two per cent. Are we to understand from the minister's remarks that this is due principally to the fact that Canadians buy Canadian Pacific stock from Great Britain and sell to the United States?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Victor Quelch: There is no direct selling?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They have not been sold direct to any degree, as far as I know.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope it will be possible to get from the minister a list of Canadian securities that have been pledged against the loan of $700,000,000 at the same time that the gift of $1 billion was made. They are quite well known. There is C.P.R. stock. Canadian Pacific stock is now slipping out of our hands and is in Paris, Amsterdam, London, and if it goes on as it is now perhaps Canada will have only one-tenth of that stock and those securities. It is a subject of speculation. When we see all these Canadian securities over there, we think of those who take advantage of all the benefits that are derived therefrom. These

Loan to United Kingdom
securities cannot be pledged ten times. They have been pledged for a loan of $700,000,000 which we have made, and there is an understanding between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government that they will not be sold to anyone but Canadians.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If they are sold the proceeds will be applied to the reduction of the loan.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore the people who own securities in Great Britain can take advantage of that. They derive revenue therefrom and they receive much more than the amount of interest. I am not sure whether the loan has been made with interest. According to the New York Times of February 21, 1946, an interesting report was published by Secretary Fred M. Vinson of the United States treasury with regard to foreign assets held in the United States on June 14, 1941. They totalled $12,739,000,000 of property of all kinds, made up as follows: Great Britain, $3,238,900,000; Canada, $1,700,200,000; other members of the British commonwealth, $415,900,000. The total British was 42 per cent of all foreign assets and 55 per cent liquid. There are other factors that might be discussed in connection with the matter. I wonder if it is not possible for the minister to give a list of Canadian securities which have been pledged against the $700,000,000 loan. Is it possible to have that list?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not that information
at all and I do not think we ever had it. This is a negative pledge, not a pledge of positive securities. If the United Kingdom government in 1942 had requisitioned specified securities and vested those securities in themselves and transferred them by way of pledge to the Canadian government we would have known what they were. Instead of that, however, they gave an undertaking that no Canadian securities, payable in Canadian dollars, would be sold or be allowed to go out of the United Kingdom without the proceeds being applied in reduction of the loan. So that we have no list of those securities. Estimates have been made from time to time, I believe, by the bureau of statistics as to the total value of those securities on information they obtain from companies in Canada, but the amounts and values are changing from time to time and I have not a list of them. It is pretty well known that there are certain companies in Canada in which British investors have substantial interests, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, Hudson's Bay and Courtaulds.


Jean-François Pouliot: Red Rose tea.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Canadian Industries Limited.


Jean-François Pouliot: Barclays Bank.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not only Barclays Bank, but some other bank stocks.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Largely to convince myself that I have not been completely ignorant all these years about these securities, may I ask the minister if it is not true that prior to regulations on exchange securities such as the Canadian Pacific shares could have been bought by anybody in any country who cared to buy them? There is no doubt about that, is there?


Mr ILSLEY:: That is so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then why are we so greatly concerned? Is it the idea to continue controls and say to a company, "Your shares must be owned in Canada"?
I am not criticizing the minister; I am trying to agree with him. Why all this fuss now about some United States citizens buying Canadian Pacific shares? I am quite certain that a few years ago many of us would have liked to let the United States citizens have an awful lot of Canadian Pacific shares when we were trying to get rid of them. Exactly what is the point in trying to establish a geographical locus for these shares? Is it suggested that we should put restrictions on them, that they must be held in Canada? If that is not suggested, what is all this conversation about? I hope the minister will clear up my mind at least. If that is the simple truth I should like the minister to confirm it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am inclined to agree with that to a great extent. I cannot think of any respect where I disagree with the hon. gentleman at the moment. I must say that had there been a vast movement I would have given it more consideration than I have, but the movement of Canadian Pacific shares to the United States has been so small when one takes into account control, for example, that it has had no effect. The movement has been what might be called a minor one; therefore I d<3 not think there is anything to be alarmed about. The hon. gentleman's question is, would there ever be anything to be alarmed about? I do not know. I have not got to the place where I have my mind down to the question. There is the broader question, whether it is desirable for Canadian securities to be owned by United States citizens under present conditions, or being in the hands of United States citizens under present conditions.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Albemi):: At $1.10? . Mr. ILSLEY: No; I was not thinking anything about price at all. Of course to the extent that Canadian securities did get into

Loan to United Kingdom.
the hands of United States citizens and our United States dollar reserves increased thereby, we are losing money as a nation because our nationals are paying dividends or interest to the United States, while our United States dollars that the foreign exchange control board gets as a result of that movement of securities earn only a small amount of interest.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There is a railway called the Brazilian Traction company which is owned, or at least was owned a few years ago by Canada. Would we not create a considerable roar if the place in which this railroad is located-and I take it that it is Brazil-said to us: "The shares of this company shall only be owned in a given place"?
And hon. MEMBER: They said that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If somebody is asking me a question I wish they would ask it so that I can hear it instead of mumbling in their waistcoat to their friends, so that I cannot hear. Let us take the British shareholder of Canadian Pacific to-day and assume that we passed a law that these shares shall not be sold in countries A, B or C, but in Canada. Then, what have we done? We have destroyed a great part of the value of the shares in the hands of that individual.
I am quite certain that the Minister of Finance will never come to the position where he would do that to people living in a friendly country such as the United Kingdom.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Shall the section carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. The New York Times said something last year about the transfer of shares of stock in Canadian securities from England to the United States via Toronto, as follows:
Wall Street Topics Canadian Pacific (From the New York Times)
The recent heavy trading in the common or ordinary shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway reflects in part heavy liquidation by British investors. These shares, held in the United King. dom. were not commandeered by the British government at the outbreak of this war. but holders were required to register them with the Bank of England. British investors now are free to sell them upon application to the Bank of England and this usually is granted in a routine manner if sales are to be made in Canada This usually means a resale by Canadian brokers in New York. Whether the sales here will be sufficient to result in the control of the road passing to United States interest is anyone s guess. Recent figures show that 53-9 per cent of the common shares of Canadian Pacific were held by British subjects in the United Kingdom. 18-2 per cent by Canadians. 21-68 per cent in the United States and 6'1 per cent }n other countries. The company has outstanding 13.400,000 ordinary shares.

The hon. member for Calgary West is well versed upon these questions. I give him credit for that, but he must remember that General Smuts repatriated all the South African securities that there were in London. They are now owned by the Dominion of South Africa. He also knows that all the securities of the railways of India have been repatriated by India at the request of British people, not Hindus. Therefore they are the masters of their own destiny. That example comes from a great imperialist, General Jan Smuts and from the British people themselves who have made investments in India.
The question is, what is the difference if the securities are sold to the United States? I do not see any great difference if they are in the United States or in the United Kingdom. To me it is the same thing. I know I would be much more satisfied if they were held iu Canada by Canadians instead of being held by non-Canadians. That is a point of view which can be discussed. There is more interest in a company when it is entirely owned by the citizens of a country. There are numerous examples and I quote only a few to my hon. friend, who knows all about the matter. WTith regard to the Canadian Pacific railway, we have an interest in that and we must have a return of the stock here, of all these assets. They are ours. I do not see why some gentlemen in Great Britain, some lord or somebody else, should get all the profits from those securities.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Buy them from him, and get the profits yourself.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not the means to do that, but I would be delighted if my hon. friend bought them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will back your note and see how we get along.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. The minister must be sorry to see those securities in the United Kingdom and not to be able to tax the revenue from them. It is a large revenue because these are paying securities. W7hat I am surprised at is that the Canadian National securities and dominion securities which carry a small rate of interest have been brought back but the well paying securities have been kept over there, where the revenue from them is enjoyed by some millionaires across the sea. I wanted some investigation of this question last year when one of the reports of the banking committee was before the house, and it raised a furore. The Minister of Veterans Affairs rose and protested and said that I was entirely out of order to suggest that the banking committee of the House of Commons should investigate the dealings

Loan to United Kingdom
of Toronto brokers who had acted as intermediaries for United States financiers in buying Canadian Pacific securities held until then in England. That was on November 2S. 1945.
This question of foreign obligations is of great importance. I should like to know just what they are and who owns them and if they will continue to serve as security. Of course, if we are to cancel the debt we do not need any securities pledged. On the other hand, those securities are all the guarantees we have for a loan and if we relieve Great Britain of them and credit them with the amount it will be a most paying proposition; and the people of Canada will be satisfied with it. The minister knows what happened in South Africa and India. Why did the Canadian government not fellow the same course?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am delighted that the hon. gentleman has asked that question because we followed exactly the same course. South Africa did not repatriate private securities but the securities of the South African government, and the same is true of India. India did the same thing. Included in that were the securities of the state railways, which are comparable with Canadian National Railways securities in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. IRVINE:: That shows the advantage of public ownership.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. SINNOTT:: I do not very often ask
questions or take up the time of the house in debate but there is one phase of this loan on which I should like enlightenment by the Minister of Finance. I am in total agreement with this loan to Britain and the loans to other countries, but perhaps in common with other members of the house I should like enlightenment on the financing of trade with other countries to which we are extending loans. Would the Minister of Finance explain just how these loans are being made? Are they just a credit on the books of the nations from which we are going to buy our goods, or are the loans financed by the Bank of Canada or by borrowing by the dominion government from the private banks?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A line of credit is extended; as requisitioned, we turn over the cash to be put to the credit of the country in question in the Bank of Canada, and they can issue, cheques against that credit.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Is the financing done'
through the Bank of Canada or by borrowing from the private banks?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amounts are not segregated. They are just like any other money which the dominion obtains by taxation or by borrowing from the public or by borrowing from the chartered banks and perhaps to some extent from the Bank of Canada, but that latter is very limited.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will it necessitate
borrowing the savings deposits standing to the credit of the people of Canada in order to pay for the goods that flow to England so that the people who make them here can be. paid for them in Canadian currency?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was a loan of $700' million. Then there were some refunds- 818 million in 1943, $57 million in 1944 and

Loan to United Kingdom
$64 million in 1945. We cannot check those refunds because of the settlement of the accounts. We do not have the whole list of the obligations of Great Britain. We do not have the list of the obligations, assets and liabilities. Perhaps the amount that has been deducted from the loan has been considered as a cancelled debt by the Canadian government. We do not know where we are.
Before proceeding further, I should like to ask if Canadian deposits in the bank are in the same shaps as deposits in English banks, with the exception of the small amount Canadians get to visit in the United States. I should like to know if the deposits are frozen, as deposits in Canadian banks are frozen for international spending, with the exception of the few dollars allowed to tourists who go to the United States.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The United Kingdom has a foreign exchange control board which exercises control over the export of capital, just as the foreign exchange control board in 'Canada exercises that control here. But -whether they apply the same rules or not, I ^cannot say. Probably they are more strict.


Jean-François Pouliot: But the principle is the .same.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is not one of the reasons "why the United Kingdom cannot dispose of those large deposits amounting to $44 billion *the fact that the savings certificates are attached to those deposits in Great Britain.
-Mr. ILSLEY: No. Let us suppose that an *exporter of lumber in Canada is prepared to take sterling for his lumber. He can get it all right. Sterling would be deposited to his credit in a bank in London, or somewhere else. What could he do with that sterling? Could he pay his men with it? Could he pay any of his bills with it? He has to pay everything in this country, in Canadian dollars. If he were to take sterling, then, so far as this country is concerned, that sterling would be nothing more or less than an I.O.U., unless our foreign exchange people converted it into Canadian dollars.
The existence of a great mass of pounds, shillings and pence in the United Kingdom owed by certain residents of the United Kingdom to certain other residents of the United Kingdom does not give the people of that country any value for the purpose of obtaining goods from other countries. What they must have is something different altogether. They must have liquid reserves, and we generally sum them up as gold or United States dollars. That gives them an external position. It gives 
them power to buy from abroad, to import and to live. That is the perilous position in which the United Kingdom is placed, namely the difficulty of keeping herself in a position where she has those liquid reserves. This great mass of internal indebtedness of one United Kingdom citizen to another United Kingdom citizen is not wealth, at all.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it not a fact that it depends upon the ability of the country whose currency one holds to supply goods in return for that currency? Let me illustrate my point. The hon. member for Lethbridge, some other hon. members and myself were in Lisbon several years ago. We had very few United States dollars; but because we went via Newfoundland to Great Britain, most of us had a substantial amount of pounds. We found that when we wanted to get a small amount of Portuguese escudos, we could get a substantial quantity of the Portuguese money for a United States dollar. But when we tried to get something for the pounds we had in our pockets, we found all we could get was the equivalent of about two United States dollars to the pound. Why? Because the people of Portugal could buy United States goods with United States dollars. But they could not buy British goods with British pounds, because no goods were available owing to the war condition. In other words, the amount of sterling they held was so great that they did not want more of it. But they did not care about the amount of dollars they held, because they could get goods in return.
That is the same point we are now discussing. They do not ship sterling pounds; they ship goods. The money in the banks of Great Britain in the form of sterling is no good to that country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: So far as purchases abroad are concerned.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where we go wrong, I think, is that we think in terms of money when we should be thinking in terms of goods. If we could only think in terms of goods we would have the key, but if we think in terms of money we become confused.


Jean-François Pouliot: It shows that history repeats itself, because we are going back to barter. Money has no value-a condition which I find extraordinary. But if it has no value, how is it that we have to supply some of our own?
I said at the start that the Canadian dollar was a blood donor to the sterling pound. It is just pump-priming now. There stands on the order paper in my name a question which, I suggest, shows the effect of that barter. We

Loan to United Kingdom
shall not be paid by pounds sterling; we shall be paid in British goods. The more we receive, the less we shall send.
This is what was said by the Minister of Finance a few days ago and I shall read it for the benefit of those who may not have read it:
Next year, that is in 1947, the amount of this deficit with Canada-
That is, the United Kingdom deficit.
[DOT]-will be reduced both because of lower expenditures of Britain here and because British exports to Canada will be at higher levels.
The minister seems to be reluctant to use the word "imports", when he says "lower expenditures of Britain here and because British exports to Canada will be at higher levels."
Because the minister stated at page 763 of Hansard the vital importance to Canada of the reestablishment, expansion and continued development of foreign trade, I asked this question:
Referring to the statement of the Minister of Finance, as reported at page 766 of Hansard of April 11, 1946,
1.	On what basis did he arrive at calculating "the lower expenditures of Britain here" in 1947?
That is next year. Naturally some orders have been given. Then my question continues :
2.	By "expenditures of Britain here" in 1947, did he mean Canadian exports to Britain?
3.	How did he figure out that they will be lower?
4.	What will the prospective "expenditures of Britain here" or the Canadian exports to Britain be in 1947?
5.	Referring to his following statement how did lie calculate "a higher" level of British exports to Canada in 1947?
How did he calculate a higher level of British exports to Canada in 1947 as compared with what they were in 1946? Then, what will cause the 1947 level to be higher than that of 1946? Here is another: What goods are expected to be shipped from Britain to Canada in larger quantity in 1947 than in 1946? What goods are expected to be shipped from Canada to Britain in smaller quantity in 1947 than in 1946?
Those are the crucial points of the whole matter. During the war our shipments to Britain were unpaid for they were a gift. Shipments from Great Britain to Canada were paid for. That makes a great difference. Trade cannot be unilateral; we cannot go on making gifts like that indefinitely.
We are told that if these loans are passed by this parliament and by congress England will have money to buy. But it will be our own money that will be used. It will be a business proposition only when they start to refund the loan. Otherwise it will not be a business proposition; it will be a gift. If you
give a boy S10 and he buys something in your store, it will not be a purchase. You will lose money; you will not make a profit on such a transaction.
There is one point in the argument of my hon. friend to which I object most strongly. He says that England was our best customer during last year. We do not have separate statistics for exports that were made as gifts and for exports that were paid for. I asked the minister if it was possible to get them separately and he told me it was not. Therefore the Canadian public's idea of what our trade consists of is a mere illusion.
England is entering a period of reconstruction and reconversion, as are all other countries. It is said that if we continue as we have been doing our imports from Britain will increase and our exports to Britain will decrease. I cannot understand it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Notice was given by the hon. member for Temiscouata of these questions but I am afraid I cannot answer them to-day. I hope he will not make their being answered a condition of agreeing to the present bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not if the minister could answer broadly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: His first question was:
On what basis did he arrive at calculating "the lower expenditures of Britain here" in 1947?
Well, we did not expect them to be nearly as large in 1947 as they had been in 1946. The next question was:
By "expenditures of Britain here" in 1947, did he mean Canadian exports to Britain?
Largely, yes. That is what is meant by "expenditures of Britain here" in 1947.
How did he figure out that they will be lower?
One reason why imports from Canada will not be as high in 1947 is that the United Kingdom is getting back to a civilian economy and will be producing some of the things which otherwise she would be obtaining from the Dominion of Canada.
What will the prospective "expenditures of Britain here" or the Canadian exports to Britain be in 1947?
I shall have to get estimates of those a little later. The next few questions have been answered fairly well by what I have said, and we then come to the last two questions which the hon. gentleman says are the important ones:
What goods are expected to be shipped from Britain to Canada in larger quantity in 1947 than in 1946?
What goods are expected to be shipped from Canada to Britain in smaller quantity in 1947 than in 1946?
Loan to United Kingdom

We shall have to get information about that. I know that the wartime prices and trade board is continually trying to get supplies from the United Kingdom. There are some things we should like to have them send us in considerably larger volume than we. have been able to get them to send us up to the present time. We should not worry under present conditions about our exports going down somewhat and our imports going up somewhat; that should not be a worry of Canadians at the moment. Canada needs many things at the present time; there is a serious shortage of some articles and some diminution in exports would be a good thing for this country under present conditions.


Thomas John Bentley: I think the minister said that Great Britain must import in order to live.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Thomas John Bentley: That is because she needs so many things she cannot produce herself?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Thomas John Bentley: The minister should endeavour to correct some of the propaganda in our capitalistic press of Canada when they tell the Canadian people that we have to export or die. There are many things that we need in order to live and there should be some government pronouncements to put over that idea.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to talk out this bill but there are some other observations I should like to make. I want to tell the minister that I sympathize with him in his difficulties, in connection not only with this legislation but with other similar legislation that he has introduced since 1942. We should try to have a Canadian national feeling when we discuss legislation of this kind. It is said that we shall receive more goods from the United Kingdom and that we shall send less over there. We are going to send less goods even when they are being bought with our own money.
The businessmen of this country want markets all over the world, not only in the United Kingdom but in South America and in Europe. One of the best markets in the world is that of South America. I am greatly concerned about this change in policy. The Minister of Reconstruction decided to convert war plants into manufacturing plants, but he had to change his mind a short time afterward and then go back to the manufacture of munitions. That change was made because someone objected.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY



PRICE CEILING POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO FARM PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, a motion to go into supply gives an opportunity to members of the house to raise matters which they regard as of importance either to the house or to the country. I wish, therefore, to raise a question of major importance to the chief primary industry of this country and to the country itself, namely the inequitable position in which agriculture now finds itself and the lessened production as a result of that inequity. For the purpose of bringing this matter to the attention of the house I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), this amendent to the motion:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the motion be omitted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house is of the opinion that the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm products are discouraging production of needed food and imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies."
I said the question I wished to raise was that of the inequitable position in which agriculture now finds itself and the fact that, for this and other reasons, production of farm products is going down. These are the reasons I am bringing this matter to the attention of the house.
Production in agriculture is lower now than it was last year, in dairy products, in poultry and in hogs, and it is still falling in all these three sections of our agricultural economy. In the beef cattle branch of the industry, while the supply is high, there is a bottle-neck in marketing owing to the price ceilings on beef, and their administration. There are price ceilings on beef but no price ceilings on live cattle or on the different grades of live cattle.
On the United States side of the 49th parallel the price of wheat, if we take into account the recent bonus of thirty cents and the increased value of United States exchange, is now equal to a dollar a bushel more than it is on this side of the line, in Canada. The result is that if that difference in price continues, with a normal crop of wheat in Canada the farmers of this country will contribute to the maintenance of this price structure a sum approaching

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
$200 million a year. I have referred to wheat because it is the largest of our agricultural export commodities. On Saturday last, two days ago, the price of No. 3 northern wheat in the United States just across the boundary from southern Manitoba was SI.68%; the subsidy of thirty cents brings it to $1.98%; then, with the exchange added of twenty cents a bushel, the value of No. 3 northern wheat at that point in the United States amounts to $2.18% a bushel. At the same time, at Gretna, Manitoba, just on this side of the line, the price of No. 1 northern wheat is $1.08 a bushel, to which of course would be added whatever may be the value of the participation certificate; nobody knows what that will be-possibly fifteen cents. I have compared the price of United States No. 3 northern with Canadian No. 1 northern because those grades are of approximately equal value. If we take the grades having the same name on the two sides of the United States boundary the difference is a little less. These figures go to show that at this moment the price of wheat on this side of the boundary line is nearly a dollar a bushel less than it is on the other side. That means that farmers are paying a disproportionate share of the cost of Canada's price stabilization policy. If we have 200,000,000 bushels or more to sell, and if that difference is maintained, it means a contribution of nearly $200 million by that section of our agricultural economy. My view is that there can be no justification for Canada holding down the price of its chief export commodity, wheat, to a figure almost a dollar a bushel less than the price received by our chief competitors on the other side.
With respect to beef cattle the situation is confusing. It is confused by the absurd method of having a ceiling price on beef but no ceiling price on the different grades of live animals. Since there is no grading of live animals we are finding now with the increased demand that the spreads between the different grades are not sufficient to encourage the production of high quality beef. We find that, while farmers who produce grass-fed cattle are not too much discouraged about the outcome, those-or many of them-who produce grain-fed cattle, who fed them last fall and through the winter are finding it impossible to sell them at a profit.
The commission men in the part of the world where I am acquainted report, as I have said, that producers of grass-fed cattle are not disturbed, but producers of grain-fed cattle cannot carry on except at a loss, and this view is commonly held-I express no personal opinion about it, for I do not know- that the few grain-fed cattle which are reaching that market now are to a considerable extent being shipped east to be absorbed into a black market. As I said, I express no personal opinion on that subject, but that view is commonly held. This policy on the part of the government tends to discourage the production of high quality beef. Those producing beef cattle find that the spread in price between the lower grades and the higher grades is now too small to justify the production of the higher qualities, and there is a growing feeling that if the government is to continue price ceilings there should be a dominion-wide grading system carried right back to the producers so that there will be price ceiling differentials on the different grades of live cattle.
With regard to other products, poultry production is also going down. It is expected that there will be a shortage next winter, not a shortage for Canada but a shortage in the total production The same is true of bacon. The suggestion is that we are not likely to be able to meet the maximum commitments made to Britain.
On the whole, farm production in Canada has been declining since 1944; 1945 was lower than 1944, and 1946 will be lower than 1945. I suggest that, if the farmers were given the necessary stimulus to produce, the situation would be greatly improved. The government should have been watching this situation more closely. It should have raised farm price ceilings in line with increasing costs of labour and other items of production. Not only are farmers' costs increasing, but in the case of farm labour they are finding it difficult to get it at any price. If these things had been done we wrould not to-day be faced with declining agricultural production.
Those are the two points I wished to lay before the house. The first is the inequity to farmers, with rising costs on one hand, which have not been adequately met by any price adjustments on farm products the government has made. For example, in the case of butter the price - increase was too little and came too late On the one hand, I say, we have rising farm costs and, on the other, farm prices not being adequately raised. That produces a condition of inequity. With shortage of farm labour and higher wages in other industries, farm labour is not returning to the farms in the way it might have been expected to do, in the way it did in days gone by; and when it does go back farm wages are twice as high and sometimes more than twice as high as they were.
These conditions combined are resulting in lessened production. In these days what we should be striving for is maximum production,
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

particularly in the field of food products. It is for these two reasons-inequity and decreasing production-that I have brought the matter before the house for discussion to-night.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The question which has just been raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) ought, I think, to be replied to at once particularly in relation to agricultural production. The broad statement has been made that agricultural production has been going down because of the prices policy of the government. I am not going to argue the question in regard to the effect of the prices policy on production in Canada, because the leader of the opposition himself has not introduced any proof whatsoever of the statement he has made. But some general statements have been made in relation to wheat and in relation to live stock products which I think should be answered.
The first is to the effect that the price of wheat is higher on the United States side of the line than it is on the Canadian. There is nothing new about that. One can say that the price has been higher on the United States side than it has been on the Canadian side at least ever since the war started. I am not sure how far one could go back and still have that statement true, but the price of wheat has been higher on the United States side of the boundary line than on the Canadian for a considerable time. Nevertheless we had a higher production of wheat in 1942 than we have ever had in this country with the possible exception of one previous year, and certainly the highest production per acre that we have ever had.
The most important phase of the question, however, is that the reason for the present price level in Canada is to try to conform with a matter of a policy which has been advocated by farm organizations, in western Canada at least, ever since I have been in the west, namely, since 1901, and, I believe, for many years before that. As a matter of fact, it was the chief thing that farmers had in mind when the Canada Grain Act was first placed on the statute books of the country, the thought being that some day we should desire to have a stabilized price for the most important commodity which is exported from Canada, and particularly from the west.
The first time we have ever had an opportunity to test out the possibility of having a stabilized price for wheat for the Canadian farmer is the present. To-day we are faced with a situation where Britain, who is the chief consumer of our exported wheat; France, who is perhaps the second greatest consumer 
of our exported wheat in normal times, and when they are not preparing for wars in Europe; Belgium, who is another large consumer of Canadian wheat; and Holland, are all approaching this government-and we are discussing the matter with them-to set up agreements which will give stability to the sale price to the wheat farmer of western Canada. In order to give an opportunity to have these discussions, we said during the last session of parliament that the ceiling price of wheat to those countries in the meantime will be pegged at $1.55 a bushel No. 1 northern Fort William. We have adhered to that position up to the present time, and during the intervening period these discussions have been going on.
If we are ever to obtain the results we started out to obtain on behalf of agriculture we must stay with our objective sufficiently long at least to prove whether we can carry through to the objective or not. It is, I believe, admitted by all farm organizations that up to the present time neither this government nor the governments of Britain, France, Belgium and Holland, with whom we have been negotiating, have had sufficient time to arrive at a final conclusion in connection with a proposal as far-reaching as this. In the meantime, however, we have been holding the price ceiling at $1.55.
The other side of the question is that while there has been some going up and going down of prices, one commodity that the leader of the opposition speaks of, and has spoken of most often during this session, is hogs. He says that hog production is going down. I suppose he is not aware that in recent weeks, as a matter of fact at the present time, the price of hogs in Canada, all things considered, is higher than can be obtained in the United States, and still the numbers of our hogs, as has been stated, has been going down. In other words, in one case, in the case of wheat, we are told that because the price is higher in the United States than in Canada and the price of wheat is going up in the United States as compared with Canada, that is the reason for our production going down or being down in Canada. On the other hand, in spite of the fact that hogs have been going up in price in Canada and going down in numbers, the price is down on hogs in the United States as compared with Canada.
The fact of the matter is that the weather and other conditions associated with the production of farm crops were quite different in 1945 from conditions in 1942 and 1943 and to a lesser degree in 1944. As I have said in this house before, as a result of that the production of feed grain, or at least the quantities

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
of feed grain stored in this country that are available to farmers with which to feed, have been going down, and farmers themselves have reduced the numbers of live stock to be fed to conform with these facts.
I come now to another question which was raised, namely, that having to do with dairy products. It was suggested that the production of dairy products is going down. As a matter of fact, we are milking more cows in Canada to-day than before. The cow is the source of the supply of dairy products. If we are milking more cows in Canada it is hardly right to state that the production of dairy products is going down as a result of any policy followed in this country at the present time.
The Minister of Agriculture of Ontario misrepresented the position the other night, probably unintentionally. He is reported to have said something in relation to the price of milk, that it had some bearing on the number of cows being exported to the United States, and that these numbers were greater than ever before. I recall that when that question was raised on the floor of this house some two or three years ago I rose in my place and said that so far as I was concerned, irrespective of what other members did, I was not going to advocate the setting up of any policy that would stop the export of cows to the United States. One of the best paying products that the farmers of this country have to sell to the United States is dairy cows. One of the export products upon which there has been no obstruction placed on the boundary line of the United States is dairy cows or breeding stock generally. Farmers who prior to the war knocked their calves on the head the day they were bom now feed these calves until they are two years old, breed them and sell them in the United States at profits in order to bring more returns to the farms in different parts of the country.
The records show that to-day we have more dairy cows than ever before in spite of the fact that we are selling more dairy cows to the United States than we sold before, or at least many more than we have sold in recent times. They are being sold at good profits which bring good returns to the farmers. In other words, it requires a great deal more than just a resolution or an amendment of the motion to go into supply to prove that the farming situation it is claimed exists to-day or any reduction in production is due to the price ceiling policies which have been followed by the government in relation to farm products.
The suggestion has been made that we have no ceiling prices on cattle. The leader of
the opposition knows, as I know, that there are very few farm organizations anywhere between British Columbia and the Atlantic ocean which have passed resolutions or given support to rail grading of beef or the grading of beef in the manner which was suggested a few moments ago. As a matter of fact, as I recall it, the province from which the leader of the opposition comes-and I think he associated himself with the objections-has been the chief objector to the rail grading of hogs, wThich has been pretty well accepted in other provinces right across Canada, and is still objected to by Manitoba. Some farmers in that area have objected to the rail grading of hogs, taking the position that it gives the advantage to the packing houses to have the dead hogs hung up in the packing plant before they are actually graded and before the price is set for them. These same farmers in season and out have consistently objected to the grading of cattle upon the rail. I doubt very much whether there is any other way in which cattle can be successfully graded than on the rail.
Let me repeat that farmers right across the country, from British Columbia to the Atlantic have been objecting. It is true that in the Fraser river valley we have been grading cattle on the rail for some considerable time. But that is a restricted area into which beef comes from outside for marketing as well as beef which is produced in it. All of it has to be graded. We have tried out rail grading there as an experiment with the idea that probably some day we may find it possible to have rail grading applied across the country. But when it is said that in setting the price ceiling for live stock the prices board is to be condemned because it did not place a ceiling based upon grading upon cattle, I, for one, am quite prepared to take some responsibility for the board not having done so, and I think every farm organization that knows the situation which existed in this country in 1941 will support me in that contention. The price at which beef sold at retail in 1941 was just as high as the price back in 1928 when the price of cattle was two or three cents higher than the price of cattle in 1941. Those of us who were following the markets in connection with cattle and beef at that time took the position that it would be absolutely unfair to the farm population of this country to have a ceiling put upon cattle as they were being sold in 1941 when ceilings were put on other commodities in this country.
Back in 1928 steak was selling at 48 cents a pound, and cattle were selling at twelve cents a pound. In 1941 the price of steak was 48
Price Ceilings-Farm Products


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, if they were not encouraged to produce I suppose the assumption would be that production was down, and it was down because of the fact that they had not been encouraged to produce, the result being that beef is not coming on the market at the present time. Beef did come to the market very freely until about three weeks ago, I think, and then this suggestion went out that farmers would be paid $10 a head less for their cattle when they came on the market. After that order was issued the farmers stopped delivering finished cattle to the market; blit this morning I heard it announced over the radio that for the first time in three weeks the usual numbers of cattle were coming back on the market. I presume they are coming back because at the end of last week prices were up again to around 13 cents, or 13J in some cases for the best finished beef, so that cattle are starting to move to the market again.
The point I wish to make is that these difficulties come up not because of the general price policy of the government in relation to farm products but owing to the fact that some persons take actions thej7 are not justified in taking, and possibly something should have been done about the matter. In any event the markets are righting themselves at pretty much the levels of three weeks ago. Production records for this year, however, cannot be judged by what has taken place in the first three months of 1946. As I stated at the beginning of this session, our grain supplies were down when we came into this w-inter season, and as a result feeding has been down during the winter. But no one knows what the position will be in relation to the feeding of livestock during this summer. It depends entirely upon moisture conditions right across the country and the amount of grass available, as to whether w7e shall have finished cattle coming off the grass throughout the summer, or whether we shall have more milk coming from our cows during the summer and therefore a greater production of dairy products of one kind or another. If we have good grass, with a greater number of cows than we have ever had before, cer-

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
tainly we shall have a greater production of dairy products than we have ever had before. On the other hand, if we have the usual acreage of wheat-and I assume we have that usual acreage or perhaps more than during the past few years-and if we have good rhins during the summer months, we shall have wheat and feed supplies again for the succeeding winter. But if these things fail to happen, in relation to both the amount of grass available and the feed supply, no change in price policy will produce more farm products, in the form of live stock and live stock products, than we have at the present time. This year we fed all the grain that was available in this country. We could not have fed any more no matter what had been the price for live stock products. Therefore I say to the house it was not the price policy that created any existing condition in relation to production.
As to butter, the other product mentioned, on a number of occasions I have said in the house that our production of creamery butter, which is the only butter as to which we have any real records, for the last three years has averaged more than 40,000,000 pounds more than during any previous three-year period in at least recent times. It is not the fact that production is down that makes it difficult to secure butter in certain places; it is the fact that consumption is materially up, and with consumption so much higher we require a certain control over the distribution of butter throughout Canada.
I make this reply, Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid having the suggestion go out that our agricultural production will be so far down this year that we shall not be able to supply the markets which are depending upon us for food this summer and next winter. This country is not going to gain by having any such impression go abroad at the present time. There are people who are absolutely depending upon us. They are reljdng upon this country to produce their food supplies for next year; but as soon as we convince them that we are not going to have the food supplies available there will be only one thing left for them to do, that is, search around the world to make certain that food supplies will be available to the greatest extent possible. Therefore I suggest that we are not doing this country a service by suggesting, in any speech made here or any resolution moved, that our production is in danger of going down to levels of which we have never dreamed, and that our farmers are entirely dissatisfied with their returns. I know they are dissatisfied to a degree with the returns in certain cases: but in all my experience with
agriculture in this country, extending back to 1901, I do not think I have ever known a time when more farmers have expressed themselves as being fairly well satisfied with existing conditions. That would not justify me in saying we should not do anything to try to improve their condition We should be doing that at all times. But to give the impression that we have no prospect of having food in this country with which to supply the markets depending upon us is not going to assist either the farmers of this country or those who in other countries are looking to Canada for food in the months that lie ahead. We shall get better results by supporting the policy which is being followed at the moment of dealing with governments elsewhere for the sale of our farm products at prices which will stabilize the returns to the farmers, and then asking the farmers to produce uader the price levels made possible by the arrangements entered into, than by anything else we can do. But if every time we get a stabilized price for any commodity we are going to spend the greater part of our time shooting at that price and saying that for the time being the price realized by someone else is higher, that is the surest way I know of to get rid of what the farmer has been asking for many years.
Those who are telling us to-day to empty our bins to the last bushel in order to do something or another; those who are calling upon the farmers to deliver as they have never delivered before everything they produce on the farms, can create a situation the very opposite to that for which we have been striving by our policies and for which the farmer himself has been striving. For example, suppose we entered into an agreement to deliver an average of 250,000,000 bushels of wheat annually to a group of countries for a period of five years. Suppose, before starting to do so, we had taken every bushel of wheat out of our bins, so that none would be carried over into the succeeding year. Then suppose we had a crop failure. There would be no possibility in the world of carrying out the agreement we had entered into. Experience over the last twenty years has shown that if we . carry on as we should in this country and produce 560,000.000 bushels of wheat when we can, under good weather conditions, and produce only 200.000,000 bushels in another year, when weather conditions are poor, our average production will be about 390,000,000 bushels a year. Experience has shown, also, that we can take our own requirements for seed, feed and food out of those 300,000,000 bushels and market about 250,000,000 bushels outside this country every year. But we cannot do that
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

unless we establish something like the ever-normal granary in this country. When we allow anyone, for any purpose whatsoever, to put over propaganda in Canada which takes wheat out of the bins of the farmers, in this or in any other year, and leaves the position such that if we had a crop failure we could not supply the demands of the countries dependent upon us in the years ahead, we would have destroyed forever the possibility of having stabilized farm prices for farm products in this country, and we have established again a situation where the only thing we can rely upon in connection with the sale of farm products is the process of speculation.
It is far more important at the present time that we should be able to establish a stabilized price of, let us say, $1.55 a bushel for five years, than that we should simply look over the United States boundary line and say that, because they were dealing with a special situation in their country under which they pay thirty cents a bushel additional, we should step into the same line of policy in this country, despite the fact that we have not followed the same policy which they followed in connection with price controls throughout the entire period of the war.
If we can have our stabilized price established, and if we can produce the quantity required during the next-year or two to supply the market we may agree to supply, then we have gone a long way toward establishing for the farmers of western Canada, in relation to wheat prices and wheat production, stabilized returns over a, long period of years. To me, thht is far more important than a price of $1.75 or $1.85 for the time being with the possibility of seventy-five cents in a year or two years hence.
We want prices stabilized, if we can do that at all; and we want the situation dealt with so as to assure that that can be done. It is most important that it should be done.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I do not just follow the procedure of the house. When we moved into supply on the last occasion I tried to raise a grievance. The order paper carried my motion until last Monday, at which time it disappeared from the order paper.
However, I am not complaining about that this evening. I wish to have a few words to say on the motion introduced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). I notice that the motion reads:
This house is of the opinion that the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm products are discouraging production of needed food and imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that we have stood wholeheartedly and solidly for the stabilization of prices. I believe with those who accept the same point of view, that the farmer does not want a high, speculative price at one period and a low, depressed price at another period. He wants a price that is not a speculative price, but rather one which is based upon the cost of production, and which bears at least some relationship to the things he has to buy.
I agree with the amendment to this extent, that the farmers in Canada are being discouraged, and that we are imposing an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price policy on their backs.
But I am approaching the matter from an entirely different point of view. I am approaching it from this point of view, that if we are to have stabilization, then let us have stabilization. If we are going to say to the farmer, "The price of wheat in January is to be $1.55, and in May it is to be $1.55", then I say that if in January the manufacturer of agricultural implements states that the price of his binder is to be $281 or $320, or whatever it may be, it should be the same in May. We cannot expect one group in our society to accept a stabilized price for a period, and then have that ceiling broken for some other organization upon which the producer relies for his machinery.
So that I say the policy of the government in this respect is discouraging to the farmer, and it has placed an unfair burden upon the backs of the producers. The other day we had a discussion in this chamber about an increase in the price of agricultural implements. That was an increase to the extent of 12-J per cent, and without warning. That followed in the prairie provinces-and this affected my constituents particularly-an increase of two cents a gallon in the price of gasoline. This has been a serious blow, or, if I may use the plural:	These have been very serious blows
to the maintenance of our price ceilings; and I regret them exceedingly.
The leader of the opposition has discussed the matter of live stock prices. Well, it has seemed to me that the attempt to keep the ceiling on beef, and to accept no differential between, we will say, fall and spring prices, is unfair again to the agricultural producer. Grass-fed stock which goes on the market in the fall, is fed without either expensive grains or without the same amount of labour. Then, when the grain-fed stock goes on the market in the spring, after the long winter and the hard work involved in looking after that stock, we find the farmers expect a differentia! in

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
price levels. That, to some extent, accounts for the present situation of discontent in the live stock industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but-


Thomas Miller Bell: I am glad the minister interrupts, if I am wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: Down to two years ago the situation was just as the hon. member is advocating.


Thomas Miller Bell: Right.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then, upon representations being made, and after long discussions, in the interests of establishing stabilized prices throughout the year, for a two-year period that policy has been abolished. I would say that since the change there has not been, up until last week, ten per cent of the criticism in connection with beef prices or meat prices generally, that there was before. I would take that to mean that, with the exception of this last interference, there was pretty general satisfaction.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am glad to have that explanation from the minister. What he says is perfectly true. But I still think that to some extent the dissatisfaction arises from the fact that there is no differential between fall and spring prices.
The Minister of Agriculture mentioned a few minutes ago the attitude of the packers. I think something more than castigation from the Minister of Agriculture should be given to the packers. I do not think any packing industry or any packer in the country should be in a position where he can speak for the entire packing industry. It has always been maintained that there was competition among the packers. The price spreads report, which I have read carefully-and I have no doubt other hon. members have done the same- indicates clearly that the price spreads committee considered there was very little competition among the packers in the packing industry.
Here, again, we have the example at this time of one powerful packer speaking on behalf of the entire packing industry across the country. That looks as though what we have said so often in the house is perfectly true, and that is that the packing industry is a virtual monopoly controlled by one, or at the outside, two, of the great packing companies in this country.
I do net want to see a break in the price ceiling, because I know who would be the first to suffer. The first to suffer would be the pensioner, and other persons on fixed
incomes. And hardly less hit-perhaps indeed harder hit eventually-will be the primary producers and the wage and salary earners. Those are the classes which in the final analysis will suffer the most from the breaking of the price ceilings.
As I said a few moments ago, the point of attack as far as the government are concerned-is the manner in which they have permitted increases in the cost of farm production without making some adjustments to compensate the farmers. Lately I have been looking at the profits of the Massey-Harris company. The Financial Post indicates that the net profit of the Massey-Harris company for 1944 was $1,800,000. That is a considerable profit; indeed it is 80 per cent higher than the profit of the pre-war years which I admit immediately were low.


Humphrey Mitchell: Did they pay any
profits?


Thomas Miller Bell: They paid some. The Cockshutt company more than doubled its profits between 1937 and 1944; the profits in 1937 were $183,044, whereas in 1944 the same company made a net profit of $399,244. If you look at the stock quotations you find that in 1939 the stock of the Massey-Harris company was quoted at from $3.25 to $3.50 a share, whereas to-day it is around $20.
There is another point I wish to draw to the attention of the house because I think it has a direct bearing on the topic we are discussing this evening. I should like to refer to some press reports which I consider are quite reliable. These appeared in the papers run by the Messrs. Sifton in western Canada, and I have here a clipping which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix under the signature of Mr. J. H. Gray, I saw other references to the same matter. This report refers to the questionable procedure which was followed in granting an increase in the price of agricultural implements.
It is stated that on January 9, 1946, certain officers and employees of the Massey-Harris company were permitted to buy 115,250 shares of the company's stock at a price of $14-7/8 a share.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That was in the Winnipeg Free Press.


Thomas Miller Bell: It was in the Winnipeg Free Press as well. The option to purchase these shares was to run for three years, the beneficiaries being permitted to take up one-third of the stock each year. I have looked up the papers over the week-end and I find that Massey-Harris stock is now selling at
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

around $20 a share. In January, these shares were offered for sale to certain employees at $14-7/8 a share, so that in the past few months, and one would almost think in anticipation of a price rise although I am not suggesting that that is so, there has keen that increase in value.
* There are hon. gentlemen who are in this house to-day who were on the agricultural implement inquiry committee of 1937. They will remember that that committee reported that prices of farm implements had been too high for the past thirty or forty years. Among other things, that committee reported that in 1937, according to the figures given by the implement companies themselves, there was an unsatisfied backlog of orders to the value of $200,000,000 at the then price levels. The report stated that in the following years the farmers, in order to meet their machinery needs, would require to spend over $50,000,000 a year on agricultural implements.
That report was tabled in the house in 1937. Then v-ar broke out and very few farmers were able to buy implements. There was a period of six years when implements- I was going to say were non-existent- were in exceedingly short supply. Consequently the present backlog of farm implement needs is greater than it ever was in the history of this country. There is good business ahead for the farm implement companies. They have new and improved machinery, some of which was used for the manufacture of munitions but which can now be used to make farm implements. In some cases this machinery was installed by the government and has been no doubt obtained by the companies from the government at a great discount. They have more skilled technical workers; they have a greater demand; they have better machinery, and yet this is the time when we see a 12J per cent increase in the price of farm implements.
This rise in the value of the stocks from January to May may not have been due to any prior knowledge of a possible increase in the price of implements. I am not saying it was. but I am saying that they could have estimated that they would make more money and therefore that their stocks would be worth more. According to the information I have, they handed out 115,250 shares of stock at virtually S5 a share below what it was worth three months later. The Cockshutt company did much the same thing. They allowed two of their executives to buy 2,000 shares each during the next three years. In this case the option price was $9 a share and this stock also has sold up to approximately $20 a share.
Let us see what this means. Let us suppose that these individuals in the employ of the Massey-Harris company took up their one-third option in January. They could have taken up 38,000 shares. With the present price rise they would have made $190,000 if they had marketed their shares at the present figure.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Which company is that?


Thomas Miller Bell: That is the Massey-Harris company. In the case of the Cockshutt company the profit would have been $22,000 on the same basis. That is the kind of thing that makes price stabilization impossible. That is the kind of thing that this house ought to take cognizance of. If I had been moving the resolution I would have moved it in entirely different terms. I would have moved it so that we would have criticized the government for having failed to grant comparable increases when prices of farm machinery and of other commodities that the farmer had to use were permitted to rise.
May I say to the ministers and to the government that when it is found necessary to do something with regard to the removal of price ceilings on a particular commodity or on a group of commodities, there should be no hole-in-the-wall negotiations. All the people concerned in the price rise should be called in. For example, in the case of farm implements the government should be represented; the farmer should be represented; the industrial worker should be represented, and the manufacturer should be represented. Perhaps we could then understand better why certain things are done, or perhaps in the light of day which wmuld be shed upon the matter the proposal would not be accepted and things like this would not happen. If we are to have price stabilization, let us have it.
If I might just consider another point. The other day the minister referred to increases in. prices of farm commodities during the past few years and set those up against the increase in the cost of farm machinery. Let me point out again that in 1937 the parliamentary committee tabled in this house a considered report containing voluminous information. It was an excellent report in many respects. That report stated that at that time prices of farm implements w'ere too high and that they had always been too high. We urged that something be done to cause the manufacturers to decrease these prices; in fact we recommended, among other things, that if they did not do so the government of this country should encourage the formation of farmers' coopera-
[Mr. Col dwell. |

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
lives for the manufacture and distribution of farm implements. We recommended that in the report.
I believe there are two or three ways in which this problem could be eased to some extent for the producers of this country. A publicly owned farm implement industry would be one way. We have the factories, the machines, and the labour. I know the government will not accept that. Then let me suggest that a thing which might be done is for the government to encourage the devolp-ment of a real cooperative farm implement industry in this country to give these private corporations some competition. If the government believes in the competitive system that is one way of giving these great organizations some competition. I want to point out that we cannot expect the farmers to accept price stabilization of the commodity they sell if they find that the commodities they buy are not to be stabilized and kept stabilized. There is the bald fact.
This amendment to-night is largely justified. I do not think it tackles the thing from the right end. I do not think it is the price ceiling policies with respect to farm products which are discouraging production, but, on the contrary, it is the permission to puncture price ceilings on the goods that the farmers buy that is the difficulty; and that is the angle from which I would tackle the matter.
Let me say again: in 1937 we repoi'ted that farm implement prices were high, that they should come down. The minister's argument the other day that farm prices had risen by so much per cent did not take into account the fact that no one in this house could say that agricultural prices in any year from 1931 to 1941 were high enough, that they covered the cost, of production. They did not. As I have told the house before, I have bought eggs at three cents a dozen in western Canada. True, that was not in 1939; that was in the spring of 1934. But in 1939 you could buy them at fifteen and twentj' cents a dozen. Wheat was around sixty cents a bushel, and other farm prices were on a somewhat similar level. Let us not compare 1939 farm prices with prices now and say, because there has been an increase in farm prices, therefore the increase in the price of farm implements is justified.
I do not want to say more about this at the moment, other than that if we are to have price ceilings let us have them for everybody, not pick somebody out and provide him with a hole in the ceiling. May I add that I believe we must have price ceilings. But we should receive proper representation from the people who are concerned. Who are
the people concerned? Of course the government is concerned, representing, as it should do, this parliament and the people of this country through this parliament; the producer is concerned; the worker is concerned, and I would say that under our present economic system the industrialist, the manufacturer, the owner of the plant is concerned. We should see to it that when we are going to set a stabilized price all the factors involved are studied and all those who have a stake in the price level are consulted.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I wish to say a few words on this subject before the motion is passed. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in addressing the house this evening, went to great lengths to prove that the government's policy was a very satisfactory one as far as the farmers are concerned. He did qualify his statement, though, when he said he thought most of the farmers were satisfied, but I do not believe the minister was as far vrest as I was during the Easter vacation, although he was in his own province. If he had been in Alberta when the announcement came over the air of the increase in the price of farm machinery he would have found that the farmers were not at all satisfied; and I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) hit the nail pretty well on the head, and that the Minister of Agriculture was really dodging the issue.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I did not really say what my hon. friend quoted me as saying. I said that more farmers were satisfied until quite recently than had been satisfied over a long period of time.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Minister of Agriculture is very safe on that ground.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Sore but satisfied.


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course, if you are starving a man to death and then you give him a piece of bread you can say that he is more satisfied than he was before. When you gave the farmers less than the cost of production for the grains they were raising and the produce they were producing away back in the thirties, and then you increased the return to, *we will say, the cost of production, of course they would be more satisfied; and if you raised prices a cent or two cents above the cost of production of course they would be more satisfied. But the thing they are dissatisfied about, and the fight which they have been trying to make down through the years is that they want some consideration accorded to them -as well as to industrialists-for the work which they put into raising these farm prod-
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

ucts. They are not compensated and never have been for the work which they put into the producing of their articles. It is not unknown to the members of this house that industry has never produced at a loss, or at least, on only a very few occasions. If they did, they were in such a position that they would immediately go into bankruptcy. They would come out all right; they would not lose their shirts, anyway. That was the method they used. But the farmer was in an entirely different position, because when he got to the point where he was producing at less than cost of production and would like to have gone into bankruptcy, he could not afford to, and he was not allowed to. No; he had to stay there. Had he been able to go into bankruptcy he would probably have left the country, but that was not possible. So that when the minister says that agriculture is more satisfied than it has been for a long time, that is a hollow sounding phrase and has not a great deal of meaning, and I do not think it is going to satisfy the farmers a great deal.
Speaking of that subject, I was quite interested in reading the analysis which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) gave in this house on April 15, in regard to agriculture and agricultural implements. He said, as reported in Hansard at page 893:
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.
Let me point out that these increases include subsidies; and the minister at this point at least, where it should have been indicated, failed to indicate the real price for agricultural products. It was at that time that prices were below the cost of production, so that it is not fair, in fact it is most unfair to try to show', by giving a percentage of increases, that the farmer was so much better off than the machine companies.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. member permit me to point out that at that point I said:
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.
That is how I started my enumeration of the prices.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad the minister has called attention to that. I am sure he must have realized that too. But he must have realized also that, despite the fact that he might have stated in that speech that he did not think prices of agricultural commodities were as high as they should be, they
rMr. Johnston.]
were at depression levels then. But this government was in power, and why did it not do something about that situation? That is the complaint of the farmer. It is no use saying now, "I know that the farmer in 1940 and in 1939 did not have as high a price as he should have had," because it was the responsibility of the government then in power, that is to say the Liberals, to devise a policy which would have given a decent cost of production. But let me continue with the quotation:
. . . average prices of farm products, including subsidies, in 1945 as compared with average prices for 1941, showed the following increases: wheat, 67 per cent,-
Anyone seeing that would say, "What are these farmers talking about? My goodness! Think of getting a 67 per cent increase." Well, when you multiply 67 by nothing you still have nothing.
-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.
My goodness! These farmers were wealthy in 1941!
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-
He did not mention that they were selling at ten or twelve cents a dozen.
-potatoes, 135 per cent; all farm prices, 48 per cent, and farm machinery-
That poor little outfit had only three per cent.
That is not a fair comparison because, as I pointed out, the farm machinery companies never did sell at a loss, so that when they got three per cent of an increase it added materially to the enhancement of their financial position; whereas when the farmer got a 67 per cent increase that may not even have brought it up to cost of production and certainly did not bring it to that level. So that the comparison is entirely without any foundation.
These are the things the farmers complain about and they have a right to complain. Even now, although the Minister of Agriculture talks about a stabilized price, what is the government doing under its policy to-day? It is continually increasing the cost of production for the farmer. Take the gasoline tax. That is up to such an extent that the farmers are losing in that regard, and not only was the government still not satisfied with allowing that increased cost to remain, but it has seen fit now to increase that cost again by allowing a 12% per cent increase in farm machinery.

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
The government says, "Well, now, we did a pretty good job there because, mind you, the machine companies wanted a 25 per cent increase and we gave them only 12% per cent." Of course, the machine companies never expected 25 per cent; that was a bargaining figure and they cut it to half knowing they were getting an extremely fine proposition at that.
The Minister of Agriculture spoke a moment ago about shooting at a stabilized price. I do not think there are many members here who are not desirous of having a stabilized price, but the government themselves are the ones who have been shooting at this price until now it is riddled, so that they had better put up another target. It is only reasonable to suppose-the government cannot expect anything else-that the farmer must continually shoot at that target, stabilized price. He is forced to do so. The farmer knows from past experience that the government will take no action whatever until it is forced to do so. There is clear evidence of that because in 1943 the farm organizations headed by the Saskatchewan wheat pool and supported by the Alberta and Manitoba wheat pools came to Ottawa and demanded increased prices for agriculture, and they were not received too well at that time. But they put forth strenuous efforts and pressure was put on, because they almost threatened a strike. Consequently they got action and obtained an increase in price from 70 cents to $1 a bushel. We shall not argue over ten cents one way or the other; maybe it was ninety cents.
But when the minister speaks of shooting at a stabilized price, he must take his share of responsibility; and even now the Minister of Agriculture as a member of the cabinet must assume his share of the responsibility, together with the Minister of Finance, for allowing this increased price in agricultural implements of 12J per cent and the increase of two cents a gallon on gasoline, all of which adds to the cost of production of agricultural commodities. Therefore, if the farmer is shooting continually at a stabilized price, the Minister of Agriculture must, as I say, bear his share of the responsibility as well because he is putting them in an untenable position.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say the farmer was shooting at it.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is what the minister meant. If he did not say that I will say it for him.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said the leader of the opposition was doing that.


Charles Edward Johnston: You may have something there, because I have always listened with a good deal of amusement when I hear criticisms of the government from people who have no alternative to suggest, and I have never yet heard the leader of the opposition tell the government just where they will get the wherewithal to do the things they are asked to do. Maybe our method is wrong, but-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Take the ceiling off farm prices. Didn't you hear it?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, and I can well remember visiting the dominion-provincial conference and listening to the Conservative financial critic who was suggesting that we cut down expenditures while at the same time he suggested increasing wages, and he did not know what to do with unemployment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think, while the conference is still carrying on-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: Where have you been all the time? The conference has been over for quite a while.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know where I have been, but I do not know where you have been.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do know where you have been, but I know where you are going.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. gentleman interrupts me with the remark that he knows where I have been; he is just going there. While the dominion-provincial conference carries on it should not be discussed in this House of Commons.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just because I happened to tread on the hon. member's toes he-


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member's boot is not big enough to tramp on one toe of mine. I raised a point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member seems to be a little touchy to-night. In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, when hon. members are offering criticism to the government they should have some constructive alternative to suggest.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us yours.


Charles Edward Johnston: When we get to that other place I shall explain it. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned the possibility of our having a large acreage this year. It was the general impression that we would have a
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

greater acreage this year than we have ever had before. I hold in my hand the farm budget issued by the wheat pool in January, and it gives the wheat acreage trend in each of the four principal exporting countries since 1935, namely, Canada, the United States, the Argentine and Australia. In 1939 Canada had 26,757,000 acres; the United States,
63.516.000	acres; the Argentine 17,830,000, acres, and Australia, 13,284,000. It will be noticed that in 1940 Canada's wheat acreage *went up. In that year Canada had 28,626,000 acres; the United States 61,464,000 acres; the Argentine 17.510,000 acres, and Australia 2,645,000 acres. In 1941 there was a considerable drop in Canada's wheat acreage. We had 21,882,000 acres; the United States, 62,404,000 acres; the Argentine, 18,040,000 acres; Australia,
12.033.000	acres. In 1942 we had another drop. Our wheat acreage was 21,586,000 acres; the United States 52,533,000 acres; the Argentine,
16.979.000	acres, and Australia, 9,280,000 acres. In 1913 we dropped to 17.4S8.000 acres; the United States had 54,159,000 acres; the Argentine, 16,914,000 acres, and Australia
8.300.000	acres. In 1944 we just held our own with 17,488,000 acres; the United States had 68.000.000 acres. There is no figure for the Argentine or Australia in that year. Therefore that total indicates that the acreage is not likely to go up a great deal.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was speaking only of Canada's acreage; I made no reference to world acreage.


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course the figures I have quoted give the trend of wheat acreage in each of these countries named, which included Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year the wheat acreage in Canada was 23,000,000 acres. The last figures the hon. member gave were 17.000,000 acres.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was in 1944.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was speaking of 1945.


Charles Edward Johnston: It would be interesting to place on record the 1943 price in Canada and compare it with the United States price. The United States average price for wheat was SI .37; the Alberta average was 97 cents. The United States price of oats was 75 cents; the average price in Alberta was 44 cents. The barley price in the United States was SI.03; the average price in Alberta was 57 cents. The price of rye in the United States was SI .02; the average price in Alberta was 76 cents. The price of flax in the United States was $2.84; the average price in Alberta was S2.16. These figures show the difference in fluctuations between the prices that are 
received in Canada and in the United States, There is another cause for dissatisfaction. When the farmer looks about him and sees that the grain which he has to sell, which is probably a little better than the grain sold in the United States, brings in a great deal less than the same type of grain sold in the United States he becomes dissatisfied. On the other hand, when he looks across the border and sees that the machines which he has to buy to produce these grains to feed the people of Canada are selling for much less over there than the same machine, and often made by the same company, is selling for here in Canada, he becomes dissatisfied. These are the things that are causing the farmers to ask continually for stabilized prices to which the Minister of Agriculture referred a moment ago. I believe the time has come when there must be some form of stabilization throughout the whole price structure, for industry as well as for agriculture, on a basis which will be sound for everyone concerned and which would include the cost of production, plus a fair commission to everyone. Until we get a planned policy such as that there is no doubt that we shall have strikes. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is going to have lots of strikes before long if he continues the policy which is in force at the present time. When he rises to speak he will tell me that we have had less strikes here than anywhere else.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not baloney, either.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is only too evident that when all these other increases are allowed which materially raise prices of agricultural products, we are bound to have farmers insisting on an increased price for their goods, because they have to have it to make ends meet. The government should take the lead in bringing down a price structure which will give some semblance of stabilization and equalization. When that is done I think our difficulties will be closer to a solution.


Humphrey Mitchell: As I listened to the debate on raising wages and lowering prices I thought we had come- into an era of what might be called phony realism. It cannot be done. Grown-up men know it cannot be done. There must be some relationship between prices and wages, whether it be wages of the farmers, wages of the industrial workers or wages in the commercial field of the nation.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is what I pointed out.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this to my hon. friend and to the leader of the opposi-

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
tion (Mr. Bracken), that in relation to its price control this nation is the envy of the world.


Charles Edward Johnston: I knew the minister was going to say that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friends laugh.
Some of my officials have just returned from a conference in Mexico, at which expressions of that kind were made by all the delegates. Those who have been in Europe in the last two or three years know what is happening there. Why try to kid the people of this country? Ask the men who fought in France and Holland and Germany about uncontrolled prices and inflation. Only to-day I was reading about Hungary where the pengo is quoted at twenty-two million to the dollar. Don't say, "It can't happen here." My hon. friend who has just spoken talks of lots of strikes. Some people like strikes. I do not. I prefer a more reasonable way.


Charles Edward Johnston: You are asking for
them, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not; my hon.
friend is asking for them. The communists want inflation; of course they do. Then you get the people on the extreme right, who want the price structure lifted. A famous man once said, "Debase the currency and the revolution is here." Personally I think this government has done what I might call a noble job with this very difficult problem, with all the pressures that one feels sitting behind the desk, as I and the other members of the government do. I am sometimes twitted about the big interests. I do not think anyone can say I have been a friend of the big interests. I have always sat on the other side of the table, negotiating wage agreements; but you know you never take any chance in attacking the big interests. That is pie in the sky for the politician. There are not many of them. I have a vivid recollection of when I was a young member of this house, when the then leader of the government, who is known to most of us, was ill. I said to a friend of mine, "Do you think he is going to get well?" He replied, "Gosh, Humphrey, I hope he does. I have been shooting both barrels at him for the last four years, and if he dies I will have to switch to the banks." So that you get this exhibition of trying to please the greatest number, when in my judgment we should be giving them leadership. I agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Let us be fair about it; in a comparative sense this country is a paradise.
Perhaps it is not as good as it should be, but you see the difference when you look around the world, or even when you go across the border. The other day I was in a mediumsized city there, and I was amazed. I never thought the food situation and the price situation could ever reach the stage they have reached in the United States.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who was it mentioned baloney?


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, you only have to go there and see. When you walk through the stores you appreciate that inflation is there on a large scale. I think that is generally admitted; they admit it themselves. After all is said and done, the real wealth of a nation is expressed in the unit of production. What we need to do more than anything else, in this and every other country in the world, is to increase the tempo of production. Take the wage situation in the agricultural implement industry. Taking 1939 as 100, to-day the index stands at 155-8, or an increase of 55-8 since 1939. Just now my hon. friend mentioned the increase in the price level of agricultural implements, and in the very nature of things these things must go together. A great deal has been said about the tremendous power of the machine. It is estimated-and it is only an estimation- that the increase in the rate of production is about two per cent a year. You and I know that if these things get out of balance we are headed for trouble, and we are bound to have increased prices.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you
mean 2-2 per cent a year?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, just two per cent.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is the increase in production, based upon what?


Humphrey Mitchell: On the over-all picture technical production over a period of years.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is estimated that machinery has increased production by two per cent?


Humphrey Mitchell: Over a long period. As a matter of fact, it is a little lower than that. I just point out these things because, charged as I am with a very difficult problem, as are the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the Minister of Agriculture and others, I hope we shall be able to maintain a reasonable price structure. I do not need to tell my farmer friends that I do not know much about agriculture, but I have lived through a couple of depressions and two wars. It is just like throwing a ball into the air; what goes up must come down. We all have a clear recol-
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

lection, of the price of wheat at the end of the last war, when it went up to something over $3 a bushel. We all remember that the price of land in western Canada increased tremendously. We all know what happened in regard to the production of wheat in France and Italy. Speaking from memory, the year before war broke out I believe Italy produced more wheat than Canada did, and that was largely brought about by the tremendous increase in the price level. In France they imposed a high tariff; in Italy they cleared marshland and grew wheat. I was in Paris is 1933, I believe, when the duty on a single bushel of wheat was about $1.25. That is an indication that unless we keep our feet on the ground and meet this very difficult period in a rational way, history is bound to repeat itself as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) mentioned the people with fixed incomes. The other day I had an estimation made of the number of people drawing pensions from the state, from railway companies and so on, not including those in receipt of family allowances, and the number was about four hundred thousand, with another two million receiving family allowances. We all know that with every point increase in the price index the purchasing power of the income of what I call this great mass of defenceless people is reduced; and I think it is our duty, as it will always be mine while I am a member of this government, to see to it that this great body of people get the protection they are so richly entitled to and deserve.
I just wanted to say these few simple things, Mr. Speaker, in order that the people of this country might not be fooled by the arguments so often advanced by both sides into believing that there is no relationship between the price structure and the cost pf production. We all know there is a relationship and it must be worked out in a rational way. As far as human agencies go, I think it is a fair thing to say that the machinery developed in this country is as good as that in any other country. Following what was said about agricultural conditions, let me say that the wage index is the highest in the history of this country. That did not fall as a gentle rain from heaven. It was brought about by the organization of labour, of course, but also by the policies set in motion by this government.
In conclusion, I hope the people of this country will show the good sense that they have exhibited in the last four or five years, and see to it that we protect the living standards of the great mass of Canadian people which are predicated upon the maintenance of a price and wage stabilization policy.

, Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris): Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment may I point out, first of all, that matters connected with agricultural production are divided between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. The former has been responsible for production, and the latter for marketing; and in recent years, especially since 1941, under the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and Donald Gordon certain controls have been responsible for the hampering of agricultural production. When I mention these controls, I have said nothing about discriminatory income tax deductions which began to operate in 1942, and are still in existence.
I am sure all hon. members believe in a policy of stabilization. However, we believe it should be on a basis of parity, and I am convinced that many hon. members who rise in their places and support the government every time there is a vote, do not believe we have anything approaching parity under our present price control system.
For instance, speaking in this house on March 20 the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) said:
The cost of living and the cost of farm production is still 22-6 per cent higher than the farmer receives for his products in this country.
The hon. member is a government supporter, but on that date he put those figures on Hansard.
Then, reference has been made to the increase in the price of gasoline. In the prairie provinces, drawing a line just west of Winnipeg, and including the three provinces, the order permitting the increase of two cents a gallon in the price of gasoline prevailed. When I first heard of this increase I wrote the Minister of Finance as follows, on February 28:
Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
I wish on behalf of the primary producers of the greater part of the prairie provinces to protest against the proposed increase of two cents per gallon on gasoline to take effect about the middle of Mhreh. This would seem very discriminatory and arbitrary. I suggest that proper investigation be made and reasonable explanation given to the public before the increase is allowed.
The minister was out of the country at that time, and as a result I received an acknowledgement of my letter from his secretary. The reply left the impression in my mind that the order was discriminatory. Reference was made in the letter to the oil fields of Montana, which were close to the prairie provinces. The letter went on to point out

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
that the subsidies would be continued from the southern states of Oklahoma and Texas, and that if these were eliminated and other regulations went into effect the price would probably increase by six cents a gallon. That was the reply I received, and certainly it indicates discrimination, and additional cost of production for the farmers of the prairie provinces.
On the matter of income tax deductions, at every session of parliament that I have attended I have tried to get some degree of fairness between the treatment accorded the farmer and his wife, and the man and wife who work in the city or in industry. I believe it was on November 30 of last year, if I remember correctly, that I asked the Minister of Finance if he had found a way of overcoming this discrimination. He explained that in 1942 the government had found it necessary to allow an extra $600 to the wife in industry connected with the war effort, which resulted in an amount of $1,800 for the married couple in industry or in the city as compared with $1,200 for the married couple on the farm. He knew it was wrong, and said that he was giving thought to it, but did not know whether he would be able to bring about a change in 1946.
Let me now deal with the increase of 12J per cent in the price of farm implements. I was not in the house in the debate respecting farm implements which took place on April 15, but I believe that upon that occasion a large part of the financial statement of the Massey-Ilarris company was placed upon Hansard. I worked for that company, selling machinery and making collections, in 1929 and 1930, and I know something about the percentage of their costs which go to sales, publicity and collections. None of those items of cost exist to-day, nor did they exist during the war. The company does not have to go out to sell machinery or to make collections, although in other years a large percentage of their cost was set aside and earmarked for that purpose. However, as I say, that does not apply to-day, nor did it apply during the years of war.
Let me give one concrete example of a further aggravation in connection with the implement business, with which the government is becoming entangled. Last fall, during harvest time, a man in my community found he was short of farm equipment. He had always used a certain type of equipment manufactured in the United States. This man wanted a ten-foot power binder, but it was not procurable at that time at any price. He did discover an extra binder in the city of Winnipeg. This was a Canadian type binder, manufactured in Canada. He could have procured the United States power binder delivered at Melita for about $395, had it been available, but had to pay $450 for the Canadian type of power binder. It will be understood that I am giving just round figures. However, the result was that he paid $55 more for the Canadian type of binder which he did not want, had he had a choice between the two types. Then, if we add 12J per cent to the price of the Canadian binder, we find it would now cost that man approximately $506, making a difference of $111 between the United States and Canadian prices.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why does he not buy the United States binder? There is no duty.


James Arthur Ross: It was not available then. He had always used the United States binder, but at that time it was not available. The harvest was on, and he had to take what he could get, with an additional $55 in price. Since then, with the increase of 12J per cent, the difference would be approximately $111.
The minister pointed out that this condition was brought about partly by the exorbitant prices paid at auction sales to-day. That is true; and those machine companies are taking advantage of the situation. With the knowledge that equipment is not available, in short supply, they are getting this increase, knowing that people must have machinery at any price. Surely the increase was most unfair.
At several points in the report of the parliamentary committee which investigated farm implement prices in 1937, the chairman of - the committee pointed out that farm machinery manufactured in Canada was altogether too highly priced for the farmers of' this country. If that was true then, when they had to pay for publicity, sales, collections and the like, which do not have to be paid to-day, certainly the present price is unwarranted and is a further aggravation of the situation faced by the producer.
I should like now to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on April 16, the day following the discussion on farm implement prices in the house. It says: Higher Prices for Farm Implements
If the Canadian government had gone out deliberately to create a storm of controversy in western Canada it could hardly have chosen a different instrument than the raising of farm implement prices.
The editorial is of considerable length, and the points are well discussed by whoever writes the editorials for that paper. I say that most certainly the increase, when it is added to the costs of agricultural production, will appear wholly unjustified. I do not know what it will lead to in the future.
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

True, one of the ministers has pointed out that the tariff was reduced in 1944. But will he explain to me, on behalf of the government, what will happen when implement production becomes plentiful, and we have a condition where in Canada a binder will sell for $500. while the same type from the United States would sell for S395?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why would not the purchaser buy the United States article, then?


James Arthur Ross: Certainly he will,
when production becomes plentiful. But I am pointing out that the minister will have difficulty with the machinery companies then. To-day there is no choice. The farmers must buy where they can.
During the war the agricultural producers of Canada received less for their products than did the producers in any other of the united nations. As was pointed out this evening, prices of agricultural products in the United States are fifty per cent higher than in Canada on the average, while costs of the implements of production are less in the United States than they are in Canada.
1 did not know whether I should burden the house at this time with this matter, but during the Easter recess I drove across to the United States and interviewed several implement dealers. I got quite a list of farm implement prices. When I compared those with prices charged by comparable dealers on our side of the line I found that they were slightly under our prices. This wTas before the 124 per cent increase took place.
Some mention has been made of the price of wheat. According to an estimate made by the dominion bureau of statistics and based on the last grain crop, the prairie farmer would have received some $400,000,000 more if he had been allowed to sell at ordinary world prices such as prevailed on the Chicago grain market. The Canadian wheat crop was 305,000,000 bushels and the farmers were losing $170,000,000 on that crop. They were losing $135,000,000 on oats and $110,000,000 on barley. That is the difference between prices that prevail in the United States and what the farmer in Canada has received in one year.
According to a report tabled just a few days ago by Donald Gordon, it has cost this country some $322,000,000 to maintain price controls from December 1941 to date. When we consider the contribution of $400,000,000 which the farmer has made in one year because of reduced prices of grain I think we have proof that the 'agricultural producer of this country has made altogether too great a contribution in the way of subsidizing the

consumers of foodstuffs in Canada. As I say. this whole system has cost the taxpayers of this country many millions of dollars less to maintain since its inception on December 1, 1944 than the farmers have los't in one year.
The agricultural producer its entitled to the same consideration which has been given to to the lumber producer or the general manufacturer. They have been able to export their products at prevailing world market prices. Certainly there should be some basis of parity created in this stabilization system of ours. If that had been done, then many of the difficulties which faced the great dominion-provincial conference that took place in the other place last week would not have existed.
For instance, the budgets of the three prairie provinces amount to $102,000,000 annually. The budget of Manitoba is $22,000,000; Saskatchewan, $52,000,000, and Alberta, $28,000,000. The difference in prices received for grain by the western producer in one year is four times the entire annual budgets of the three prairie provinces. I believe there is some food for thought in those figures. If there had been some basis of parity the premiers of these prairie provinces would not have been so concerned about their future taxation problems.
The Minister of Agriculture said that he did not know how far back you would have to go to discover when the price of wheat was higher in Canada than it was in the United States. It is acknowledged that western Canada produces the finest cereals 'of any place in the world. I do not know how far back you could go, but I hold in my hand a copy of the chairman's report of the Canadian wheat board which was presented in 1919 by the then chairman, Mr. James Stewart, to the Right Hon. Sir George E. Foster, G.C.M.G., who was then Minister of Trade and Commerce. On page 5 of the report it is stated that the instructions given to the board at that time were as follows:
The instructions given to the Canadian wheat board were very simply stated. The board was instructed to sell the Canadian wheat crop of 1919 at a price which would bring the greatest possible benefit to the dominion as a whole.
That is the same period after the last war as we are now in after the war that has just ended. I think that is a very fair set of instructions. On the next page is given the personnel of the board that was set up. Practically all the principal vocations in Canada were represented on that wheat board, including official organized labour. That representative was satisfied at that time with the operations of this board. On another page it is pointed out that the average price throughout

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
those war years was twenty-five cents a bushel higher in Canada than in the United States. This is a government report. The report refers to one transaction in which wheat was exported from this country at $4.02 a bushel.
The price of wheat was set at $2.15 a bushel with participation certificates which, according to the report, gave another forty-eight cents a bushel to the producer, or a total of $2.63 a bushel. That was a higher price than ever prevailed in the United States at that time.
There is a comparison made of the prices of staple foodstuffs in these two great countries. As was pointed out this evening by my leader, the existing price of wheat to-day, including the thirty cent bonus, was practically $1 a bushel less in Canada than obtained at the point across the boundary in the United States. That is altogether too great a difference.
Mention has been made of beef prices. I have here the Winnipeg Free Press of April 27, which contains the headline, "Miles of St. Boniface pens empty." In one day the marketings amounted to only twenty-five cattle, and these are the greatest yards in the British empire where normally from 1.S00 to 2,000 head of cattle are received each day at this time of year, and contain facilities for handling many thousands a day.
Within a few days of the announcement of the increase in implement prices it was stated that they would not buy beef without decreasing the price approximately one cent a pound. Those who were caught with a supply of cattle on the market at that time took a loss of from $10 to $15 a head, but they had to do it. According to another bureau of statistics report, cattle prices on the Chicago market were almost one cent a pound higher at that time than they were one year ago. These two facts are strangely inconsistent. I have pointed out that implement prices did not rise throughout the war in the United States, according to the information I received from the implement dealers. In addition, beef prices were up almost one cent a pound over the previous year. In this country our farmers were faced with a decrease of one cent a pound in beef prices. This situation has greatly aggravated the position of the producer in this country.
I have dealt mainly with this matter from the western point of view, but something can be said for the eastern farmer. These men really have greater production difficulties in some respects than we in western Canada have. I have an account here which states that because of the shortage of farm labour and other difficulties in farm production 63260-80
100,000 acres in Simcoe county are lying idle. I am sure that other hon. members who are more conversant with conditions in the east will deal more ably with this problem. From what I have witnessed I believe they have many complex problems that even we in western Canada do not have, and everybody knows we have altogether too many. I am convinced that as a result many people are letting up on their production. Remember that the average age of farm operators in the prairie provinces to-day is over fifty-five years. They, their wives and those of their families that happened to be at home have worked long hours and done a magnificent job in producing for the war effort. They rightly think that, with the war over, they are entitled to lie back a bit and have some rest, and they would like to turn over a portion of their farms to the younger people. Strange as it may seem, some 7 per cent of the young people from the prairie provinces who enlisted in the services from farms have signified their intention to return to the farms; the others, the great majority, wish to try some other vocation, and with the difficulties which are arising to-day one con-not altogether blame them.
I have never missed an opportunity at any session since coming here in 1940 to ask for a basis of parity for agricultural producers in this country, based on their costs of production and living costs in this nation. At the last session, on September 25, I moved a resolution asking that the government should establish floor prices for all basic agricultural products at not less than 90 per cent of parity, and every supporter of the government rose in his place and voted against that resolution.
As I have pointed out, since then the United States have not altered the price of farm implements; they have added thirty cents a bushel bonus on wheat in recent days, while in the same recent days the Canadian government have increased the cost of farm implements, raised the cost of gasoline in most parts two cents a gallon, and, one would think, they are deliberately going out to make the lot of the agricultural producer in this country more difficult. I do not see how any hon. member who gives proper thought to this matter can oppose this amendment.


Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: I was greatly pleased at hearing the Minister of Agriculturre (Mr. Gardiner), when he was speaking earlier this evening, make the statement that his experiences had proven over the past years that what we needed was stability. I am pleased because eventually he is learning something. He is agreeing with the policy which we of this group through

Price Ceilings-Farm. Products

the past number of years have been advocating. I hope that his experiences will also lead him to admit the fallacy of the fire-sale policy which he had here some years ago.
As the representative of a rural constituency in a province that is more dependent upon the net return of agriculture than is any other province in Canada, I shall, of course, speak on behalf of the people whom I have the honour to represent. But let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members that I shall also endeavour to keep in mind the entire picture of our national economy, the welfare of our country as a whole.
In my opinion the government have no one to blame but themselves for the position they find themselves in,, because they refuse to go to the root of the trouble. Like the Bourbons of old, they forget nothing and learn nothing. They refuse to forget the heyday of their power. Sadder still, they refuse to recognize the fact that the day of so-called free competitive enterprise has long been over. They remind me of an old lady sitting in the glow of the fireplace spinning dreams of tho long, long ago and yet refusing to let the younger generation put the house in order.
For a year or more we from this side of the house have been urging the government to prepare plans for the post-war years, but all they have been able to accomplish is to get themselves into one impossible position after another. In fact, they remind me of the chap who got hold of the tail of one of those white-and-black striped pussies:	they are
afraid to let go and equally afraid to hold on. But this much they can be sure of, that, let go or hold on, the odour will be the same. Sooner or later they must let go. But before they do so, why not put an end to that robber of our national chicken-house, monopoly capitalism? Then, may I suggest to them that they bury that worn-out cloak of Liberalism. I see the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) who is always interested in dictionary definitions, so that he knows what I mean. I shall quote to him and for the benefit of the house the definition of "cloak" that I have found in Webster's dictionary:
1.	A loose outer garment. 2. That which conceals; blinds; disguise; mask. To cover with or as with a cloak; hide; conceal.
I hope the hon. member will understand what I refer to when I suggest to him to cast off the cloak of Liberalism.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but it_ would be interesting to read the whole definition.


Joseph William Burton: That is the whole definition.
Why should a nation whose people showed such williness to cooperate during wartime,
rMr. Burton.]
and by that cooperation achieved such wonderful success, now find it impossible to carry on with the same spirit of unity and cooperation in times of peace? My answer to that is, first, I am convinced that those unseen hands which control the economic life of this country are determined to force both farmer and labour back to the position in which we were in 1939; and, second-which in my opinion is even more serious-that in this day and age we have a government in office that not only condones the first, but also fails to recognize the fact that if one group in our national family is allowed to take more than its fair share of the national income, others must be getting less than their fair share.
WTiat this nation needs is a plan of action whereby everyone will be given an opportunity to do his or her best in the winning of the peace and at the same time have the assurance that a fair share of the fruits of his or her labours will be received. To do this, the government must give leadership; they must do away with the old method of pressure-group action and replace it with intelligent planning where representatives of farmer, labour, industry, consumer, in fact every group of our national life can meet in round-table conference, where with the help of facts and figures from our departmental experts we shall be able to plan a proper price structure, so that as nearly as possible everyone will receive a fair share of the national income. But, Mr. Speaker, that will not be possible unless the government are willing to let go of the tail of that so-called free enterprise. Nor will it be possible if they do let go, if they still allow that animal to destroy the last goose that lays the golden eggs.
People are demanding intelligent cooperative action. The time for royal commissions of inquiry is past, and so is the time for inquiries by committees. I say that because I have in my possession some copies of the report made by the committee of the House of Commons which was appointed to inquire into farm implement prices. I have here the conclusions and recommendations by the committee as will be found on pages 1294, 1295 and 1296, dated April 5, 6 and 7 of 1937.
Owing to the fact that many of us are beginning to find it very difficult to get copies of this report, I am going to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the house to place on the record, without the necessity of reading them, the thirty-six points made by the committee in their conclusions and recommendations. May I have that permission?

Price Ceilings-Farm Products


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to place the document on the record?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Joseph William Burton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that more perhaps than I can say, especially in view of the fact that many of the younger people are beginning to farm and need implements, and in years gone by they did not have an opportunity really to know what the committee recommended at that time. The conclusions and recommendations by the committee in question are:
Conclusions and Recommendations by the Committee
(1)	That the prosperity of the farm implement industry is directly dependent on the prosperity of agriculture.
(2)	That, during the recent depression, a backlog of requirements estimated at $200,-
000.000 has accumulated and will have to he satisfied by the implement companies during the next few years, together with normal annual requirements of agriculture, estimated at $51,700,000.
(3)	That, as a result, the price level of farm implements during the next few years is of the greatest importance to agriculture.
(4)	That the companies engaged in the industry, over the period of their operations as a whole, have made substantial profits on the capital invested in each company.
(5)	That, if in particular instances this was was not so,' it was due to reasons other than the price level at which farm implements have sold in Canada throughout the same period.
(G) That the economic condition of agriculture is not satisfactory although the present relatively high prices for farm produce will tend to improve it, provided these continue and coincide with reasonably good crops.
(7)	That farmers have a right to expect the price level of farm implements to be based on the most efficient and economical manufacturing and distribution cost.
(8)	That from 1931 to 1934 inclusive, when all the companies incurred financial losses, such were due primarily to the inability of the farmer to purchase farm implements coupled with his inability to pay for those he had already purchased, and not to the fact that prices of farm implements were lower than justified by manufacturing or distribution costs.
(9)	That the unfavourable factors affecting the financial returns of the farm implement companies in the period 1930 to 1935 have been largely eliminated and therefore the companies can look forward to a period of relative prosperity in the industry.
(10)	That, particularly, the abnormal bad debt losses resulting from the depression have been largely absorbed by the implement companies and that this item of cost should not reappear in the next few years.
(11)	That freight rate increases have contributed to the increase in the price of farm implements.
(12)	That the matter of freight rates is of vital importance to the provinces more distant from the manufacturing centres and this is
63260-80^
emphasized by the fact that the three prairie' provinces absorb at least two-thirds of all farm implements sold in Canada.
(13)	That the matter of freight rates on farm implements should receive immediate attention with a view to restoring lower rates thereon.
(14)	That the relative increase in the cost of labour has been one of the important elements in the increase of prices occurring between 1913 and 1936.
(15)	That the interest of the farm implement industry and of labour engaged therein is best served by a full recognition of the fact that the-prosperity of the industry and the increased! and more permanent employment of labour depend on the relative and actual prosperity of the farmer and that all will benefit by lower retail prices, thus encouraging the manufacture and sale of farm implements.
(16)	That it is the opinion of the committee that the cost of cream separators to the consumers should be reduced and with that end in view recommends that this item be placed on the free list.
(17)	That reduction in the tariff should and does, in the long run, tend to lower the price level to the farmer, depending on the extent of free price competition in the industry.
(18)	That in the farm implement industry there is competition in the matter of sales but little effective competition in the matter of prices.
(19)	That the provisions of th4 Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act affecting the importation of farm implements should be clarified and simplified.
(20)	That regulations of the Department of National Revenue, under the above provisions, have resulted in the inequality of treatment of importers of a like class and that the whole matter should be the subject of survey by the minister of that department.
(21)	That these regulations have resulted directly and indirectly in the retention in the United States of profits arising out of the operations in Canada of certain United States companies and that these profits have been subjected to income tax in the United States instead of in Canada.
(22)	That indirectly this retention of profits in the United States affected the price level of farm implements in Canada as the true profits arising out of their Canadian operations were not properly appreciated by the United States companies.
(23)	That recent reductions in tariff and other trade barriers resulted in the Canadian companies lowering their prices on certain farm implements imported from the United States, but the United States companies manufacturing a full general line in the United States and marketing these in Canada, did not lower their prices generally on importations other than those affected by the price reductions of the Canadian companies, indicating the lack of free price competition in the industry.
(24)	That the companies should encourage the further standardization of replacement parts in the same implements manufactured by different companies and in addition standardization of the implements themselves.
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

(25)	That in order to assist the farm implement companies to satisfy the requirements of agriculture in the matter of farm implements in the next few years, the committee is of the opinion that the duty on materials entering into the manufacture of farm implements should be removed or that the farm implement companies should be granted a drawback of any duties paid on materials entering into the manufacture of farm implements.
(26)	That the last recommendation is made on the assumption that any saving to the companies resulting therefrom should be passed on to the purchaser of farm implements in the retail price.
(27)	That the cost of credit to the farmer purchasing farm implements on time is excessive and the companies should take immediate steps to reduce these credit charges.
(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.
(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 insofar as these were affected by the price level of farm implements.
(30)	That over the period of 1891 to 1936 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.
(31)	That recently material and labour costs fhave advanced, hut that this advance should only receive the consideration that it deserves in relationship to all other factors entering into the
[DOT]determination of retail prices.
(32)	That after due consideration of all the ^essential factors, the committee is of the opinion that any suggestion of a further increase is not justified at the present time.
(33)	That the committee is of the opinion that the cost of distribution of farm implements is unnecessarily high and constitutes an important factor in the prices to the consumers.
(34)	That the companies themselves should make every effort to reduce these costs or farmers should be encouraged to organize for the co-operative distribution and servicing of farm implements.
(35)	That some agency of government should carefully analyse and correlate the evidence appearing in the records of this committee and in addition should obtain the results, when avail-" able, of the inquiry now proceeding in the United States, and in due course present a report in both matters to the Minister of Agriculture, a copy of such reports to be filed with the records ol this committee.
(36)	That the Bureau of Statistics be requested to collect, summarize and publish the prices paid by farmers for farm implements in each province from year to year.
Two years later the Saskatchewan legislature also appointed a committee to inquire into prices of farm machinery and the distribution thereof. I have in my hand the report issued by that committee and presented to the legislature, and again I have the findings and recommendations of that committee. Once more, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and

with the permission of the house I would appreciate having an opportunity to place this on the records of the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know just what position the house should take with regard to placing lengthy reports on Hansard. If it is carried too far it obviously can result in great abuse. It is contrary to the rules except by general consent. By the rules the hon. member would have to read it. I did not take exception to the first one, but how many are there?


Joseph William Burton: Very well, Mr. Speaker. 1 thought possibly I could save time by having it put on the record, but in view of the minister's objection I shall be pleased to read to the house the report of that committee, because these combined will show a good deal of the background of the trouble that we are in. Without further loss of time I may say that the Saskatchewan committee recommended in their findings:
1.	That retail prices of farm implements, repair parts and cream separators are too high, and,	,
2.	That the industry itself cannot, or will not, suggest a remedy.
The committee, therefore, recommends:
1.	That the government of this province invite the cooperation of the dominion government and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta in the carrying out of any plan to procure substantially lower implement prices.	*
2.	That as the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act of the dominion appear to have been violated by the major companies in the industry, consideration should be given to instituting proceedings under tile said act.
3.	That dominion legislation be urged to remove all tariffs and other trade barriers on farm implements, repair parts and cream separators.
4.	That the dominion government be urged to restore the Crows-Xest pass agreement freight rates on farm implements.
5.	The adoption, and support by the farmers of this province, of the cooperative trading movement.
6.	That adoption of the plan submitted to the committee by representatives of the cooperative associations on February 24, 1939 and the giving to the said associations by the government of this province, of the support and assistance suggested in that plan.
7.	The careful and immediate examination and consideration by the government of this province of the further plan submitted by the said representatives on their further appearance on March 6. 1939.
8.	In the event that such examination and consideration is favourable, the giving of the support and assistance suggested in such plan.
9.	That the credit union plan among farmers
be encouraged.	[DOT]
10.	That the university of Saskatchewan be requested to test the relative quality and utility of repair parts being offered for sale in this province.
11.	That the dominion experimental farms, the university of Saskatchewan, and the farm im-

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
plement companies be encouraged to continue their educational courses in the management, care, and operation of farm machinery.
12.	That the dominion experimental farms and the university of Saskatchewan be encouraged to test the utility of new implements, to suggest improvements, and, where possible, to encourage standardization of implements and repair parts.
The reason why I wanted these two documents put on the record was that we could discuss the matter from that point of view. In the first place, while I shall not go over all the different points included in the recommendation of the two committees, I should like to take out those that have a bearing on the subject and discuss them briefly.
The first is No. 2, found in the recommendation of this house in 1937:
That, during the recent depression, a backlog of requirements estimated at $200 million has accumulated and will have to be satisfied by the implement companies during the next few years together with normal annual requirements of agriculture, estimated at $51,700,000.
It will be remembered that my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) had something to say about this, and I wish to'enlarge on it a little further. In that connection, I have here another document and I do not know whether the Minister of Finance will object to having it go on the record. If he does I shall have to read it, but I may say it is from a dominion government publication, the Economic Annalist, dated February 19, 1946, wherein is shown how serious is the need for new implements as indicated by the report of a survey made of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario, the results of which appear in that publication for the period from 1945 to 1949. I would appreciate having this put on the record along with the backlog we have had in years gone by.


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Joseph William Burton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The statement is *as follows:
Farm Machinery Needs Range up to 166 per Cent of Implements Now on Farms
Just how serious is the need for new implements is indicated by a dominion Department of Agriculture survey in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario, results of which appear in the "Economic Annalist" for February, 1946. For the period 1945-1949, the total number of all kinds of machines wanted amounted to 25 per cent of the number now on the farms in Nova Scotia. 22 per cent in New Brunswick and 12 per cent in Ontario. But for certain types of machines or equipment the percentages were much higher. From a list of 40, the following 25 are selected:
Estimated percentage of machines wanted, 1945-1949, to number now on farms:
Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	OntarioTractor 	75-6	109-2	37-9Tractor plough ...	38-0	26-1	20-2Disc harrow 	22-8	20-4	17-4Spring tooth harrow 	21-3	23-7	Field cultivator ..	28-7	24-0	i5-4Row crop cultivator 	32-3	22-7	11-1Grain drill plain. .	18-1	25-8	8-3Grain drill fertilizer 	25-6	31-8	20-8Potato planter ....	62-3	39-8	13-7Mower	26-3	29-6	15-2Ilavrake 	44-2	29-9	9-4Loader 	35-5	59-0	27-0Grain binder 	23-1	38-5	14-4Combine 	59-0Thresher 	15-9	20-i	12-7Silo filler	14-1	166-3	15-4Potato digger	32-2	26-0	13-1Potato grader ....	4-9	36-1	6-3Manure spreader .	47-0	56-1	27-2Fertilizer spreader 38*2	50-3	30-6Potato sprayer ...	45-6	38-6	5-4Orchard sprayer ..	31-6	122-2	27-7Truck 	82-8	102-3	20-8Car	.'	52-2	14-2	8-3Milking machine .	58-4	65-7	14-2
Since that time the farmers have not had an opportunity to get the machinery to catch up with that backlog; consequently they were low before the war started and this shows that they are still lower.
My time is slipping by, but I have a number of other matters with which I wish to deal. I should now like to quote recommendations 17 and 18 of the federal committee, which read as follows:
That reduction in the tariff should and does, in the long run, tend to lower the price level to the farmer, depending on the extent of free price competition in the industry.
That in the farm implement industry there is competition in the matter of sales but little effective competition in the matter of prices.
In that connection, I have a paragraph from the minutes of the special committee on farm implement prices, which appears in the-same book to which I referred a moment ago.. At page 129 we find the following:
To sum up therefore the committee is of the opinion that the reduction on tariffs should find its full effect in a comparative reduction in price levels unless the element of true competition is lacking. If this element is lacking it nullifies to some extent the natural effect of such reduction. As already suggested in this report the companies deny that any concerted action occurred between the companies in the matter of the maintenance of or change in prices to the consumer.
Further on they have this to say:
The relationship of the United States companies with the Canadian industry is so close that in all likelihood the roots of any concerted
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

action to prevent the operation of true competition would be found in the United States as well as in Canada.
May I add that that, in the opinion of many of us, these 'roots are the tentacles of a giant octupus which must be crushed if we are to have freedom of trade and a fair price structure.
I should like to quote No. 28 of the federal committee's report, which reads as follows: 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.
In that connection, I have a comparison of the selling price of repair parts and completed machines taken from the'statement furnished by the auditors to the 1934 royal commission on price spreads and mass buying. I am not going to take up the time of the house to read the entire list, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been interesting to put it on the record. From these figures one can see that if he bought a machine in repair parts he would pay double- the price of the machine in some cases, owing to the higher price that is charged for the repair parts.
I now come to recommendation No. 29, which reads as follows:
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.
If they were not justified in receiving an increase at that time it is not fair or just to take the increase that we have had in the prices of farm products in recent years and compare it with the increase in manufactured goods, especially farm machinery, when we know that these companies have been charging more than they should have been. Recommendation No. 30 reads as follows: That over the period 1891 to 1936 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.
Then No. 32:
That after due consideration of all the essential factors, the committee is of the opinion that any suggestion of a further increase is not justified at the present time.
I wish that that committee had an opportunity to make a report at this time to see if they would not use a little more severe and stronger language.	*
Recommendation No. 33 reads as follows: That the committee is of the opinion that the cost of distribution of farm implements is unnecessarily high and constitutes an important factor in the prices to the consumers.

I shall have something to say on that a little later. Therefore I shall go on to the next recommendation, which is No. 35:
That some agency of government should carefully analyse and correlate the evidence appearing in the records of this committee and in addition should obtain the results, when available, of the inquiry now proceeding in the United States, and in due course present a report in both matters to the Minister of Agriculture, a copy of such report to be filed with the records of this committee.
What has been done in the face of that recommendation? To-day when a member of this house asked for a copy of this report he t did not know where to go to look for it or where to find it. He was told that it was out of print; that it was no longer in circulation; that there might be a copy in the library. But what about the recommendation of the committee that this work should continue? For a moment I should like to review the findings and recommendations of the Saskatchewan legislative committee that sat two years later. When we dealt with prices of farm implements the committee were in full agreement with the recommendations of the federal committee. They also said:
That the industry itself cannot, or will not, suggest a remedy.
The committee therefore recommended:
That the government of this province invite the cooperation of the dominion government and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta in the carrying out of any plan to procure substantially lower implement prices.
The three prairie provinces did take action. After this committee had made its recommendations, every effort was made to bring into existence a cooperative implement association, to get them going in the business, but no sooner were they in a position to commence'operations than we had regulations of one sort or another from the federal government which prevented their going ahead at that time. That was the help we got at that time. The cooperative has been set up chiefly to reduce the high cost of distribution which was mentioned in the federal committee's report and which the Saskatchewan legislature committee also reported. They are now in a position where one can expect them to go into business. In fact, this spring is the first time that they have been able to work out an arrangement whereby they can distribute new implements in the west. But now we have the price boosted, which takes away from the farmers practically all the benefits that they would have obtained from the cooperative which has been formed. That is the extent

Price Ceilings-Farm Products
of the cooperation that we get from the dominion government in spite of the recommendations of their own committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Joseph William Burton: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Was this cooperative to which the hon. member refers a cooperative for importing machinery and distributing or buying it from Canadian producers and distributing it?


Joseph William Burton: The main idea was to be in the distributing end as much as possible, to buy from the machinery companies wholesale and distribute the machinery among their members in the provinces. Their idea is to import when they cannot obtain the machines they require in this country, and with the assistance of the three prairie governments they have bought and put into operation a small manufacturing plant in Winnipeg. Is that an answer to the question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Joseph William Burton: The next recommendation I was going to refer to is:
That, as the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act of the dominion appear to have been violated by the major companies in the industry, consideration should be given to instituting proceedings under the said act.
Again I ask, what has ever been done about that? Yet both committees suggested, one more strongly than the other, that there is every possibility that our combines act has been violated. In spite of that, we let them go on and become an octopus which threatens to strangle the very life out of this nation. The next recommendation is:
That dominion legislation be urged to remove all tariffs and other trade barriers on farm implements, repair parts and cream separators.
Here I wish to thank the Minister of Finance, as we did a year ago, for having removed the tariffs from farm implements.


Mr. SENN:: What good did it do?
* Mr. BURTON: As someone has just asked, however, what good has been done? According to the findings of that committee it should have done a great deal of good, but the trouble is that in all probability that octopus is preventing us from obtaining the benefit of that tariff reduction.
As I said before, at the outbreak of war the farms of the country were undersupplied with machinery and equipment. During the war, as we all realize, the reduced output of farm machinery and equipment was altogether inadequate to meet the increasing demand. By 1944, as was mentioned on a number of occasions, in different places and in different newspapers, the situation had reached what could be described as an alarming stage. Now, with the acute food shortage throughout the world creating a' desperate need for every ounce of agricultural products that can be squeezed out of our Canadian farms, a survey has revealed that this matter of machinery and parts is something critical and urgent, which must be looked after at once. In my opinion, any attempt to withhold existing supplies from the market is criminal. I have here a few figures taken from Moody's "1945 Manual of Investments." On page 2449 appear the net inventories of the International Harvester Company for the years 1939 to 1944 inclusive, as follows:
1939		 $102,474,694
1940	  118,810,799
1941	  13.3,114,427
1942		 125,944,000
1943	  142,151,000
1944		 151,378,000
The net inventories of the Canadian subsidiary are to be found at page 2450, as follows:
1942		 $8,652,000
1943	. 6,218,000
1944		 7,576,000
Then, on page 2605 of the same manual we find the figures concerning the Massey-Harris company which was referred to by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, as follows:
1943		 $15,545,777
1944		 20,034,125
Incidentally the net profits of the Massey-Harris company, which are shown on page 2604, were as follows:
1943	  $1,322,356
1944		 1,413,396
That is not too bad for these poor relations who need all this help.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was not from farm
machinery.


Joseph William Burton: Well, they are the same
shareholders. You can just examine that picture. Let me give one more company, the all-Canadian company. The Cockshutt Plow company had net eamings, as shown on page 2673, as follows:
1940		 $236,014
1941		 466.858
1942		 538,747
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the actions of the people who refuse to let these implements go into the trade are nothing short of criminal, and I am satisfied that they have deliberately withheld some of these implements from the market. I could bring to this house people who would
Price Ceilings-Farm Products

tell you that within a few days of the price increase a whole carload of implements came to one town, and there were other towns where the same thing happened, though they had been told previously not to expect any implements before June. Still they appeared on the scene shortly after the ceiling was lifted. In my opinion, those who are responsible for demanding an increase in prices of agricultural implements are nothing but a gang of racketeers with a dog-in-the-manger attitude. They belong to the same group of gentry who refused to let their patriotism work until the five per cent limitation clause was removed from war contracts.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, it has been a kind of pleasure to listen to these fellows all night. It puts me in mind of some of the auctions I have conducted in the past six years. They remind me of a group of people bidding from time to time to see who will get a certain machine or a certain animal. The only reason they are bidding here is that they are bidding for power. We are not so much concerned about being in power; we are concerned with the necessities of the producers, and the right of people throughout the world to live. I represent the farmers of Springfield, but do not forget that I also represent the towns in that riding. I can quite appreciate the actions of those who are bidding for power in telling the farmer we should raise prices. Certainly I am in agreement that we should raise prices, but we should be careful to see that those who are going to have to pay these prices are able to do so.


James Arthur Ross: Do you believe in parity?


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a change of
attitude since you left the farm.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We are travelling in a vicious circle-


Charles Edward Johnston: It certainly is.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: This is a vicious circle we are travelling in, and hon. members on the other side of the house are making that circle as much worse as possible.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member is not helping it any.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am a farmer fro'm western Canada, and I have come here and have had to listen to these sob-stories from day to day. We have been listening to sob-stories from western Canada for about a month, and I am not at all convinced by them. They are

only, bait for the farmers in hon. members* districts. I am considering the people of Canada as a whole.


James Arthur Ross: What about the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand)?


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not the way you used to talk.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Wait until I have finished, and then you will have a chance to say something.


Mr. MARSHALL:: He said his part.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: And our hon. friend, Mr. Burton-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The hon. member for
Humboldt (Mr. Burton), rather, said as reported at page 106 of Hansard on March 19-


Charles Edward Johnston: You cannot quote that.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I quote:
If I may be so bold, I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We have one man in the house to call "order" and I will sit down when . he says so.


Charles Edward Johnston: He is not listening to you.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If I may be so bold, I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the speech he has just made. Regardless of whether a person agrees with him, I think he is always interesting to listen to. While his speech always sounds good when you are sitting here, when you read it next morning in Hansard you begin to wonder just what it was all about. Then, when you get out into the country and hear different versions of it you begin to wonder which speech the minister gave.
I think the hon. member has surely got past the school stage. When he comes here and listens to a speech of the Minister of Agriculture, agrees with it when he is in the house, and agrees with the policy the minister has followed all through the war-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -and agrees that the farmers of to-day were never so happy in their lives-


Joseph William Burton: I did not object to the hon. member's being out of order, and quoting from a speech which should not have been quoted. But I still did not expect that when we permitted him to proceed he would vary from the facts.

Price Ceilings-Farm Products


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have endeavoured to state the facts, facts which my own people give me.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Whom do you call your own people?


An hon. MEMBER:: Who are they?


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Do not mind them.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Oh, they do not bother me in the least. We have listened to the hon. member for Humboldt when he has been digging into the records of certain machinery companies. While he has quoted certain figures, let me say that the Massey-Harris company has never shown more than a five per cent dividend on farm machinery since it has been in existence.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not so bad.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is more than some of the farmers can say.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I would ask the hon. member if he has not received considerably more than five per cent on his investment in the last five years.


Joseph William Burton: Do you want me to tell you how much I lost during the ten years before that?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Then, again, the hon. member said that this house reminded him of a black and white pussycat. AVell, the people of Canada have had to hold that black and white pussy for a long time, and they intend to keep it. They are afraid of the black one.
As I said before, I represent the farmers in my constituency, and have farmed for a considerable length of time. I believe the hon. members for Souris and Humboldt have had the same experience I have had, and I want to be fair not only to the farmers in my constituency but to the people as a whole. While my hon. friend the member for Souris went back as far as 1919

and I am not going to go back that far-I shall be content with going back to 1939, and take the dollar value in that year, as to what the farmer could buy. In 1940, prices of farm machinery advanced 2-5 per cent; manufactured goods, 8-30 per cent; wages in agricultural industry, 5-1 per cent; farm products, 4-4 per cent. In 1941, agricultural implements increased 5-8 ' per cent over the 1929 figures; manufactured goods increased 17-9 per cent; wages in agricultural industry increased 17-6 per cent, and farm products increased 10-7 per cent.


Charles Edward Johnston: That does not correspond
with the statement by the Minister of Finance.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: In 1942, agricultural implements increased from the dollar value of 1939 15-4 percent; fully manufactured goods, 22 per cent; wages in agricultural industry, 36-7 per cent. In 1944, agricultural machinery increased 12-4 per cent over the 1939 value; manufactured goods, 24-3 per cent; wages in agricultural machinery, 51 [DOT] 9 per cent, and farm products, 49 per cent.
In 1944, farm implements increased from the dollar value of 1939 15-4 per cent higher; manufactured goods, 24-3 per cent; wages in agricultural industry, 52-5 per cent; and farm products, 60 per cent over the 1939 figure. In 1945, farm implements increased from the dollar value of 1939 only 8'9 per cent over the 1939 figure owing to the reduced tax. Those figures pretty well speak for themselves. The farmers had a pretty fair share of the income.
When it comes down to the talk about prices, and the fellows here are fighting for the strikers to get higher wages, it is all fine and dandy with me. But you people who represent farmers, which you pretend to do, will have to know that the same farmers will have to pay more for it.
Then, going back to the farm figures-and I do not like to disagree with the hon. member for Souris, because he has known me for a long time-


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: When you were a Tory.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We were on the executive of the union of municipalities, together. However, we do disagree to-night. The Liberals are in power; fine and dandy.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not so good.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Conservatives were in power in 1933, and I will give something of what happened in those days.


Charles Edward Johnston: Tell them, not us.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am going to compare values in 1929 with those of 1933 on farm products. We heard the hon. member for Souris say to-night that some days ago there were only twenty-five cattle on the market. But the price of cattle to-day is around $12 a hundred for top steers. Let us look back to 1933, when the Conservatives were in power, to see how much they could expect for their cattle in those days. Butcher steers were selling in 1929 at $10.16 per hundredweight, and the price in 1933 was $4.47. Hogs were selling in 1929 for $12.27 per hundredweight, and the average price in 1933 was

Price Ceilings-Farm Products

$5.54. I had five or six of them hanging up in my granary and I could not even sell them.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows that owing to Mr. Bennett's high tariff butter went down in 1931 to a rock-bottom price of sixteen cents a pound.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: As the hon. member for Temiscouata knows, in many cases they were using butter for axle grease. We wish we had some on our table to-day. The 1929 price of butter was 39-3 cents a pound, and the average price in 1933 was 21 cents a pound. Eggs in 1929 sold for 48 cents a dozen, w'ith the 1933 price being 28 cents a dozen.
We are now getting into the matter which has taken up a considerable time in this house. Wheat No. 1 northern, basis Fort William, sold at $1.24 a bushel in 1929, while in 1933 it sold at the magnificent price of 54-3 cents a bushel. In 1929 oats sold for 58-8 cents a bushel; in 1933, 26-4 cents a bushel. Barley sold in 1929 for 7T5 cents a bushel and in 1933, 32-2 cents a bushel. The price of flax in 1929 was $2.02 a bushel; in 1933, 90 cents a bushel.
The reason for criticism from the other side is the reason I gave, a bid for power. The only reason I came here was to try to do something for Canada as a whole. I am not interested in power. I contend that the people of Canada were never better off financially in their lives. They would be satisfied to [DOT] have these prices stabilized over a period of years. I was instrumental in bringing about a stabilized price for wheat, and if we can stabilize prices of everything else we shall be happy for many years to come.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his seat at the moment because the last words I heard from my husband as I boarded the train at Broadview were not for me but for the minister.
I cannot tell him the message I got for him. There were other messages that I got for the minister which I also cannot tell him.
Everyone realizes at this time that there have been increases in the cost of the materials' and labour that go into the making of farm implements. A person would have to be very young indeed if he did not recognize this fact, but it is interesting to note that in the breakdown of the cost of a binder, according to the report issued in 1936, out of the price paid by the farmer at Regina of $281 there was only $22.62, or eight per cent, paid out in [Mr. Sinnctt.;
wages. Out of that $281 paid by the farmer, the cost of -materials was only $71.06, or 25 per cent. The combined cost of labour and material came to 33 per cent of the total cost to the farmer.
The other two-thirds of the cost were made up of other items such as overhead, experimental work, freight, commission and profit. What we should be asking now is whether there have been savings made in these other items that would help to compensate or offset the rise in the cost of materials and labour. I submit that there have been considerable savings to the companies on these various items.
Since the table was compiled in 1936, the price of binders has increased steadily. The same report tells us that the price jumped from $281 in 1936 to $324.75 in 1939, or an increase of 15 per cent. In addition to this increase, a new device was adopted for cutting losses on credit sales. This cut out the advantage to the buyer who paid cash and increased the cash price in order to make up for losses through time-payment sales. In other words, the cash customer carried the loss instead of the company.
If this was unfair in 1939, it is doubly unfair now in view of the fact that the pressure of demand at the present time results in cash sales in practically every case. The man who comes to have his name put on the waiting list for a binder, a tractor, a combine or a one-way now comes with cash in his hand, but he is still paying for the risk of the credit purchaser who has disappeared from the field. There has been no announcement that this charge has been removed from the books of the company when adding up costs
In the matter of credit collections, selling and collection expenses are given some attention in the report. The committee found:
There was a very decided duplication in selling and collection expense, all of which is reflected in the retail price. Each company has its own dealer organization, its own salesmen, its own collection agents, and its own service men which must be taken care of in the price paid by the farmers. The companies are inclined to agree with the above but insist that the industry does not see any way to effect a saving in these items of cost of distribution.
On motion of Mrs. Strum the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

International Agreements
Tuesday, May 7, 1946.