1946-05-15

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Kuhl be substituted for that of Mr. Shaw on the special committee on railways and shipping.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.

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

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Did the Polymer Corporation Limited pay Imperial Oil Limited for material supplied and services rendered, under an agreement made on the 30th of December, 1944?
2.	If so, in what amount?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 
POLYMER CORPORATION-ST. CLAIR PROCESSING COMPANY
Mr. MURPHY:: '
1.	Did the Polymer Corporation Limited purchase, or otherwise acquire the St. Clair Processing Company?
2.	If so. what was the consideration?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No. However, by a letter dated April 26, 1946, and accepted by St. Clair Processing Corporation Limited on April 30, 1946, Polymer Corporation Limited terminated, as of 8 a.m. on May, 1946 (E.D.S.T.), the operating agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Canada, acting through the said Corporation, and St. Clair Processing Corporation Limited dated October 1, 1942.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


WAR ASSETS-WHITLA, ALTA., EMERGENCY LANDING FIELD BUILDINGS
Mr. WYLIE:: 1.	What buildings have been sold by the government at the Whitla, Alberta, emergency landing field located on sec. 10-12-8-W. 4th?
2.	Who were the purchasers?
3.	What was the amount paid for each building?
4.	What electrical equipment was sold?
5.	To whom and at what price? '


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1. .
Building No. 1-Accommodation building. Building No. 4-Transmitter trailer shelter building.
Building No. 5-Marker beacon hut building. Building No. 6-Marker beacon hut building. Building No. 8-Generator house.
2 and 3.-	' Amount
Bldg.	Purchaser	paidNo. 1 Charles Carlson, Bow Island .. 31,500 No. 4	John Rub, Robinson, Alberta ..	100No. 5	Nils Stanley,	Medicine Hat	...	20No. 6	Nils Stanley,	Medicine Hat	...	20No. 8	T. H. Hines,	Bow Island	
1,000
4 and 5. The sale of building No. 8 included electric wire, motor and generator installed therein. Purchaser and sale price are stated above.
Note.-The above amounts were determined with the consideration that the purchasers had to remove the buildings from the sites and restore the land to its original condition, at their own expense.


RADIO BROADCASTING-APPLICATIONS FOR RADIO STATIONS IN MANITOBA
Mr. MAYBANK:: What applications for radio stations have been made in Manitoba since January, 1945, and what, if any, have been granted?


Mr. McILRAITH:: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
(a)	Applications received:
Winnipeg, J. O. Blick and E. B. Osier.
Dauphin, Richard D. Hughes.
Portage La Prairie, H. Lloyd Henderson.
Plin Flon, Arctic Radio Corporation (for
frequency modulation).
Winnipeg,	Department	of	Education	(for
frequency modulation).
Portage La Prairie, Department of Education (for frequency modulation).
Brandon,	Department	of	Education	(for
frequency modulation).
Morden,	Department	of	Education	(for
frequency modulation).
Dauphin,	Department	of	Education	(for
frequency modulation).
Eriksdale,	Department	of	Education	(for
frequency modulation).
(b)	Licence granted J. O. Blick and E. B. Osier for a private commercial broadcasting station at Winnipeg.


ADMINISTRATOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARTS
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	Who is the present administrator of motor vehicles and parts?
2.	How long has he held the position of administrator?
3.	What experience has he had in automobile business and what position did he hold before being appointed administrator?
4.	What is his present remuneration?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	John R. Marwick.
2.	Since April 1, 1946.
3.	None. His deputy, however, has twenty years' experience in the automobile industry. Mr. Marwick is also administrator of wood products and office equipment. Upon the resignation on March 31 of the former administrator of motor vehicles and parts, Mr. E. T. Milne, Mr. Marwick assumed the additional duties of that position.
Before Mr. Marwick's appointment to the Wartime Prices and Trade Board in 1942, he was chief field investigator for the foreign exchange control board.
4.	$6,000 per annum.


IMPORT OF SUGAR FROM JAMAICA
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Are there any quantities of sugar in Jamaica which could be available for importation into Canada?
2.	If so, is Canada taking steps to import such
sugar?	.
3.	If not, why not?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	The exportable surplus of sugar produced in Jamaica as well as of all other British colonies and dominions has been purchased for
Questions

joint account by the governments of the United Kingdom and Canada, and is allocated by agreement between the two governments.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How many persons are at present being leld in Canada by reason of their having been jlassed as conscientious objectors?
2.	In what places or camps of detention are ;hey being held?
3.	How many of these are Jehovah's Witnesses?
4.	Where are they being held?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	As of March 31, 1946, there were 126 not including men on leave whom it was necessary to confine to work camps, and who are held in these camps because of their refusal to carry out the regulations in respect to conscientious objectors. There were 10,740 in addition classed as conscientious objectors who are not confined to work camps.
Total number in each
2,	Location of camps	camp
Petawawa Forest experiment station, Chalk River, Ontario .. 26 Riding Mountain National Park,
Wasagaming, Manitoba	 17
Jasper National Park, Jasper,
Alberta	 8
Banff National Park, Banff,
Alberta	 28
Kananaskis Forest experiment
station, Seebe, Alberta	 16
Kootenay National Park, Field,
British Columbia	 31
3.	Approximately 550 classed as conscientious objectors in Canada are Jehovah's Witnesses, and of this number 126 are held in camps.
4.	For the reason stated in answer to question No. 1, 424 Jehovah's Witnesses come under same regulations as other conscientious objectors.


FARM LOAN BOARD-PRINCIPAL PAID AND OUTSTANDING
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	By provinces, what is the total amount of principal repaid to the Canadian Farm Loan Board from its inception to the end of 1945?
2.	By provinces, what is the total amount of principal outstanding at the end of 1945?
3.	What percentage is this of the total amount loaned in the above period?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 
PARIS EMBASSY-FRENCH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS FROM CANADA
Mr. HAMEL:: What French language newspapers from Canada are on file at our embassy in Paris?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
L'Action Catholique; Le Canada; Le Devoir; Le Jour; La Presse; Le Soleil.


SETTLEMENT OF SUDETEN GERMANS IN ALBERTA OR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are any negotiations going on between the immigration authorities with regard to the admission into Canada, for settlement in Alberta or British Columbia, of Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia?
2.	If so, what are the plans, and how many are to be admitted?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Questions


GRAIN AND GRAIN TRADE
Mrs. STRUM:: 1.	What was the net production of grains (a) wheat; (b) oats; (c) barley; (d) rye. during the crop year 1944-45?
2.	How much was fed on the farms to live stock ?
3.	How much was purchased by farmers for feeding purposes?
4.	How much was used for malting?
5.	How much was used for any other industrial purpose?
6.	-How much was exported for feeding purposes ?
7.	How much was exported for purposes other than feeding?
Mr. MacKINNON;
1.	Production according to Dominion Bureau of
Statistics final estimate January 22, 1946..
2.	Fed on farms where grown (estimated)	
3.	Purchased for feed (through freight assistance
scheme)	
4.	Malting and brewing	
5.	Other industrial purposes	
6 and 7. Total exports1	
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rye(a)	(b)	([DOT]c)	(d)- bushels -	416,635,000	499,643,000	194,712,000	8,526,00049,926,000	336.900,000	120,S00,000	6,181,00026,028,642	42,679,302	30,568,844	18,8548,591,659	7,657,559	411,015342.945.5152	85,797,9403	39,406,518	6,187,5831	No detailed information available on use to which exported grams are put in the countries of destination.2	Includes exports of wheat flour in terms of wheat.3	Includes exports of oatmeal and rolled oats in terms of oats.
All figures based on 1944-45 crop year.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: 1.	Who is the head of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board in British Columbia?
2.	How old is he?
3.	Is he a veteran?
4.	If not. wdien will he be replaced by a veteran, in accord with government policy?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Charles William Brazier.
2.	36.
3.	No.
4.	Since this is a purely temporary position, replacement of the present incumbent, who has served in a senior position since the establishment of the price ceiling, is not contemplated.


SWANSON LUMBER COMPANY, B.C.-GERMAN PRISONERS OP WAR
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Are German prisoners of war employed by the Swanson Lumber Company at its sawmill near Clearwater, British Columbia?
2.	If so, how many prisoners of war are employed at this mill?
3.	What wages are they paid?
4.	Are workers other than prisoners of war employed at the sawmill?
5.	Are lumber workers available in the district and was any attempt made to find such workers before the prisoners of war were employed ?
6.	What is the basic wage rate for lumber workers in this part of British Columbia?
7.	Were the prisoners of war engaged directly by the Swanson Lumber Company or through a contractor?
8.	If through a contractor, what is his name and how much is he paid for each prisoner of war supplied to the above company?
Mr. MITCHELL;
1.	Yes.
2.	91.
3.	Prisoners of war are not paid wages. They are given a credit of 50 cents per day and from this credit they may obtain tobacco and other specified articles which are charged against such credit. Any balance standing to their credit will be given them on their return to their homes. The employer pays an amount equal to the value of the work accomplished and, in addition, certain travelling expenses and medical care and part of the cost of board and care of the guards. The amount paid in cash to the government is worked out
Questions

bo that the labour cost to the employer will uot be any less than would ordinarily be the case.
4.	Yes.
5.	In accordance with departmental policy, prisoners of war are not made available to the employer until the department is satisfied that civilian labour is not available. The employment service has not been able to provide civilian replacements to this employer for the prisoner-of-war labour up to the present time but orders for this purpose are on file with the employment service and prisoners will be withdrawn as and when civilian labour is available.
6.	Minimum labourers' rate-55 cents per hour.
7.	Directly by the Swanson Lumber Company, Limited.
8.	See answer to No. 7.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT THE VATICAN
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX:
1.	Has the government received a resolution passed by the Quebec legislative assembly, recommending the appointment of a Canadian representative to the Vatican?
2.	If so, has the government taken any action concerning such appointment?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.

Mr. FRASER:: What does it cost the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast "The People Ask." over C.B.C. stations and privately-owned stations ?


Mr. McCANN:: There is no direct cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in broadcasting "The People Ask", but the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides time on its stations for broadcasting the transcriptions of this programme. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has nothing to do with the broadcasting of this programme by privately-owned stations.


PROPERTY OF FRENCH NATIONALS IN CANADA
Mr. HAMEL:: 1.	Has an agreement been signed or have notes been exchanged between the Canadian and French governments as to property situate in Canada belonging to French nationals?
2.	If so, what are the terms of such agreement or notes?
3.	What is the value of the property of French nationals administered by the custodian?
4.	Since what date has this property been in the hands of the custodian, and when will same be handed back to its owners?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The documents mentioned in the first part of the question were tabled yesterday and they will answer 1 and 2. As to 3 and 4, I would ask that they be made an order for return.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Parts 1 and 2 answered; parts 3 and 4, order for return.


RADIO BROADCASTING-&quot;JOHNNY HOME SHOW&quot;
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the Canadian Broadcasting share of the cost of producing and broadcasting the "Johnny Home Show?"


James Joseph McCann: There has been no direct cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in producing and broadcasting the "Johnny Home Show". The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation supplies part of the time of a staff producer, and station and network facilities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


WAR ASSETS


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the government or the War Assets Corporation sold any new machines for excavation or construction purposes such as gas shovels, bull-dozers, etc., to General Supply Company of Canada. Limited, Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	If so, what did these machines cost the government and for what price -were they sold to the General Supply Company of Canada, Limited?
3.	Has the government or the War Assets Corporation sold any used machines for excavation or construction purposes such as gas shovels, bull-dozers, etc., to General Supply Company of . Canada, Limited, Ottawa, Ontario?
4.	If so, what did these machines cost the government and for what price were they sold to the General Supply Company of Canada, Limited ?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



VETERANS LAND ACT-PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT-REGINA DISTRICT

Mr. ARGUE:: 1.	What qualifications are necessary for an applicant wishing to obtain land under the Veterans Land Act, in the Regina district?
2.	Who are the members of the board in review established under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?
3.	What are the qualifications of each member for the position?
4.	What are their respective occupations?
5.	What number of applications for payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the Regina area have been reviewed by the board?
6.	Of these, how many were approved?

Coal



PROPERTY OF FRENCH NATIONALS IN CANADA

Mr. HAMEL:: 1.	What is the value of the property of French nationals administered by the custodian?
2.	Since what date has this property been in the hands of the custodian, and when will same be handed back to its owners?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, recommendations and other documents exchanged between Solway & Sons, Toronto, and any government department, from July, 1945, to 30th April, 1946, with respect to purchase, sale and disposition of storage batteries, scrap or otherwise.



EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS, CAPE BRETON ISLAND-REPORT OF DR. CURRIE

Mr. GILLIS:: For a copy of the report of Doctor A. W. Currie, on the matter of unemployment conditions on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia.


Mr. HOWE:: The report in question is one from an officer of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to his minister, and as such is privileged. I have no objection to my hon. friend seeing the contents of the report for his own information, but I do not think we can establish the principle that reports of that type must be tabled in the house. I therefore ask that the motion be dropped.
Motion dropped.



NEW ORDERS IN VIEW OF SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction. In view of the order issued by him yesterday banning the use of bituminous coal to heat office buildings, stores, schools, theatres and public buildings in Ontario and Quebec, may I ask him why the heat is still on in these parliament buildings?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: It is due to the Conservative party's activities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Reconstruction and Supply is able to exercise control over certain government institutions but it has no overriding authority with respect to the parliament buildings.


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Will the Minister of Reconstruction make a statement to the house giving information on changes made in the government's coal policy yesterday?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to make a statement later. The position is, however, that the situation is deteriorating very rapidly. It is now over five weeks since any coal has been received from the United States into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and it is not likely that any considerable shipments will be received for another month. Existing supplies are not sufficient to see us through, and therefore a determined effort is being made to spread out existing supplies as far as possible. The order made public yesterday is the first in a series that will probably be necessary before adequate supplies can be obtained.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: May I ask the minister whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding coal conditions in Nova Scotia, and whether a survey has been made of their capacity to produce and ship to * central Canada? I am quite sure that if an appeal were made to the workmen and operators, in view of what they have received from central Canada in years gone by in the way of markets, there would be a whole-hearted response to the dire needs of central Canada at the present time.
Mr. HOW'E: I shall be very glad to consider an appeal. I am happy to say that production of coal in Nova Scotia is stepping up. Apparently a greater number of men are returning to the mines. Coal is being shipped from Sydney to St. Lawrence ports and is being very helpful in the situation. We should like to get the last pound of Nova Scotia coal which that province can spare. I will ask the officers to explore the possibilities of a special appeal.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply if the government have taken steps to see that coal is taken out of the various strip mines which were opened in Alberta during recent years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Arrangements have been made or are being made to operate all the strip mines that have been developed during the - war years. We have been making every effort to get the last pound of coal that it is possible to have mined in Alberta.
The Supreme Court



THE SUPREME COURT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice in order that he may explain on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is denied the right of explaining, an article appearing in a recent issue of the Financial Post in regard to the Supreme Court of Canada, pointing out that, so far as the supreme court is concerned, in one case involving S200 a 37-page judgment was given by the supreme court, whereas in another case involving a man well known in public life the court refused to hear the case on the ground that less than $2,000 was in dispute. This article-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I cannot see that there is sufficient urgency in the matter which the hon. member seeks to bring to the attention of the house to justify his proceeding with the question at this time. I would suggest to him that he move for the production of papers respecting the matter.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I am quite sure, sir, that you have not seen the article in question. If you had seen it you would have come to the conclusion, as I think most other lawyers would, that it is urgent that the misapprehension which this article might create should be cleared up, if in fact it is not true. I ask for your indulgence because I think it is a matter of genuine public interest.


William Ross Macdonald: I have noted the remarks of the Minister of Justice. This is not regular procedure, but to bring the matter to the attention of the house and with unanimous consent, the hon. member for Lake Centre may continue.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you. This article says, having regard to these cases, one of minor importance and the other in which a man formerly in public life was involved, one being hear^ and the other not:
What flashes through the minds of Canadians as they hear about this Supreme Court turndown? Could there possibly he any connection between that fact and the other fact that Mulock is influential in politics?
My question is: Will the minister explain the difference between these two cases, so that any suggestion of bias, prejudice or the suspicion of the likelihood of there being any in the supreme court, will be removed?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member for Lake Centre is rendering a real public service in bringing this matter to the attention of the house. It came to my attention over the week-end, and I had the same misgivings about it that he had when he saw it. The title of the article is: "Our Supreme Court Should Be Careful." It then goes on to say:
Just out from the Supreme Court of Canada is a thirty-seven page judgment. Somebody is suing somebody for $200 because sixteen horses shipped from Saskatchewan arrived at Montreal with their tails cut off.
I do not know where the writer of the article got the information that there was a thirty-seven page judgment. I looked at the reports of the supreme court and that case has not yet been reported. I did not look at the Dominion Law Reports to see if it had been reported there, but I inquired about the facts, and I found that this is a case in which the supreme cpurt had no alternative but to exercise its jurisdiction.
An action for damages which involved the interpretation of the live stock bill of lading as approved by the transport commissioners had been brought, and the case was dealt with in the trial court and in the court of King's bench of the province of Quebec. After the judgment in the court of King's bench confirmed the judgment of the trial court an application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was made in the court of King's bench on the ground that this was a form that was in use generally all over Canada, and that there was a matter of considerable public interest in the proper construction of that form, which was the approved form of making contracts with transportation companies for the transportation of live stock.
The Quebec court of King's bench or court of appeal, as is authorized by the Supreme Court Act, granted leave to appeal. That having been done, the supreme court had no discretion; it had to hear and dispose of the case.
In the other case, an appeal as of right was taken from the unanimous confirmation by the court of appeal of Ontario of a judgment rendered in the Ontario trial court in a case in which there was no specified amount of money involved. Under the statute and under the practice of the supreme court, confirmed by a large number of cases, that is not a case which can be appealed to the supreme court as of right. The respondent moved to quash the appeal. The supreme court heard the motion, and finding that it was not a case which could could be appealed as of right, granted the motion and declared itself without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Labour Conditions
It is most unfortunate that, because of the names of persons involved in the litigation, there should be any suggestion that their present or former positions in society or politics could have anything to do with the result. As a matter of fact, the house sees that the supreme court was without discretion. It so happened that when the motion for the dismissal of the appeal came before the supreme court, the chief justice was absent, and the court was presided over by Mr. Justice Patrick Kerwin, who, if there was anything in the suggestion sometimes heard that a man does not forget to which political party he belonged before he went to the bench-


Mr. HOMUTH:: Do not be too sure of that.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: -would not be suspected of leaning for political reasons towards one who had been prominent in another party. Suggestions of that kind are most unfortunate, and it is most unfortunate that there should be anywhere in the house any echo of it. The reputations of our courts are above that; and it is necessary for the sound administration of justice that they should remain above it.
This matter might be the occasion of proceedings for contempt, but proceedings for contempt have to come before the court that is injured, and it is not something that one finds very palatable to put gentlemen in the position of having to decide in cases in which there has been reflection upon themselves personally.
I feel sure this paper, the Financial Post, m will be only too anxious to correct whatever misapprehension this article may have caused when it is able to verify that the factual background upon which it was based was entirely unfounded.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I was expecting to be asked a question about the strike of the lumber workers in British Columbia which started at two o'clock to-day. Since no hon. member has asked about it, I think the house is entitled to be informed. The facts are these. The International Woodworkers of America, through their representatives, have requested the British Columbia lumber operators for an 63260-98
increase, I understand, equal to twenty-five cents per hour and reduction of hours of work to forty per week.
Negotiations on a collective bargaining basis have been going on between the operators and a committee representing the union which resulted in an offer being made by the employers of an increase of 124 cents per hour with a reduction of the work week to forty-four hours. The union have also requested a union shop and a check-off system.
, The dispute is one which comes within provincial authority. Notification was publicized that a strike would occur to-day, and as there was evidence that the negotiations were breaking down, the Hon. George S. Pearson, Minister of Labour for British Columbia, consulted with me in the matter and recommended the appointment of a special commissioner. Accordingly I appointed Hon. Chief Justice G. McG. Sloan, of Vancouver, B.C., an industrial disputes inquiry commission-I quote from the order of appointment:
To confer with the parties and to endeavour to effect a settlement of the issues in dispute between them as aforesaid. In event that the commission is unable to bring about a settlement of the dispute, the commisison shall report to the Minister of Labour not later than thirty days after the date hereof or such longer period as may be authorized by the Minister of Labour setting out its specific recommendations as to the manner in which the dispute may be determined.
I have not had a report from Chief Justice Sloan. However, the information received by me by telephone early this morning from the British Columbia minister of labour is to the effect that at the meeting held by the chief justice yesterday the negotiations came to an end because those representing the union took the position that the strike was going to take place at eleven o'clock this morning. The operators felt that there was nothing to be gained by proceeding further with the negotiations, in view of the refusal of those representing the union to postpone the date of the strike.
Briefly the position is: (a) the union would not postpone the strike; (b) both parties were willing to arbitrate the question of union shop and union security conditionally, in so far as the operators are concerned, upon the strike being called off; (c) the union offered to settle the wage question on a basis of an increase of 18 cents per hour and a forty-hour week; (d) the operators are prepared to negotiate further on the question of wages providing the strike was called off.
The dominion Department of Labour is keeping in close touch with the provincial

Canadian Citizenship

department of labour, and bon. members may be assured that no possible solution will be overlooked.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MARK C. SENN (Haldimand): The other day I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say that certain changes were under consideration in the subsidies being paid on dairy products. May I ask the minister if a decision has been reached and, if so, what the decision is; or, if it has not been reached, can be say when that will be done?
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The question has been under discussion, but a final decision has not yet been reached. It is hoped to come to a decision shortly.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality and naturalization and status of aliens.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, last evening the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked the leader of -the house what would be the business to-day, and there was no reference at all to third reading of this bill being moved. At page 1542 of Hansard the hon. member for Peel asked the question, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), who was leading the house, replied:
i Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order . . . The order of business is only announced in this house as a matter of courtesy. To-morrow we shall deal with committee of supply.
Mr. MacNicol:	What supply?
Mr. Mackenzie:	The only supply that is possible to-morrow according to the order paper.
I suggest, sir, that no notice having been given of the intention of the government to bring up this matter to-day, it should be held over for one day. I realize that it may be only a courtesy on the part of the government, but I do ask that- the courtesy be shown, because after all it is impossible for anyone to prepare for the business of the next day unless reliance can be placed upon the statements that are made.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): May I suggest to my hon. friend that in all the sixteen years I have been in this house I have not yet seen notice given 
of the intention to move the third reading ol a bill. If my hon. friend will look at Hansard for last evening he will see that when this bill was reported for third reading the question was asked, "When shall said bill be read a third time?" and I immediately replied, "Next sitting of the house." If, however, there is any fundamental objection to third reading being given now we shall be only too glad to accede to the request of the hon. member for Lake Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you very much.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was going to ask that this bill be not read a third time to-day. To say that a bill is to be given third reading at the next sitting of the house does not mean anything, as every hon. member knows. It means third reading may be moved the next day, but not necessarily so. Some very important amendments were made to this bill, and we should have the bill with the printed amendments before it is given third reading. I make that a suggestion to the minister and to the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The bill is being
reprinted and distributed. Does the same objection apply to order for third reading of bill No. 62?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Motion stands.



PLACER MINING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the third reading of bill No. 62, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie that the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken.
Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in presenting the case against the increase in the prices of farm implements the other day I pointed out that according to the select special committee of the Saskatchewan legislature on farm implement prices and

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
distribution, in the year 1936 out of a cost price to the farmer of $281, some $22.62 or only eight per cent went to labour, and $71.06 or 25 per cent went into the cost of materials, so that the total cost of labour and materials came to 33 per cent, or only one-third of the total cost of a binder. I pointed out also that in the remaining costs in connection with overhead, experimental work, the cost of selling, the cost of advertising, the cost of credit, collecting bad debts and so on, the companies in the meantime had been able to effect considerable savings. So it seems to me that in a consideration of this whole question we should take the gains or savings made by the implement companies and balance them against the increased costs.
Everyone knows costs in the fields of labour and material have increased, but we have not yet considered the increased savings to the companies in these other directions. Let us take the cost of selling, for instance. Those who have lived on farms remember that it is not so long since the farmers were canvassed by the implement agents in attempts to sell them tractors or binders. It is not many years since the dealers were driving over the country roads in company with high pressure salesmen, interviewing prospects. That does not happen any more, because for several years now the office of  the small town agent has been haunted by farmers clamouring for the privilege of buying implements for cash, and it is now a matter of being put on the list and trying to get a preferred position. No longer do the companies need to spend money trying to sell farm implements. The farmers are begging to buy. No longer do the companies need to indulge in high priced advertising, because the farmer is not fussy any more. He does not insist on a Massey-Harris tractor or an Allis-Chalmers tractor; he takes any tractor or combine he can get. So there must be considerable savings in the fields of advertising and salesmanship. Also in the fields of financing and the collection of bad debts these costs must have been wiped out. Not only does the farmer pay cash, but even in previous years the companies took care of that situation by increasing the cash price to the buyer and making the man who paid cash carry the risk of the man who bought on credit. I submit therefore that in these fields the company has effected considerable saving.
What about the pre-war picture? The prewar picture seems now to be accepted, just as we accepted excess profits as being excess in relation to normal profits. We seem to have accepted the pre-1939 structure of farm implement prices as legitimate. Time and usage have sanctified the position of the companies. But the report of the special select 63260-98J
committee on farm implement prices did not. It condemned very strenuously the practices of the company, and recommended that certain steps be taken to remove these abuses of power in a field where the producer of farm implements had the whip hand over the consumer, the man who bought them.
These abuses have not been remedied. Although tariffs were reduced to allow more competition in the field, every time the tariff came down, the price paid by the farmer and the profits collected by the company went up. That is why no one should accept this new price increase without question. Increases are based on established abuses, not upon a just price structure.
This is a strong indictment of the attitude and policy of implement manufacturers. Their whole practice is built, not oh cooperation with the workers in the industry and the farmers whom they serve, but upon how much profit they can secure and how far they can go in defying governments. Yet this government took evidence and advice from no other body when the increase in the price of farm implements was being considered. When permission was given for an advance in prices, the manufacturers were the only people consulted. This is a breach in the wall of price control, a wall which the Progressive Conservative party wishes to demolish even more rapidly by removing all price controls. This is another victory for big business, and its control over the family income and over the homes of thousands of Canadian men, women and children.
We in this group have consistently supported the government in its price control policy as applied to the things the farmer has to buy, and its policy of stabilized prices for the things he has to sell. In other words, we have supported a proper price relationship.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis):
That all the words following the word "government's" in the amendment, in the last paragraph of page 184 of Votes and Proceedings, llay 6, 1946, to the word "imposing" in the second line of the amendment, be struck out and the following words be substituted therefor:
"policies permitting recent unjustifiable increases in the prices of farm machinery and of steel hare resulted in" and that the amendment be further amended by inserting the words:
"and workers" after the word "producers" in the third line of the amendment, so that it would then read:
"This house is of the opinion that the government's policies of permitting recent unjustifiable increases in the prices of farm machinery and of steel have resulted in imposing on food producers and workers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies."
Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: cultural economics, which shows an increase in the United States implement prices in the United States of 12-8 per cent since 1941, to which must be added the further 5 per cent already referred to. It seems clear therefore that the farmer in Canada has benefited by a better control of this element in his costs, and I should add that there is reason to believe that further increases will be announced very shortly in the United - States for particular companies.
I have not taken very much of the time of this house on any occasion during the last two or three years, and particularly in the last two sessions. But I should like now to have the privilege which some have, as a back-bencher not attached to any department of government, and to present some of my own reactions and make some statements which I have wanted to make as a result of things which have been said in this house.
It might be inferred from something which I have said that I am making a point for the farm implement companies. I am doing nothing of the kind, and I am satisfied that the wartime prices and trade board was not doing so either. The board wanted to see a steady and increasing flow of farm machinery to the farmers, particularly at this time when we are in short supply, and that was the main motive of their adjustment. I feel certain that, had I been sitting in the place of the members of that board, looking at the matter from the point of view of Canada as a whole, I would have adopted very much the same position. However, were I to turn myself around and put myself in the seat of the managers of some of these larger manufacturing concerns, I am not just sure what my reaction would have been. I rather think that I would have hesitated; I would have waited for a clearer sign of what my production possibilities were going to be before I made my application. However, they have made that application; and I think that the board, in the light of their financial standing, in the light of the costs of their equipment, and in the light of the need for farm machinery, did the right thing.
Generally speaking, this might indicate that I am not a believer in high prices, but I assure you that I am a believer in high prices. I believe in high prices as long as those prices can be controlled. High prices, high wages and high standards of living go hand in hand. But I am opposed to anything which would mean, for this country, inflation. In my opinion inflation and sudden decontrols would be very detrimental, and I will oppose them with all the vigour that I can command.	.
I have in my hand a chart-I do not know whether many hon. members can see it or not

-indicative of where prices ran to in 1919, shortly after the war. Prices ran as high as 300 per cent above normal. Those who are close enough to see this chart will notice that it represents a bare triangle; there is a sharp rise and a very sudden fall in prices. What the wartime prices and trade board are trying to do is to prevent this rapid increase and this rapid fall. If the Canadian people will give the board support in maintaining a reasonable level of prices-not a permanent rigid structure without adjustments here and there as they become necessary, but the holding of the line on a reasonable level, cutting off this absurd peak at the top-the people will be spared untold hardship and discouragement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Prices are sky-high now, right here.


James Horace King: Order.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I suppose the hon. member is speaking of farm prices.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Prices of anything-clothing, food, office rents, anything one may want.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If you take the controls off, prices will be higher. I do not think any hon. member can accuse me of once having interrupted him when he was speaking, and I would ask that the same courtesy be shown to me that I have extended to everyone else.
The inference has been left in this house by some hon. members that business men, particularly manufacturers, are anxious to see large pools of unemployed men in this country so that at a moment's notice they can reach out and bring in whatever men are necessary to meet seasonal demands, and thereby get cheap labour, and as soon as the temporary demand is satisfied, let them go back again on relief. I assure you that such a view is entirely opposite to good business, and is the very reverse of the view held by the men with whom I associate most. A man who is unemployed, who is walking the streets without any money in his pocket, without a pay envelope coming in weekly, is not a customer of anybody. The one thing that a business man wants, be he a retailer or a merchant of any kind, is customers, and in order to obtain customers, people must be working. So far as I know the feelings of the group of people whom I represent, it is their firm desire that the men and women of this country shall be fully employed.
A further view, and in my opinion an eiToneous one, held in some places is that manufacturers want the farmers to be in receipt of low prices. They do not want to see anything of the kind. The view I have here expressed more often than anything else

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
is that we want to see the first four large producers of primary products in Canada operating at capacity and at reasonably good prices. The first of these groups is the farmer. We want to see every farmer at work, extra men employed on his farm turning out the maximum of production, and we want to see him receiving the maximum return for his product. There again, if you like, the selfish motive comes into play, and there is where we shall find an outlet for our secondary goods.
Secondly, we want to see the lumber companies and those working in the woods operating, not to the capacity of the saw mills to cut lumber but to the capacity of the nation to regrow the forests that are cut year by year; otherwise the product would run out. However w'e want to see that industry running as fully as it can.
We want to see the mines, the third primary industry, in full production; and in addition we want to see the fourth primary producer, a very important one so far as British Columbia is concerned, operating to capacity. I refer to the fishermen and those dealing in fish products.
We maintain that by giving these people full employment, putting them all in a position where they can be actively engaged, those who are engaged in secondary'industries will not have difficulty in keeping the rest of the men and women in Canada fully employed. That chiefly is the position I take. If you like to regard it as selfish, you can do so, but it is good business, and the two go together. Let me say this, however, that in my opinion while selfishness will succeed for a time, eventually the man who employs only selfish tactics in his own business will lose out, because selfishness is bound to ruin anyone who uses it to further his own needs only.
Our fight in this house therefore-and it is one that should receive the support of every group here-is to see that the man who desires an undue profit on his own goods, thus creating a spiral, shall not be allowed to have his way. I think we have every right to ask for the. full support of the house for any move in that direction.
I know that adjustments have to be made from time to time; I am prepared to support any necessary adjustments. Adjustments, however, must be timed, and they must be orderly if they are not to ruin the country. What I am particularly concerned about is not the cost of the end products, but the cost of the basic products; and I consider that any wide jump in the price of wheat, which is not an end product in itself-I think it may be
regarded as the cornerstone, so to speak, of many other products in the country-would not be to the advantage of the farmers themselves or to the advantage of the people of Canada as a whole.


Clarence Gillis: I know that the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew) is sincere in his presentation to the house and believes everything he says. I have a high regard for him. I believe however that in his attempt this afternoon to justify the increased price of farm machinery there are one or two things he overlooked. Personally I am not very much impressed by figures prepared by those who were responsible for granting the increase. They may or may not be correct; we have no way of checking them.
There are one or two things which I would ask the hon. gentleman to explain with regard to the hand-out of 12i per cent given the farm implement companies. I would like him to check up on how much of that was due to changing their capital structure. The member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) a few evenings ago put on the record the fact that they had given their higher employees gifts of blocks of stock that ran into a considerable amount of money. That is something that should be checked.
Second, I would ask the hon. member to check and some time inform the house how much they are losing in their export trade. Are they losing in exporting at the present time in order to establish their export markets, taking it out of the home market?
Third, one statement which the hon. member made jarred me a bit. He said that an increased price was granted these companies because of the fact that they were in short supply. In effect, the government was desirous of seeing maximum production in the field of agriculture, but they could not get it because there was a shortage of farm implements. The farm implement companies were in a position to sit back and say, "We will export; we do not have to sell here. If you get implements you will get them on our terms". That was the impression that I got, and that in effect is to sabotage an important industry and is an indictment against any organization that takes that attitude because of a shortage or because of the crisis that exists. These are a few of the things I would like to have clarified.
In rising to take part in this debate there are a few things on which I feel strongly. First I was disappointed, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) moved his amendment, that he confined the discussion exclusively to agriculture. In my opinion
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

there is no possible solution in looking at the problem as it pertains to one section of society. Unless the whole economy of the country is healthy, there is no possibility of improving the situation for any one particular section of that economy.
My impression of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition was that it was the thin end of the wedge to get away from price controls, taking advantage of a problem in the country to-day in regard to which there is a good deal of agitation, quarrelling with the government's position in the matter of price controls, and starting t-o chisel in that direction. I was disappointed that the hon. gentleman did not include the whole economy of the country so that we might have it thoroughly discussed. However, the subamendment moved by the member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) now opens up that discussion.
I do not think anyone in the house is doubtful as to where the Progressive Conservative party stands in regard to price controls, and I agree with the statement made by the member for Victoria in this regard. This group believes in realistically handling that situation and in having a real price control, but I am afraid that the government, while making statements in the house and in the press, and the wartime prices and trade board, while expressing anxiety to maintain price controls and protect the consumer, are only rendering lip service, and that secretly they are doing the same thing that the Conservative party stands for only they are not doing it in the open.
Price controls are being removed, and removed rapidly. They started with the farm implement companies and the basic steel industries; they granted increases in the products from the top, which is bound to be reflected in the cost to the consumer. Once that kind of thing is started there is no getting away from it.
Let' us take the list of some four hundred articles and commodities in Canada in respect of which price controls have been removed. If one examines the lists sent out by the wartime prices and trade board he will find that there is not very much price control on the things that the average person has to buy in Canada to-day. Go down town and buy a hat; you will pay $1.50 more for it than you would have paid two weeks ago. Buy a shit of clothes and you will have to do exactly the same thing. It is true all along the line. Controls are being removed from the very things that the average person has to buy.
I suggest that any hon. member on the govern-
ment benches who means what he says with regard to price controls should carefully check and find out what is going on.
We got into this spiral when we made the first bow to the steel companies. An increase was granted to the basic steel industry which automatically reflected itself in the price of implements made by the farm implement companies. They came along and asked for an increase. They will all come along and ask for the same consideration. If the controls are dropped from all the basic commodities of Canada, we shall not have price control very long.
This afternoon I should like to go into the other side of the story. The farmers' side of the picture has been handled capably. I am in agreement with the statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar with regard to stabilization of farm commodities, parity prices and so forth, and there is no need for me to repeat it.
The government made its first mistake when it granted the increase to the basic steel industries of Canada without any consultation with the general public or with the employees of the steel companies. The increase was granted despite the fact that the steelworkers' union of Canada have been patient and long-suffering, particularly in the community from which I come. They have been trying to get an adjustment in their wage rates for thd last four years, in order to wipe out the differential which exists between themselves and the rest of the industry in Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: There is a reason for it.


Clarence Gillis: They have appeared before the regional war labour board and the national board.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would my hon..friend tell us about the subsidy which makes it possible to pay the wages? There is a reason for the differential. Tell us about the subsidies.


Clarence Gillis: Does the minister want me to go into, the subsidy picture? It is a long story, and I should like the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) to be present. If subsidization of industry in Canada was the solution to the problem, we should have a prosperous industry in Nova Scotia, because they have been on federal relief for the last twenty years. The basis of the industry down in Nova Scotia is the Royal Bank of Canada, which is not a poor organization by any means.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a pretty glib
way of getting around a difficult situation.


Clarence Gillis: When the steel manufacturers of Canada were granted an increase of $5 in the price of basic steel they were called in

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
and the matter was discussed with them. It was also given to the manufacturers in Sydney, despite the fact that they are subsidized. According to the statement I saw in the press, a certain portion of that increase was supposed to be used for the purpose of increasing wages; but when the steelworkers' union approached the wartime prices and trade board and asked what portion of that increase was to go to paying wages, they were told to go out and see the steel companies and iron it out with them. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) knows that until a week ago the union has not been able to meet the steel companies; the companies would not meet them. In effect the wartime prices and trade board said this: Go out and fight it out with the companies yourselves. They have got the $5 increase on basic steel; a share of that is yours; go and get it. That kind of attitude promotes industrial strife. They should have been consulted. The proportion of that increase which was allocated for the purpose of increasing wages should have been determined, and the steelworkers' union should have been informed about it. That was not done.
Since this session opened hon. members have been lobbied by the steelworkers' union, by the packing-house workers, by coal miners, electrical workers, and shipyard workers. I am of the opinion that this country is on the verge of an industrial upheaval. The Minister of Labour realizes that. It should be headed off. The demands of the workers are not so great. The steelworkers' union is a good case in point. If there is any organization in this country which has been patient and long-suffering, which has canvassed every legal piece of machinery available in an effort to iron out its difficulties, it is the steelworkers' union. It is a national organization. In the lobby they put on in the house the majority of the members signed a statement which said that their case was just, that their demands were reasonable and that they would back them in getting their demands. What were their demands? They were conservative. They asked for a minimum weekly wage of $36, a forty-hour week, two weeks' vacation with pay, tax exemptions up to $2,000, and a tri-partite council consisting of the employers, the employees and members of the government to sit together to iron out their difficulties and come to an understanding, instead of doing what they are doing now, declaring war on each other. These are their demands. They are conservative when considered in the light of the wage rates in the same industry in the L'nited States.
So long as there exists a differential between the standards of living in the different sections of society in Canada and the United States, we are going to have difficulties in this country. It is bound to flow over here. The workers of Canada know what the wages are in the United States; they know what the standards are. A lot of our unrest to-day is based on the fact that our standards are so low in comparison with similar occupations in the United States. I am going to give the minister a few comparative rates in the steel industry of the United States and Canada to show how great the difference is. The
rates are as follows: United States Steel Average		Algoma Average
Larryman coke ovens	1-15 P.W.	[DOT]761 P.W.Roller, bloom mill. .. .	2-44	1-46Heater, bloom mill.. ..	2-43	1-42Bottom maker, bloom mill 	1-58	[DOT]81 P.W.Shearman, bloom mill	1-58	[DOT]82 P.W.Manipulators, bloom mill 	1-61	[DOT]914 P.W.Stove tenders, blast furnace 	1-19 P.W.	*744 P.W.Pig cast, blast furnace	1-03	[DOT]70 P.W.Gas washer, blast furnace 	1-14	[DOT]764General labour 	- 964	[DOT]644Blacksmith 	1-38	[DOT]824-90Bricklayers 	1-49	[DOT]90Carpenters	1-26	*824Machinists 	1-41	[DOT]y2|Pipefitters 	1-25	[DOT]824Pattern maker	1-36	[DOT]90-100Welders 	1-31	[DOT]90
I have given the differences in the steel industry as an example; the same differential exists in other industries. These unions are international unions; they are part and parcel of the United States set-up. They hold joint conventions; they exchange literature. The average worker in this country knows just how far his standards are below the standards in the United States. In most industries I think there is a differential of about 30 per cent as between Canada and the United States, and something must be done to level that off. There is also a difference in the cost of living; I realize that, but it is not equal to the differential in the income of the workers. I do not care how high the cost of living goes; if you have wage rates which are comparable and which enable you to buy. I do not believe shrinking the pay envelope or the income of the people of this country is going to solve our problem. On the contrary it is going to get us back to where we were in 1939. One of the first things President Truman did in the United States on the cessation of hostilities was to instruct industry in that country that wage rates must be brought up by something like 25 to 30 per cent, so that the

Price Ceiling-Farm Products

people would have purchasing power to enable them to buy back the things they were producing. The opposite attitude was taken in Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: That increase in the United States has gone down the drain already because of inflation.


Clarence Gillis: I would not say that. There is a whole lot of the bogey man in this business of inflation. I am not very much afraid of it. We talk about the difference between the cost of living to-day and the cost of living in 1919 and 1920, but some time I should like the Minister of Finance to put alongside those figures the rates of taxation in the two periods, so that the public may see how much worse off they are to-day. You are getting it in a different way this time. After the last war it was put on a pair of shoes, a pair of socks, a can of milk and so on, where everybody could see it. To-day it is being taken away from the worker by a very heavy income tax and then passed back to the industrialists and manufacturers under the table by way of subsidies, so it is hidden. The profits made during this war by the industrialists and manufacturers of this country were higher than those made during the last war; make no mistake about that. This business of waving that flag of inflation is overdone. A little inflation is good, if it does not get away from you. If you mean your price controls, when you get the thing where you want it and control it for ever I do not think you will have any difficulty. But I do not believe you are controlling anything to-day; that is my opinion. You go out to buy anything in this country and you will find that the price has taken quite a jump since the end of the war. I have a few figures here. I believe the cost of living index in this country is crazy. I do not believe anyone who compiled that cost of living index can justify it by any reasonable means to any sensible person. I do not think it reflects the cost of living in this country at all. I would ask any hon. member of this house to have a committee in his community go out and check the merchants, the fellows who are retailing. Take their inventories in 1939 and their inventories to-day; compare them with the cost of living index as put out by the government, and you will find a great discrepancy.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: And check the quality of the material.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, and the quality of the material. I have a few figures on the cost of living which were taken locally by committees in Rauyn and a couple of other sections. This has been done several times in
[Mr. Gillip.l
my own community since the outbreak of war. We have sent out committees of the mineworkers union to canvass Sydney, Glace Bay, New Waterford and so on, and we can show you figures gathered from the merchants, showing their inventories and the prices at which they were selling at a certain date, and so on. According to these figures the cost of living in that section of the community in 1942 was up around thirty per cent in the essentials the average person had to buy. Do not forget that about eighty or eighty-five per cent of the cash handled by the average small salaried man or wage earner in this country is spent on food, clothing and shelter, particularly on food. That does not include any luxuries. When you put the increase on a pound of butter and a pound of bacon, and on clothing, you are hitting him one hundred per cent. Here are a few figures which were gathered locally, showing the difference in prices as between 1939 and to-day: i
1939	1946
Butter	
25	cents	40	centsLggs	
31	cents	45	centsBacon	
33	cents	70	centsRound steak	
24	cents	39	centsSirloin steak	
28	cents	49	cents
Flour is up twenty-four per cent; sugar is up thirty-two per cent; potatoes are up fifty per cent; tea and coffee are up thirty-one per cent. In fact everything is up but wages.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Be a little bit fair, will you not?


Clarence Gillis: I am trying to be. The fact of the matter is that I am bending over backwards to try to make it easy for the Minister of Finance, because I appreciate his difficulties.
On the other side of the picture, in reference to this business of profits, I refer to a recent survey by the Bank of Canada-and Graham Towers does not make any mistakes. This comes from his organization. The net profits of Canadian business institutions in 1944 were double those of 1936. Accumulated surpluses and reserves by 700 companies in 1943 amounted to $1,188 million as compared to $800 million in 1938. Wages have not gone up proportionately.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member does not say that the profits after taxation were double those of 1936, does he?


Clarence Gillis: That is right; after taxation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will have to check that.


Clarence Gillis: You check it, and you will find it is worse than I am saying. I am really making it easy for the minister. According to recent statistics given out by the dominion bureau of statistics, 611 Canadian plants with

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
a total of 108,308 hourly employees-this is where your wages are going-as of December 1, 1945, the average employee received 67 cents per hour, which compares with a rate of 70-5 cents as of December 1, 1944. In other words they suffered a reduction of over 3 cents per hour in that period of time. Three cents an hour has been actually chiselled off.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member takes
business and makes a comparison between 1936 and the present time.


Clarence Gillis: Between 1936 and 1943.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, what about taking the same period for wages, and making a comparison between those years?


Clarence Gillis: I think it would be a good idea, but I have not the figures here just now. That is the job of the Minister of National Revenue. He should know more about wages than anybody else in this country, because he is getting most of them by way of taxation.
The point I was going to make is this. As I said a moment ago, President Truman ordered an upward trend in wages in order that the people might have purchasing power, because if they cannot buy we are going to have unemployment. The trend in Canada is the reverse. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, hourly rates of wages in Canada have dropped by approximately 3 cents. But in addition, has anybody checked how much purchasing power the Canadian dollar lost in the last year through price increases? I would not say this figure is accurate, but I did hear that in . essential commodities the Canadian dollar has lost about 16 per cent of the purchasing power it had a year ago. In other words it costs you that much more to buy things. A $4 hat has gone up by $1.50; I bought one myself only a few days ago, and I know. The cost of a suit of clothes has gone up, and so on; and mind you, you are not getting the article you got in 1939, by a long shot. The values are away down as far as material is concerned. As I said before, the trend in Canada is back to 1939. There is no doubt in my mind about that. That is the attitude of big business in this country to-day.
A few minutes ago the hon.'member for Victoria, B.C., spoke about secondary industries, and with much of what he said I can agree. I believe that not many of the secondary industries, these small decentralized industries which are standing on their own feet, are being heavily subsidized. Those fellows are square, if they have an opportunity. But there are a few large monopolies across the country which are squeezing the small fellows 63260-991	'	[DOT]
out of the picture. If the present trend continues for another four or five years there will be no secondary industry left. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is from Nova Scotia. All he has to do is to look back in that province for the past ten or fifteen years and he will see that about fifteen fairly substantial secondary industrial set-ups have been siphoned off and swallowed up by monopoly control. In fact, as recently as the period of the war, one industry, which had existed for over thirty years, expired. A few people who are connected with monopolistic industry are to-day running the show. Unfortunately the government is subsidizing them, carrying them along and keeping them in the picture.
I should like to focus the minister's attention upon the difference between the condition of the average person and that of the industrialist. Certain statutory regulations were put out on February 18, 1946. The first of these was order in council P.C. 254, dealing with the rehabilitation allowance to veterans. I shall not read it in detail, because it is lengthy. May I state briefly that it makes provision for some relief when a veteran is out of employment awaiting a course. This is restrictive and narrow, and comes back to the old system of relief. But the veteran who is not about to take any course, who may not wish to take one, or who may not be qualified to do so receives nothing. There are about 30,000 unemployed in the maritime provinces to-day. Of that number about 4,100 are on the island of Cape Breton; and of this group about 1,600 are war veterans. Most of them cannot take vocational training courses because they have not the necessary educational qualifications. Under the regulation one must have reached at least the eighth grade, and if that grade has not been reached, he does not qualify. Many of those men did not reach that grade because they did not have the clothes in which to go to school during the years of depression. They get nothing.
I turn to another order in council, P.C. 358, which makes provision for underwriting the losses, or guaranteeing the profits-one may interpret it in either way-of the Dominion Shipping company, a subsidiary of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation. This company conveys the ore from Newfoundland to the Sydney steel plant, a distance of only about ninety miles. The government has found it necessary to pass a special order in council underwriting the losses of that subsidiary of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation.
On the one hand is the boy who has just come back from overseas after fighting a
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

war. In this house for five years we were saying that nothing would be too good for him. He could have a new world, a' new heaven and a new earth. He is the fellow who saved us from ourselves. Well, he is back, and he is back on relief. There is no subsistence allowance for that man who cannot qualify for a course; and there is a limit of twelve months even for the one who is qualified. On the other hand those who stayed at home, the boards of directors, the bondholders in companies such as the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation are protected by orders in council, so that they may be guaranteed that every dollar they invest will produce a certain income. Those people are comfortable; they have good homes. They have everything they want. They have bank accounts. They are not suffering; they are not in need. But the dollar they invest is guaranteed a return by the Dominion of Canada. On the other hand, the fellow who fought the war and who saved us from the stupidity of people who have been running this world for the past thirty or forty years, comes back here and finds he is not even entitled to eat. He has no home, because the insurance companies cannot make money out of him under the national housing scheme.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it not true that our system of reestablishment credits and gratuities is more generous than that of any other country?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but let us remember that those gratuities are limited. They run out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


Clarence Gillis: And in many cases they have run out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: And unemployment insurance has run out. They have no jobs and no prospects of jobs.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The subsidies about which the hon. member has been speaking are to keep industry going so that they can give jobs. That is the only reason for them.


Clarence Gillis: But there has been no expansion in those industries. They are not going any farther. They are not hiring any of the boys who are coming back. There has been no expansion in those industries, and there are no jobs for them when they come back. And not only the ones who have come back, but hundreds who left school since the beginning of the war are now looking for employment.

When I asked the Minister of Labour a
few days ago, as a result of several telegrams, whether the government would consider the possibility of extending out-of-work benefits to soldiers until they could find some employment, or continuing unemployment insurance until those receiving it might be in a position to secure employment, his answer was discouraging. In effect, his answer was no, that the matter had not been considered, and that relief in any community was the responsibility of provincial and municipal governments. That is the philosophy of the thirties. It is not good enough to-day. I appreciate the necessity for subsidies under present conditions. If they are taken from any of the industries in Nova Scotia which are receiving them, those industries will fold up. But surely this is some indication that there must be a reexamination of the whole economic set-up.	^
The farmer asks for increased prices. Fine; I agree with that. I believe those prices have to be stepped up. But when we increase the price of farm products we automatically increase the cost of living.


James Lorimer Ilsley: True.


Clarence Gillis: And that comes back to the industrial worker. If farm prices are going up, then in proportion to those increases in farm prices we have to increase the wage structure if we are to keep on an even keel. Unless this is done, the effect will be that of dumping an additional load on the shoulders of the small salaried worker. He is not in a position to pay for any increased cost of living, owing to the taxes he is paying. Certainly those who were on fixed incomes during the war took it on the chin; but I do not think the business man did, at least not to any great extent. I am amazed when I read, in the income tax form, the exemptions the business man can claim for income tax purposes. But the civil servant receiving $2,500 a year, or the wage earner receiving $25 or $30 a week, can write in nothing by way of expenses. His total income is taxed, and taxed heavily. The man who is operating a business has his expenses deducted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because he is taxed on the profits.


Clarence Gillis: He can deduct the expenses of all his trips across the country, and the expense of any additions to his buildings-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no.


Clarence Gillis: Extensions to plant.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, not at all.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Clarence Gillis: And the expenses for commercial travellers, car allowances and special depreciation for cars. I wish I had got into some business before the war. If I had, I do not think I would be paying any taxes at all.


Mr. ABBOTT:: And might not be making any money, either.


Clarence Gillis: If I could write in on the income tax forms some of the things they write in, it would be a lot easier for me.
I make a plea to the Minister of Labour. In the field over which he presides there is need for serious thought.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have heard that before.


Clarence Gillis: It would not surprise me after reading the newspaper and the correspondence that I have received if within the next few weeks we had a tie-up of the packinghouse workers, the steelworkers, the electrical workers, and many others. Personally I do not want that to happen because I think the rest of the world is depending upon North America for its production, and the main emphasis should be upon the production of everything. However, the attitude taken by the industrialists of this country, which apparently has been confirmed by the Department of Labour, is-


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not true.


Clarence Gillis: Wait until I finish. In a broad way-


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish my hon. friend would speak in a broad way instead of going round in circles as he has been doing this afternoon.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going round in circles. If you read my speech afterwards you will find it is very cohesive.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend has not swallowed himself, he is getting pretty close to doing it.


Clarence Gillis: I did not catch that. Would you mind repeating it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it in Hansard.
Mr.-GILLIS: Are you ashamed of it?


Humphrey Mitchell: I said that if the hon. member has not swallowed himself yet; he is getting close to it.


Clarence Gillis: I cannot quite figure that out.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are many things you cannot figure out.


Clarence Gillis: I mean this. The minister says that they do not confirm the attitude taken by the employers, but I would remind
him that the price of basic steel was increased S5 per ton and you told the workers to go out and fight it out with the employers.


Humphrey Mitchell: We never told them anything of the kind.


Clarence Gillis: Donald Gordon did.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are talking to the Minister of Labour now.


Clarence Gillis: The job of the Minister of Labour is to work for the good of labour. If Donald Gordon is making the minister's job any tougher than it should be, the minister should tell this house about it; the minister should get tough with him. That sort of thing promotes industrial strife in this country. I do not want to see these steelworkers in a fight, because there are too many of them in my riding. The packinghouse workers should not be permitted to get into difficulties, . because food is the main requirement of the world to-day. We should be producing the maximum of everything we can, and there should be understanding in that industry right along the line. I think that can be done.


Humphrey Mitchell: Only three months ago I set up a commission to settle the packinghouse dispute.


Clarence Gillis: I am not so sold on commissions. They just write reports. We are facing an emergency to-day similar to the one we faced during the war. The only difference is that the firing has ceased. The situation to-day is just as tense; the war has simply shifted to the home front. We should not permit these things to happen, because they are not necessary.
The Department of Labour set up a building industry council, made up of employers, employees and representatives of the government. When a dispute arises in that industry you do not hear anything about it. They get together, they arrive at an understanding, and the men go back to work. Why cannot the same sort of set-up be provided in all these industries that are facing disputes at the present time? The steelworkers' union has been asking for this for the last two years. There should be set up a tripartite council so that these problems can be talked over, so that the different parties may meet one another. If the industry does not want to do it, then the minister should set up such a council and ask them to take part.
There should not be any interruption in the production of steel. The position here is similar to that pertaining in connection with fuel. When your fuel supply is tied up, your whole economy is tied up; if the fuel supply is cut off, your plants and factories must shut
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

down. If you cut off the supply of basic steel, your fabricating plants will be tied up, as well as many other industries across the country. As far as I can see, the production of steel is going to be tied up. They have taken a strike vote which has been practically unanimous from one end of the industry to the other. If some reasonable settlement is not arrived at, this production will stop.
The labour relations board, that is the O'Connor board, is getting into difficulty. I do not intend to make any accusations, but I have received a number of letters protesting against certain actions of this board-or rather of the chairman of the board, who does not seem to be acting as an impartial chairman should. In connection with McCormick's Limited application he has been accused of casting the deciding vote to permit the establishment of a company union. If that is so, it should not have been done. I notice from press clippings that the mine workers of Nova Scotia, the steelworkers, the mine, mill and smelter workers are protesting against that action in that particular case. The application for the establishment of a company union was rejected twice by the labour relations board of Ontario because financial assistance was being provided by the company. This is the sort of thing that creates strife, because it builds up a lack of confidence in the board. The chairman is supposed to be impartial. I understand that in this particular case the labour representatives on the board dissented.
It is a rambling statement I have been making, but I mention these things because I feel that they must be taken care of if we are going to get through this period.
I should like to say something to the Minister of Finance about this matter of price controls. I believe he is in earnest and wants to do a good job in that field, but I tell him not to be fooled by some of his officials who may be kidding him that there is really price control in this country. Actually there is a lot of chiselling going on. We know just where this party stands. They want to take them off and go out and carry on under the old tooth and claw law.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not say "this . party," say "Conservative."


Clarence Gillis: The Conservative party. They want to climb on their neighbours' backs and get all they can for themselves. They want the old rugged individualism-to the swift the

race. If you are strong enough, trim the other fellow. Get something for yourself. That is their philosophy. They may varnish and polish it up by saying that they are getting so much money for agriculture or labour; they may say what they like about it, but I am awfully glad they are not sitting over there. All they can do here is talk about it, and I think everybody is getting wise to them.
I tell the minister not to be fooled by people who may be just giving him lip service. He may have a lot of Tories on his administrative staffs, but the fact is there is a lot of chiselling going on. I agree with the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., who says, "Hold the .line." However, I do not want just to hold the line and then keep the clamps on about eighty per cent of our people who are at the bottom. We should also hold the line at the top. If you start jacking up the prices for the manufacturers, then you increase manufacturing costs, which in turn increases the cost to the consumer. The whole thing will get into a spiral, and you will never get out of it. You have to hold it at both ends. We will back you in any control that is necessary.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend will not back me in the rigid control of prices of agricultural products, and he will not back me in the rigid control of wages.


Clarence Gillis: Surely I will.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He has proved that by the statement he has made this afternoon. He has expressed approval of higher prices for agricultural products, and he has demanded higher wages.


Clarence Gillis: The minister was not listening to me very carefully. He made his first mistake when he increased the price of farm machinery 12% per cent to the farmer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was the last increase, not the first.


Clarence Gillis: He has increased the price of basic steel to the manufacturers.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: 
Clarence Gillis: I know it is not.


James Arthur Ross: Everybody knows it is not.


Hughes Cleaver: In addition to that, he says wages have not increased since 1939.


Clarence Gillis: No, I did not.


Hughes Cleaver: In addition to that, he says he does not believe the figures which have been given through the wartime prices and trade board of the need for the increase in the selling price of agricultural implements. I would not bring iup all these points if I did not have a constructive suggestion to make to him, and it is just this. We have parliamentary' committees of this house. If any hon. member has reason to doubt the ability of officials who prepare such figures or the correctness of official figures which are issued we have an instrument at our disposal; we can check their correctness; and I say to my hon. friend, in all good friendship, that if he doubts the correctness of the cost of living index he should take the matter up with the bureau-
Mr./GILLIS: I have done that many times.


Hughes Cleaver: -get the information, as I have done, as to how they prepare it. Then, if he is not satisfied, he should bring the matter before a parliamentary committee where he will get a proper hearing. Obviously we cannot adequately go into a matter of this kind on the floor of the house. But let him follow the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
The same thing applies in regard to these implement companies. In principle, the C.C.F. party is apparently in complete agreement with the government in so far as price controls are concerned, but we are as far apart as the two poles in our opinion as to the need for the increase in the selling prices of agricultural implements. We have machinery whereby those figures can be checked and verified. I am told-maybe I am wrong and my hon. friends across the floor are right-that for the past number of years the agricultural implement industry have been producing implements at an actual loss, but they have been making sufficient profits on their war contracts to offset that loss, to considerably more than offset it. The time has, however now arrived when these war contracts are no longer in existence and when the implement industry must stand on its own feeet. If what I am
told is correct, my hon. friends across the house should support the wartime prices and trade board in approving that increase. If my information is incorrect I, too, should be opposing the increase. Let us go at this matter in a businesslike way, find out who is right, check the figures, and then act accordingly.
I seldom take the time of the house to express my views on anything but an important subject. But as I pondered in my office the motion of want of confidence which was made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) on May 6, ai^d as I have listened to the speeches which were made on that motion, I felt that I would be remiss in my duty if I did not express my views. I feel strongly that the time has arrived when we should make up our minds as to which way we are going. The time has arrived when we should decide whether we want inflation as we experienced it after the last war or whether we do not want it. I do not think anyone who went through the distressing times which we had during that last inflationary period wants a recurrence of it; and I was surprised that the hon. member for Cape Breton South brushed off so blithely the "bogey of inflation", as he termed it. I was wondering where he was when we went through those distressing times after the last war, and privately I am going to ask him some time. I went through those times, and I do not want a recurrence. Every hon. member knows who suffers during an inflationary period, which is always followed by a deflationary period.


Mr. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: That
is why we did not want to see the price ceilings broken.


Hughes Cleaver: I am happy that my hon. friend says that; I have been happy to hear him repeat it so often in the house, and I think we can get together, because we are not so far apart in our viewpoints.
As I say the time has arrived when we must make a decision as to which way we are going. We know the government's policy. We have many times had an expression from the leader of the C.C.F. party and members of that party; they have announced their policy. As far as the government policy is concerned, it is, as I understand it, simply this, that we shall retain the price ceiling and the various controls which were so necessary and worked so satisfactorily during the war, just so long only as we must retain them in order to keep our economy on an even keel, and that we shall get rid of those controls just as quickly as that can be done with safety.
As far as the C.C.F. party is concerned, I do not want them to take offence at what I

Price Ceiling-Farm Products '
am now going to say, but I am saying it because I believe it to be true. They agree with us in principle, but time after time I have noticed that when some group, representing labour or the farmers or some other interest, comes here wanting an improvement in its individual position, the C.C.F. party, instead of sticking to its established principle, is willing to bend it at that place even though it should throw the whole price structure out of control.	<


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is wrong.


Hughes Cleaver: If I am wrong I am happy to "find I am wrong, and I hope that when the vote comes on the motion of the Conservative party, as it will in a few days the C.C.F. party will vote to prove I am wrong.


Clarence Gillis: I hope the hon. member will vote for our sub-amendment.


Hughes Cleaver: As to the Conservatives, I think the time has arrived when the leader and the party itself, in fairness to themselves and to the country, should announce what their policy is in regard to price control. The country is entitled to know that. Down to date I have not heard any official declaration as to where the party stands with regard to the price ceiling and these controls. So far the party has contented itself with flank attacks on price controls. No one other than, perhaps, the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) has had courage enough to rise in his place and say positively that he wants all the controls removed at once. The party up to date has contented itself with flank attacks. This particular motion is another flank attack, and in introducing the motion the leader of the party was very careful to omit, or at any rate he did omit, to say anything at all about his party's policy in regard to controls.
As to the general policy of the government, let us take labour first. I have heard many people say that labour throughout the war has profited more than any other group. But when I look at the Labour Gazette for March, 1946, at page 335, I find in a table there showing the number of employees as reported on January 1, 1946, in the different groups covered by that table, that approximately 1,717,000 employees receive an average weekly wage of $29.85. I ask the house this question: Under present-day living conditions and costs, can any married man rear a family on a smaller amount per week? I say no. So that to those who argue in that way, and if the Conservative opposition feels that the ground for the present motion is that labour is getting too much, I suggest that these figures adequately answer that contention.

I concede at once that in certain isolated instances it is possible that considerations were extended to some small groups of labour which were too generous; but in discussing the whole problem of the price structure and controls, we cannot get anywhere by simply referring to isolated cases. I submit that we must look at the broad picture of the total figures, taking averages rather than individual instances.
To come to the farm group, what has happened there? I have a statement from the bureau of statistics showing that the farm income in 1939 was $722-3 million; that is the cash farm income. I concede at once that the industry was a depressed industry at that time, but may I point out to the leader of the opposition that, while agricultural income was $722-3 million in 1939 and the industry was then in a distressed condition, the distress at that time was nothing like what it was in the early thirties when the party of his adoption was in power. Following down from 1939, I find that in 1945 the cash farm income had more than doubled over 1939. It is now $1,654 million.
When the leader of the opposition launches this motion and makes the bald statement that agriculture is not being properly treated in the present price structure, I ask him to be good enough to indicate by what percentage farm income should be increased to bring it up to parity or an amount commensurate with the receipts of labour, of the manufacturer, and of the other groups in the country. Obviously 3rou cannot advance one without considering all the others, and if the leader of the opposition honestly thinks agriculture is not to-day receiving its fair share of the national income, the least he could do would be to indicate to the house the percentage by which he considers it is being unfairly treated.


Mr. SENN:: Does the hon. member think agriculture is getting a fair proportion of the national income to-day?


Hughes Cleaver: I say this to the hon. member for Haldimand. and I thank him for the question. I think that, compared -with the total national income and with the taxes of all the groups in Canada to-day, agriculture is getting a proper proportionate share of the total as far as it is possible for any human being to bring this about. A man would need to be a Solomon to do any better.


James Arthur Ross: Ask jour own Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied.


Mark Cecil Senn: You had better page the Minister of Agriculture.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Mr. PROBE:: Will the hon. member give us the figures for all groups? He is pursuing an excellent argument- right there if he would go farther.


Hughes Cleaver: I will do the best I can in the time at my disposal.


John Oliver Probe: The manufacturers too.


Hughes Cleaver: This motion is a want of confidence motion because, if it carries, the government resigns. Surely that type of motion is not to be made on any irresponsible or ill-considered grounds, and the least the leader of the opposition can do is to indicate to the house the percentage by which he thinks agriculture is being unfairly treated: Then, having done that, he must not stop there. His duty does not end there. He should then frankly admit, "It is true that if we increase agriculture, say, ten per cent, giving it another S160 million, the cost of living goes up". Then he should frankly tell the house, "In view of that increase in the cost of living, I think labour should receive an additional percentage", and he should indicate what in his opinion should be that percentage. After he gets through with that, with wages having increased, and manufacturers' costs having undoubtedly increased, he should indicate to the house to what extent he thinks the manufacturer should be permitted to increase the wholesale selling price of his products.
If anyone is dissatisfied with our present price structure, is that not the obvious thing for him to do, to explain the reasons for his dissatisfaction, keeping in mind all the different groups; because, after all, no one likes price control; no one likes wage control. These controls were imposed as a matter of necessity; the necessity continues, and until it passes we must have them. It is, therefore, only natural that all the different groups should . selfishly take their own viewpoint.
But that is no reason why a responsible member of the house should not advance some sound reasons before moving a want of confidence motion asking that the government resign office because of the unfair way it is treating a certain group. I have yet to hear one word of proof from the leader of the opposition in justification of that motion.
I come now to the actual motion itself. I am now coming to my quarrel with the leader of the opposition, if you wish to put it in that way, and I am glad that he is here, because I want to talk to him. Speaking to the house on May 6, he stated, as reported at page 1244 of Hansard:
I wish, therefore, to raise a question of major< importance to the chief primary industry of this country and to the country itself, namely-
And this is the matter he wanted to raise. -the inequitable position in which agriculture now finds itself and the lessened production as a result of that inequity.
I should like to read two or three other quotations to make it clear beyond all shadow of doubt what was said on that day, because I think my hon. friend will be a little bit ashamed and apologetic of the stand he took at that time. He went on to say that production in agriculture is lower now than it was last year. Then at page 1245 of Hansard he said this:
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.
I suggest that if these words mean anything at all they mean that the farmer has lessened the production of food in this country because the prices are not satisfactory to him. Knowing the farmers of my riding as well as I do, and admiring as much as I do the wonderful contribution made by agriculture during the last war, the way in which, notwithstanding labour troubles and the shortage of farm machinery, they rose to the emergency and produced food supplies in quantities that were the admiration of the world; keeping all these things in mind, I say that it little behooves any member of this house, even though the motion is couched in such flowery, inoffensive language, to say in effect, in the words of the motion, that the farmers of Canada are carrying on a mode of sabotage or a sit-down strike and are declining to produce foodstuffs that the world so badly needs, simply because they are not getting high enough prices.
I wish to say to the leader of the opposition that he knows-and he should know it better than anyone in Canada-that last year, one of the years he complains about, the farmers had more acreage in production than ever before; but we had a smaller crop. Why? Simply because weather conditions were unfavourable. Are the farmers of this country to be faced with the accusation that appears in this motion, the accusation that appears in the speech of the leader of the opposition, namely that of deliberately curtailing production because the price was not right, simply because nature let them down after they had done everything that they could do?
Let us have the figures. Unlike the leader of the opposition, I do not ask anyone to take my thoughts on a subject unsupported by the facts. I hold in my hand a statement issued by the bureau of statistics, agricultural branch. Let us take wheat. Last year our
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

farmers sowed 23.4 million acres to wheat. Looking over the table that I hold in my hand, I see that over a period of six years that was the largest acreage sown to wheat in any of those years. Notwithstanding that fact, the crop yield is very much lower.


Mr. ROWE:: Summer-fallow did not help it.


Hughes Cleaver: I am not talking about summer-fallow. The crop yield last year was 129'6 million bushels less than the previous year, although in the previous year there was less acreage sown to wheat. When one compares that with the bumper year of 1942 he will find that- the crop yield last year was still greater in deficit when compared with that other year. Is the farmer to blame; is the farmer to be maligned and that nasty innuendo go out that he has deliberately decreased production because the price is not right? I say that statement is positively untrue and should be retracted.
I now come to oats. In oats we have the same story. Last year 14-4 million acres were sown to oats, whereas in the previous year only 14-3 million acres were sown, and yet the yield is down 118 million bushels. Are the farmers to blame for that? .Is the wartime prices and trade board to blame for that? Is the price structure to blame for that? Let us follow on through with barley. All through the picture- the story is the same.
There is not a word of truth in the charge made by the leader of the opposition and in the innuendo contained in the motion that the farmers of this country have put on a sit-down strike and decline to produce as much food as they could, simply because the price structure is not right. I know the leader of the opposition would dearly love to get into power and I fancy he would do quite a bit to try to get there; but I want to tell him in the friendliest spirit that he underestimates, and he almost insults, the intelligence of the farmers of this country when he adopts the tactics that he adopted in his speech when introducing this motion -on May 6 last.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, namely farm implements. I come from a rural riding. I know I am treading on dangerous ground when I say anything about the cost of farm implements, because over half of my electors are farmers. The house well knows that if you want to get cheers at any farm gathering all you have to do is to build up a good case against either the packers or the implement companies, and you are off to a good start. However, I believe that the present is an occasion when we should frankly

speak our minds and when we should not do anything to make a difficult situation any worse.
I am told, and I honestly believe the information to be correct, that the 12^ per cent increase recently granted to the implement industry does not compensate the industry for the increase in labour and material costs which it has experienced. If that is correct- and I believe it to be correct-and when one bears in mind the fact that we so badly need the implements, is it not the part of wisdom to make it possible for our farmers to get these implements? I have been told by farmer friends that the implement situation is so bad that at auction sales secondhand machines are selling for almost as much as new implements.


An hon. MEMBER:: And more.


James Arthur Ross: Why?


Hughes Cleaver: Because of the shortage of farm implements.


James Arthur Ross: And the income tax.


Hughes Cleaver: Here is another thing that should be kept in mind. It is strange but true that no farmer can dispassionately discuss the cost of farm implements with you. It is a subject that you cannot talk to any farmer ' about on a businesslike basis.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, you can.


Hughes Cleaver: That is the hon. member's experience, is it?


William Earl Rowe: Yes.


Hughes Cleaver: It is not mine, and I have ofttimes kidded my farmers in that respect. It is a touchy subject.


James Arthur Ross: It is, when you do not raise their prices.


Hughes Cleaver: Here are the figures. I am making this statement so that it will be on the record. It is estimated that if the implement companies do everything that they hope to this year they will produce in Canada just under S34 million worth of Canadian-built implements. What is 12) per cent on $34 million? It is $4-25 million. Now I ask my hon. friends in the Conservative opposition on the other side of the house, who are moaning about these increases in the prices of farm implements, to relate that $4-25 million to the total farm income, which is over $1,600 million. What do you get? You reach a figure of less than one-tenth of one per cent. There is another point to consider. The life of most of these implements is more than ten years, so you divide that figure of

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
one-tenth of one per cent by ten, and reach the figure of one one-hundredth of one per cent.
I suggest that we have reached a time in our economy when we have to be courageous enough to speak our minds, if we are to get anywhere, and when we have to face this problem in a businesslike fashion instead of trying to whip up the sectional feelings of the people.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: In rising to support the amendment moved by the leader of this party, I wish to state briefly the views of a large number of western farmers to whom I have spoken about the matters contained in the amendment, particularly one subject which is dealt with in these words:
. . . the government's price ceiling policies . . . are imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.
The farmers of western Canada believe that, and feel strongly about it.
However, before going on with that point, I should like to say it seems to me that most of the complaints of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), who has just taken his seat, against this party boil down to the petulant complaint that this party has not yet published an agricultural price control policy for the government to follow. Had we done so probably we would have been fine fellows. The hon. gentleman accused the leader of this party of belittling the farmers by saying they were going on a sit-down strike, and so forth. I am not a bit afraid to say that as far as the hog producers of Alberta are concerned they have gone on at least a semi-sit-down strike. A certain number of them have definitely quit raising hogs entirely because of the prices they have received in relation to the price they could get for the barley, while large numbers of others have considerably reduced their hog production. This is at least one definite instance where you have a refusal on the part of farmers to produce an extremely important commodity because of the price policy of the government.


Hughes Cleaver: It would not be because of a shortage of coarse feeds?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you will look up the figures of the shipments of coarse grains from Alberta to eastern Canada you will find that it was not due to any shortage of coarse grains.	.
Before going farther, I should like also to say to hon. gentlemen to my immediate left, who are extremely fond of poking gibes at the members of this party and of accusing
them of inconsistency, and so on, that they would do much better to devote themselves to educating, public opinion, if that is the proper word, to their ideas rather than spending so much time in this house attacking ours.
In that connection, I should like to make it plain that there is one fundamental conception as far as I am concerned on which my remarks are based. It is that artificial control of prices and arbitrary distribution of commodities are contrary to the conceptions of free trade and free enterprise under which Canada has developed from the very beginning and in which the great majority of the people of this country quite evidently believe, as shown by the results of the last federal election. Artificial controls are the essence of a socialistic state, and the people of this dominion demonstrated at the polls that they do not want a socialistic state, as evidenced by their lack of support for hon. members to my left. So that I think we may take it for granted as something definite that everyone will admit that the majority of the people of this country are believers in free enterprise. In view of that fact, I think all believers in free enterprise, including the government, who profess so to believe, should now be bending their thoughts and energies toward the abolition of all those controls which were forced upon us during the war. One evil at least, of price control has been well demonstrated in this and many other debates we have had in this house. That is, you have endless arguments as to how these price controls should be worked, which should be upped, which should be taken off, which should be reduced, and so forth, all of which is motivated essentially by the desire on the part of each economic group in the country to improve its lot at the expense of some other group.
To come back to the western farmer for whom I intend to speak chiefly, even among those who are socialistically inclined the realization has finally spread that they are bearing almost the entire burden of price controls on many agricultural products, particularly on wheat. As a result, there is now a very widespread feeling in the west that we should get world market prices for our grain. Along with this is the almost universal belief that if the government will not permit the people of the west to obtain world prices; if it is to continue price controls on farm products and thus subsidize the consumer in Europe as well as the consumer in Canada, then all the taxpayers in Canada should shoulder the load equally instead of leaving it to the farmer to pay the shot.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products


James Garfield Gardiner: And beef steaks at
forty eight cents.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister was misinformed when he said that beef steaks were selling at forty eight cents a pound. I have

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
here a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press of October 20, 1941. Hon. members will see why I have saved it. It was the issue announcing the fixing of wage and .price ceilings.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price is written right into the controls. The hon. member does not need to have the Free Press; it is right in the controls.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this issue is an
advertisement of the Hudson's Bay company and, among other things, meat prices are listed. It states that, on a cash and carry basis, sirloin steaks were to be sold at twenty seven cents a pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: What- is the date of
that paper?


Douglas Scott Harkness: October 20, 1941, the
very day on which these price ceilings were announced.


James Garfield Gardiner: What was porterhouse
steak?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Porterhouse steak was not listed there. I shall give some further figures.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are a lot of steaks, you know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Lamb chops, twenty two cents a pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: With the bone in, or the bone out?


An hon. MEMBER:: Never mind the bone.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Here is one the minister need not worry about; boneless stewing beef, sixteen cents a pound, cash and carry; seventeen cents delivered.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the lowest.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, that is not the lowest. Brisket of beef is eleven cents; shoulder of boiling beef, eleven cents; ohuck roast of beef fifteen cents; shoulder roast of beef seventeen cents; prime rib roast of beef twenty three cents; wieners twenty cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member
will permit, just to have the record clear may I say my statement was to the effect that prices of beef in 1941 were approximately the same as prices in 1928, and, that prices of cattle in 1928 were very much higher than prices of cattle in 1941. Now, with prices of beef only slightly up, prices of cattle are back to about where they were in 1928.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I may be a little dense, but to me the minister's statement is unintelligible.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read it in Hansard tomorrow and you will understand it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says prices of beef are slightly up. I have read the prices of beef as advertised in the Free Press on that date.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I again submit that the official prices are those which Should be quoted.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All anyone has to do is to look at the prices in any paper to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the hon. member to be permitted to read-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: The minister may speak, with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: The prices I quoted
were actual prices set bjr the board. It is not necessary to take Free Press prices for things that are not comparable. The prices are those set by the prices board in 1941, and there have not been any great increases from 1941 to the. present time in those prices. Those are all official, and can be obtained.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This paper is October
20, 1941. I do not think there is any need to read again the minister's statement in Hansard, but he said that in 1921 steak was selling at 48 cents a pound. I have just given a list of prices taken from the Free Press, and I have a few prices of other items at the present time: porterhouse roast, sirloin tip or wing roast, 47-49 cents per pound; rump roast, round steak, 42-46 cents per pound; sausage, breakfast style, 28-30 cents per pound; boneless stewing beef, 18-20 cents per pound. The same Winnipeg paper gives the quotations for cattle, which show that top beef ranged from $8.50 to $9 per 100 pounds at Winnipeg in 1941 when steak was selling at 27 cents per pound. The last market report I have is for May 9, which gives prices of better steers at Winnipeg as ranging from $12.50 to $12.75 per 100 pounds. Most items of meat in the retail stores have risen in price from 50 to over 100 per cent between that time and the present.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is absolutely
incorrect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: During the same time beef prices have risen from $9 to $12.50.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is
quoting porterhouse steak-
157u

Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the minister wishes to ask a question, I will sit down and he can ask it. If he has not a question, I ask him respectfully to keep quiet.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will ask it.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon.
member for Calgary East has invited the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I ask my hon. friend-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not invite a question. I said if the minister wanted to ask a question he should indicate that and not be constantly interrupting.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I want to finish what I have to say. Briefly, the situation is that the retail price of meats has gone up from 50 to over 100 per cent, while the price of live cattle has risen from $8.50 and $9 per 100 pounds to $12 and $12.50, or approximately 35 per cent. Prices of cattle on the hoof have not gone up like prices of meat in the shops. If the minister wishes to ask a question I shall be delighted to try to answer it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Was the hon. member not comparing sirloin steak with porterhouse steak?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Porterhouse steak would perhaps be worth five cents per pound more.


James Garfield Gardiner: Porterhouse steak is worth much more.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is trying to labour the point and crawl out from under the remark he made in Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sticking right with the remark.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The proposition gets down to this. The meat producer is being called upon to subsidize the general consuming public just the same as the wheat producer is being called upon to subsidize that public as well as overseas markets. I think that is a just statement to make. The proposition that the government price control policy has placed a heavy burden on the western farmer has been adequately proved, not just by what I have had to say but by what other hon. members have said in this house from time to time. I do not think there is any doubt that the government price control policy will have the result of reducing production.
There is no use in blinking our eyes at that or trying to throw up a smoke-screen. It is being said it is disgraceful that the farmers should be carrying on a sit-down strike, but I 
think we may as well admit that if the farmer or anyone else cannot get a fair return for his labour he will not try to put his product on the market if he can avoid doing so. In view of the unfairness to the western farmer, I feel I must call upon the government to raise the , ceilings on agricultural products if they will j not abolish them altogether. If it is desired that our own people shall be able to buy bread cheaply; if it is desired that the people in the j overseas countries shall be able to do the same thing, then the cost of the necessary subsidies should be borne by the country as a whole and not be placed upon the shoulders of the western farmer.
On motion of Mr. Harkness the debate was \ adj ourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 16, 1946.