1946-05-24

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of special committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Tucker.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 140, to amend the Small Loans Act, 1939.
He said: The Small Loans Act, passed, I think, eight or nine years ago, places a ceiling on the interest rate which small loan companies may charge of two per cent per month. Experience has shown that that is unnecessarily high in the light of recent changes in interest rates and so forth, and it is therefore proposed in this bill to reduce that interest rate to 11 per cent per month. It is anticipated that the bill will be referred to the banking and commerce committee where the appropriateness of that rate can be investigated. The superintendent of insurance recommends the rate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 137, to incorporate Evangelical Churches of Pentecost.-Mr. Dechene.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct a question, if I may, to the Minister of Reconstruction and Suppiy, under whom I believe radio broadcasting partly comes. My question is: In view of the minister's statement yesterday that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had made applicafMr. Speaker.]
tion for the use of the wave length or frequency occupied by station CFRB, will the minister give an undertaking to the house that no steps will be taken by him or the government in this connection until all parties interested in the matter, including representatives of radio listeners, shall have had an opportunity of presenting their point of view to the special house committee on radio broadcasting?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I think my hon. friend's question should more properly be directed to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation carries on its operations.


Gordon Graydon: Well, Mr. Speaker, it has been such a job to know who has control or supervision over this matter that I took the precaution of sending a notice to both ministers. I was hoping that I would not have to make it something in the form of a circular to the ministers, but when someone asked the Minister of National Revenue a question two or three days ago he said he did not know anything about the matter.


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: There should not be as much difficulty as the hon. member for Peel suggests about knowing under whose jurisdiction any of the broadcasting operations come. I believe he knows full well that the Radio Act is administered by the Minister of Reconstruction and supply. The Canadian Broadcasting Act comes more particularly under my jurisdiction. The hon. gentleman, in order to make sure that he would have an answer to his question, evidently circularized the ministers, because I also acknowledge having received notice of his question. In reply thereto let me say that neither the minister nor the government has any intention of dispossessing the tenant who has CFRB before all interested parties are given an opportunity to make their representations before the radio broadcasting committee, which we expect will sit on Tuesday next.


Gordon Graydon: Our people do not want to lose Jim Hunter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. JUTRAS (Provencher):: In view of the growing alarm in Manitoba with, respect to the future availability of prisoner-of-war

Labour Conditions
labour for the cultivation of sugar beets, is the Minister of Labour in a position to clarify the situation?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I would like to assure the hon. member for Provencher, that the Department of Labour will make every possible effort to provide for the sugar beet industry in Manitoba-as we will in Ontario. At present 705 prisoners of war have been assigned to Manitoba for this work, and we are trying to get an additional 200, which I hope we will get to make the number 905. Last year the average number of prisoners of war engaged in the sugar beet industry in Manitoba, that is throughout the year, was 860. This included a larger number in the autumn for the harvest. As the hon. member should know, the availability of prisoners of war in Canada for work in the sugar beet industry, for the lumber camps, and other projects, depends on the wishes of the British government with respect to transfer of these prisoners back to Great Britain. After all, they are British prisoners of war. Britain is short of the type of labour for which these prisoners of war can be used. Furthermore they must be moved back to Britain as ships are provided.
We hope that some other arrangements for labour in the sugar beet fields may be made.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): May I ask the Minister of Labour a question? Did the government undertake to provide in southwestern Ontario a number of prisoners of war necessary to plant, till and harvest a sugar beet crop of 35,000 acres? If so, have these prisoners of war been made available to the sugar beet growers of the area?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is no.



BRITISH COLUMBIA BERRY CROP-PROVISION OF CONTAINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to ask whichever minister is responsible what steps have been taken to provide crates, hallocks and barrels to save the current British Columbia berry crop.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend can solve the loggers' strike in British Columbia, they will get all the crates, barrels and other things they need.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the minister will take my advicp it will be solved to-night.


Humphrey Mitchell: This fellow is a wizard, Mr. Speaker. He is wasting his time as a member of this house at $6,000 a year. My
advice to him is to go to Washington and give Mr. Truman a hand. If he has an answer, what I would call a rational answer, you understand, which will solve the problem^ in British Columbia, I shall be glad to see him as soon as the orders of the day are-, finished.



STRIKE OF BARTENDERS IN ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
' On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Before1 the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
I did not give him notice, because I received a telegram concerning the matter after I came1 into the house. I do not ask this question to be amusing, but has he been made aware that the bartenders of Alberta are going on strike because of their dissatisfaction with the order of the regional war labour board?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to. look into that minor national emergency. I had some knowledge that the bartenders of Alberta were going on strike, but I hope that will be settled within a few days.
COAL	.
miners' and railway workers' strike in u.s.-
SUPPLY SITUATION IN CANADA On the orders of the day:


Clarence Decatur Howe: On May 8 I made a statement to the house on the coal situation and pointed out that unless the production of bituminous coal was resumed in the United States in the near future the Canadian position would be most serious.
Since that time, the miners have agreed to-resume work for a truce period of two weeks, a period which expires to-morrow. In spite of the truce, many of the mines, and particularly those in Pennsylvania which supply large tonnages to Canada, did not resume production. The United States government took over the mines on Thursday, but no information is available as to what effect this action will have on the future production of coal.
lesterday, as the house is aware, strike-action by a section of the United States railway employees paralysed the whole rail transportation system of the United States. This action will result in a complete stoppage of coal production in the United States mines, and will also prevent the delivery of any coal that is at present en route to Canada. The implications of this action are so far-reaching that it is impossible-to make any forecast of the effect upon our coal position, except to
Coal-Supply Situation

say that it makes a bad situation very much worse. The whole problem is at present being most carefully reviewed, and I shall advise the house later of the action considered neces-sarj' to give the greatest possible protection to our industry and people.
I believe the house should be informed of the situation facing this country before the railway strike occurred. The truce in the coal fields, unfortunately, caused soma Canadian consumers to believe that our troubles were over, but the facts of the case did not give any basis for such optimism.
Last year Canada imported some 2.979,000 tons of United States bituminous coal in the seven weeks from April 1 to May 19. In the same seven weeks this year our imports have been 710.000 tons, a straight loss of 2.200.000.. or ten per cent of our estimated needs. That. Mr. Speaker, was the position as at May 19, but it was by no means the whole story. By the end of June, when, if work had continued in the United States mines, coal should have become freely available, our deficiency as against last year would have risen to almost five and one-half million tons, or one-quarter of our estimated requirements of bituminous coal in the central provinces. The point I would, emphasize is that we were facing this *deficiency -under the best of circumstances, *that is, the maintenance of full production.
During the summer months the vessels in 'the -great lakes are usually employed to capa-*city in carrying coal, and the loss of some .three months of navigation forms a handicap that, can never be fully recovered. It was planned to use the rail facilities to the utmost, but even here there was a very definite limit and it did appear that at the end of the twelvemonth period, at March 31 next year, we would only have received from eighteen to nineteen million tons to supply a requirement of approximately twenty-two million tons.
That, Mr. Speaker, was the basis for present orders restricting the consumption of coal. There are many consumers throughout the country who are well aware of the danger, and see clearly that five weeks' production of coal cannot be lost without serious effect. These consumers, of their own volition, have taken every possible step to conserve their dwindling supply. There are also the heedless and careless who will not see, and this government would be failing in its duty if it neglected to take such steps by order as are necessary to protect both the welfare of our citizens and the operation of our industries.
I must advise the house that a new directive will be issued requiring suppliers of coal in the central provinces to maintain sufficient stock to protect the requirements of those conI Mr. Howe.]
sumers such as hospitals, public utilities, food processing plants, et cetera, whose continuing operation is essential to the health and safety of the country.
This order also sets up a scheme of priorities on the delivery of any coal, over and above that necessary to protect the previously mentioned essential requirements. Other orders will probably be necessary in the near future, and I shall endeavour to keep the house fully informed on any prospective action.
Every possible step is being taken to use our Canadian coal resources to the practical limit, to maintain industry in operation. At the present time, practically all the available surplus of bituminous coal in both eastern and western Canada is being directed to the central provinces, and consideration is being given to the possibility of supplying some quantities of the sub-bituminous and other fuels.
I would appeal to both the miners and the management in our Canadian coal industry to put forth their utmost effort to increase production, and provide some measure of relief and protection to their fellow citizens.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that unless the production and transportation of coal is resumed in the United States in the near future, the central provinces of Canada are threatened with nothing less than a calamity, and that our people and our industry may be faced with hardship and distress on a scale never experienced during the war years.
These remarks refer to the supply of bituminous or soft coal for use by industry and other large consumers, and I now turn to the supply of other coals for domestic heating.
Anthracite has been entering the country in about the same volume as last year but, even if supply is maintained at this level, there will not be enough anthracite to supply the requirements. Negotiations on the renewal of the present labour contract are under way in the United States between the miners' union and the operators. This contract expires on May 31, and notice has been served by the union that work will cease at that date if a satisfactory contract is not signed. Regardless of possible strike action our supplies of anthracite have, of course, been stopped by the railway strike, and even if this strike is settled in the near future, the dislocation in normal rail traffic will prevent full supply for some time. A definite possibility of a stoppage of production is a threat of extending into future weeks or months.
Some action had already been taken to maintain the supply of suitable fuel for domestic purposes by retaining the government coke

Coal-Supply Situation
plant at Hamilton in operation. Since this and other coke plants in Ontario and Quebec use United States bituminous coal to a major extent, it will not be possible to count upon full production until bituminous coal is again available. Canadian coal is being directed to some coke plants to maintain operations on a reduced scale and prevent damage to the ovens, and this movement will be increased to the limit of the supply available.
I would advise the house that this phase of the coal problem dealing with the supply of domestic coal, which directly affects the health and welfare of every citizen, is a matter of the deepest concern. It may well be that, even with the most drastic action on the part of government, the individual consumer will have to reduce his fuel consumption in the coming winter. As soon as the situation in the United States is clarified I propose to advise the house in detail of the action taken and proposed by government to meet the serious emergency that we will have to face.


Gordon Graydon: In the preparation of the statement which has just been given, the minister must have refreshed his memory as to the amount of coal that we import each year from the United States. That is important to the question I desire to ask. Does the minister happen to have the figure in his mind at the moment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About twenty-two million tons of bituminous, and I think some two or three million tons of anthracite.


Gordon Graydon: The purpose of my question is to give information to the ordinary laymen of Canada who do not know much about the technical aspects of the coal problem. They should like to know why we import so much coal from the United States, and then, in an emergency such as this, find that our own coalfields are perhaps able to produce the coal. In spite of that we are importing from the other side. This is a simple question which has been put to me and to many other members of the house, and will now come up more acutely than ever before and I should like some answer from the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The capacity of the mines in Canada to produce, even at low points of consumption by industry, has never been stepped up to such an extent that Canadian production could take care of anything like the full requirements of this country. As my hon. friend knows, the coal of Canada is on the east coast, in Nova Scotia, and in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Arrangements have been in effect for many years subsidizing freight rates into the central areas, so that it has been possible to ship Nova Scotia and
Alberta coal to the central provinces, as far as the laid-down cost of the commodity is concerned. Nova Scotia and Alberta coal has been placed on a competitive basis with United States coal, but still our production in Canada is now something less than forty per cent of our total requirements, and only last winter quantities of American coal were shipped as far east as Truro, Nova Scotia. In other words, for the last few years the maritime provinces have hardly supplied their own re-quirments for coal. The western mines have supplied the needs of the prairies, apd have shipped a certain amount of coal to central Canada, but even under the conditions of full production that have obtained for the last several years the additional supplies from the prairies have filled the needs of only a small part of the market in the central provinces.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Has the minister considered the possibility of increasing the strip mining in southern Saskatchewan with a view to supplying the prairie area in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and releasing the coal ordinarily used in that area for shipment to eastern Canada? Has that been considered?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Special arrangements have been made to increase the quantities coming from the strip mines in Saskatchewan. Again it is largely a matter of available equipment. We expect another five hundred thousand -tons from the south Saskatchewan area to help out the situation this winter. All the strip operations sponsored by the government during the war in the prairie provinces are now in operation, and every effort has been made to get coal from all available sources.


Mr. GILLIS:: Following the minister's
answer to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). I take it he is not suggesting that we are now fully exploiting our coal resources in Canada. I think I am safe in saying that if those resources were properly developed we could supply at least seventy per cent of our own requirements.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would certainly appreciate anything my hon. friend could do to help me fully develop them, because for the last four years I have been putting all possible pressure on our coal mining areas to get coal for our Canadian market, yet during that period the importation of coal from the United States has almost doubled.


Clarence Gillis: That is on the operating industry only, but a large part of our resources have not been touched.


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the minister say if there is any anthracite produced in Canada?
Coal-Supply Situation


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister spoke of getting coal to operate these coking plants. Where do you get that coking coal in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot give my hon. friend the individual mines. I could give him the information on Monday. Our experts have found that certain western mines do produce coal suitable for the particular process at a particular plant. Each coking plant uses a little different process, and coal can be found in western Canada to suit all the plants.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: A certain
tonnage of coal and coke has come from Nova Scotia, though it is true some of it is mixed with United States coal.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Hon. members will admit that I have allowed a good deal of latitude in asking questions on this matter of coal, in spite of the fact that most of the questions were out of order. Questions of this kind should not be asked on the orders of the day.	_



USE OF BIENFA1T MINES TO ASSIST IN MEETING SHORTAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: May I answer a question which was asked by the hon. member for Assin-iboia (Mr. McCullough). The hon. member asked whether or not plans were being made to utilize to the fullest extent possible the coal mines in the Bienfait area. I might say that the maximum production possible from this field will not be sufficient to meet deficiencies in the prairie markets, Tt is estimated that possibly 1-8 million tons of coal may be produced during the current year, but this is predicated upon the resumption of production by one of the larger operators. This in turn depends upon the ability of that operator to get back into production by early winter, after a disastrous fire which destroyed the tipple at that particular mine. The answer to the question is that we are doing our best.



PRICE CEILING POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO FARM PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie that the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mrs. Strum.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: When the house rose last evening, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing two amendments to the motion to go into supply. I was dealing with what I regard as the growing inequity to farmers arising from the government's administration of its price and wage policies. I had explained to the house that the amendment deals with two points: first, the depressing effect of the government's recent administration of its price and wage control policies on the production of food; and second, what I regard as the growing inequity being forced upon farmers by allowing increases in their costs of production without corresponding increases in the prices of their products.
With respect to the first matter, namely the effect on the production of food, I had endeavoured to show three things: first, that agricultural production, which increased year by year during the war, up to 1944, since that time had been decreasing; second, that agricultural production was decreasing more rapidly at the present time than during similar months in either of the last two years; third, that while that decrease was partly due to the weather, over which we have no control, it was also partly due to the policies of the government, over which it has full control.
With respect to the second question, namely that of the growing inequity to the rural population, I was about to attempt to show three things: First, that farm costs were being allowed to rise; second, that farm prices were not being allowed to rise accordingly, and, third-and the result of the other two-there is a growing inequity, to the disadvantage of the rural population. I think that is a fair statement of the argument respecting this part of. the main amendment.
What is the evidence with respect to increases in farm costs and no compensating increases in farm prices? I propose to recite three or four sets of facts. Let me turn first to the increases which have been allowed in price ceilings on non-farm products. Many of these were outlined by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) and by some other hon. members; therefore I shall not review them in detail. But to state a few: A 124 per cent increase in the ceiling price of farm machinery; a 16 to 20 per cent increase in certain types of bedding and upholstered furniture; 4 cents per quart increase in the price of Barbados molasses; increases ranging from less than 5 per cent to 10 per cent in finished paper and paper products; a suspension in the ceilings on a number of less essential converted paper products; increases approximating 85 per ton on steel ingots, and the resulting

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
increases in large numbers of products of which steel is the raw material; an 8 per cent increase in the wholesale price of lumber; an increase in the ceiling on gasoline in western Canada of two cents per gallon.
I place these on record only to illustrate whaT is being done that increases the cost of production to the farmers. In addition to that, the government's policy to subsidize production is now being changed. The wartime prices and trade board have indicated that in
1945	they paid $107 million in subsidies; in
1946	they expect it will be about $99 million, and the estimate for the next year is that it will be between $60 and $75 million, or a reduction of from $30 million to $40 million in those subsidies.
Another set of facts which illustrates to farmers these costs is found in the increase in wholesale prices. That index has been rising every month since September of last year; and, what is more, the rate of increase is becoming greater.
Since September the annual rate of increase each month has been as follows: October, November and December of last year, at a rate of 2-3 per cent per year; January, 8-3 per cent; February 7-1 per cent. Then, while in March there is a drop to 3-5 per cent, in April there- is an estimated increase to approximately 11 per cent. In other words for the past three months the rate of increase in wholesale prices is close to the average rate of increase from January to October 1941, before the price ceiling policy was instituted. When we consider the numerous examples of black market activities and the loss in quality of goods, the present rate of increase in wholesal price levels is probably nearly as much as it was just before the price ceiling policy began. In other words, we no longer have a stabilized price ceiling policy, because the government itself has broken it.
Another set of facts has to do with the increases in farm costs. Here again we take our statistics from government departments. Prices of agricultural products were unfair at the beginning of the war, to the extent of 20 per cent. When this policy was established it attempted to freeze the prices of farm products at a point 20 per cent below parity. Through constant pressure on the government some price ceilings have been raised from time to time, but generally speaking those changes came too late.
We need not go into the many changes which were made from them until 1943. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that by 1943 a reasonably acceptable relationship between the prices of farm products and the cost of
equipment required on the farms had been achieved. The point I make Is that, with the exception of two or three recent and minor changes, the majority of these farm products ceilings and subsidies have been constant for two or three years. They have been relatively constant, with the exception of these minor changes, but at the same time farm costs have been going up.
To what extent have those costs been going up? The index of the cost of things farmers buy stood in 1943 at 102-8, while today it is estimated to be 110-8, or an increase of approximately 8 per cent.
I might mention here that farm labour costs have more than doubled what they were in 1939, and they are 40 per cent more than in 1943, when this relationship for agriculture was established. If that relationship was approximately .fair in 1943, then it is definitely out of line to-day because costs have risen to a greater extent than have ^prices.
That is the point I wish to make, namely that this policy has discouraged production and that it is creating an inequity that this house ought not to allow, an inequity which affects a great section of the rural population. Another evidence of this fact is to be found in the small increases introduced by the government since this motion appeared on the order paper. It will be sufficient to men- ' tion only a few of them: The removal of the two per cent consumer subsidy on milk; the proposed removal in September of the producer subsidy of 55 cents per 100 pounds; the temporary increase from 35 cents to 55 cents per hundred until September; the in- . crease of four cents a pound on butter; an increase on hogs; an increase of 10 cents a hundred just the other day on milk entering into the production of cheese; and an increase of 8 cents a hundred on milk used in the production of concentrated milk products Those are the minor increases that have been given to this great industry, while costs all along the line have been going up. That, together with the fear in the farmers' minds that later on prices are not going to be so good, is the reason for the abandonment of farms in this and' other parts of Ontario. It is causing the farmer to say, "If we cannot make a little more out of this than we put into it, we will slow up until conditions get better." With farm labour difficult to get, with farm labour higher in price, with only about one out of five of the boys who left the farms during the war to go into munition work at high pay coming back, with farmers growing older and finding these difficult labour conditions to face, not having the same patriotic impulse to produce that they had during the
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

war, many are not now feeling the necessity of putting their shoulders into it as they did. and the result is decreased production.
What the farmers are afraid of to-day is the return of conditions similar to what they have had to face in the past. What were those conditions? Let me take one product as an example, because it is easy to state-the history of the price of wheat. In the depth' of the depression they received forty cents per bushel, the lowest figure in four hundred years. A few years later they received sixty cents per bushel. When some of us tried to get that raised to eighty cents we succeeded only to the extent of having it raised to seventy cents. The initial price went up to only ninety cents per bushel during the first two or three years of the war, and then in 1943 it was raised to $1.25. There was something from participation certificates to go on top of that.
I contend that we should try to retain at least as good as the recent relationship because it was considered to be relatively fair on the basis of what some people have chosen to call parity, which in some respects is not a fair or wholly acceptable relationship. Farmers are afraid of even that relationship being departed from, and so am I. That is why this amendment has been moved. In this connection I should like to read what was said by a gentleman who is now president of the organization which is trying to relieve famine in much of the world. The Minister of Agriculture met him in New York. I am not suggesting that we should have the same prices or the same wages that they have in the United States. We can have satisfactory conditions here if we have a right relationship between farm prices and wages. I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of May 22, 1946, as follows:
Criticism of low prices paid to Canadian farmers for their products was expressed by UNRRA Director F. H. LaGuardia at the united nations food and agriculture conference yesterday.
He said nations cannot get away with "squeezing their farmers" any more. Farmers must be able to earn decent incomes if nations are to prosper because farmers are industry's best customers.
President Roosevelt understood this, and obtained legislation ensuring parity between agriculture and labour. This, however, has had a great bearing on Canada, resulting in disparities which must be adjusted.
Later Mr. LaGuardia explained to this bureau that the low prices of Canadian agricultural products are a constant threat to farmers in the United States, who fear they will be undersold in their own markets.
I have here also a report issued by the bureau of agricultural economics, United States Department of Agriculture, in which is

given the relative position of agriculture today in their economy. Taking the period prior to the last war as a basis of arriving at what they call the parity ratio, the index for 1945 is given as 116, with the present day figure being a little above that. That is what that nation has done for its agricultural industry. There has been some criticism over the fact that the agricultural organizations over there have been able to maintain a relatively better position for agriculture in their economy than what they regard as parity. I am not suggesting anything of the kind here. We want to get real parity, and we want to keep it and not let things drop back to where they were before.
Much has been said in this debate about the desirability of stabilized farm prices. The government has said it is trying to stabilize the situation and not let it get out of control. Speaker after speaker has said that we want stabilized farm prices. That all sounds very good, but it does not mean quite as much as it seems to. It is not only stabilized prices the farmer wants; it is a stabilized net income. If we stabilize farm prices and let farm costs go up, that will be the best way I know of to bring about the bankruptcy of our farmers.
It is somewhat comparable to the position of the wage earner. What he needs is not so much a higher hourly rate of pay, but a higher annual income. What he needs is not so much a stabilized hourly wage as a wage related to the cost of living. What agriculture needs is not only stabilized prices but prices that bear a right relationship to costs, particularly when they are increasing.
What are the facts with respect to this matter? The government has allowed its wage control policy to be broken time after time. I am not saying this by way of criticism at the moment, but it has happened. It has allowed the price ceilings to be broken in ways that have been outlined here by different speakers. In defence it has pointed to the danger of inflation, which is a real danger. But even while it points to the danger of inflation it continues to practice policies which increase that danger. Nor am I at the moment criticizing those policies; I am simply pointing to the fact that they do increase the danger. What are some of these government policies?
Samples of these inflationary policies are deficit financing to the extent of $2,500 million a year; large foreign loans; reduction in consumer subsidies; the elimination of certain import subsidies, and high, or if I may be allowed to say so, in some cases extravagant, government expenditures. All this has created

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
a backlog of purchasing power which is bound to break out somewhere and is breaking out in the form of the black markets that we have to-day. There is a growing lack of respect for law, which in turn has created the need of an army of agents to try to enforce the law. All these are difficulties with which the government has to deal. What is the answer? What are some of the evidences of this backlog of purchasing power?
Let me mention a few. The average monthly deposits in banks in 1939 were $2,600 million; now they are $5,700 million. The increase in savings accounts of $5,000 or less from 1940 to 1944 has been over $600 million. Bank deposits and currency in 1939 were S224 per capita; they are now $458. Notes in the hands of the public in February, 1946, were five times as great as in the pre-war period. The total of war bonds purchased amounts to over $12,000 million. This represents withdrawals as future purchasing power equal to one and one-third times the entire national income for last year. It is this backlog of purchasing power which is sure to break out somewhere and which is the cause of the black market we have now-the worst black market, in my judgment, this nation has ever had.
AVhat is the antidote? The government tries to hold the line. One antidote is to increase production of the products in short supply, the products *which the people want, and, particularly in time of war, the production of food. The best way to encourage the production of food is to give some incentive to provide more food rather than to withdraw some of the incentives we have had. We must give the farmers a square deal: that is the whole contention of this amendment.
With respect to the subamendment, it is a legitimate subject of discussion, but, I suggest, not at th.e expense of discarding altogether the amendment with respect to the effect of the government's policy on food production. With parts of the subamendment I agree. It is unjustifiable to increase farmers' costs without increasing their prices. Whether it is justifiable to increase the prices of steel and farm machinery on some other grounds is a question which I expect the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) to deal with. It has already been discussed by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew), perhaps by others. To the extent the government can show that the cost of labour or of materials entering into the production of these things makes these increases necessary, all those who believe in giving enterprise a fair deal will have to support the government's position. The government has made a pretty good defence. It has outlined how much thp 'ost of labour
entering into the production of steel and farm machinery has increased. I do not remember exactly the figures, but I believe it was indicated that the increase is much more than * the increase which has been granted these industries. So far as those who are associated with me are concerned, if the government can justify those increases on the grounds I have mentioned we shall have no alternative but to support the government in this particular respect, because we cannot stand for a fair deal for the farmers alone and for labour alone, and deny fair treatment to those who invest their money in industries which produce needed goods and provide needed employment. If the government is too generous to these concerns, we shall vote against them; so long as they are only fair to industry, we shall support them, and I look forward to hearing what the Acting Prime Minister has to say on the matter.
As regards my own amendment, I believe the meaning is .plain even though the wording may not be quite so clear as some think it should be. If the government's policy is discouraging the production of food in a time of famine, or even if it is failing to encourage the production of more food in times like these, the amendment deserves support. If the government's recent administration of the price ceiling and other control policies- and I am criticizing recent administration, not so much the administration prior to the last six months-is putting farmers in a less favourable position, the amendment should be supported; and to the extent that it is supported it will be a guide and in some degree an instruction to the government to increase farm prices at least to the same extent that it increases farm costs.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Seaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) having raised questions to which I think this group should reply, I have now decided to say a few words.
I am not going to read the amendment and the subamendment: they have been read several times, and I think the house is fully conversant with them. They deal with price ceilings and the stabilization of prices.
In this very difficult time-that is, since the war began-I have tried to appreciate the position of the government. Perhaps I have succeeded in appreciating it too much. I have refrained from criticism unless I could fully justify that criticism. I have even been accused even from the government side of supporting the government too much. However,
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

I am not concerned about these things; I do not mind being misunderstood by others so long as I understand myself.
We have been dealing, as I said, with the government's stabilization policies. The leader of the opposition, just before he sat down, made in my opinion a most revealing statement: he said that he had been satisfied with the government's prices policy until quite recent months. I had not thought that that was so, but I take his word for it. Why is he not satisfied with it now? I will tell you why: because the clamour for the removal of controls which has come from his side of the house, and from the government side too, and from big business in this country, has compelled the government to remove controls when removal of controls was not justified, and every time you allowed prices to rise in one place you created an inequity in some other place. The leader of the opposition nods his head in assent. That is the position we are in. This group has not been advocating the removal of all controls, which would only perpetuate the difficulties and increase the inequities we have, and which, as the leader of the opposition pointed out, the farmers had during the depression years and the workers had during that same period. Those who are advocating at this stage the removal of controls and the return to the old economy are merely deluding themselves. We cannot return to the conditions of the past any more than a chick can return into the shell once it has come out of it.
The leader of the opposition last night criticized the government for the delay in proceeding with the debate on this motion, and referred to the date on which he had moved his amendment-May 6. The government has delayed the debate much longer than that, because on April 9, when a motion was made to go into supply, the leader of this group raised the question first, of the government's practice-and this is something that the official opposition should have done-of delaying the moving of the motion to go into supply until about five minutes or even two minutes to eleven, thus preventing the members of the house from taking advantage of that motion and using it for the purpose for which it was incorporated in our rules of procedure. It was intended to give the members of the opposition, who are most likely to make use of it, the opportunity to bring up grievances before supply is granted. So that from April 9 until May 6 the government prevented this motion from coming up, and consequently prevented this discussion from taking place. The leader of this group was ready to proceed with

his motion, but the leader of the opposition, being in the most advantageous position, got the eye of the Speaker.


John Bracken: Perhaps the hon. member wfill permit me to say that if this debate arose earlier than five minutes to eleven, on a certain day, he may not know but I know that the leader of the opposition was responsible for it.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know what deals the leader of the opposition may have had with the government. We did not have any.


John Bracken: We did not have any deal, but I protested against the procedure of going into supply at five minutes to eleven.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: On a point of order-


Angus MacInnis: We beat the hon. gentleman to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The leader of the opposition saw me at six o'clock on that afternoon, before adjournment; he asked what was the business at eight o'clock, and I said supply, and he immediately got up and moved the amendment at eight o'clock.


Mr. COLDWELL:: It was understood the week before that we would go into supply early.


Angus MacInnis: I want to refer to a few things the leader of the opposition said. Speaking in the house last night he made this statement-Hansard, page 1843:
Mr. Speaker any amendment moved to a government motion, the speech from the throne or the budget or supply is of course a lack of confidence motion. In that connection I may say that this motion was not moved with any expectation of dislodging the government or in any attempt to do so. It was moved with the intention of bringing before the house and the government and the country two major questions of public policy, which I think are very important and, with all respect, very clear in the amend

 ment that I moved.
If the only purpose of the hon. gentleman was to bring these questions to the attention of the house, I think the usual procedure is to withdraw the amendments after debate has taken place and allow the house to go into supply. I am only pointing out to the leader of the opposition the logic of his own argument. A certain trend has been evident all through the speeches of my hon. friends to the right. Later the leader of the opposition said-Hansard, page 1846:
I have no objection in the world to the C.C.F. bringing forward a motion such as this and discussing it on its merits. Are these increases in the prices of farm machinery and steel unjustified? On one ground I would agree that they are. They are unjustified in so far as they increase farmers' costs without increasing farmers' prices. On other grounds I leave it to the government to bring forward evidence to show

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
that these increases were justified. It may be they can do so. I imagine they have that evidence, or they would not have put the increases into effect.
It is amazing what faith the leader of the opposition has in the government when the government is dealing with big business, and how little faith he has in the government when .the government is dealing with agriculture or perhaps-although it was not mentioned-dealing with labour. The hon. gentleman chidedl us last night. He said: What would farmers say of people who framed an amendment which suggests that food producers are not workers? We never suggested that food producers are not workers. What we did was what he did this afternoon. He spoke of farmers and he spoke of industrial workers. We used those terms in the general sense in which they are employed in common usage. Now if the government increases the price of steel and farm implements and other factors which increase the cost of production for the farmer, we maintain that the farmer should have an increase in his prices, provided his prices were previously just and reasonable on the basis on which he was producing. But, if the farmer receives an increase in the price of farm products, that increase will raise the cost of living to industrial workers, and the lower the wage or salary the greater the increase will be. That is so because the worker spends a greater proportion of his wage or salary on food than the highest paid workers. The person receiving $700 a year, and having a wife and family to support, spends a greater proportion of the $700 on food than the person receiving $1,500 or $2,500 does. Therefore immediately you increase the cost of food you lower the standard of living of the low-income industrial workers. It is for that reason we say

and I have insisted on this all along-that the stabilization of prices has always been carried on the backs, or on the stomachs, of the low-paid workers of Canada.
The inference in the speeches made by the hon. members to my right would lead one to believe, if he did not know the difference, that we were debating a motion of want of confidence in the C.C.F. and not in the government. Last night the leader of the opposition said, as reported at page 1847 of Hansard:
I may say to the house that at no time except the last three years has agriculture had anything like a square deal at any time since the last wrar.
That is some admission. But during that period we had Conservative governments and Liberal governments. During the whole of that period, on the admission of the leader of
the opposition, farmers did1 not get a square deal. Just before that the leader of the opposition said-I am reading these in reverse-


Mr. IRVINE:: That makes them logical.


Angus MacInnis: That is correct. The leader of the opposition said:
About three years ago that condition was changed. I shall not go into the question of why. Perhaps rising world prices helped. An hon. member of the C.C.F. has said it was because of victories by their candidates in the west. But I have sometimes had the notion it was because in December of 1942 the official opposition took a stand for a square deal for all agriculture, as a start to raise the price of wheat from ninety cents to $1.25-which was done by the government the very next year.
The obvious question to ask at that point is why the opposition delayed so long in taking action for a square deal to the farmer. I will tell you why they have delayed so long. We will go back to beyond December 1942, when they chose my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as leader, and changed the party's name from "Conservative" to "Progressive Conservative", by the way, a contradiction in terms. In 1941 they chose a new leader in the railway committee room of this building. He was not a farmer but a leader of big business in this country. When he tried to get a seat in this house he was defeated and a C.C.F. candidate was elected in York South.


Gordon Graydon: He did not last long.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Where is he now?


Angus MacInnis: That is quite all right; the world is young.


Gordon Graydon: It would need to be for him.


Angus MacInnis: You fellows are going and we are coming.


James Arthur Ross: You have a long way to come.


Angus MacInnis: If there are any congratulations on the change in policy of the Progressive Conservatives as regards farmers, and on the election of a new leader, they should go to this group and to no one else.


Arthur Leroy Smith: State the facts and let it go at that.


Gordon Graydon: You and the Liberals were together on that. '


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Fight it out over there; neither of you have a chance.


Angus MacInnis: That remark was not made with as much confidence as it used to be, either.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Gordon Graydon: They are just playing around the cemetery over there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are in the middle of it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who said this was the twenty-fourth of May?


Angus MacInnis: I said that the trend that ran through the whole of the arguments of the Progressive Conservatives in this debate was that the Progressive Conservatives alone are interested in the farmer. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) took up the refrain. He said, as reported at page 1783 of Hansard:


James Arthur Ross: Which session?


Angus MacInnis: This session; Wednesday of this week. He said:
I think it can be safely said from the statement made by the minister to-day that the farmers are going to get more than $1.55 a bushel for their wheat. When that happens let it be perfectly clear that it was not my hon. friends to the left, the C.C.F. party, that mobilized opinion in this country; it was the leader of the opposition who throughout the last year has been endeavouring to secure a fair and reasonable share of the national income for Canadian farmers.
Just before that the hon. member for Lake Centre, in a voice husky with emotion, was telling the house of the need for increased production because of the terrible conditions in the countries of Europe; the very next moment he was chuckling with glee, not because we were going to feed the starving peoples of Europe but because the Progressive Conservative party was to get the credit from the 'farmers for the increase that the government was to allow in farm products. Well, may I tell my hon. friends that I am willing to let them have the credit, because they need a lot of it to balance the debit that the farmers of Canada have against them.


James Arthur Ross: What does the hon. member know about the farmers?


Angus MacInnis: What do-I know about the farmers? I was farming before you were born.
Just a few days before that, I think on Tuesday, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) paid the house the honour of a visit, and he put on a 1911 speech-making exhibition. This is what he had to say, as reported at page 1744 of Hansard:
I speak as a member of a party that is recognized in Canada to-day as being the farmers' party. We have not a farmer as our leader simply because he is a farmer; we have him as our leader because we represent the farmer's viewpoint in Canada.


James Arthur Ross: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: Say "hear, hear" after I finish reading this. I have a little office worker, and I put her to work to find out the Progressive Conservatives who represent the farmers in this house. I took the numbers of the Progressive Conservative members in the various provinces, and this is what I found. From British Columbia there are five Progressive Conservatives, not one farmer. From Alberta there are two Progressive Conservatives, one farmer-teacher. From Saskatchewan there is one Progressive Conservative, a lawyer, and I am told a good one. From Manitoba there are two Progressive Conservatives, one farmer, and the leader of the opposition. From Ontario there are forty-eight Progressive Conservatives, fifteen farmers, ten of whom are plain farmers and five hyphenated farmers. From Quebec there is one Progressive Conservative, a lawyer. From Nova Scotia there are two Progressive Conservatives, manufacturers. From New Brunswick there are three Progressive Conservatives, one farmer. From Prince Edward Island one Progressive Conservative, a fur farmer.


James Arthur Ross: How many C.C.F. in that province?


Angus MacInnis: Just look over here and count the farmers for yourself.


James Arthur Ross: From Ontario?


Angus MacInnis: I counted them. Then if you go to the provincial legislatures you get the same picture. In British Columbia, you know, we really have no Progressive Conservatives and, for that matter, no Liberals.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend mentioned a hyphenated farmer. What is that?


Angus MacInnis: That is a farmer-manufacturer, a farmer-business man, a farmer-contractor, a farmer-lumberman, or someone of the kind. In British Columbia there are thirteen listed as Progressive Conservatives, but in my province we call them coalitionists. There is not one farmer among them. In Alberta there are no Progressive Conservatives listed. In Saskatchewan there have been no Conservatives, either progressive or reactionary, for ever so many years. In Manitoba there are thirteen Progressive Conservatives listed, of whom two are farmers. Well, a party with a record like that surely should be careful before it comes on the floor of this house and says it alone is representing the farmers.


Gordon Graydon: We want to hear about the Ontario C.C.F.


Angus MacInnis: Don't worry; you will hear plenty about the Ontario C.CF.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order. I would ask hon. members to keep order. It is not very courteous to keep interrupting the hon. gentleman, and it is definitely against the rules.


Gordon Graydon: But he is not counting the C.C.F. in Ontario.


Angus MacInnis: I do not mind the interruptions.


James Arthur Ross: Your figures are not accurate.


Angus MacInnis: 
Humphrey Mitchell: Where do you get the figure of 90 cents an hour for bricklayers?


Angus MacInnis: These figures all have to do with the steel industry.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought they were paid rather more than that, that is all. To finish the story, give us a comparison between the congressman in the United States and the member of parliament in Canada.


Angus MacInnis: I have not the figures, but my idea is that they are both overpaid.
I should like now to refer briefly to the conditions which are likely to confront the farmer in the near future, as the leader of the opposition has very well pointed out. We have to be consistent. This amendment asks for the removal of all controls on farm prices. If these controls are removed, the farmer will be able to get the high prices paid in the world market.


John Bracken: The amendment does not ask for the removal of all farm controls.


Angus MacInnis: The amendment does not limit what it asks for.


James Arthur Ross: Read it.


Angus MacInnis: I have read it. The amendment does not mean only what is contained in the wording of it; it covers what has been said by my hon. friends all during this session. On another occasion the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) said something which the other members of his party spent some considerable time trying to cover up. He said the price of eggs might go to $1 a dozen and added, "Let it go." Well, that is the attitude behind these things.


James Arthur Ross: He never said that.


Angus MacInnis: Well, it may have been butter; but I think he also referred to eggs.


James Arthur Ross: Of course my farmer friend may not know the difference between butter and eggs.


Angus MacInnis: There are many new members in all sections of the house, and I suggest to them that in these difficult times through which we are passing they should get and read the report of the royal commission on price spreads in 1935. I am going to read a few very short paragraphs, the first on page 5:
The depression has, furthermore, demonstrated that the strong and the organized are attaining an ever-increasing position of dominance in our economic life; that economic power is becoming concentrated. With this concentration, old theories of economic control are proving inadequate.
Last evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that we could not leave the law of supply and demand out of our calculations. The law of supply and demand is more and more going out of our calculations; and no matter how great the resistance may be, we are more and more coming into a controlled and planned economy. As a matter of fact that situation is so clear to all who care to see that it is no longer a question
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

whether we are going to have capitalism or collectivism. The question is what kind of collectivism we are going to have.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is only one kind.


Angus MacInnis: That is what the hon.
member says, but I do not agree with that. Indeed, the future would be hopeless, would be dark indeed, if there were nothing confronting us except the regimentation of totalitarianism or the destroying effect of a restrictive economy. And that is what capitalism is. I do submit there is something else. I quote the following from page 6.
Fundamentally, the problems which confronted the commission are those of a transitional economy in which simple competition still prevailed in some parts, monopoly had succeeded it in others, and monopolistic or imperfect competition characterized the rest.
I submit that since 1935 that trend has gone a long way in our economy; we are much more under the control of monopoly to-day than we ever were before.


An hon. MEMBER:: Government monopoly.


Angus MacInnis: In Canada, as everywhere else where the government has had to come into the picture, it has come in to protect the people from irresponsible private monopoly. That has been the story throughout the world. Again, reading from page 7:
This urge to increase sales without serious price reduction is often the explanation of the intensified competition which breeds unethical practices. It is the fierceness of the struggle, not any unusual depravity in the men concerned, which leads to the adoption of such practices. No one business man can afford to follow the dictates of his conscience and refuse to conform. If he did he would be eliminated.
That is what you have in the present system. It is a struggle far survival, not of the fittest but of the slickest and the most ruthless. Then, on another page I find this:
It is, furthermore, a tragic delusion that the solution for these economic problems can be left to automatic forces, because the conditions which once permitted the easy and equitable operation of such forces have ceased to exist.
And then one last quotation:
From 1929 to 1933 farm prices fell 50 per cent but the production of farm crops actually increased four per cent. This is "simple competition" with flexible prices. On the other hand, the prices of agricultural machinery and implements were allowed to fall less than 7 per cent-
That is 7 per cent as compared with 50 per cent.

but their production in number of phj'sical units decreased as much as 91 per cent. This is "imperfect competition" or monopoly, with rigid prices.
In the face of that let me repeat, the trend in the direction of monopoly has not diminrMr. Maclnnis.]
ished; it has increased. What should we do? The other day the leader of this group asked the Minister of Labour if the government would call together representatives of businesses, of farmers and of industrial workers in an attempt to iron out some of our economic difficulties. The minister replied that he did not believe in conferences. Well, for a member of a government which does not believe in conferences, we take part in a great many.
I believe we shall have to find some other purpose, some other objective, in place of the one we lost at the conclusion of the war. Last night the leader of the opposition mentioned cost-plus contracts, and other means that were taken to speed production. I think we can do something better than that to-day. I believe we can i appeal to men on a basis higher than that of mere personal gain. But before we do so we shall have to give farmers and workers the assurance that if they work hard and produce in abundance, the mere existence of that abundance is not going to be the cause of their undoing. That is something we have never been able to do.
I have faith in my fellowmen. I believe that we can appeal to them, and that motives other than those of personal gain will move them. I am willing to make an appeal to the country now on that basis. As a matter of fact it is being done in Great Britain to-day.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.
Mr. MacINNIS1: I wonder if I might make one further comment.


Humphrey Mitchell: Go on.


Angus MacInnis: The country, the government and the people as a whole are facing difficult times. We should do everything we can to bring together all the factors engaged in production in this country. As I said before, we should try to place the picture before them so that they may see the need for greater production, and so that in the days ahead we may not lose the things for which young Canadians died.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I listened to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) who spoke very briefly-about an hour and a half. Then I listened to the leader of the C.C.F. from British Columbia, who spoke for fifty-two minutes. As I understand the leader of the oppostion, he believes in lifting all ceilings on farm prices. I entirely disagree with that. Then, as I say, I listened for fifty-two minutes to my good friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and I still

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
do not understand what he means when he talks about ceiling prices, nor do I understand the subamendment moved by his party.
My only reason for speaking is to justify my own stand, and the position I shall take in the vote. When I was elected I told my constituents that if I thought the government was wrong in a matter of policy I would vote against it. But I also told them if it was a straight vote of want of confidence I would vote with the government-and on this occasion I intend to do that.
I am even more convinced that I should vote with the government, after listening to hon. members opposite. What would happen in Canada if the leader of the opposition were to lift all price ceilings? What would happen to the people if this government were put out and the party led by the leader of the opposition were to take its place?


Mr. MacNICOL:: There would be great progress in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know what name the Progressive Conservative party would use, if it were in power, or under what leader it would be.
I speak briefly this afternoon, one of my reasons being that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) refused to take my advice. I speak to him-in a most kindly way, of course. When I spoke to him before he made a flippant answer on a matter of vital importance not only to British Columbia, but to all the people of Canada, and after listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) we realize that it is a matter of importance to the people of the whole world. What we need most .in the world to-day is foodstuffs. In British Columbia, in my district and the district of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), we are being faced with the necessity of dumping fruits because we are not able to obtain the crates, hallocks and barrels needed for the fruit now being grown. The reasons are different from those given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Apparently my services are in demand, because I got the following note,-not from the Minister of Labour:
The Minister of Labour will see you now, and immediately you have settled the timber strike President Truman will see you in the White House.
I do not know who sent me that note. I enjoyed my last trip to Washington and I should be glad to go down again. I suggest to my hon. friend that we have plenty of troubles of our own to settle; let the United States look after theirs. I am not going to go into the timber situation to-day, in deference
to my friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), who is acting as leader of the government. I understand he wants to have this debate brought to a close and a vote taken before six o'clock; therefore I shall be brief. But I intend to have something to say about the timber situation on Monday. I have a solution to offer to the Minister of Labour with which I think the hon. member for Vancouver East will agree.


Humphrey Mitchell: Why wait until Monday?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not want to take up too much time to-day, but I think I will take a full forty-two minutes on Monday. To-day I want to justify my stand in connection with ceilings. To the best of my knowledge I am the only member who insisted on the ceiling being taken off the prices of strawberries and raspberries. That may seem strange action on the part of a member who disapproves the removal of ceilings from all farm products, but small fruits are in an entirely different category, since they are perishable. I approached the wartime prices and trade board and asked that the announcement of the removal of this ceiling be made by April 1 in order that the producers in the Fraser valley could order the necessary crates, hallocks and barrels for S02 berries and other fruits. Replying to a question asked by an hon. member on the other side, the Minister of Finance said that we could not expect an industrial firm to produce at a loss. I do not know how the wartime prices and trade board can justify the stand they took in expecting the farmer to produce at a loss. Before these farmers could order the necessary crates, hallocks and barrels, they had to know whether the ceiling would be taken off, but that announcement was not made until much later. I am not going to weary the house with the dates, but that was released on the same day that I was given permission to release the information. The result is that these producers have not the necessary crates, hallocks and barrels for S02 berries and other fruits. Some soArtion must be arrived at, and on Monday I hope to suggest a solution to the Minister of Labour so far as British Columbia is concerned.
Unless a solution is arrived at it will be necessary to dump these fruits instead of their being preserved to be sent to the people of starving Europe. I blame this situation on the officials of the wartime prices and trade board. As I said before, there is no practical agricultural man on that board. I was not given permission to release this information earlier because they said it .would work to the detriment of the producers in being able to make
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

a deal with the manufacturers of these supplies. I replied, "Who knows best, the producers' association or some clerk?" I will not use language such as that used by an hon. gentleman the other night, but the fact is that some of these clerks down at the wartime prices and trade board have not and never had any knowledge of small fruits. As I have said before, the sooner we put agriculture back into the hands of the Department of Agriculture, the better it will be for the producer and the consumer.
I should like to refer briefly to milk. I think the dairy producers in British Columbia will agree with me when I say that I think the government made a mistake in establishing a consumer subsidy of two cents a quart. At that time the people were prosperous; our workers were getting high wages, but now we have unemployment, our veterans are coming home from overseas, and this subsidy is to be taken off. I do not agree with the leader of the opposition that all ceiling prices should be taken off, because if that were done, things would be worse for the farmer. If a policy of subsidy payments is put into effect, then that policy should be continued while ceilings are on, and at a proper level.
I do not think the federation of agriculture will agree that the increase from twenty to thirty cents on cheese is sufficient, and the same observation would apply to the increase on milk from fifteen to twenty-three cents. I understand that a final decision has not been reached on this matter, that it is still open, and I would urge that the producers' representatives be called in and consulted. I do not want to take up any more time because as I tell my friend the Minister of Labour, I intend to take up forty-two minutes if I am permitted on Monday to explain exactly how the lumber strike in British Columbia can be settled.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Cruickshank) has warned/ us about what he is going to do on Monday so that w7e do not necessarily have to be here. I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words on this matter. I understand it is hoped that ,the debate will be concluded before the house rises at six.
I shall endeavour to complete in a very few minutes what I want to say.
In the first place I am opposed to the removal of price ceilings at this time because I believe in price control1. I believe that unquestionably the object of the amendment under discussion is to remove those controls. The action taken by the government has given
[.Mr. Cruickshank.]
some excuse to the opposition to come to parliament and) demand that changes be made. Increases have been permitted in commodities such as steel, oil and farm implements.
The Conservative party, with "Progressive" tacked on, has moved this amendment:
This house is of the opinion that the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm products are discouraging production of needed food and imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.
To me that means only one thing-the intention to remove all price controls from agricultural products. If that was not what the opposition meant, then they should have said this:
This house is of the opinion that the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm machinery are discouraging production of needed food and imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.
That would have made it quite clear that what the opposition wanted to do was to increase farm prices to equal the increase in the production cost occasioned by the increase in the prices of farm implements.


John Bracken: That was the intention of the amendment.


William Irvine: If that was the intention of the amendment, then I think it was ambiguously worded. I do not question the word of my hon. friend, and I have no doubt that was his intention, but it is unfortunate he failed to convey his intention to those whom he is leading.
In the course of his speech the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was asked this direct question by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley):	"Is it not the
announced policy of the Progressive party to remove the ceiling from prices of farm products?"


Mr. ILSLEY:: "Progressive Conservative
party."


William Irvine: What did I say?


James Lorimer Ilsley: "Progressive".


William Irvine: Well, "progressively" Conservative party. Perhaps I had better quote Hansard, page 1785:
Mr. Ilsley: Is it not the announced policy of the Progressive Conservative party to remove the ceiling from prices of farm products?
That was the question of the Minister of Finance. The reply of the hon. member for Lake Centre was this:
Mr. Diefenbaker: There is no argument about that.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
That is settled so far as our party is concerned; that is beyond all cavil. "I am . speaking", says he, "about the entire ceiling." We do not want to remove the entire ceiling, we just want to remove the ceiling on the price of farm products. That in effect is the statement of one of the most effective debaters and supporters of the bon. gentleman who moved this amendment. So I think it is unfortunate that, while his intention was, as he says, to achieve something far different from that which is stated in the amendment, his party following was not informed of the fact.
The government started all this fuss by permitting the increase of prices on steel and, particularly, on farm implements. The government has told us that careful investigation was made and that it was discovered that sufficient profits could not be made by those industries unless this increase was given. I pointed out when we were discussing that particular increase, and others have said pretty much the same thing, that an increase of price of one commodity would go right down through the whole economy of the state. Already that is beginning to be felt. Farmers, wage earners and people on fixed incomes will be particularly affected by the alteration of any important commodity price. Although I believe in price control, while I am not saying there should be no alteration in it at any time for the purpose of maintaining the balance-everybody understands that that is implied in price control-I suggest that before the government granted an increase of prices to the industries I have mentioned they should have caused a survey to be taken of the wage earners' incomes and standards of living as compared with, say, the standards of living of those who are running the implement manufacturing business and the manufacturers of steel.
I am not going to quote figures at this time, but those who have studied this question will admit that the average income of the wage earners and the farmers of this country is far below that which has been found to be necessary to provide a reasonably decent standard of living. If anyone disputes that statement I would refer him to Doctor Marsh's report, which was published not very long ago, and I think it will be also agreed that since the publication of his report standards of living have not risen but have rather been lowered;, because prices have risen where wages have "not been correspondingly increased. Even without the increase which was granted to manufacturers of agricultural implements these people would stand a far better chance of making a very good profit than the average
working man and the average farmer of Canada stands to make a fair living. Now that the increase has been granted of "bourse the fat is in the fire; we shall have to go on increasing prices and wages until we meet ourselves coming back like the hon. member who has recently left the chamber, who spoke yesterday and who goes round in circles so much.
I would not like to be a party to the removal of price control. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition means only one thing, the removal of price control. I want, if possible, to use my vote in such a way as to increase farm prices and wages to equal the increases already made in other commodities which enter into their costs of living and of production, but I want at the same time to support adequate price control. What the government should have done, rather than increase prices, was to take over the manufacture of farm implements, or alternatively to make it possible for the agricultural industry to get control of this manufacturing industry on a cooperative basis and produce its own implements at cost. I do not believe that the industry as it now stands is producing sufficient implements to meet the needs of agriculture. When these things happened during the war the government knew what to do and stepped in and did it. It produced the goods and won the war. Now it is charged with winning the peace. We need goods now in peace time just as badly as we did during the war, and the government is hoping by raising these prices a little to do the job, without recognizing that its action imposes a tremendous burden on the great masses of the people. I suggest then that instead of having done this they should have taken over the industry and operated it as a government institution, and then if there was a loss it would be borne by all the people of Canada rather than be placed upon the backs of agriculture. Better still, I think, it should have taken the advice of the agriculture committee in its report as contained in the journals of the house for 1937:
34. That the companies themselves-
Speaking of the implement companies.
-should make every effort to reduce these costs or farmers should be encouraged to organize for the cooperative distribution and servicing of farm implements.
I hope that the government wall take notice of that suggestion and also remember that it is not merely my suggestion but the recommendation of a committee of this house, and will make it possible for the industry to be financed for the farmers and placed in their hands, in order that they may be per-
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

mitted to have control, to some extent at least, of some of the costs which enter into their production. If the controls were all removed from farm prices, as has been suggested specifically by hon. members speaking for the Progressive Conservative party, it would commit agriculture to the mercy of open market operations. We have a long experience of that, and the farmers have not been satisfied with it.
Every member in this house knows that when the farmer was on the free private enterprise basis he had no chance because he happened to be. the one man in the country who was not able to make his own prices, to add costs and profit to the price of his commodities, and the only organization that can make prices for the farmer is the government. The government for the past few years has been making prices for the farmer, and during that period the farmers have been better off than perhaps they have ever been in their history. That is now being forgotten. The government itself is weakening somewhat on the question of the control of prices.
In the old days the Conservatives and Liberals did the same thing, though they professed to believe differently. We all know what happened in the old days of the tariff debates. The Conservatives wanted to raise the tariff and the Liberals did not want it raised, but the Liberals usually did the raising and the Conservatives lowered it. Now the Conservatives openly wish to remove price ceilings, while the Liberals say they want to have the ceilings still there, and yet they proceed to remove them. That is the position as I see it.
It may be popular to advocate the removal of farm price ceilings at the moment. While there is no doubt that if the controls were removed, the price of wheat and prices of [DOT]other farm products would rise rapidly for a time, in the long-range view that would be a disastrous policy to follow. Incidentally, it is being adopted by the government itself jnwittingly. But just as surely as other commodity prices have been raised, so surely will the farmers demand an increase and there will be no excuse for not giving it to them. It will have to be given; the same will be true of labour, .and those of us who try to hold on to price controls will have to throw in our lot with the underdog in demanding a corresponding rise in his income.
I wish to maintain price controls. I want wages and farm incomes increased so that the standard of living of those people will be equal to that of the manufacturers who received 12J per cent increase. The official opposition, as has been noted already, made their chief attack on the C.C F. Particularly was the
fMr. Irvine.]
hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) unfair when he attacked the leader of the C.C.F. in the following words, as reported at page 1781 of Hansard:
It is far from my wish to contravene the rules of the house, and therefore I will put it this way. The view of the leader of the C.C.F., very clearly expressed on different occasions, has been that the C.C.F. party supports the government in its stand that there'shall be no increase in the prices of farm products in this country.
I challenge the hon. gentleman to find a single sentence in any speech ever delivered by the leader of my party or by anyone else in that party which would justify any such statement.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: If the hon. member will permit me I will read the section.


William Irvine: I should like to hear it.


John George Diefenbaker: At page 319 of Hansard I quote the following:
Mr. Coldwell: I am rising because I want to make it very clear that we are not joining them in the propaganda to get rid of all price controls including the controls on the prices of farm produce.


Major James William Coldwell: Now read the next sentence.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well:
In order to show that I am not saying this only this afternoon I should like to refer to the speech I made in this house on March 18.
And so on.


William Irvine: Go on.


Major James William Coldwell: I know what I said. I did not leave it there.


John George Diefenbaker: I was asked to produce the proof.


William Irvine: Of course. Now go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, at this particular point a definite statement was made by the hon. gentleman, the leader of the C.C.F. party, and while he certainly stated differently to-day, those are his words at page 319.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman will find that in the next sentence or two I suggested that price adjustments might be necessary and that all parties concerned should be called in in order to make those adjustments equitable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


William Irvine: I think I have afforded hon. gentlemen a good deal of my time. I knew perfectly well, when I threw out the challenge, that the hon. gentleman could not sustain his position. Even if we take the words

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
which he has read, that does not say anything of the sort he suggests; it does not mean anything of the sort; and when he drew the inference he did, it was absolutely unfair. I do not know whether I should say it was deliberate or not. I hope not; I have great respect for the hon. gentleman and I do not think he would be deliberately unfair.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the challenge, I should also like to read what the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentle3r) said.


James Horace King: I would point out to the hon. gentleman that when a member has the floor he should not be interrupted without his permission.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that what you say is correct, but the hon. gentleman challenged me to point to particular paragraphs, and naturally, being challenged, I should be permitted to point out that the hon. member for Swift Current made his position perfectly clear at page 867 of Hansard when he used these words:
As was pointed out by .the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of this group, we have supported the government's policy of control, even though there has been some discontent in rural constituencies of the west, as expressed to us in letters. We supported the price ceiling of $1.55 for wheat on the ground of our belief that it was necessary for the reconstruction of the world, for the feeding of its peoples, and to make it possible for Great Britain and other countries to have sufficient agricultural products without suffering too heavily the penalties of war.


Major James William Coldwell: Read the next sentence.


John George Diefenbaker: To continue:
If the present increase in farm implements is allowed to continue, any support I have given to a programme of that kind will have to be withdrawn, and I shall have to join forces with those who are demanding a substantial increase in the price of farm products.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This discussion is entirely irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, but it exemplifies the complete confusion in which both the Progressive Conservative and the C.C.F. parties find themselves.


William Irvine: Now the Minister of Veterans Affairs apparently himself is confused. In reference to this alleged proof that we have been given, I suggest that the hon. gentleman has proved that what I said is absolutely true. Not a single word of what he read would justify the statement which he made. I suggest, sir, that the attack was centred on this party because it has been outspoken in favour of a planned economy and control of prices.
The opposition are not so much afraid of the
government maintaining controls; but they would be very much afraid if the C.C.F. got into power, because they know that we would stand for planned economy, and so they centred their attack on us. Then they say that they are the party of the farmers. That is really an amusing statement, coming as it does from the Conservative party. I am afraid that it needs more than the Progressive appendage to guarantee that. One of the ve#y principles of conservatism is that there are certain things that always remain the same-particularly the Conservative party. That being so, it has a long history which accounts for what it is now. It can never be other than what it is. It cannot cut itself away from its past. It is very much like this; I am not saying it with any implications at all to any hon. member or to anybody in this house. You can call a donkey "Bessie", but it would not shorten its ears or weaken its kick or make it a little bit more human than it was before. You can call the Conservative party "progressive", but the Conservative party can never get away from its past. Its whole history has been not that it was the friend of the farmers, but the very reverse. The entire policy advocated by the Conservative party and shouldered on the people of Canada ever since confederation, the policy of tariffs shows that it is anti-farmer. That is the history of the Conservative party, and they will not be able to get away with calling themselves a farmers' party until they have done something, and not merely talked about stopping someone else from doing something.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am perfectly aware that the house wishes to take a vote this afternoon, and I shall try to say what I have to say within the limit of five minutes, but I will not guarantee it.
I might point out that for the last few minutes we have heard a great deal of abuse of this party because of the stand it has taken, a stand in favour of criticizing the government for its present policy of price control, for one reason, namely, because the world is faced with famine. However much hon. members may care to disagree with the method we advocate of combating that condition, I submit they cannot question the fact that we are sincere. We advocate it because we want to produce food. We say that controls were imposed previously to impede production. We now advocate the removal of the price ceiling on farm products in order to increase production to prevent famine.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

The last few speeches of the C.C.F. group all attacked the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, I realize, is quite capable of taking care of himself, but he is precluded from speaking again in. this debate. In the few remarks I have to make I wish to put on the record statements made by a great C.C.F. authority which I think bon. members will agree is entirely at variance with what they have been saying this afternoon. I shall not go into details of what the hon. members of the C.C.F. party have said, but I would just remind the house that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) criticized the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) for advocating the removal of price ceilings. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) made a violent attack on the hon. member for Lake Centre because he said that the hon. member for Lake Centre accused the leader of the C.C.F. party of not favouring an increase in farm prices, and yet the hon. member for Cariboo said-and I took down his words -"I am opposed to the removal of price ceilings." Then again he said: "To remove farm price ceilings would be a disastrous policy in the long run." If that is not a policy in favour of the maintenance of the present price ceilings on agriculture, I am at a loss to understand the meaning of the words.
In the introduction to his remarks last night, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) used words to this effect, that he had stood solidly behind the proposition that the price ceilings must be maintained. That is the stand which we are attacking, and when we find it echoed by the members of the C.C.F. party we join in attacks on them as well as on the government.
I have said that I wanted to place on the record a statement by a high authority of the C.C.F. party which is entirely at variance with the stand taken by this party in this house this afternoon and on other occasions. Before I do so, may I say that last night I was glad to hear the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. McCullough) coupling the name of this authority with the name of the leader of the party in this house as authorities. The words to which I refer are taken from the Ottawa Evening Journal of April 25, and were spoken by an authority of the C.C.F.


Major James William Coldwell: Name him please.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He said:
If the dominion government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who is he?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps hon. members will allow me to read the words first; then they [Mr Fulton.]
may not be so anxious to know who the authority is, but I shall be glad to tell them. I continue:	.
If the dominion government were to make a full-scale retreat from the price ceilings, rather than backing away from them piecemeal, it wouldn't be so bad.
If the lid were taken off altogether, farm produce would quickly find its own price level.
Hon. members of the C.C.F. party have been asking who the authority is. The authority, Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Thomas Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan. He said this in an interview with the Journal on April 25.


Major James William Coldwell: Why pick out two
sentences?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point I would make is that Mr. Douglas is the premier of a province and the leader of a government. He has knowledge of the problems of government. Therefore Mr. Douglas has to face realities, and is much more inclined to speak realities than the members of the party to my left.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before I speak in the debate, may I say that it might meet the convenience of the house if we tried to finish up some time between six and seven o'clock. After these divisions take place it will be necessary for me to ask the house for interim supply, and I am sure that not all of that can be done- although I do not intend to make a lengthy speech-before six o'clock. I am afraid that I cannot finish my speech and procure interim supply in the next half hour. Notes have been sent to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and to the other parties, and I understand they have no objection. With the consent of the house, if I can get it, I move:
That Mr. Speaker shall not leave the chair at six o'clock to-day.
The intention would be not to sit to-night if we go past six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: We have had a long debate on the amendment of the leader of the opposition, which reads as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm products are discouraging production of needed food and imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.
Also the amendment to the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum):
This house is of the opinion that the government's policies of permitting recent unjustifiable

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
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.
There has been much attack and crossattack between the members of the Progressive Conservative party and the members of the C.C.F., and naturally there has been much attack upon the government by the members of both parties. This afternoon I should like to speak rather seriously, and without attempting to reply to attacks, of a political character at least, that have been made upon the government, but in defence of the government's price stabilization policy. Most of the speeches in this debate have been against the government, though there have been some excellent speeches from this side of the house in defence of the policies we are following.
We instituted the price ceiling policy in the fall of 1941, and continued that policy with great rigidity until recently in respect of everything except farm prices and wages, and perhaps fish and products of that kind. The figures I used in speaking to the house in a previous debate on farm implement prices indicate that the treatment which was accorded between 1941 and 1946 to what is called industry was entirely different from the treatment accorded to the primary producers and the wage-earners of this country. The number of wage increases that have been allowed; the extent of the wage increase that have been allowed; the number of price rises and subsidy payments which have been used to increase the returns to primary producers, have been very extensive and very great. I put some of those figures on record when I spoke to the house on that other occasion. The net result of the figures is that the level of farm prices in Canada, including subsidies, has risen 44 per cent since the basic period in the fall of 1941, not including the wheat participation certificates which would add several more units per cent. But with regard to the great range of commodities in this country, the price ceiling has been rigidly maintained. I believe that was the right policy to follow. It was a policy followed in the face of great pressure and much opposition; nevertheless it was a policy which by ingenuity and firmness we were able to follow during those years without putting people out of business.
When I say there was rigidity, there was not complete rigidity. There were price increases, some of them on unimportant products and some on more important products, during the years. But we finally came to the time when more flexibility had to be introduced. Conditions changed to such an extent, with the disappearance of war business and when the cumulative effect of wage and price increases, which entered into costs, began to be felt, that it was entirely unreasonable to expect certain industrial producers to carry on, because they would be obliged to carry on at a loss. I understand that the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party-and I am not speaking technically now; I am not speaking to the language of the amendment-has been made abundantly clear in this debate, as well as outside this house; and I believe that the policy of the Progressive Conservative party is the complete removal of ceilings on the prices of farm products. Am I correct?


John Bracken: May I comment there?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: I may say to the Acting Prime Minister that, while that is the objective of the party, it is not a part of this resolution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is exactly what I said. That is the objective of the party and the policy of the party:	the immediate removal
of all ceilings on farm products. Of course, if that policy were put into effect all ceilings would go almost immediately.


John Bracken: With all respect, the minister is not speaking of this resolution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I do not think we can take a legalistic view of the resolution, though I think the leader of the opposition did.


John Bracken: Just take a realistic view of what the amendment actually says.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The policy is clear, and it has been reiterated in this debate. Apart altogether from the resolution, I wish to point out to the house and to the people of Canada the disastrous consequences of implementing a policy calling for the complete removal of the ceiling on prices of farm products. Then the cost of living at once takes a great rise, with this condition of world shortage and national shortage in so many foods. When that rise in the cost of living takes place the effect on wages is immediate and violent. The effect on prices of manufactured goods is immediate and violent, leading at once to further increases in wages and further increases in prices of farm products. So that the policy of this government is not the removal of the ceilings on all farm products. It is the control of prices of farm products, which we will try to operate as fairly as possible in a period of very great difficulty.
If it had been possible for us to refrain from making any changes whatever in wages, in prices of industrial products and in prices of
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

farm products, despite the rigidity of that position it would have been perhaps the easiest to take. But, as I say, you come to a place in this operation when war industry disappears; when the effects of all these increases in prices through the years begin to take sharp effect; when you have to make adjustments upward, and then we enter into the most difficult phase of price control operations. As I understand the position of the C.C.F., in theory it is not very much different from the position of the government in regard to price control, with one or two qualifications.


William Irvine: Improvements.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot agree that they are improvements. In the early part of the debate, when I listened to the leader of the C.CE., I thought that he was in favour of continuing rigidity; that if you back up here, you must back up somewhere else, so that we,should not back up at all. I thought that was the position. But, of course, after some prodding from members of the Progressive Conservative party, the C.C.F. speakers were driven to the point of saying that they would like to see some prices go up, that there had to be an orderly upward ' adjustment of prices, and so on, but that it must be done on what was called a scientific basis.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that on March 27. I have my speech before me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then I am wrong in my interpretation of the attitude which I thought was the initial attitude of C.C.F. speakers in the debate. It will be understood that I am not trying to make political gain against them; I am just trying to clarify the situation. In theory, their position is not very different from that of the government with regard to this matter. They say that there must be other adjustments, and that the process, while a very difficult one to operate equitably, is a process which must go on.
But if I understand the speeches which C.C.F. members have made I do think this- and it is not a point which has been made very clear in the debate-that they believe in permanent price control. That is, they believe that it is not something which we should go out of, but rather that it is something incidental to a planned economy, that if we do not have permanent price control certain parts of the community will suffer and that therefore we should institute a permanent policy of price control.
That is constitutionally impossible, whether it is economically possible, or not. Having had some experience with provincial premiers, I know perfectly well it would be impossible

to get an amendment to the constitution which would permit our embarking upon a policy of indefinite price control. Holding the views I do, I do not think it would be economically justifiable. I know, from the experience I have had as the minister under whom the wartime prices and trade board operates, it is just agony of the most acute kind, where we go from a period of war; during which a great many people say to the government, "Whatever you say we will do, because we are at war", to a period when each man is aggressively asserting his own individuality. I know it is just about impossible for any central authority to exercise any logical and consistent price control over a long period of time.
Therefore the government has announced a policy of progressive decontrol, and in recent months some of the ceilings have been taken off entirely. Usually in a case where an apparent balance has been struck between demand and supply, or a position has been arrived at which appears to be reasonably permanent, the government, in such instances, has taken ceilings off entirely. In other cases the ceilings have been adjusted.
The amendments of both the C.C.F. and the Progressive Conservative party condemn the government for having been unfair to agriculture, either in its policy or in its administration of policies. I cannot admit that that has been so. I can say to the house that certainly we tried not to be unfair to agriculture. One can understand that when the government is putting ceilings on this, that and the other thing, endless arguments can be developed as to whether one is fair or not. People in this world have a habit of seeing things their own way, and opinions differ as to what is fair to oneself. But, by the ordinary tests that can be applied, I suggest that the administration of our stabilization policy has been fair to agriculture.
For one thing, one might take the difference between the relationship of prices of farm products in 1945 and prices of fully and chiefly manufactured goods. I have before me a chart which I believe would be of interest to the house. That chart shows that the relationship of prices of farm products to prices of manufactured goods in 1945 was more favourable to the farmer than in any other year in the past fifty-six years, with the exception of one year, 1917, during the first world war. That is to say, the price level of farm products is farther above the price level of fully and chiefly manufactured goods than it has ever been since 1890 with, as I say, the exception of the year 1917. If we take the test of parity, again I would say that everyone

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
has a different definition. However, let us take the period 1926-29 as the basis of parity, a period which apparently is regarded as being a favourable one for the
farmers, and which is usually referred to as the basis of parity. Official figures from the bureau of statistics show that in March, 1946, the average wholesale prices of Canadian farm products was six per cent higher than the average of 1926-29, and that is without making any allowance for wheat participation payments. I am informed that if wheat participation payments were added, instead of being six per cent the figure would be something like ten per cent. Over the same period the official index of prices of commodities and services, including labour used by the farmers had, according to the bureau of statistics, increased by seven per cent. That is, the actual level of farm prices is slightly higher to-day than in 1926-29, and the relationship between prices of goods farmers sell, and prices of goods and services farmers buy is almost identical with that which prevailed in the former period of prosperity, the advantage being in favour of the farm prices. I have taken this period because it is the one frequently quoted in respect of parity.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) rather confirmed what I am saying on this point. He said-and very fairly, I thought -that up until six months ago, for the period up to and before that for some time, the relationship was reasonably satisfactory between farm prices and other prices.


John Bracken: Oh, well, only for the last three years.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, for the last three years, since 1943.


John Bracken: And on this technical definition of parity, which I do not accept.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At any rate, what the leader of the opposition said then, and what he says now confirms what I am saying. But he bases his arguments upon developments in the last few months. I have not had an opportunity of examining the figures which he gave with regard to the movement of wholesale or farm prices since that time, because those figures were used for the first time this afternoon. But the figures which he gave show that there had been an irregular movement of wholesale prices which, on balance, is upward. I suppose those were the wholesale prices of fully and chiefly manufactured goods and that is why there had been an irregular movement.


John Bracken: It was regular except for one month.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It went up; it went down; then it went up and it is higher than it was.


John Bracken: It started at 2-3 and went to 11.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I still submit that what I say is correct, that there has been an irregular upward movement during the last few months. The leader of the opposition also gave the increases in farm prices during the last few months. He gave quite a list of the adjustments that have been made and one would have to see how those compared-


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would not it be just as well to let me finish? You have no idea how much I have listened to this week.


John Bracken: I am listening to you and I would not have the Acting Prime Minister say that these recent increases amounted to very much.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We shall never get anywhere if we are going to argue every little point. The leader of the opposition is basing his whole argument, not upon the price stabilization policy, not upon what has happened year after year and year after year, but upon what has happened in the last two or three months, since the first of the year. I have to take these figures and see whether they amount to anything. I have to balance the adjustment in farm prices against these others, and I have to see what is the trend and what are the prospects of there being further irregularities in these movements.
I am not putting forward these arguments with a view to saying that the price relationship is perfect or anything like that. I am not saying that total farm- cash income while very high by any standards is too high. All I am saying is that we are confronted, with an amendment, and I want hon. members, on this side of the house particularly, to understand that our price policy is being attacked vigorously by both oppositions in this house and that the administration of that price policy is being attacked vigorously by all oppositions in this house. It is being attacked on the ground that the administration has disregarded the farmer and has been unfair to agriculture.


An hon. MEMBER:: And to the worker.


James Lorimer Ilsley: From the C.C.F., "the
worker". It is said that it has been unfair to the farmer and the worker, but the official opposition has contended mainly for the farmer. I am saying that when you apply some of these tests that are about the most valid tests that you can apply it will be seen



BEVIBH EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Price Ceiling-Farm Products
that the government through the wartime prices and trade board, and the government itself by its subsidy policy, has tried very hard and has succeeded reasonably well in maintaining a relationship which, on the whole, is favourable to agriculture.
Of course one of the main items of attack in this debate has been the attack on the price adjustment which was authorized for agricultural implements. There has been a large amount of discussion on that and it will be hard to answer some of the things that have been said. It will be impossible for me to answer them fully because a large number of speeches have been made and quite technical arguments have been advanced. I have already said a great deal of what I propose to say now about these adjustments.
To begin with, what was done by the wartime prices and trade board? One obvious thing should be pointed out, that the wartime prices and trade board did not order up these prices. All the wartime prices and trade board did was to say that if the companies put them up, they could not put them up more than 12% per cent at retail. It was not a case of putting up these prices; it was a case of saying that they could put them up only so much.
An hon. MEMBER:: That was plenty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just let me talk now. I am not very good at repartee and it throws me off if there are too many interruptions. I should like to go along without any interruption. When I spoke to this house before, I said that I had confidence in the price-fixing agency we have in this country. During the debate this week I have heard one speaker after another attack the wartime prices and trade board on one ground and another, and upon my word one would have thought that we had in Canada . a price control agency that was a bad one, that was something we should be ashamed of.
I am only saying what people everywhere are saying, and perhaps it is going a little too far for me to assert dogmaticallw that we have the best price control agency in the world. Compared with any price control agency that one hears about in any other country, the price control agency in the Dominion of Canada is recognized within this country and out of this country as being as conscientious, as competent, as resolute and as efficient as any body could be. I must shout that if necessary to the people and to this house because it is true that the price control agency we have in this country is a good price control agency.


Mr. REID:: That cannot be refuted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a little hard for me to take these attacks upon Mr. Gordon. It is within the privileges of hon. members to make them, but it is within my right to defend the wartime prices and trade board, and I hereby do so to the utmost of my ability. The wartime prices and trade board did not act speedily or hastily in this matter. They received applications from the implement companies as early as January for an increase in prices on the ground that with the loss of their war business, with the smaller volume that they would have thereby and with the increases in costs-some of them substantial- they were getting to a place in 1946 when it would be virtually impossible for them to do business if they were not permitted to advance their prices.
They advanced figures, but some of the critics have said that those were merely figures given by the companies and they would not be convinced anyway, that they ought to be investigated. Those figures were investigated as far as it was practical for an official agency to investigate figures. After a protracted investigation, the wartime prices and trade board came to the conclusion that ceilings should be lifted to this extent if we were to have production in this country this year. The production of agricultural implements in this country this year is very important.


Major James William Coldwell: Did the wartime prices and trade board know of the stock bonus that was given to the officials?


James Lorimer Ilsley: further increase in the price of farm implements although several had already been granted in the intervening period.
In consequence, it is clear that the companies will find it difficult to achieve the level of earnings which the board regarded as reasonable when it authorized the 124 per cent price adjustment on Canadian-made implements sold in Canada.
On the question of increases in costs, we have had a lot of interesting speeches. 'It was pointed out first by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that when I said that wages in this industry had increased 284 Per cent, factory overhead had increased 23 per cent and the cost of materials had increased 20 per cent, I was not saying anything very important, because those percentages applied to only a small part of the retail price, and that the figure of percentage of direct labour employed in the manufacture of implements was given as very small. It is small in the farm implement industry. But direct labour is only part of the labour which enters into the cost of implements. The item of factory overhead, if I remember correctly, includes 70 per cent labour-what they call indirect labour-and while it is not a logical or a valid deduction to say that, because wages have gone up 284 per cent, or in the case of Massey-Harris, 33 per cent, according to the figures I gave the house before, they can reasonably expect the cost of their implements to go up that much;, while that must be conceded, nevertheless there is a substantial increase in over-all costs after allowing for the reduction in selling costs. The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue) seemed to assume that there had been a 40 per cent reduction of selling costs since 1941. There has been only a 20 per cent reduction of selling costs since 1941; and 40 per cent reduction has been since the 1936-39 period, and if the hon- gentleman will look at the speech of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), he will see that that is the case.


Mr. ARGUE:: I would not wish to interrupt the minister, but I did not assume that it was from 1941 to 1945; I took the statement of the parliamentary assistant that it was a 40 per cent reduction from 1936.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thought on reading the hon. gentleman's speech that he did assume as I said, but if he did not, well and good.
I asked the wartime prices and trade board to go over the matter of increase in costs and arrive at' a figure of increased costs of production of these implements as a whole, not of any particular implement; and after going into the matter very carefully they have advised me that the actual net increase in

total costs as a percentage of the retail price has been approximately 15 per cent since 1941.
The hon. member for Wood Mountain got a considerably lower figure than that, but the figure arrived at by the wartime prices and trade board is an increase in total costs as a percentage of the retail price of approximately 15 per cent.
But that is only part of the story. Since then, the earnings of the companies have been adversely affected by the cancellation of war contracts. Indeed, because of the removal of war business, their total sales volume will be smaller in 1946 than in 1945. Some of the facilities used for war production are not suit-*able for the manufacture of implements and, in addition, shortages of materials are limiting the extent of expansion in implement output. The price adjustment which was authorized was based on all the relevant considerations, not on the position concerning one implement or group of implements or type of business. Costs were carefully examined. Estimated volume was studied. The proportion of export business was considered. All these factors and others entered into the decision. I cannot say that the increase on a given particular implement is the exact amount which theoretically might have beeij applied on that implement. The board simply could not have adjusted prices in that sort of detail. It had to look at the over-all position and to make the smallest practicable adjustment that was appropriate to the over-all position. That is precisely what the board did.
As I said at the beginning, we did not want to do this. We knew it was not exactly the sort of action that was calculated to add popularity to the government-increasing the price of farm implements. But one has to be fair about these matters. One has to be fair to industry as well as to agriculture. We cannot say that we are the party of any particular section of the community, as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said the other night. We have to look at the situation from the point of view of the people as a, whole, and we must therefore be fair to agriculture, to labour and also to business.
I am satisfied that this adjustment which was made was fair, that it was necessary, unless we were to treat the agricultural implement industry, just because it was the agricultural implement industry, on a basis different from that on which we treat all other industries.
I do not think I have very much more to say. As I said at the opening of my remarks, I have no apologies whatever to make for the wartime prices and trade board, and the work that it has done for this country since it

Price Ceiling-Farm, Products
was set up at the beginning of the war. I repeat, I have no apologies to offer for it to-day.	. .	, . ,
We cannot take the position, which the Progressive Conservative party is taking, that we must remove at once all ceilings from prices of agricultural products, because in a very few weeks that" would bring ruin to the whole population of Canada. That is an irresponsible position to take.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not what the resolution says.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Their resolution does not say that, but everyone else says it. If I understand the position of the C.C.F. party, I cannot share their view that we should not decontrol, that we should go on permanently as we are. Wb cannot do that constitutionally, nor do I think it would be practical from an economic point of view. I do not for one moment admit their position; I assert the very contrary. I assert that in this particular instance of agricultural implements we have acted with great care, with fairness and with moderation and have authorized an increase which was no more than was necessary to make it possible and probable that we should get the maximum production of agricultural implements in 1946.	-


Mr. HLYNKA:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. ISNOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. LEGER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the^ amendment.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Barrett). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. JACQUES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Cloutier). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. CHARLTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Healy). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. DANIEL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. McDonald). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. MENARY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamead-ment.


James Horace King: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. LOW:: Before, the vote is taken, Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to put a specific question to the leader of the opposition?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: I am sorry; I do not think I can do that.


Solon Earl Low: I did not speak to the motion, and unfortunately I had to be out of the house for a short time this afternoon.


James Horace King: If the hon. gentleman wants to put a question on the amendment which is before the house, he may do so.


Solon Earl Low: That is what I wish to do. In the light of the exchanges that took place between the Minister of Finance (Mr Ilsley) and the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken) this afternoon, I should like to ask whether the leader of the opposition means by his amendment the immediate and complete removal of ceiling prices on farm products. If that is the purpose of his amendment it would make a difference in the way I voted. If it is not; if it means exactly what the words ' say, then of course I must govern myself in another way.


John Bracken: If I may be permitted to answer, Mr. Speaker, I think our position was made clear to the Acting Prime Minister. This resolution means exactly what it says, and nothing more. It means a square deal for agriculture.
The house divided on. the amendment (Mr. Bracken) which was negatived on the following division:
Archibald
Argue
Bentley
Blackmore
Blair
Boucher
Bowerman
Bryce
Burton
Campbell
Castleden
Coldwell
Diefenbaker
Fair
Graydon
Jaenicke
Knight
Kuhl
Low
McCuaig 
YEAS Messrs:
McCullough (Assini-boia)
Maclnnis
McKay
McLure
McMaster
Matthews (Kootenay East)
Moore
Quelcli
* v .Smith (Calgary West) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stirling
Thatcher
Townley-Smith
Tustin
Wright
Wylie
Zaplitny-37
Arsenault Baker
Bertrand (Prescott)
Boivin
Bradette
Brunelle
Cote (Verdun)
Cruiekshank
Dechene
Denis
Dionne (Beauce) Douglas Emmerson Farquhar Fontaine Fournier (Hull) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gibson (Comox-Alberni)
Glen
Golding
Gourd (Chapleau)
Grant
Howe
Ilsley
Jutras
Lafontaine
Langlois
Laurendeau
Little
++NAYS
Messrs:
McCann
McCulloch (Pictou) McGarry Mcllraith Mclvor Mackenzie MacKinnon MacLean Marquis Maybank May hew Mitchell Mutch Nixon Reid
Richard (Ottawa East)
St. Laurent Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Sinnott
Stuart (Charlotte) Tremblay Tucker Viau Warren Weir Winkler Winters-56

(The list of pairs whips).
Beaudoin
Beaudry
Bertrand (Laurier) Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Blanchette
Bonnier
Claxton
Cote (St. Johns-Iber-ville-Napierville) Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Eudes
Gariepy
Jean
Marier
Mullins
Parent
Picard
Pinard
Pouliot
Raymond (Wright) Rinfret
Whitman
Breithaupt
Brown
Chevrier
Croll
Harris (Grey-Bruce) McCubbin
Macdonald (Brantford City) .
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Ross (Hamilton East)
furnished by the chief
Sinclair (Ontario)
Smith (York North)
Kirk
Bridges
Maloney
Michaud
MacNaught
Fleming
Adamson
Lockhart
Lacombe
Lennard
Robinson (Bruce)
Ayleswortli
Case
Raymond (Beauhar-nois-Laprairie) Gagnon
Fraser
Hatfield
Homutli
Bradshaw
Webb
Rowe
J ackman
Stokes
Ashby
Hamel
Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario)
Harkness
Harris (Danforth) Henderson Casselman Kidd
White (Hastings-Peterborough)

White (Middlesex East)
Manross
Probe
Cockeram
Stephenson Hodgson . Massey
Ross (St. Paul's) Drope Ferguson Coyle


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: I was paired with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. JEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted I would have voted against the
amendment.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


James Ewen Matthews: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Barrett). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Antoine Joseph Léger: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted	I	would	have	voted	against	the
amendment.


Mr. BONNIER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted	I	would	have	voted	against	the
amendment.


Mr. CLARK:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Desmond). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


John Bracken: As the house perhaps knows,'I was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


John Alpheus Charlton: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Healy). Had I voted I -would have voted for the amendment.


Kenneth Roy Daniel: I was paired with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. McDonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HARKNESS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Whitman). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HAZEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products


John Thomas Hackett: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BROOKS:: I was paired with the hon. membej for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Percy Chapman Black: I was paired with the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gauthier). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GREEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Belzile). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Lewis Menary: I was paired with the hon. member for Wellington South. (Mr. Gladstone). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was paired with the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Lapalme). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PEARKES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gingues). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: In the absence of a farmer party, I have voted for the amendment.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GOUR (Russell):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Norman Jaques: I was paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Cloutier). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Anthony Hlynka: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Interim Supply Bill

Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to, on division, and the house went into committee, Mr! Golding in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Solon Earl Low: Does the minister intend to ask for another interim supply?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly do. I wanted one-sixth, but the leader of the opposition thought that under the circumstances he should agree to only one-twelfth, so I shall be back soon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
lose none of our rights with respect to discussion, deliberation, and the final passing, of estimates?
James Lorimer Ilsley: I take pleasure in giving that undertaking which is the usual one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Shall the preamble carry?


Gordon Graydon: I think it is customary to mention the schedules because they are perhaps the most important part of the bill.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Ilsley the house adjourned at 7.05 p.m.
Monday, May 27, 1946.