1946-05-22

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, may I crave your indulgence and the indulgence of the house for a moment to make a word of personal explanation with regard to a story concerning my personal plans which is being carried in many newspapers and which I am told was also the subject of comment last night over the radio. For instance, in the Montreal Gazette the story appears under this title:
St. Laurent to retire soon from public life.
Ottawa, May 21 (CP) -
I take that to mean the Canadian Press.
Justice Minister St. Laurent said to-day in an interview he plans to retire from public life shortly and return to the law practice he left in Quebec in 1941 to take the justice department portfolio for the war period.
I must say that I gave no such interview to the Canadian Press. The night before last I did have a conversation with a newspaper man and there is a paragraph in this which I certainly did authorize. The last paragraph reads:
He termed as "ridiculous" a newspaper report which said speculation among back-bench Liberals was to the effect that Prime Minister Mackenzie King would retire within a year, appoint Mr. St. Laurent to succeed him, and continue to sit as Liberal member for Glengarry until the next election, when he would retire.
Labour Conditions
[Stage Direction]
I said that that was ridiculous and that I had no objection to being quoted as saying that. As to the preceding paragraphs about plans of mine to retire shortly from public life, I have given no interview about that, nor have I authorized the publication of any such statement. There are many newspaper men who have known ever since my first meeting with the press when I came to Ottawa as Minister of Justice in 1941 that I retained the hope of getting back at a convenient time to my law practice, but I have no definite plans that would warrant any announcement. I would not say anything about this except that the language used would appear to convey the impression that I had made a declaration about it for publication. Whenever these plans are sufficiently definite to warrant an announcement, that announcement probably will be made in a more formal manner than in the course of casual conversation with a friendly newspaper man.
PRESS REPORT OP MEETING WITH LABOUR DELEGATION	.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELfr (Minister of Labour): I should like to say a word about a meeting that I had yesterday with a labour delegation. The press said that this was a stormy meeting,' but I think those who know me best know that I do not take part in stormy meetings. .
Mr. COLDWELL:: Not if you can help it.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Not if I can help it. I will say that we had a very frank discussion, and I say that in a kindly way. I just wanted to observe that I do not think it adds to industrial relations in these difficult times to express an opinion of that kind. I have no objection to the man who wrote the news story, but it was not a stormy meeting.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Humphrey Mitchell: I desire to lay on the table copy of the authentic texts of the recommendation which was adopted at the twenty-seventh session of the general conference of the international labour organization held at Paris from October 15 to November 5, 1945, in accordance with the provisions of article 406 of the treaty of Versailles and corresponding provisions of other treaties of peace; also the text of P.C. 1889 of May 14, 1946, dealing with the competence of parliament with regard to the subject matter of this recommendation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister):: I was asked the other day whether the house would sit on May 24, and I said that I expected it would. The cabinet has given consideration to this question and has decided that the house ought to sit on May 24. That is the usual practice. We have a long programme ahead of us, and we feel that we would not be justified in moving the adjournment of the house on Thursday night until the following Monday.


Mr. J. L. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the applause which greeted the statement of the Acting Prime Minister that the house would sit on May 24 came mostly from the Ontario members, and to a lesser extent from Quebec members. We shall find very few of those members sitting here with us on the 24th. Once again it will be found that the maritime members and the members from the west will be carrying the white man's burden. I would ask that the decision be reconsidered, if possible, and I should like to have some supporters.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Edith May Hort Search.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Alexander Thompson Powell Scott.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Frances Eleanor Miller Foster-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Mary Kathleen Maloney Rassie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Mildred Florence Rooke Cochrane.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Eileene Ruby Aspell Stinson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Edna Book-ala m Howick.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Berthe Alice Cardinal Reid.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Elizabeth Jean Warden Leupold.-Mr. Casselman.

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Have any fire trucks been made available by War Assets Corporation for distribution to municipalities?
2.	If so, how many and to whom?
3.	If not, when will War Assets Corporation render any available?

Questions


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Thirty-six as per attached list.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
Fire trucks made available to municipalities:
Purchaser	Quantity
Town of Brooks, Alberta	 1
Town of Orotoks, Alberta	 1
District of Surrey, British Columbia 4
Town of Estevan, Saskatchewan		1
Town of	Wainwright, Alberta	1Town of	Dryden, Ontario	
1Town of	Carman, Manitoba	
1Town of	Nanton, Alberta	
1Town of	Gladstone, Manitoba	1Town of	Melita, Manitoba	
1
Ten fire trucks are presently being offered for sale to the following municipalities:
Town of Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia 1
Town of Stettler, Alberta	 1
City of Lachine, Quebec	 1
Town of Larden Lake, Ontario		1
City of Victoria, British Columbia..	1
City of Lachine, Quebec	 1
Town of Coniston, Ontario	 1
City of Rimouski, Quebec	 1
Town of Chilliwack, British Columbia 1 Town of Dryden, Ontario	 1
Note: In addition to the above, the Saskatchewan Reconstruction Corporation, Regina, Saskatchewan, have bought 12 and the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, Prince Edward Island, have bought one.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of each of the members of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board?
2.	What was the ocpupation of each of the above at the time of his or her appointment to the Board?
3.	What salaries, allowances, or other forms
of remuneration are paid to each of the above members of the board?	-


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Chairman:	Donald Gordon, Deputy
Governor, Bank of Canada, Ottawa. Members:
H. B. McKinnon, Chairman of the Tariff Board, Ottawa.
David Sim, Deputy Minister for Customs and Excise, Dept, of National Revenue, Ottawa.
F. A. McGregor, Commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act, Dept, of Justice, Ottawa.
A. M. Shaw, Director of Marketing Service, Dept, of Agriculture, Ottawa.
J. G. Bouchard, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa.
W. A. Mackintosh, Director General of Economic Reconstruction, Dept, of Reconstruction and Supply, Ottawa.
A. MacNamara, Deputy Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
M. W. MacKenzie, Deputy Minister, Dept, of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa.
2.	Donald Gordon, Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada.
H. B. McKinnon, Commissioner of Tariff.
David Sim, Commissioner of Excise, Dept, of National Revenue.
F. A. McGregor, Commissioner of the Combines. Investigation Act, Dept, of Labour.
A. M. Shaw, Director of Marketing Service, Dept, of Agriculture.
J. G. Bouchard, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
W. A. Mackintosh, Special Assistant to the Deputy Minister of Finance.
A. MacNamara, Deputy Minister of Labour.
M. W. Mackenzie, Deputy Minister, Dept, of Trade and Commerce.
3.	The chairman and the other board members serve the wartime prices and trade board without remuneration.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF FARM IMPLEMENTS
Mr. MENARY:: Is a manufacturer of farm implements permitted to claim the increase in price authorized on April 13, 1946, in cases where implements were ordered and deposits made thereon prior to the increase?


Mr. MAYHEW:: May I suggest that this question be dropped? It cannot be answered by either yes or no. What the hon. gentleman is really seeking is a legal opinion, and it cannot be given to him here.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Mr. GRAYDON:: If I might be permitted a word, Mr. Speaker, an answer to this question has been declined because the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance felt that it was asking for a legal opinion. With great deference I suggest that that is not so, and I think on reflection he will agree. Actually this is a question of the utmost urgency in agricultural sections right across Canada, I suppose there is no other question that those interested in agriculture are more eager to have fully answered, having regard to the price increase on agricultural implements announced by the Minister of Finance. If the parliamentary assistant will look at the question he will find more involved in it that a legal opinion. I
Questions

think that a clarification of the regulations should be put on Hansard so that the people may know exactly what the situation is. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to reconsider his answer.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This question has been given a great deal of consideration. There are many complications in connection with it. There are a good m^ny orders which might be considered contracts binding upon a company. It would be pretty difficult to answer the question in the way suggested, because we have no definite contract in front of us. A manufacturer might have a provision in his safes plan that the price quoted was applicable only on the date on which the order was placed. In other cases he might have actually entered into a contract. But to all intents and purposes the price goes into effect at the date the announcement was made.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to make as full a statement as he can at the next sitting, outside of any question of giving a legal opinion?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I shall be glad to give the matter consideration, to see if anything further can be said.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray don) asked if the answer could not be reconsidered, and I said that it could, and that I would reconsider it. However, it did not appear on the order paper yesterday, nor is it on to-day, but I should like the privilege of making a little amendment to the reply I gave because of the fact that the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Menary) brought it up in the debate last night and asked the Minister of Finance a question. The revised answer is:
The upward revision in the maximum prices of farm machinery, made effective April 13 by the board, constitutes provision for appropriate increases in prices, but does not make such increases mandatory.
In any case where a buyer and seller had a firm contract as of April 13 for future delivery of farm machinery at prices lower than the new maximum price, the buyer has the ordinary protection of law against any variation in the contract price, althpugh if both buyer and seller agree, the price might be adjusted within the limits of the revised maximum price.


BRIDGE OVER BOW RIVER AT CALGARY
Mr. JOHNSTON:: 1.	Has the government let the contract for a new bridge over the Bow river at Calgary, to replace the Cushing bridge?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the contract ?
3.	What will be the location?
4.	When will construction start?
[Mr. Graydon.l


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	How many persons drew unemployment insurance benefits in Nova Scotia during (a) the month of October, 1945; (b) the month of April, 1946, stating the number for each district?
2.	What was the total amount disbursed in Nova Scotia during (a) the month of October, 1945; (b) the month of April, 1946, stating amount for each district?
3.	What was the total disbursements for the six months period ending April 30, 1946?
4.	How many persons in Nova Scotia have drawn their full benefits under their initial claims ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	(a) October, 1945,- 2,203; (b) 'April, 1946, 7,079.
Note.-No information is available as to district.
2.	(a) October, 1945, $88,418;	(b) April,
1946, $311,410.36.
Note.-No information is available as to district.
3.	$1,362,778.36.
4.	43 in 1942; 102 in 1943 ; 488 in 1944; 972 in 1945; 129 in January, 1946; 160 in February, 1946.
Note.-It is quite possible that many of these claimants who exhausted their benefit rights for the first year have subsequently set up another benefit year.


BARRINGTON PASSAGE-CAPE SABLE ISLAND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Have surveys and estimates been made by the federal government of the cost of building a causeway, bridge or wharves for the use of ferry to cross Barrington Passage to Cape Sable island, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so (a) on what dates; (b) what estimates; (c) what expenditures have been made to date?
3.	Did the provincial government of Nova Scotia request the federal government to make such surveys and construct such works or contribute to the cost of same?
4.	If so, what undertakings have been given?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


SUBSIDIES
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Since Canada declared war on Germany in the last great war what articles and goods have been subsidized by the government of Canada?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	What is the amount of subsidy paid on each of such articles?
3.	What is the total amount paid by the government as such subsidies?
4.	What articles are now subsidized?
5.	On what articles have subsidies been discontinued and when?


Mr. MARTIN:: I would point out to the hon. gentleman and to the house that during the present session two orders have been passed by Jhe house relating to subsidies. One was moved by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) on April 13, as follows:
1.	What subsidies were paid by the government during the year 1945?
2.	What subsidies have been paid since January 1, 1946?
The reply to these questions was tabled on May 2 of this year. Another question was asked on May 20 last, by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), reading:
What subsidies were paid by the government during the years 1939 to 1944, inclusive?
The return has not yet been tabled, but will be shortly, and as it will cover the information asked for in this question I ask that the question be dropped.
Question dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	To what corporations, firms, provincial governments, or individuals, have serviceable aeroplanes been sold by War Assets Corporation to date?
2.	What firms, corporations or individuals have been used by War Assets as recognized dealers in the sale of serviceable aircraft?
3.	What type of aircraft and how many have been sold to each of these firms as of April 1, 1946?
4.	What was the price of each type of aircraft so sold?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Return tabled.


PARK STEAMSHIP VESSELS
Air. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many of Park Steamship vessels have been sold by the government from April 1, 1945, to date?
2.	Who were the purchasers in each case?
3.	Was any provision in' the agreements of sale to the effect that the vessels sold must be operated by Canadian officers and crews?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



SALE OF RADIO LICENCES IN NORTH VANCOUVER

Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: What are (a) the names; (b) the residences; (c) the military service of each of the men now selling radio licences in a house-to-house canvass in the city and district of North Vancouver?



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-PUBLICATIONS AND ADVERTISING

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What publications and advertising has the Wartime Prices and Trade Board used during 1945 and 1946?
2.	What is the cost of each of these publications for 1945 and 1946?
3.	What was the cost of other advertising during 1945 and 1946?



WAR ASSETS-CARBERRY AND BRANDON AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
Air. A1ATTHEWS (Brandon):
1.	How many trucks and tractors are being used in connection with the airport at Carberry, Manitoba and at No. 2 A.C.U., Brandon?
2.	Are there any trucks and tractors at each of these places not being used?
3.	If so, how many and of what size, in each place?
4.	Under whose direction or disposal are such unused trucks and tractors at the present time?
5.	Have they been declared surplus to war assets ?
6.	If not, when will they be so declared?
7.	If so, what steps are being taken to put these trucks and tractors in circulation?
haley's corners, ont.,' magnesium plant
Air. CASTLEDEN:: For a copy of all contracts, agreements, or other arrangements made between the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Dominion Magnesium Limited or other companies or individuals regarding the construction and operation of the magnesium plant at Haley's Corners, Ontario.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Air. COCKERAM:: For a copy of the report of the court of inquiry held by Lieutenant-General Price Montague, C.B., D.S.O., M.C., into the administration of the Canadian army in Holland.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) I wish to oppose this motion on the ground that it is not in the public interest to produce such reports, and also that the report is privileged and therefore should not be produced. The hon. member on the 4th of April asked the minister when the report would be produced in the house, and he was then informed that it was not customary to produce such reports in the house and that this practice would be followed. This rule has been followed previously as regards docu-
Canadian Army in Holland

merits pertaining to military courts. The stand taken was that it was not in the public interest to produce such documentation because it would seriously hamper the administration of justice in the armed services if officers who in the course of duty are called upon to serve on these courts martial or to prepare such reports are made to feel that their actions or their statements may be debated in the House of Commons or be the subject of some controversy in this house. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that even more serious considerations exist as regards courts of inquiry. My hon. friend knows very well that courts of inquiry in the armed forces are an ordinary matter of administration, taking place every day; they are convened at the demand of the minister or of a commanding officer to inform this officer on any matter affecting the ordinary course of internal administration in the army or in the other services. As a matter of fact, the rules of procedure provided for under the Army Act state that such courts of inquiry and such reports are not admissible in evidence in courts martial which may follow; and I think it is very clear-*


James Horace King: Order. This motion is not debatable. It is the privilege of the hon. member to give a reason for not accepting the motion-


Mr. ABBOTT:: That is what he is doing.


James Horace King: but he should not make a speech.


Hugues Lapointe: That is what I was trying to do. However, if the house feels that the reasons are sufficient I will just ask that the motion be dropped.


James Horace King: Dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alan Cockeram: I had a very definite object in asking for the production of the results of this court of inquiry. K.R. & 0. states that courts of inquiry may be either closed or open.


James Horace King: Order. I have already ruled that motions of this kind are not debatable. If the hon. member does not want to withdraw his motion, there is only one thing to do, and it is to put the question to the house.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Speaker, the reason I bring this up is that there was a court martial in Amsterdam a few days ago, and this inquiry or the subject of this inquiry was brought up at that court martial-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alan Cockeram: -with the result, Mr. Speaker, that the prosecuting officer at that court martial-


James Horace King: Order.


Alan Cockeram: said that he would rejoice to see the accused acquitted.


James Horace King: I am Sony to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman again, but I have no alternative. If the hon. member does not consent to have the motion withdrawn, I have only one thing to do, and that is to put the question to the house. Dropped?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: This question is not debatable. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied. I want either a vote or something else on it.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Put the motion.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Speaker, you have not put the motion. You have not done anything. You are trying to shut me out.


Major James William Coldwell: You must put the
motion.
And five members having risen:


James Horace King: The hon. member for York South should know that the Speaker, realizing that he is the voice of the House of Commons, is as much interested as anybody else in protecting the authority of the Chair.


Alan Cockeram: Put the motion.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows perfectly well that it is the privilege of hon. members, if five of them rise, to have a vote taken on a motion that is before the house. When I sat down I did not see five members rise. Now that I see five members I will put the question to the house.


Major James William Coldwell: May I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think you put the motion; you merely said, "dropped". I think you omitted to put the motion, and that is the trouble.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but I first read the motion before the house: Moved by Mr. Cockeram, seconded by Mr. Boucher, that an order of the house do issue as set forth in No. 4 on the order paper. I asked if it was the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion,

Canadian Army in Holland
and then the parliamentary assistant rose and gave some explanation. But I should like to insist upon one point, which I discussed a few moments ago. I believe that the Speaker is doing everything possible to be fair to both sides of the house, and to indicate plainly that he is not acting for a party-for any party- or for any side of this house; he is the voice of the House of Commons. I cannot stand and I will not stand any such reflection as was made a few minutes ago.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I do not think anyone in the house, Mr. Speaker, questions your fairness. But the fact that the parliamentary assistant made some explanation relating to this motion does not mean that the motion must be dropped, and if the hon. member moving the motion wishes it put to the house, surely it is the duty of the Speaker to put it to the house.


James Horace King: The parliamentary assistant said in his statement that he could not comply with the motion, in that he could not produce the report. If the hon. member wants to withdraw his motion, it is his privilege to do so. If he does not want to withdraw it, the rule is quite clear that motions of this kind are not debatable. If there is not unanimous consent of the house to the motion being dropped, the Speaker has only one thing to do, and that is to put the question to the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: "Yeas" and "nays".


James Horace King: And it will be up to the house to decide. So I will put the motion: Moved by Mr. Cockeram, seconded by Mr. Boucher: That an order of the house do issue for copy of report of the court of inquiry held by Lieutenant-General Price Montague, C.B., D.S.O., M.C., into the administration of the Canadian army in Holland.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I inadvertently voted. I am paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I would like, if I may, to withdraw the vote. *


Mr. RINFRET:: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdon-nell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


George Black: I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that permissible? I remember on one occasion another member of the house did the same thing and he was not allowed to withdraw his vote.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: It is quite permissible as long as the declaration was made before the vote was recorded, which was done in this case.	*
Mr. FERGtTSON: I was paired with the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.	.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Bridges). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Major James William Coldwell: It was not allowed in the case I am thinking of.


John Bracken: If it is not permissible I will explain it to the house and the house and the country will understand. That is the main point.
(A)ter division):

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messieurs:
King, Mackenzie
Chevrier
Gardiner
Parent
Pouliot
Sinnott
Gingues
Kirk
Yiau
Bracken
Casselman
Ross (Souris)
Rowe
Ashby
Herridge
Pearkes
Hazen
Merritt


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted, I wTould have voted against the motion.


Mr. BREITHAUPT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


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


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


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 motion.


Mr. HEON (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in French. I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I was paired with the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BROOKS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STOKES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LACOMBE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I feel that there is a matter which should be the subject

Radio Broadcasting
of your ruling. I want to draw your attention to standing order 9, citation 84, which reads as follows:
The Speaker, when his attention has been called to a breach of order in .the course of a division has directed that the division should proceed, and has dealt with the matter when the division was completed.
I bring this to the attention of the house not to reflect upon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) because I think anyone inadvertently might do the same thing, but rather to get a clear understanding of what is the rule of the house. The life of a government- I shall not say this government-may depend on a single vote, as it once did in this house when an hon. member voted when he was paired. I would also draw Your Honour's attention to citation 72, which reads as follows:	*
If a member who has heard the question put should vote inadvertently, contrary to his intention, he cannot be allowed to correct the mistake, but his vote must remain as first recorded.
That has been my understanding of the rule. It was recorded when the name was called.


Mr. JACKMAN:: It was not recorded-just the intention.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order, may I say that the whole question depends on the interpretation of citation 72 just recited by the hon. member. I may be in error, but my recollection is that the vote was called by the Clerk Assistant but not recorded by the Clerk. If the vote was recorded by the'Clerk, then the point raised by the hon. member is well taken, but I am not sure as a matter of actual fact whether it was recorded or not.


Major James William Coldwell: The Clerk can tell us whether it was recorded.


James Horace King: I shall consider the question raised by the hon. gentleman and I shall try to give a clear ruling to the house to-morrow.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is not important; it is a waste of time.	[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what the whole division was.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Speaker, referring to my comment before the vote was taken, I should like to say I regret the incident; after the Secretary of State had spoken you said, "Dropped", and you did not put the motion. That is why I took the action I did.
63260-112J



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I should like to direct a question, of which I have given notice, to the Minister of Public Works; and the Minister of Veterans Affairs is also interested. Will either minister make a statement which will remove once and for all from the minds of the tenants of the London block in Saskatoon any fear of eviction?


Hon. IAN  A MACKENZIE@Minister of Veterans Affairs: I can assure my hon. friend that every phase of the situation is being carefully explored and considered by the officers of both departments, who are at present on the ground in Saskatoon.


Major James William Coldwell: June 1 is coming very close.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This is a matter of urgency, because the evictions are to take place on May 31.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, but since he is not here perhaps his parliamentary assistant will deal with it. I, want to know whether or not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has applied to the Department of Reconstruction and Supply for the wave length now used by station CFRB in Toronto, and whether or not a similar application has been made for the wave length of CFCN in Calgary.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put it on the order paper.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have had it on the order paper for three days now.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member will permit his question to stand as a notice, I will have the information brought forward.


Major James William Coldwell: May I also ask the
parliamentary assistant to tell us whether these licences are annual or permanent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Annual.


Gordon Graydon: How would the minister know? He did not know anything about it yesterday.
Suspension of Standing Order



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: Before the first order is called I should like to suggest, in view of the importance of interim supply, that we take up interim supply now and then go on with the debate on the motion to go into supply. I am afraid that debate will not end this afternoon, having in mind what I am told about the number of speakers, and that is the only reason I am suggesting this procedure. It would just mean that by consent of the house interim supply would be granted, and then we would resume the debate just where we left off. We would not try to get in any other departments; we could not do that.


John Bracken: With all respect I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that he ask the house to continue with this debate to-day and tomorrow, and conclude it; then we will offer all cooperation in passing interim supply. I do not want to go into the reasons why a day or two ago I asked the right hon. gentleman to proceed with this debate; I do not want to get into that discussion, but I am prepared to continue this debate this afternoon and tomorrow, and to conclude it. Then we will offer our full cooperation in getting whatever is necessary in the way of interim supply. With all respect I suggest that we Should finish this debate now, a debate which began nearly two and a half weeks ago but which the house was not permitted to continue until just the day before yesterday.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): With respect may I point out that we cannot possibly have a debate on a motion to go into committee of supply on Thursday, except by suspending the standing order in relation thereto, because on Thursday the Speaker leaves the chair without the question being put.


John Bracken: We are prepared to do that.


Major James William Coldwell: I find it very difficult to see how we could accede to the request of the Minister of Finance. I would be prepared to adopt the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, that the debate go on. I do not know whether we can suspend the standing order. I suppose we could do so by unanimous consent, and as far

as I am concerned I would be prepared to give that consent so that it might be done to-morrow.
Mr, ILSLEY: I could get along all right on that arrangement; in fact if the debate cannot be concluded to-day I would prefer to have it proceed and concluded to-morrow, but I will have to see what can be done in the way of suspending the standing order. I will have to have that looked into between now and six o'clock. If we can have unanimous consent for the suspension of the standing order tomorrow in order that we may proceed with interim supply-


John Bracken: I gave the consent of this party, and the leader of the C.C.F. party has already given consent on behalf of his party.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): We shall do everything we can to facilitate this matter being brought forward to-morrow. Perhaps at that time we may have something to say about the discourtesy that has been shown in the matter of asking for interim supply.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I apologize for that. In previous years it has been my practice to call up the leaders of all parties on the telephone. I did not do that this time, but last evening I spoke about it publicly in the house, so as to give full notice, and I did speak to the leader of the opposition. He has a special status; he is the leader of the official opposition, and I did speak to him. Then I mentioned the matter publicly in the house, so if any leader of any other party or any other hon. member had any objection, that was the proper time to raise it. I am sorry if the hon. gentleman feels there was any discourtesy. Certainly I did not 'have any intention of proceeding without notice, or without giving every opportunity for exception, to be taken in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: I was in the house last night at eleven o'clock, though I was away on Monday. I thought possibly one of my colleagues had been spoken to.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I feel as the leader of the Social Credit party feels. I believe when something of this sort is to be done by consent, all parties should know something about it. The leader of the opposition represents the largest opposition group in the house, but there are other parties here who are not connected with the official opposition.


John Bracken: It is not often that I come to the defence of the Acting Prime Minister, but I want to do so on this

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
occasion. He spoke to me about this matter, and I am sure he would have spoken to the other leaders on that occasion, but I objected to his proceeding with interim supply while this motion was on the order paper, where it had been for two and a half weeks. I think perhaps that is why the matter of speaking to the other leaders slipped his mind. That is all I want to say out of consideration for the minister.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie th^t the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mrs. Strum.
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I come from a constituency which contains all classes of people. It has the . white collar class, which has had fixed wages plus a cost of living bonus during the war; industrial workers employed in the great railway shops adjacent to Winnipeg; the mill workers in Selkirk; the fishermen on the lakes, and also the farmers. During the war all these people have been subject to prices fixed and controlled and maintained by the government. The advances in prices of farm machinery and steel have caused this debate.
I have listened patiently to all parties in the house offer their arguments, and the very thought of ceilings being broken and the spiral of inflation starting causes me a great deal of concern. I saw inflation at work when I came here as an immigrant in 1919.
I became a farmer in 1920 when everything was high, and about eighteen months afterwards, cattle I had purchased for S140 and $150 were worth only $25 or $30. Surely everyone of my age must know that the same thing will happen again if we allow our price ceilings and floors to disappear.
I come now to the implement companies. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance has defended them and has told the house that they needed this advance. Personally I cannot see that they do. I notice from the papers of April, 1938, that the shares of Cockshutt Plow were quoted at 7 while the shares of Massey Harris were quoted at 5*.
I shall not give the quotations for the shares of other companies, as I think these two are sufficient for my purpose. By April 2 of this year the shares of Cockshutt Plow had advanced to 16| while those of Massey Harris had come up to 171. According to to-day's paper
there was a further increase, Cockshutt shares being quoted at 171 and Massey Harris at 18*.
I admit that I know more about live stock than this sort of stock, but it seems to me that these companies must be in a sound financial position when there is this improvement in the value of their shares on the stock market. These increases show that there must be an expectancy of greater profits in the future. I cannot go into details with the Minister of Finance in the same way as those who are trained in finance, but here is the way I look at it: No one would be buying these shares unless he thought there were to be greater profits than before. I cannot forget the report made in 1937 by a committee of this house. It contained thirty-six recommendations, but I shall refer only to three which appear on page 500. They are as follows:
28.	That the profit to the farm implement companies on the sale of replacement parts is excessive, and the price of these to the consumer should be materially reduced.
29.	That the increases announced by the companies in January, 1936, were not justified by an increase in manufacturing or distribution costs or by the financial results of the companies in so far as these were affected by the price level of farm implements.
30.	That over the period 1891-1936 retail prices of farm implements have been maintained at too high a level as shown by the financial returns to the companies engaged in the industry during that period.
I wonder if those things were taken into account when the machinery companies made their representations to the wartime prices and trade board. I have the gravest doubts about the increase that has been granted in the prices of farm machinery. The companies' case should have been made public, so that farmers, not only in the constituency of Selkirk but throughout the whole of Canada, could have read for themselves why it was thought that this price increase was justified.
When the leader of the Conservative party was the leader of the Liberal-Progressives in Manitoba he used to advance an argument with which I agreed. He maintained that as agriculturists made up one-third of the population they were entitled to one-third of the nation's income. I hope the leader of the opposition still holds that view.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He still maintains the same argument.


William Scottie Bryce: I am glad to hear that. I would point out to him that the only time agriculture ever came near to getting one-TRird of the national income was at the end of the last war, and since we have had the stabilization of floor and ceiling prices.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products


James Arthur Ross: They never received it in the history of the country.


William Scottie Bryce: I said that the only time they had come near to getting it was-at the end of the last war, when I came here from Scotland, and during this war. The other day the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) placed some figures on Hansard to show that we were a long way from getting one-third of the national income. Certain hon. members who sit behind the leader of the opposition have advanced the argument that price ceilings should be abandoned, that the lid should be taken off, that we should let things go. Surely no hon. member who has the support of a farming community can be in his senses when he makes that request.
The farmer has always been the victim of prices. When he has anything to Sfell, he must go to the packing house or some other organization and say, "How much will you give me for this?" When he wants to buy anything, he must go and say, "How much do you want for this?" He has had to buy in a controlled market and sell in a controlled market. The worker is in the same position. He must sell his labour in a controlled market, and he must buy the necessities of life in the same type of market. Perhaps when the worker and the farmer and the fisherman become better organized-labour is organized only about twenty per cent; the farmer about, the same and the fisherman much less-they will be able to combat big business, the manufacturers and the packing-houses which are all organized one hundred per cent. Even our lawyers and doctors are organized one hundred per cent.
The farmer does not want to hold up the consumer for unreasonable prices, but he must have his costs of production. Producing food for the nation must give a return to the farmer which will provide him with a standard of living equal to that enjoyed by other people. Guaranteed prices must be maintained over a period of years so that the farmer can look ahead and plan his production accordingly. The worker should have a guaranteed wage so that he will be able to budget' and plan for the future.
I should like to deal for a moment with the cattle situation. A great deal has been said in recent weeks about the shortage in the supply of cattle. Personally I do not think it has been so much a shortage of cattle. The shortage of supplies can be immediately traced back to the order of the wartime prices and trade board about two years ago fixing the price for cattle for the whole year round; that is, one price irrespective of when you
fMr. Bryce.]
marketed your cattle. In the cattle business you have to look fairly well ahead and arrange your business so when the order of the wartime prices and trade board was issued the farmers took some time to reorganize their plans.
This spring has shown a lack of supplies for the simple reason that it does not pay the farmer to feed cattle in the winter time.
One hon. member to my left said a few days ago that there was really no difference between grass-fed and stall-fed cattle. I cannot agree with his view, and in support of what I think is right, I submit that the packer in Canada has always been prepared to pay two cents more for stall-fed cattle. Surely every hon. member in this house, whether he has an agricultural background or not, must realize that the feeding of cattle in this country in the winter entails a great deal of work. Even if you do not take into consideration the feeding of grain, and you only .put the hay in front of the cattle and take it away from behind them, that entails a certain amount of lhbour that the man who markets grass-fed cattle does not have to do.
In discussing this wartime prices and trade board ruling on previous occasions with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), he has assured me that some farmers asked that the price be the same the year round. Of course I agree with him this far. If I were a rancher I would think that the Minister of Agriculture was a fine fellow, or if I were a farmer in Ontario with a few grass farms and I could buy cattle in the spring and put them on that grass, I would think the minister was a fine fellow too. But I am thinking of the man who puts in steers in the fall and feeds them through until the spring. He certainly deserves a greater return for his labour.
Coming back to the man who has been in the habit of feeding steers through the winter, there is no incentive whatever for the extra feed or the extra labour involved, and this, might I point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, is one policy of the wartime prices and trade board previously made was steady supply of meat every month of the year. The arrangement which the wartime prices and trade board that is hindering a in my estimation on a much fairer basis, because the farmer was encouraged to feed cattle during the winter and market them during the spring months when our shortest supply comes, but under the present policy he can market his cattle any time and they must still sell at one and the same price.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
Now that we are beginning to reap the fruits of the present policy of the wartime prices and trade board in this regard we can expect a flooded market this fall, when the packers-will not be able to absorb the heavy run and will bid a lower price. The packer will sit back and dominate the situation and instead of the farmer getting 12 cents for his steer, as he is entitled to according to the wartime prices and trade board, he will no doubt have to take 10J or 11 cents.
Of course I know that the minister is going to tell me that the meat board will come on the market and buy up these cattle and have them processed so that the farmer will not have to take a loss. But might I remind the minister that the packing companies cannot process what they have now; so where is the government going to have them processed?
This brings me back to a previous argument I made in the house, which is that the only ceiling or floor on cattle to-day is after they are hung up by the heels in the packing plant. The live animal is never taken into consideration; there is neither a ceiling nor a floor to protect the farmer when he sells his animals on the hoof. It is only after they are dead that the ceilings begin to apply.
The Minister of Agriculture told us last week that the subsidy to the consumer of milk is to be removed. This just throws the prob-' lem right back into the lap of the provincial milk boards. The removal of the subsidy and the resulting increase in the cost of milk to the consumer can result in either of two things-an increase in the cost of living index, or a lowering of the consumption of milk. Milk is the most necessary item in our diet. Research carried on by the medical profession, the army, air force, and navy, has proved conclusively that milk is something everyone should have. I therefore deplore the discontinuance of the subsidy on milk, both from the nutritional standpoint and because it will raise the cost of living. It will strike at the old-age pensioner and at all people of limited means-the widows, for instance, who have lost their husbands in this war, because no matter what happens, their means will remain the same.
Increases have been allowed in different commodities that the consumer has to buy. I maintain, and I think I am right, that these subsidies and these ceilings should have been maintained until goods became much more plentiful, because when you advance the price of one commodity you immediately in turn have to advance the price of another, and immediately after that you have to raise a man's wages to enable him to meet his increased cost of living
May I say in passing that the production of milk involves more drudgery than the production of any other commodity. The successful dairyman has always been the man with a family he could exploit. That is, the family milk the cows and produce the wealth, and their labour never was charged against the production of the milk. The government should maintain the ceiling and the subsidy so that these essential services to the nation may be carried on on a satisfactory basis. If you interfered with the ceiling or floor on fish, the same thing would happen to the fisherman. You would deprive him of his present income, out of which he would be compelled to pay for the expensive gear which he bought at war time prices.
The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) pointed out to the house last night that the fishermen's problems were never discussed in the way that the farmers' problems are. I can agree with him that there are more farmer members than fishermen members in this house, but I would be the last one in this house to forget the fishermen in my . constituency or any other part of Canada. He talked about the hard life and the long hours put in by the fishermen. I can agree with every word he said, because in the northern part of my constituency, where we have twenty hours of sunshine in the twenty-four, I have seen in the summer time-I did last summer-fishermen leave very early in the morning, and they were still dressing their catch by artificial light at night. This I am sure will compare favourably with the hours put in by the fishermen on the east coast. I do not think that the hardships and the risks taken by the fishermen on lake Winnipeg can be any less than those taken by the fishermen on either the east or west coast. Never a year passes but we read in our Manitoba papers that two or three fishermen have disappeared on an ice floe in their endeavours to feed a hungry world. I might say to hon. members that I have crossed the Atlantic at various times, both on modern liners and on tramp steamers, and never in all my experience have I seen rougher weather than that which can develop on lake Winnipeg. If we do not protect the ceilings and floors which have been established on fish, and at the same time see that the ceilings on the things that the fisherman has to buy are not destroyed, the risks he takes and the hardships he endures will bring him nothing.
I do not agree with my hon. friends to the right that ceilings should be taken off, but I want the government to be consistent, and not to advocate the maintenance of price controls on the floor of the house and to the
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

people of this country and then proceed to destroy those controls. Guaranteed ceilings and floors are more needed urgently to-day than they ever were in the history of Canada, and if the government breaks them it will be condemned for generations to come.
The government has a golden opportunity now to stabilize the economy of this country and prevent inflation. I say to them, if you want to build the new world that you have promised the people of Canada, don't fail them now. I ask this with but little hope; for the only difference I see between the government and the Tories on my right is that the Tories want to blow the top right off, and the Liberals want to do it gradually. I do hope and pray that they will maintain these ceilings and floors so that every Canadian, whether he be fisherman, farmer or worker, will be able to get his fair share of the national wealth. '


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first may I refer to the amendment and the subamendment. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) is 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 stabilization policies.
The C.C.F. amendment is:
This house is of the opinion that the government's policies of permitting recent unjustifiable increases in the prices of farm machinery and of steel have resulted in imposing on food producers and workers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the'government's price stabilization policies.
The subamendment has been very skilfully drawn. All of us can accept the view that in the light of the explanations so far given, the recent increase in the price of farm machinery is unjustifiable and unfair. But one thing which this subamendment does establish, as was made clear by the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Bryce) is that the C.C.F. do not believe that the farmers should receive any increase for their farm products. They have made their view perfectly plain in this regard.


Mr. WRIGHT:: That is not correct.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have that statement, because I find it difficult to -follow, my hon. friends of the C.C.F. in their peregrinations on this subject.


An hon. MEMBER:: Like the Tories.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just heard these terrible Tories referred to by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), and we did

not say anything. We listened. Now I am going to answer on behalf of this party, and I ask the same consideration-being always willing to answer questions-that was given to the hon. gentleman who preceded me.
When I listen to my hon. friends speaking over the radio in the province of Saskatchewan I notice that they do not say what they say here. They tell the farmer that he is not being fairly treated, that farm prices are lower in Canada than in the United States- the inference being that they support an increase in farm prices. But when they come into this house they move an amendment which can have only one effect, that of neutralizing the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition, and striking a death-blow to the cause of any increase of farm prices in Canada. Apparently they do not believe that any increase of farm prices at the present time would be justified. If they have that view I know they are sincere; all I am trying to do is to make it perfectly clear that that is their point of view. One of my hon. friends said a moment ago that it was not. I propose to read from a very fine address given by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), reported in Hansard of this session at page 867. The question of increased prices of farm implements was before the house. The leader of the opposition raised the question. He said the increase was unjustified, and hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house agreed with him and supported the condemnation he directed to the government in that regard.
The situation as to farm implements was this. There was an increase of $5 per ton in the price of steel in this country, as in the United States; but, the difference was this. In the United States-and this for my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) -the increase was given on the condition that the workers should receive an increase in wages. That was not a stipulation in this country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There were many increases in the price of steel in the United States before that.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And none here.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that, but the fact remains that in that increase, no matter if some were given before-and there were increases in wages before-


Humphrey Mitchell: No, there were not,
not since the Little Steel formula.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products


John George Diefenbaker: I find it hard to hear my hon. friend. I say there were wage increases before that. My hon. friend knows better than to say there were not.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is developing the same argument as the C.C.F.


John George Diefenbaker: The C.C.F. have made their stand quite clear, and the government's stand is also clear: the farmers will not get an increase in the prices of farm products, regardless of whether production >
is down in consequence of our prices being down in comparison with those of the United States. The C.C.F. policy was set forth succinctly in the address delivered by the hon. member for Swift Current, as reported at page 867 of Hansard.
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-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I understand that the hon. member is referring to a previous debate in the present session. If so, he is out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. gentleman said in effect was this-I will not quote his remarks -that the C.C.F. party supported the government in placing a price ceiling on farm products, that it opposed any increase in that price, that it had no objection to Canadian wheat being sold abroad at SI.55 regardless of the world price; but he pointed out that if the government did not do something about the farm implement situation, he and those associated with him would have to change their views and support those on this side of the house who believe that there should be a reasonable increase in the prices of farm products. So far as the leader of the C.C.F. party is concerned-and again I cannot quote from that hon. gentleman's remarks, which will be found at page 319 of Hansard-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I do not think the hon. member should refer even to the page of Hansard reporting a previous debate in the session.


James Arthur Ross: It is the same debate.


William Ross Macdonald: It is another debate. I am sure that page 291 of Hansard carries the report of a previous debate in this session.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well, sir. 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 63260-113
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.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, allow me to correct misrepresentations. The government has never said that there would be no increase in the prices of farm products in this country. There have been adjustments upwards through the years, as the hon. gentleman knows, and there may be in the future, but they will be made in an orderly manner and not in the way that hon. members opposite suggest.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind the minister making a brief statement, but I do not want him to make a speech. He says that they will increase prices in an orderly manner. Let me say that the farmers throughout the west to-day are asking when, under that orderly plan, they are going to be placed in the same position as the farm implement manufacturers who have been permitted to increase the price of farm implements. I am not allowed to quote what the C.C.F. members have said in previous debate, but they want to ask questions for the purpose of showing that they did not say that which I am not allowed to quote.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would you mind spending a little time telling us what your belief is?


John George Diefenbaker: Isn't that the natural reaction? My hon. friends have pictured us in lurid terms. We have been referred to as Tories; slurs have been cast in our direction, and now when one wants to make the record clear and definite so that all who run may read, the jabbering begins.


Mrs. STRUM:: Well, aren't you Tories?


John George Diefenbaker: I am only too willing to answer questions that I can hear. However, to pass on-


William Irvine: I should have thought you had passed on a long time ago, only nobody told you.


John George Diefenbaker: In that observation my hon. friend speaks with the voice of experience so far as he is concerned. Now, sir, the leader of the opposition takes the stand, which I believe is also taken in all parts of the house, that conditions throughout the world to-day demand an extra production of farm products. One would scarcely think it necessary to establish that fact. Someone to my left has referred to what Mr. Hoover said recently on his return froiii abroad, and only within the last two days a general summation of the situation appeared in the Christian

Price Ceiling-Farm Products

Science Monitor, which shows what the people are facing in the different countries of Europe. I quote:
France-Average ration of meat for two meals is about two-thirds of an ounce. Potatoes are scarce.
Greece-With wheat supplies down to nine ounces a day per person, the nation is almost entirely dependent on the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration.
China-In Hunan province, known as the "rice bowl" of China, it is estimated that 7,000,000 persons of a population of 27,000,000 are approaching or are suffering starvation.
. Czechoslovakia-All foods except potatoes are rationed. Dairy products, fats and meats are short. Transportation difficulties are acute. Country gets one-seventh of its grain from UNRRA.
Hungary-Average daily ration, about 500 calories, is so low that medical officers assert it is responsible for 40 out of every 100 fatalities among children.
Italy-Two pounds of bread cost $4.50 on the "black market." Adequate "black market" meals cost $5.
Yugoslavia-Five million people rely entirely on UNRRA. In many places the only food available is three slices of bread a day.
Poland-Nine million bushels of grain will be needed within three months. Own grain stocks are running out. The nation is fast approaching the danger line of hunger.
Albania-Local grain stocks are running out. and about 57 per cent of the people now depend on UNRRA wheat and flour.
Belgium-Darker bread loaf has returned and "black market" is flourishing.
. Germany-Representative meal is a boiled potato, two spoonfuls of fish or hash, and dry bread. Potato supply is near exhaustion.
The situation there depicted undoubtedly calls for extra production, and how shall we obtain it? My hon. friends to my left have their own point of view in that regard. Australia found it necessary to raise the price of wheat; in other words, to raise the price which the farmer should receive, to the end that greater production be encouraged. Argentina is in the same position. The Canadian farmer is urged to produce essential foods to allay the starvation that stalks the world everywhere, and in no other country could there be such an increase in food supplies as there could be in Canada. In Russia, according to the New York Times two days ago, the present low standards of nutritional diet are such that even if agricultural production were expanded, the extra production would be needed at home. The United States can double its agricultural production, but this would necessitate a change in the whole economy of the. country, and several million people leaving the cities and going to the rural areas. In Australia and New Zealand, while there can be small increases, it is frankly admitted that there can be no material increase. Realizing conditions of famine in the world at large, in order to secure the extension

and expansion of production in wheat and other farm products at this time, our position is that prices of farm products should be increased, without in any way wishing to do as the hon. member for Selkirk has suggested, namely, to remove the price ceiling in its entirety. There is no such suggestion anywhere on the part of any official of this party. The only removal of the ceiling that we advocate is the removal of the ceiling on farm products so far as the present ceiling impedes production. Decontrol should only take place in other respects when the necessary supplies are available to assure a fair distribution. Speaking for myself alone, I say that if controls were removed altogether at this time I should be fearful of conditions everywhere in the country. On the other hand, much is made of the danger of inflation; but, may I add, nowhere has there ever been any serious inflation through increased prices, that are reasonable and fair, on farm products.
Take the situation in Canada to-day. Does the Minister of Finance say that there would be inflation if a fair and reasonable increase were allowed on the price of wheat and other farm products? He is fearful of inflation with increased farm prices. There was no fear of inflation in some of the social legislation which I supported, and which was brought in with the consent of hon. members in all parts of the house.
While the United States is endeavouring to encourage the production by the only means they know, the increase in price, which is also true of Australia and Argentina, here the policy is followed of refusing to face the situation which confronts this country. At this time the farmer, by reason not only of prices but also of unfairness of the income tax, is going on a strike in many parts of Canada, or he finds himself in a position where there is not the encouragement of production which there must be if there is to be the necessary production.
We believe that to establish extra production the first requisites are equity and security in farm prices. To remove the ceiling on farm prices to-day in order to bring them into line with world prices in no way requires the removal of the floor. No one suggests that. But we do say that with extraordinary and terrible conditions existing in the *world to-day, with famine stalking nineteen or twenty countries in a manner the like of which has not been seen in four hundred years, surely this is the time fo'r extraordinary measures to assure the production in the one country where production can be expanded and would be expanded if the government would give the lead.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
With regard to farm costs, I realize that prices have gone up to some extent, but farm costs have also gone up. Only recently' R. J. Deachman, a well-known economist, wrote an article in which he took the 1939 prices as 100. In that article he pointed out that manufactured goods have risen 24-7 per cent; seeds, 77-4 per cent; feed, 61-8 per cent; gasoline, oil and grease, 23 per cent. I presume that is without the three-cent tax that should have been removed had there been any desire to encourage extra production on mechanized farms throughout the country. Building materials have risen 61-2 per cent; binder twine, 34-8 per cent, and farm labour 110-8 per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: W.hat about farm implements?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not farm
implements here, but I think they have risen approximately 8 per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is in that list.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not it in my notes. I believe it is 8-5 per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to place the facts before the house. The Minister of Finance accepts one of the statistics. I ask him to accept those that I quoted from the same author, which is another reason why there should be an increase in farm products.
There is one thing that the Minister of Finance might do. If he did it, it would remove a certain type of propaganda that is going on throughout the country. Senator A. N. McLean recently returned from the LTnited States and gave an interview on UNRRA and the food situation generally in Europe. His statement received wide circulation. If it is not in accordance with the facts, it should be denied; if it is in accordance with the facts, there is something seriously wrong. He said:
Therefore it seems rather fantastic that large quantities of foodstuffs right under the noses of these organizations is being taken away for export abroad.
Fish products are being exported from Norway, Iceland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom.
He goes on to say:
There is certainly something wrong with such an uneconomic system. Ships leave American ports loaded with fish products, for instance, and in the mid-Atlantic meet ships from Europe destined for America, loaded with similar products. This does not make sense, and someone should be held accountable.
I repeat: This statement received the widest possible circulation in this country. It is a strange thing that conditions like this should exist, if they do; if they do not, the Minister 63260-113J
of Finance, in the interests of the morale of this country and the mobilization for securing the necessary additional food for Europe, should see that it is stopped at the earliest possible opportunity.
In my opinion some changes must take place in the income tax. In the statement made by the Minister of Finance a moment ago I detected an indication that the pressure of the campaign of the leader of the opposition that there should be fair and reasonable advances in prices of farm products is about to secure results.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is just what we have been doing ever since 1941.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Look at the results.


John George Diefenbaker: 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 81.55 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..
With regard to income tax, I am not going to go into the various recommendations that were set forth in great detail by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at its meeting in London in January last. While by the recent changes in the income tax, a step was made in the right direction in order to secure the sale of the wheat that the farmers of Canada had on their hands, I suggest to the minister that at this session the basis of the assessment of income tax in so far as agriculture is concerned should be extended over the present period, and certainly over a five-year moving average. My hon. friends to the left have also frequently advocated this. I am in agreement with them on it. Allowance should be made for the labour of the farmer's wife, his sons and daughters in connection with farm production, because without these allowances being granted there is not the incentive that there should be to secure the necessary increase in production. I point out another difficulty in connection with the income tax. It has to do with hired help on the farm. A man comes to a farm and wants to get work. He refuses to work for the farmer who desires to deduct the income tax from his wages. While I realize that that condition cannot be rectified, nevertheless the fact remains that it is a factor.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

Having regard to world conditions, no one in this house suggests that we should endeavour to take the world by the throat and to exact anything unfair. The government say that is what we would be doing if more than SI .55 a bushel for wheat were charged. They say that in selling below the world market price they do so in order to establish friendly relations in Europe and other parts of the world, so that when peace comes markets will be available. So that in reality we have a form of advertising, coupled with philanthropy, it is true, for which the farmers instead of all the people of Canada are asked to pay. As far as this party is concerned, it believes this. Sell wheat at whatever price you believe is reasonable, but do not saddle the farmer with any loss incidental to the advertising. That should be paid or assumed by the state.
As to the income tax, if the suggested changes are made and lowered rates imposed there will be greater incentive. I know there are those who say they believe in production for use rather than for profit, but they are the first to argue that, with the income tax as it is to-day and with the anomalies that exist, there is no incentive. By that very argument hon. gentlemen to my left show in effect how impossible it would be to change human nature under the influence of socialism. They say that the farmers will not produce because there is too little left over, because the income tax is too high. At the same time they say that there is a change in human nature, that mankind will accept the principle of production for use rather than profit.
There is one other matter-


William Irvine: Try speaking on the subject now, for a change.


John George Diefenbaker: As my hon. friend knows, the observations that one cannot hear can never be answered. I should like to refer to one other matter to which I want to direct the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) particularly. That is in regard to what is being done in connection with the production of sugar. This year the government called upon sugar beet producers to increase their production materially. Those producers in the five counties of southwestern Ontario have had 35,000 acres set by the government as their target. According to the statement yesterday of the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Desmond), the acreage to be signed up so far amounts to about 26,000. In that industry there is a great shortage of man-power. There are those who say there cannot be very much unemployment

in the country if we are calling for man-power in this industry. Well, there are approximately 250,000 unemployed men in this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Men and women.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; but that fact does not secure workers for this type of work. I am not one of those who would advocate in any way the compulsory transfer of workers, or anything like that. It is a fact that this is difficult, trying and irksome work, and the fact is that the necessary man-pQwer is not available. If Canada wants an increased production of sugar something must be done to make more men available in those five counties. Yesterday the Minister of Labour pointed out that 1,050 prisoners of war would be made available. He said that 852 were now available and that possibly the other 200 would become available within the next few days, or shortly. I cannot understand the mystery about those additional 200, but no explanation was given.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend wants an answer I can give it to him now.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may conclude this portion of my remarks I shall be glad to have the minister's answer. Of the 850, some 223 are on individual farms, which may or may not be growing sugar beets. In any event, these workers cannot be organized into flying columns or squads. In addition, 100 other prisoners have been allocated or promised to individual farmers. In other words, of the 850 some 323 will go to individual farms, leaving only about 530 available to work on the sugar beet farms. Last year there were some 850 available in addition to the 200 on individual farms. Last year there were only some 17,000 acres in sugar beets. This year there are 26,000 acres; yet the number of men, available under the prisoner of war scheme is several hundred less in those five counties than it was last year. There is a distinct shortage of sugar in this country, and the production in that area alone will materially assist in alleviating the shortage. I realize the difficulties of the minister, and I commend him for what he did yesterday; but I am informed that the situation to-day is such that unless three or four hundred men are made available immediately, thousands of acres now signed up for sugar beet production will be sowed to alfalfa, to the definite detriment of our sugar supply.
Therefore I would ask the minister-and I intend to give him the opportunity to answer, without making a speech-to advise the house and the country whether or not the appeal

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
of these farmers will be heeded, and whether these prisoners of war will be made available. They will not be taking jobs from other people, because other people will not do that work, a definite recruitment campaign having been carried on for several weeks in this connection. Again I ask if it would not be possible, with a view to assuring that extra production of sugar this year, to do something in the way of increasing the number of prisoners of war available, to which the minister made reference yesterday. He has asked me for the opportunity of answering, and I give him that opportunity now, if I may then proceed.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Speaking from memory, we have
10,000	prisoners of war in the lumber industry at the moment, for one thing. It is all a question of shipping. At the moment I cannot give any guarantee on the question of shipping these people back to Europe. They bring back our soldiers in transports and take the German prisoners back in the same transports. As I suppose my hon. friend knows, those transports are controlled by the British government, and they are either going back into normal channels of trade or being prepared for that or used as transports for bringing British army, navy and air force personnel from distant parts of the commonwealth. It all depends on that. If I could get some assurance in regard to transportation this problem would not be too difficult. However, I think we have taken care of the sugar beet industry across the country, in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, up to now; and every effort will be put forth to see to it that the necessary man-power is provided.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my hon. friend for his statement.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to thank my hon. friend for having brought the matter to my attention several times.


John George Diefenbaker: No one asks for any preference. All that is asked, as far as this industry is concerned, is that having regard to their production they be placed on a parity with Manitoba and Alberta.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by saying that as far as I am concerned I suggest that something should be done, but not in the direction of removing the entire ceiling. No one advocates that. The amendment of the leader of the opposition makes it quite clear that it does not advocate a removal of the entire ceiling. Yet hon. members on the government side, in answering this demand of agriculture across the country, endeavour
to befog the issue by raising the bogey of inflation and pointing out what happened after the last war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it not the announced) policy of the Progressive Conservative party) to remove the ceiling from prices of farm) products?


John George Diefenbaker: There is no argument about that. I am speaking about the entire ceiling. As far as farm products are concerned, they are maintained at a level far below what is fair having regard to prices of other products. All that the farmer asks is that he receive parity prices. All he asks is that one section of the community should not be sacrificed for the benefit of other sections.
This would do more than anything else to encourage production. It is doing it in the Argentine and in Australia. No doubt, after the crops are in and the possibility of expansion is over, the government will raise prices, but if this action were taken now it would act as an incentive for increased production. A situation the like of which has never been seen in our time faces the wTorld to-day. Mankind calls on Canada. Experience shows that extra prices afford an incentive to increase production, in the case of agriculture as well as other industries. It may be too late in two or three months. The world calls to-day.
There is hope in what the Minister of Finance has said, but let action be taken now. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition was moved in a humanitarian desire to secure that extra production and to assure that agriculture shall receive its fair share of the national income.
Mr. ILSLEY': I wish to make it clear that I had nothing more in mind and meant nothing more than what we have said and meant from 1941 on in the way of adjustments that have been made from time to time.


John George Diefenbaker: That means nothing.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to this debate, and to the members of this group it would appear that so far it has generated more heat than light. That is not to be wondered at because it has been carried on mainly by the three parties, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the C.C.F.-three blind mice. Fundamentally they all believe in the same policy. They are all controlled by the same outworn orthodox system of economics. They all believe in planning and they all believe in control; the only quarrel between them is as to who shall do the planning and who shall do the controlling.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is very important.


Norman Jaques: It is important to those who hope to do the controlling. The members of this group believe that the individual citizens of this country should do their own planning and control themselves. This afternoon I heard the statement, "production for use and not for profit." Why that saying should be currently repeated, I do not know. Surely it is obvious that if a person is to produce something at a profit he must produce something useful. Otherwise there will be no profit. It is not up to any minority to tell the majority what they are to consume and how much. That is the affair of the individual, not of an organized minority.
The Liberals claim that they believe in the profit system, but they are destroying the profit system by taxation. In this connection I should like to read a letter which I received from a constitueht of mine, one of the best known agriculturists in the Lacombe district. I might say that the Lacombe district is one of the best farming districts in western Canada. It may interest the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to hear the contents of this letter. I am not sure, but I believe the writer is or was a supporter of the government; I do not think he is a supporter of mine. The letter is dated May 21, and reads:
Dear sir,
You will no doubt be somewhat surprised when you receive this letter from me and you no doubt receive many of the same nature from other people in this constituency along the same line.
I believe that in my business, which has extended over a period of almost thirty-eight years in this district, that I do have perhaps a better opportunity than most people to hear and know just what our farmers are doing and talking about, and I refer you especially to the present income tax law as regards our farmers.
I would like to point out to you and others who may be responsible for the present situation that during the last fall and this spring season of farm sales which I have conducted, there have been no less (and I think more) than 12 of our young and most successful farmers in the Bentley and Lacombe districts that have sold out and quit simply because they feel that the income tax is unjust and that they absolutely refuse to work 365 days in the year and then if they do happen to have a good crop, give the government anywhere from 25 to 40 per cent of it.
I know of others who are still staying on their farms, and men who a very short time ago were the largest feeders and raisers of live stock (cattle and hogs) that to-day are not feeding or raising a single head of live stock. They say that they are not going to buy feeders, work every day, Sunday as well as week days, snow or blow, cold and wet and then if they are lucky enough to make a few dollars give most of it to the government for income tax.
IMr. Jaques.l
Others that I know are quitting and hiring all the work done on the farm. I am of the opinion that the farmers of this district are no different from the farmers all over Canada. Most of them feel that when they have paid their municipal, school, social service and many other indirect taxes they have done enough tax paying. They all feel that they are not getting a fair and equitable deal regarding their income tax. They talk something like this. That it is nowhere near fair to tax them plenty when they are fortunate enough to get a good crop as well as price, and then when they are hailed, froze or dried out and get no crop, there is no recompense.
Now then, Mr. Jaques, you can do as you please about ivhat I have written. Do something about it or throw this into the wastepaper basket. But I am telling you and those who are in power at Ottawa that they have got to do something about this whole business, or we are not going to have any good farmers left in this district.
That letter is signed by Mr. C. F. Damron, one of the best known agriculturists in western Canada. There is no man with a sounder knowledge of farming than Mr. Damron and there are no better farming districts -I doubt if there are any as good in the whole of western Canada-than Lacombe and Bentley. That is the condition of the farmers there. While the socialists would, I suppose, make profits a criminal offence, the Liberals are making profits impossible through taxation, and under the orthodox system of finance there is no alternative. As I said when I started, they are all going the same road; they are all going the same place. The only quarrel is over who shall do the planning and who shall do the controlling.
I have heard something about inflation. What is the cure, and the only cure for inflation? It is production. Why should we not have more production? Because the producers in the first place are discouraged by taxation, or they are frightened by what more controls may be in store for them. They are uncertain; they do not like to go ahead and start things when they cannot see the end of their ventures.
I would not, of course, advocate the complete removal of controls, but as a general policy I am all in favour of doing away with controls as quickly as may be possible. I believe in free enterprise. There are only two methods of production. There is persuasion, and there is compulsion-it is one or the other. So far we have always had production by persuasion, and under that system we have not only produced enough for everybody but we have actually had overproduction. It is not really a matter of production. We have solved that problem. We shall have to solve the problem of consumption, and that cannot be done by the

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
old price system, by orthodox finance and orthodox economics. As I said, the Liberals and Conservatives would plan and control by taxation, while the socialists would have planned production, which, of course, in the end means planned scarcity. That is the history in those countries where socialism has really been tried out.
I am familiar with one of the choicest and most desirable parts of western Canada. I refer to the Fraser valley in British Columbia, and I see that the member of Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is in his seat. I have lived in the valley and I am fairly well familiar with conditions there. It is one of the garden spots of the world. At the present time I believe the farmers there are prosperous. I am glad to say that they have done well, but for many years before the war they were certainly in a depressed condition. I have close relations who are producing milk in the Fraser valley and I had many conversations with them before the war. They depend, of course, upon the Vancouver market to sell their whole milk. Their trouble before the war was this, *that although the market and the demand for milk was there, the demand was not effective because it was not supported by money. The Fraser valley milk producers' association had the idea that if they could only get 100 per cent of the retail market they could raise the price of milk by keeping a certain amount of it off the market. In other words, they could raise the price by making milk more scarce. I used to tell them:	If you could do that,
apart from the moral question involved, you would do two things at once. If you succeeded in raising retail prices under these conditions, you would at once stimulate the production of milk in the valley, but you would also lower the sales of milk because, although you raise the price, you do nothing to increase the effective purchasing power of the people to pay the extra price, and what would happen would be this. You would increase the supply of milk, but much of it would go into the milk factories and be sold on the market in the can. There is no profit for them selling milk in the can; their profit is in selling raw milk over the retail counter. But since the war they have done very well for the simple reason that there has been a great increase in the population of Vancouver. I do not know the figures, but there has been a very great increase in Vancouver's population, and of course an enormous increase in payrolls, so that there is more money in the hands of the people. The reason why these farmers in the Fraser valley have done well is simply that they have sold most
of the milk in the raw state over the retail counter because the people want the raw milk and have money to pay for it.
The reason I mention this is that the milk subsidy is to be taken off. I believe that is a great mistake. What we have to do is to stimulate production and the only real way to stimulate production is to stimulate consumption. We should finance consumption, and then production will finance itself. The milk subsidy-and there were others-was a direct application of a social credit principle, and that is the direct financing of consumption. It was done in Great Britain during the war to an enormous extent; I have not the exact figures but I believe it was something like one billion dollars a year. I understand that this subsidy is to be removed. I think that is a great mistake. If we take care of consumption, production will take care of itself.
Conditions after this war have been compared with conditions after the last war. In fact I heard an hon. member contradict himself: he pointed to conditions in 1919 as an illustration of the terrors of inflation, and later on in his speech he said that 1919 and 1920 were the only years when the farmer got a just reward. According to that, you can have a just reward only under inflation. Then he blamed on inflation-or at least I so understood him'-the depression which followed those good years. It was nothing of the kind. As I remember it-and I was farming at the time; in fact I have been farming since 1901, and that is a considerable time-after the last war there was an extraordinary recovery. In a. year, or perhaps two years, the world seemed to have recovered. There was no talk of starvation; there was no talk of famine; there was plenty, and very soon there was more than plenty; in fact it was said that there was over-production.
Why have we .the opposite conditions today? We talk about famine and starvation. You cannot get any goods. You go to a store to buy even such a thing as a shirt and you cannot get it. In those days there was plenty of goods but no money; in these days there is money but no goods. I say that both those conditions are artificial, and I believe they are deliberately brought about, through planning. What we are doing with regard to food is, we are entrusting the control of the world's food to the hands of very few people. I hear complaints and criticisms of such institutions as the grain exchange. Some people think it would be better and safer to do away with such bodies and place the control under a board; in other words, in the hands of a few people. To my mind that is a most dangerous
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

proposal. It is a terrible proposal. Already we see some of the consequences of these controls; certain countries are being threatened with starvation if they do not toe the line. What we are coming to is world dictatorship, world tyranny through the control of the world's food. If that is the " new order," for heaven's sake let us keep to the old. World control or world planning, with the systems of coupons and rationing, means world slavery. I will say this, that only the crook demands and only the craven desires security at the price of freedom.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: I am glad that the house has abandoned the idea of taking a vote on this question to-day, because I believe this is one occasion on which all hon. members should have an opportunity to express their opinions. In fact, had this debate taken place a month or more ago the government might have saved themselves a great deal of trouble, because at the present time they are being asked to answer many questions and consider many things which should have been answered and considered before the action was taken which precipitated this type of debate.
Before coming to the amendment itself, I should like to straighten out a few of the statements which .have been made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). I must admit that I admire his ability in speaking in this house, but very often I feel that he does not make the best of his ability when, instead of stating the facts as they are and basing his argument upon them, he takes the thin edge of the pyramid and builds his whole argument on one point *which, when it falls, causes the whole thing to crumble. I am afraid he did something of the sort to-day in misrepresenting the stand of the C.C.F. party on the question of price control. He spent so much time in making statements which were not in accordance with the facts that he did not make the stand of his own party at all clear; in fact he confused the issue to a point where, I believe, no one knows where his party in the house stands.
I wish to refer to what the leader of our group had to say on May 6. Speaking in this house on this amendment-not the subamendment-he said, as reported in Hansard, at page 1253:
... if we are to have price ceilings let us have them for everybody, not pick somebody out and provide him with a hole in the ceiling.
That in a brief way sets out the stand that we take. We are not opposed to price control as a principle, especially so at this time, because we believe that if it has been found necessary up to now, conditions as to sh'ort-

ages of goods have not changed enough to make it possible now to remove price control. In fact, if there is to be justice in the matter of prices and wages there will have to be price control. That is the stand we take, and I think it was made perfectly clear by hon members speaking for this group that we are not attacking the government because they are maintaining a certain price ceiling policy as such, but because the policy they are following has been working to the disadvantage of certain groups of people in this country, especially the farmers and the workers.
We have made it clear also, but I want to repeat, that we believe that certain adjustments have to be made in the price ceiling policy when the government have permitted a price increase not only on farm implements, which have been mentioned so often in this house, not only of two cents a gallon on gasoline in western Canada, but on many other articles including drugs, cosmetics, tobacco, paper, jewellry, millinery, textiles of all kinds, steel, and steel products-I could name them by the hundreds. Price ceilings have been raised on dozens of manufactured articles. We say it is time that the government gave some consideration to the workers and the farmers of this country in order to recompense them for the higher costs of living resulting from the price increases. That is the stand we have taken, and I think it is clear enough. For some reason the hon. member who spoke before me attempted to becloud the issue and muddy the waters in order to make it far more difficult to understand.
I am going to try as clearly as I can to show what is the stand of each of the political parties represented in this house. If I am wrong they will have an opportunity of setting me straight when they speak.
Let us come back to the Progressive Conservative party. In the same speech this afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre set out three different attitudes or, one may say, took three different stands on the question of a price ceiling. In the first place he said that no one in his party was advocating doing away with price control, which, of course, is not as I understand it, because if we read the speech made last night by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) or the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) the other day, we shall find in their own words as recorded in Hansard-unless it is not correctly reported -that they are in favour of doing away with price control altogether


James Arthur Ross: That is not a fact.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products


John George Diefenbaker: ' That is misrepresentation.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If that is so, it will be necessary to look up the record and see.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put it on the order paper.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Before I am through, it will not be necessary to put it on the order paper. Speaking in this house, the hon. member for Calgary East, as reported at page 1567 of Hansard, said-and if I do not interpret it rightly they may interpret it for me, or misinterpret it as they like:
In view of that fact, I think all believers in free enterprise, including the government, who profess so to believe, should now be bending their thoughts and energies toward the abolition of all those controls which were forced upon us during the war.


James Arthur Ross: What was he talking
about?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: About price control, in
case you do not know. That is the statement.


James Arthur Ross: Farm products; read the rest.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He did not say so. He said, "all those controls which were forced upon us during the war". That takes in the whole territory. No one to my right can deny it.


James Arthur Ross: You are taking out a part and leaving the rest unread.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You will have an opportunity of reading it for yourself when you speak, but there it is on the record and I have given you the page number, and you have plenty of spare time.


Gordon Graydon: Obviously referring to farm products, in this debate.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He said:
. . . toward the abolition of all those controls which were forced upon us during the war.
You can argue all you want to-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is very clear.


Gordon Graydon: Those controls are farm controls.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will not waste time in arguing that fact.


Gordon Graydon: For your own benefit you had better drop it.


William Irvine: Order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The amendment has been read several times in this house and I do not think it is necessary for me to read it again;
if necessary hon. members can read it. I think it can be said that both the hon. member for Calgary East and the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe definitely stated on the floor of the house that, because they believed in free enterprise, therefore we must do away with controls entirely, and the house will bear me out in that statement. I realize that quoting from the record sometimes does not answer the question, because I noted down carefully a few of the statements made last night by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, word for word as he said them, and other members did the same, as he was speaking; but when we take up Hansard to-day we find these statements have been substantially changed. Evidently-


Gordon Graydon: Oh, well, now; just a minute.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -someone has changed his mind about what is the proper thing to say.


Gordon Graydon: On a question of privilege, I am entitled to the floor-a question of personal privilege. The hon. member, I think inadvertently, has referred to Hansard as having been changed by an hon. member of this house. I know he does not mean that, but he ought to have an opportunity of withdrawing it because it conveys an impression which I think should not be conveyed by any member of the house, as directed against another hon. member.


James Horace King: I suggest to the hon. member that he modify his statement.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with your suggestion to modify the statement I will do so. I know you have not asked me to withdraw the statement but to modify it. I therefore modify it to this extent that, although I have average hearing, and so has my deskmate, yet what we both heard last night and noted down word for word is not what appeared in Hansard to-day under the name of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I hope that makes it clear enough, and it carries no offence to anyone. But that happens to be the fact. So much for the record.
We come now to the stand of the government itself; Just what is the policy of the government? Where does the government stand? Listening to the speech of the hon. , member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) the other evening, I got the impression that he believed the government bad done wonderfully well by the farmers. He said:
However, strange as it may seem, I come from an industrial area and I was elected.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

Of course, greater wonders have taken place.
I think the people of Canada are quite well aware of the benefits that have accrued to them from this government-this Liberal government.
Evidently he felt quite satisfied with the work of this Liberal government. But when we come to some of the statements of other members of the same party we find they were not quite so satisfied. For example, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), speaking on May IS in this house, said:
I have a statement from the bureau of statistics showing that the farm income in 1939 was $722-3 million; that is the cash farm income. I concede at once that the industry was a depressed industry at that time-
We must not forget that we had this same Liberal government from 11)35 to 1939, and if this government had done as well, if it had been as generous to the farmers, as the hon. member for Essex West implied, theD why does a member who supports the same government say that he admits at once that the industry was a depressed industry in 1939, after four years of Liberal administration? He goes on:

but may I point out to the leader of the opposition that, while agricultural income was $722-3 million in 1939 and the industry was then in a distressed condition-
It was not only a depressed industry but it was also a distressed industry, and he admits that.
-the distress at that time was nothing like what it was in the early thirties when the party of his adoption was in power.
He was speaking of the leader of the opposition. In other words, the only defence he had to make was that the Liberal administration was not quite as bad as the Conservative administration had been from 1930 to 1935. There we have a difference of opinion between two members of the same party in the house as to how generous the government was to the farmers of the country.
I would say-and if I am wrong the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) will correct me- that the policy of the present administration as to price ceiling has been one of pressure; that is, the group who could exert the most pressure on the government to have price ceilings raised in their particular industry succeeded in having them raised. There did not seem to be any pattern to follow-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Under the rules I am under no obligation to rise when invited to do so,
[DOT] but I certainly disagree with the statement of the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We will not argue about that. I am giving my impresion of what the government policy appears to be. Speaking in the debate on farm implement prices, I

asked the Minister of Finance, very early in the debate, to lay before the house all the evidence of the implement companies to show that they required a rise in the price of their product. I waited patiently through the debate and heard the Minister of Finance speak later on, but we did not get the evidence asked for. There were some abstract figures and a few statistics that, to my mind, proved nothing. Here are figures that prove a lot more. I find that in 1937 the Massey-Harris company made a profit of $1,043,728. It could not have been called a depressed or distressed industry when it was doing as well as that. In 1944 it made a profit of $1,413,396. It was not so distressed then.


Mr. McCANN:: On war contracts.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is good money whether coming from war contracts or anything else. In 1945 it made a profit of $1,800,000. There is no sign of distress there. Unless the minister can present better evidence to this house before the debate ends than he has done up to now to show that there has been a necessity to raise the prices of farm implements at a time when the farmers of this country have placed thousands and thousands of orders for farm implements and are willing to go right to the dealer's door, walling to pay him cash on the barrel-head, the farmers will not agree with him. The companies claim that they are going to lose money at a time when their selling costs are going down to the vanishing point. It is not necessary for the implement companies to go into advertising, to employ salesmen, or to incur any of those expenses of sales which go into overhead, because the farmers are begging for the machines and have cash to pay for them.
These are figures and statistics that should have been placed before this house before the government permitted or authorized an increase in the prices of farm implements, and not after. The responsibility for having broken the price ceiling structure cannot be placed anywhere except on the shoulders of the government. I clearly remember listen-1 ing to the speeches of the candidates of the party opposite during the last election. Their expressed policy was one of maintaining price ceilings in fairness to all. They held out promises of full employment, good wages and fair prices, things which we could all well support. They were elected on that basis, and within one year after that election they have broken the price ceiling structure at least a dozen times. I have already placed on Hansard a number of manufactured articles on which price increases have been

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
permitted. They did not tell the people last June that within one year after the election the price of farm implements would go up 12-^ per cent. They did not intimate that in western Canada the price of gasoline would go up two cents a gallon. They did not give us any warning that the price of paper, textiles and millinery, steel products and so forth would all go up in price inside of one year. They were elected in good faith on their platform of maintaining a stabilized price structure. That was in June. 1945.
There is another angle which has to be considered before we go further, namely, the injustices which have cropped up or which are now in the present ceiling policy of the government. In many cases these are injustices which started five years ago. It is not something that has cropped up overnight. When the price freezing order was put on in 1941, prices and wages were frozen at levels which, in many instances, were not adequate. No one will say that in 1941 the price of farm products was the right price. According to the bureau of statistics, in 1941 the average price of wheat, which is a staple product of the west, was only fifty-five cents a bushel. That is the average of all grades. No one will say that that was a fair price. If one wants to go into wages he will find that many of them were far below standard, and yet evidently it was accepted by the government that the price which obtained in 1941, when the order was put in, was the correct price for everybody. Very little effort was made in the first year or two to make adjustments where adjustments wrere needed. That is a matter of history.
The hon. member to my right brought up to-day the question of the increase in the price of wheat. He said that if a price increase is allowed it will not be because of the C.C.F. group but because of the- action of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). I cannot understand how an hon. member can make that statement when he knows the history of prices. Let me take him back to 1943. At that time the present leader of the opposition was not in the house. I am doubtful whether he then owed allegiance to the party which he is now leading. That, of course, does not matter. In 1943 four by-elections were held in this country. Shortly before they were held a delegation of four hundred farmers from western Canada, practically all of them from Saskatchewan, came to interview the government in an effort to have the initial price of wheat raised to at least $1 a bushel. That is all past history. We know that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is
credited with having said that if four hundred farmers could afford to come all the way from Saskatchewan to Ottawa as a delegation they did not need a price increase very badly, and they were not very successful at the time. As I say, four by-elections were held in 1943. In the riding of Selkirk the hon. member who now represents that riding in this house, was elected. In Humboldt the hon. member who now represents that riding in the house was elected by an overwhelming majority. That did more to raise the price of wheat than all the delegations that had come here prior to that time. - In other words, what was it that caused the price to jump not to $1 but to $125 a bushel? It was because the people of the west expressed themselves emphatically at the polls in Selkirk and Humboldt, and they did so by voting for C.C.F. candidates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about June, 1945?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Incidentally, in both of these constituencies the Progressive Conservatives did not even have the courage to put up a candidate. Therefore how can they claim that it was through their efforts the price of wheat was raised or is to be raised at the present time?


James Arthur Ross: Would the hon. member tell the house what percentage of the electorate was polled at these by-elections?


Mr. MacINNIS:: The Conservatives did not get any of the number polled.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am sorry, I have not these statistics available. I was not expecting to go into these matters to-day, but because of the speech that was made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) it was necessary for me to put these things on record.


Gordon Graydon: What about the Ontario results?


James Horace King: Order.


Angus MacInnis: Take the results of 1943 with 1945.


Gordon Graydon: We are bringing them up to date.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Take the last election.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not mind taking on two Conservative members at a time, but not in this house. If they want to shout I cannot out-shout them.
Coming back to the question under discussion, I said that it was the responsibility of the government for having damaged the price structure. It is a responsibility which they cannot shelve by making excuses; it is
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

one which cannot be shifted to the opposition or anywhere else. I maintain that the policy which is indicated in the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) is an expression of what I believe is the opinion of the majority of the people of this country, namely, by permitting certain price increases on manufactured articles, especially on steel and steel products, farm machinery, and a myriad of others that I cannot mention just now, the government itself is upsetting the price structure. That is why the subamendment was moved in the terms in which it appears. It was not made merely to obliterate the amendment of the Progressive Conservative group, as they seem to think. It was made to put the whole thing in its proper perspective. It is not a question of doing away with price controls, because we know, without having to debate it, that the people of this country do not want to do away with them, even though the party to my right seems to favour it. We know also that if the government is going to permit certain price increases for certain favoured industries or groups of individuals they will have to permit price increases for the farmers and the workers. That is the stand which we take; that is the stand which is indicated in our subamendment and I think it is clear enough.
Before I resume my seat I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the house. During the debate in connection with farm implements the Minister of Finance was asked how it happened that certain stock should have been sold to a select group of the Massey-Harris company, on which they stand to gain a good deal of money, and how it was that this should be pulled off just at about the same time this company was applying for a price increase. I wish to read an excerpt from News Comment, referring to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 20:
Last January 9 the Massey-Harris Company 3old to certain of its officers and employees 115,250 shares of the company's stock at $14J per share. The options are to run for three years and the beneficiaries can take up one-third of the stock each year. If the price of the stock goes up on the stock exchange, these favoured officers and employees can take up their options and sell their stock. It so happens that the price of Massey-Harris stock has gone up. It is now selling at around $20.
This was on April 20. The price increase was announced in this house on April 15. There is something fishy about the whole thing, when a company asks for a price increase on the 15th, or is granted an increase on the 15th-at least it was announced then; we do not know when it was granted, because
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
evidently it was done behind closed doors- and five days later the price of the stock goes up to 20.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It did not go up in those five days.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Well, it was at 20 on that date.
That is, within three months these favoured few have seen the stock rise $5 per share, which on the 38,000 shares which they got on option, now represents a profit of $190,000. "By selling their stock," the Free Press observes, "they can get that money. And what is more they will not be liable to the payment of a dollar of income tax-
Mark this; it is very important.
-because that is capital gain, not a profit."
That is a pretty skilful way of evading the payment of income tax and making a little ready cash. I think the minister should explain to this house how it was possible for the Massey-Harris company to manipulate its stock in such a way as to give its officers a profit of $190,000 which is not taxable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Its wage-earners, just as much as its officers.


Mr. FRASER:: The people you are concerned with. You are begrudging the employees a profit.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Just a minute; don't try to give me that kind of story, because it says here very plainly, "these favoured officers."


Gordon Graydon: One of those officers started as a newsboy in Toronto.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not going into the family tree of every officer of the Massey-Harris company just in order to satisfy the hon. member. The point is that this company manipulated its stock in such a way as to make available to its officers $190,000 on which they need not pay income tax, and that is the same company which came to the government weeping crocodile tears and asking for an increase in the prices of farm implements. That is something which will have to be explained.
Then I should like every hon. member to realize that when a price increase is permitted to a manufacturing industry, that increase goes on all its products and affects all consumers. If there is an increase in the cost of production in a manufacturing industry they can absorb that by increasing their price again, passing that increase on to the consumer. In other words, the man who finally pays the increased price is the consumer of the goods. In this case it happens to be the farmer. In other cases it may be the worker, the pro-

House oj Commons
fessional man or anyone else. Therefore it is necessary for all hon. members, including private members sitting on the government side, to make their opinions known and their influence felt in this house on behalf of the workers and the farmers, because in the last analysis they are the consumers, who cannot pass on any price increase to anyone else. They have to take it right on the pocket-book; they have to be the cushion for the shock. I believe private members on the government side should say just where they stand, whether or not they are in favour of letting these price increases go through without protest. I was amazed when the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) took the tack he did the other day in this house. He attempted to scold the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle because one had spoken in support of the farmers and the other in support of the industrial workers. There is nothing strange about that. If the hon. member were to participate in some of the conventions of the party with which I am associated he would not be at all amazed that one member should speak up for the farmers and another for the workers, because in this party we accept farmers and workers as the people of Canada, and we try to represent the interests of both labour and the farmers. We do not go to the west among the farmers and give them one story, and then to the east among the workers and give them a different story, which have been the tactics of some hon. members who now sit on the other side of the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then your policy has
changed since 1943.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We did not change our name, as you did.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would my hon. friend mind moving the adjournment of the debate, in order that I may make a motion before six o'clock, or is he finished now?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Very well; I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Lorimer Ilsley: That the provision of standing order 28 in relation to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question put for the house to go into committee of supply be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, May 23, 1946


John Bracken: I understand this is to come within the rules and make it possible to continue this debate to-morrow?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


John Bracken: Speaking for this party, we are entirely in favour of this procedure. Might I ask if some consideration has been given to whether or not this will pass if it is protested?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Unless there is unanimous consent we cannot pass it.


John Bracken: Does it require unanimous consent to-morrow?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; just now.


John Bracken: Then you have our
consent.


Angus MacInnis: And you have the consent of this group also.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 23, 1946.