1946-05-23

Mr. SPEAKER:: When the house divided yesterday on Mr. Cockeram's motion for production of certain papers, Mr. Bracken (Leader of the Opposition) rose from his seat and his name was called by the Clerk Assistant and recorded by the Clerk, who repeated Mr. Bracken's name. This repetition of a member's name is an announcement to the house that the member's vote has been recorded. The Clerk is sworn to record the res gestae on things done in the house. When another member's vote, namely Mr. McGregor's, had been recorded and duly announced, Mr. Bracken rose again and stated he had voted inadvertently as he had been paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) during the latter's absence in England. He suggested that his vote be deleted, and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Usley), the leader of the house (Mr. Mackenzie), and several other members agreed that this should be done. No opposition being taken, the Clerk then rubbed off the mark he had made opposite Mr. Bracken's name, which was not included in the division list.
Privilege-Mr. White (Hastings)

The Clerk's action was not a new departure. Bourinot, 4th edition, page 382, says:
In the Canadian Commons the Clerk at the table has been on more than one occasion allowed to strike off the name of a member who is recorded and then admits having been" paired.
In 1926, when Mr. Bird voted though he had been paired, he announced his error after the result of the division had been given out and the Speaker had declared the motion carried. There was no possibility at that time of making any correction and the Speaker was right in refusing to allow that the vote be withdrawn. The Speaker then said:
The rule is that when a vote has been recorded, when the result has been proclaimed and when the motion has been declared carried or lost, that expresses the judgment of the house.
-and he refused to entertain Mr. Bird's request that the recorded vote be deleted. Had Mr. Bracken's request been made after the house's decision had been declared by the Speaker, it would certainly have been refused, but I see no objection in having his name struck out immediately after he had inadvertently voted.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, by consent of the whole house, I am sure that the conduct of the leader of the opposition was of the most honourable kind.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to compliment you upon making a most intelligent ruling on the incident. If the time ever comes when the rules of this house preclude the withdrawal of an inadvertent vote when the obvious intention was clear, it is time that the rules were altered. I compliment Your Honour upon your decision.
Mr. M. J. COLBVvELL (Rosetown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, as the member who raised the question yesterday, may I say that I did so only to have the rules clarified. I too am satisfied with your ruling.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I crave your indulgence and the indulgence of the house to rise on a question of privilege which affects the rights of every member of this house.
In the press of yesterday and this morning appears a press release by Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, which reads in part as follows:

Asked to comment on allegations that the wartime prices and trade board used gestapo methods in the course of its enforcement activities, Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, stated bluntly to-day that such statements were utter nonsense.
Further he stated:
On the other hand we have this type of wild accusation about gestapo procedure.
Further he stated:
I resent strongly the use of the word "gestapo" and I do not propose to let it pass without expressing my objection to such loose and improper language.
These remarks by Mr. Gordon refer to a speech made by myself in this house on May 21, reported at- page 1726 of Hansard. The press statement adds:
Mr. Gordon was commenting on remarks made in the Commons last night by G. S. White, Profressive Conservative member for Hastings-'eterborough.
We in this chamber, Mr. Slpeaker, are members of parliament sent here by the people to represent them. In the discharge of this high duty the most valuable right which we possess is our freedom of speech in debate. It is a right which we must ever be jealous to guard ; for it is the foundation of our effectiveness as members here. Its fundamental importance is recognized in the immunity which we are given from legal action for any statement made in this chamber. I must submit, sir, that our independence in this chamber should include complete freedom from attack, abuse or censure from any paid public official whom we may happen to mention in the course of our duties in debate here. I construe Mr. Gordon's statement as an admonition to me, a representative of the people, that I must not again in the terms I use or in any other way express my views of his administration in terms objectionable to himself.
. I resent any such admonition or any attempt by Mr. Gordon to dictate the language to be used in this chamber. I regard it as high impertinence and an insolence directed against every member of this house. The proper, person to answer any attack made upon anjf branch of the public service in this house is the responsible minister. It will be a most serious thing if the time ever comes when a member of parliament before criticizing a branch of the public service, must first consider the abuse which he may draw down upon himself from the officials of that service.
I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of being instructed or lectured in any way by Mr. Gordon, a public servant. The remarks made by Mr. Gordon are simply a further indication of the gestapo methods of the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board in attempting

Railways and Shipping
to castigate a member of parliament. The language I used was neither loose nor improper, but accurately and justly described the actions of the officials who operate under the direction of Mr. Gordon. Apparently Mr. Gordon is above the government and the minister who administers the department under which the board is placed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The hon. member has
stated his point of privilege, and I do not think he should go on, upon a question of privilege, to reflect on members of the government.


George Stanley White: I
am not reflecting on the government. This is the only opportunity I have to answer Mr. Gordon, and I submit that this is the proper place for me to answer him. I have only one further sentence to add, and it is this: I submit it is high time that the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board was reminded that he is a public servant and not supreme czar.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon.
gentleman use the word "geetapo" the other day, and I was remiss in my duty in not rising at once in my -place and objecting to the use of that language. When conscientious and responsible officials of the public service are called by such names as "nazis" or "Hitlers" or "gestapo", I will not, with regard to any officer in my department, object to their taking public exception to that type of abusive language. The only thing for which I blame myself is for not having taken immediate exception to that abusive language. The only abuse which was used in this case by any of the parties concerned in it was that involved in the use of the term "gestapo" by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White).


Mr. FERGUSON:: And was it correct?
Mr. HOMUTH': Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. HOMUTH:: This sort of quacking
from the far end of the house is heard very often. Let me say to the little minds down there that if their mentality is the mentality of waddling ducks I wish they would not express it here.


James Horace King: Order. To what is the hon. member speaking?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A question of privilege.


James Horace King: Is the hon. gentleman
rising on a question of privilege?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise on a question of privilege, and, as an elected member of the house, I register my opposition and, may I say, my disgust at the fact that a member of the cabinet, who in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is leading the government, states that he has omitted to do something, in the place he occupies, where it ought to have been done, with regard to something which was said in this house, but he is quite prepared to allow somebody else, a servant of this house, to answer for him. I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not to be stopped by that kind of thing. This is a question of privilege.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Where is it? What is the privilege?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The privilege of an elected member as against that of someone who is appointed by the government.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that, while it is their right to rise on a question of privilege, they should state what it is, without going into unnecessary detail. A statement on a question of privilege should be brief and to the point.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in my political life in Ottawa I agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), when he says that the government no longer governs. There is a bureaucracy in control.


Mr. QUELCH:: May I refer to the point of privilege which was brought up by the minister just now? I should like to remind [DOT]him that he is to a very large extent responsible for the term "gestapo" being used in connection with the wartime prices and trade board.


James Horace King: Order. I will not permit any debate. There is nothing before the house.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. I.. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved:
That items Nos. 422, 423 and 469 of the estimates for 1946-47, approved and reported upon by the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be referred to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.
Transport Stores


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 138, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: The object of this bill is to amend section 310(1) of the Railway Act so as to permit a locomotive or its tender moving in reverse to eliminate the posting of a man in the front of the locomotive or tender while it is crossing a highway at rail level. The amendment has been sought for many years by the railway brotherhoods. It has received the approval of the board of transport commissioners and I hope it will commend itself to the house. There is a similar amendment with reference to section 421 of the act, mutatis mutandis.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 139, to amend the Department of Transport Stores Act.
He said: The object of this bill is to amend the Department of Transport Stores Act so as to increase the inventory of stores at the end of each fiscal year from $1,250,000 to $1,600,000. This increase has been made necessary because of the expansion of certain activities in the Department of Transport.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
standardization of defence equipment
['1.\tYes.\n2.\tSixty used but serviceable, cast iron, enamelled, flat rimmed sinks, size 16 inches by 24 inches.\n3.\t$540, approximately.\n4.\tNone. It is intended to utilize these sinks in proposed construction and alteration of reserve army buildings.']
Mr. SKEY:: What steps have been or are being taken by the government to ensure that a fair proportion of military and civilian defence equipment accepted for standardization by the United States and Canada will be produced or manufactured in Canada?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member has indicated that he wishes to have this question answered orally. The answer is: At any time when policy may require the adoption of new defence equipment of a common standard [DOT] with the United States, as well as with the British commonwealth, it is understood that arrangements will be made for production in Canada of any items which may lend themselves economically to Canada's manufacturing resources. For example: in the case of automotive equipment, it is proposed that any basic designs which may in future be adopted will be adapted to meet the techniques and facilities of Canadian industry.
May I add that in view of present adequate stocks, occasion has not yet arisen for specific arrangement for the production of new equipment.



Mr. FLEMING:: What was the volume of Canada's exports of lumber of all kinds, by countries (a) by measurement; (b) by price, in 1945 and to date in 1946?


Mr. MacKINNON:: (a) and (b). See statement below.
Statement showing Canada's exports of lumber of all kinds, by countries, during the calendar year 1945 and the four months ended April 30, 1946
Four months ended
Calendar year 1945	April 30,1946
Country	M. ft.
United Kingdom	 865,836
Eire	  2,152
Aden	   -
British South Africa	 59,124
Southern Rhodesia	 4,514
Bermuda	 722
British India	 895
Ceylon	 152
StTaits Settlements	 -
British Guiana	 511
British Sudan	 -
Barbados	 4,517
Jamaica	 3,233
Trinidad and Tobago	 5,356

Value	M. ft.	Value$38,647,395	175,202	$ 7,576,76482,582	1,197	50,079-	120	12,1303,730,562	23,975	1,937,676237,014	2,167	164,25051,012	129	7,18636,405	-	20,410	-	--	171	10,73038,333	406	34,606-	171	17,272285,869	1,676	101,141201,092	1,163	65,305380,048	1,433	98,964
Questions
Four months ended
Calendar year 1945	April	30,1946Country	M. ft.	Value	M. ft.	ValueBritish West Indies, other	... 2,699	176,865	1,077	79,340Gibraltar 	... 153	11,581	-	-Hong Kong 	21,969	378	19,319Malta 	... 4,574	401,555	312	18,725Newfoundland 	... 4,899	364,369	639	49,331Australia 	... 61,764	2,489,110	14,569	616,038Fiji 	. *. 1,733	82,121	765	30,074New Zealand 	... 4,455	216,410	1,554	67,560British Oceania, other 	... 4	.520	Palestine 	155,582	508	40,819Argentina 	-	3,340	140,425Belgium 	37.672	2,806	133,047China 	11,920	579,164Cuba 	... 56	2,886	-	. 	Greenland 	... 3,240	173,106	-	-Egypt 	... 1,222	56,122	4,750	213,613France 	... 96S	67,676	7,341	545,032French West Indies	... 50	2.939	St. Pierre and Miquelon	... 225	11,780	40	2,873Iceland 	... 6,548	439,269	291	16,429Iraq 	... 504	45,409	840	69,087Italy 	... 898	55,553	-	-Mexico 	... 5	636	3.391	117,541Netherlands 	... 1,279	64,476	5,862	241.283Netherlands West Indies 	... 59	3,794	81	6,709Persia 	... 2,209	100.349	339	14.784Portuguese Africa 	... 46	1,897	1.259	63,700United States 	... 929,111	50,201,375	294,151	16,463,889Alaska 	... 659	26,775	66	3,150Puerto Rico 	... 159	11,961	18	1,384Uruguay 	. . . 	-	560	29,345Total Exports 	... 1,977,348	898,934,569	564,675	$29,638,764British Empire	... 1.029,426	$47,630,894	227,620	$10,997,309Foreign Countries	... 947,922	$51,303,675	337,055	$18,641,455


MEDICINE HAT PRISONER OP WAR CAMP- PLUMBING MATERIALS
Mr. WYLIE:: 1.	Are any unused plumbing materials stored at the prisoner of war camp at Medicine Hat, Alberta?
2.	If so, how many, if any, unused bath tubs and sinks are stored there?
3.	What is the value of such material?
4.	What steps have been taken to dispose of such material?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Sixty used but serviceable, cast iron, enamelled, flat rimmed sinks, size 16 inches by 24 inches.
3.	$540, approximately.
4.	None. It is intended to utilize these sinks in proposed construction and alteration of reserve army buildings.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Is the export of pulpwood controlled by exit permit requirements?
2.	How many cords of (a) spruce pulpwood; (b) balsam pulpwood were exported under permit to the United States during each of the years 1942 to 1945. inclusive from (1) New Brunswick; (2) Quebec; (3) Ontario; (4) Nova Scotia; (5) Manitoba; (6) Saskatchewan?
3.	What was the total pulpwood production in cords during the 1944-45 season for Canadian pulp and paper manufacturers in (a) New Brunswick; (b) Quebec; (c) Ontario; (d) Manitoba; (e) Nova Scotia?
4.	What has been the total pulpwood in cords exported during 1945-46 season to date to the United States from (a) New Brunswick; (b) Quebec; (c) Ontario; (d) Manitoba; (e) Saskatchewan?
1798	COMMONS
Questions as Orders for Returns
5.	How many cords of pulpwood were exported in each of the years 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945, to mills in (a) Minnesota; (b) Wisconsin; (c) Michigan; (d) Ohio; (e) Pennsylvania; (f) Maine?


HOUSING
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many housing units were built and completed for occupancy between May 8, 1945 and May 8, 1946?
2.	How many of that number were constructed
(a)	under part I of the National Housing Act;
(b)	under part II of the National Housing Act; (e) under part III of tlje National Housing Act; (d) by the Veterans Land Administration; (e) by Wartime Housing Limited; (f) by Housing Enterprises Limited?
3.	Up to May 8, 1946, under the National Housing Act, 1944 (a) how many contracts have been entered into under part I? (a) What is the total number of houses for which loans have been authorized under part I? (c) How many of such houses have been completed and are now occupied? (d) What is the total amount'of the loans authorized under Part I? (e) How many contracts have been entered into under part II of the Act? (f) What is the total number of rental housing projects for which loans have been authorized under part II? (g) How many of such rental housing projects are low-rental housing projects? (h) How many of such rental housing projects have been completed and are now occupied, and how many of them are low-rental housing projects, and where are they located? (i) What is the total amount of the loans authorized under part II? (j) How many limited dividend corporations have been recognized as qualified to receive loans under section 9 of the act? What are they, and where are they authorized to operate rental housing projects? Which ones are institutional housing corporations, and which are institutional holding companies? (k) Which of such limited dividend housing corporations have received loans under part II? (1) (1) To how many municipalities have grants been made pursuant to section 12; (2) what are the individual amounts of such grants and what municipalities respectively received them; (3) what are the other terms, if any, of the said grants? (m) (1) IIow many municipalities have applied for grants pursuant to section 12; (2) how many have been refused; (3) how many of such applications are still pending? (n) How many contracts have been entered into under part III? (o) (1) What is the total number of houses for which loans have been authorized under part III:* (2) how many of such houses have been completed and are now occupied? (p) What is the total amount of the loans authorized under part III? (q) How many contracts have been entered into with manufacturers of plumbing and heating equipment or other component parts of houses, pursuant to section 15? (r) How many payments have been made under part IV. and what is the total thereof? (s) What studies and investigations, planning and research have been carried on under part V? (t) What expenditures have been made pursuant to part V out of the $5,000,000 authorized by parliament in 1945. under section 27A?


Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many houses have been completed for occupancy up to May 8, 1946, by Wartime Housing Limited?

2.	(a) What expenditures have been made to * May 8, 1946, by Wartime Housing Limited; (b)
has any portion thereof been expended otherwise than on houses? If so, what portion and on what?
3.	(a) How many houses are under construction by or for Wartime Housing Limited; (b) in what municipalities are they located?
4.	(a) How many other houses has Wartime Housing Limited contracted for; (b) in what municipalities are they to be located?
5.	When is it estimated that all such houses will be completed and ready for occupancy?
6.	(a) How many of the completed houses have cellars, and how many have no cellars; (b) how many of those yet to be completed will have cellars, and how many will not?
7.	What quantities of building materials of all kinds has Wartime Housing Limited on hand?
8.	(a) How many persons are employed by
Wartime Housing Limited:	(b) who among
such persons are in receipt of salaries of $3,000 per annum, or more, and who are they, and what services do they perform; (c) what is the monthly payroll of Wartime Housing Limited?


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	On what date or dates have the three parts of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act come into force?
2.	Who have been appointed as officers and directors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and on what dates and at what remuneration?
3.	Where do such officers and directors respectively reside?
4.	What are their respective qualifications for appointment ?
5.	How many meetings of the corporation have been held, and on what dates, and who were present at each?
6.	How many meetings has the board of directors held, and on what dates, and who were present at each?
7.	Who are the members of the executive committee, and when did they take office as such ?
8.	How many meetings has the executive committee held, tand on what dates, and who were present at each?
9.	How many employees has the corporation?
10- (a) How many offices has the corporation;
(b) where are they located; (c) how many persons are employed in each?
11.	(a) What scale of salaries and wages and pension or superannuation benefits has been established for officers and employees; (b) what is now the monthly payroll: (c) does the board of directors contemplate further extension of staff and payroll?
12.	What expenditures have been made by the corporation, and for what purposes?
13.	What steps have been taken and expenditures made by the corporation on research, and on what types of research?



VETERANS AFFAIRS-LEGAL SERVICES- W. C. THOMSON, K.C.

Mr. LENNARD:: What remuneration was received by or is owing to W. C. Thomson, Esq., K.C., of Toronto, for work performed for the dominion government while acting for the Department of Vet-

Radio Broadcasting
erans Affairs from January 1, 1945 to December 31, 1945, in the way of (a) salary; (b) fees;
(c)	commissions; (d) expenses?



APPLE CROP

Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	What was the value of the apple crop in (a) Ontario; (b) Quebec; (e) British Columbia; .(d) Nova Scotia, in each of the years 1939-1944 inclusive?
2.	How much was paid by way of subsidies on apples in each of said provinces during each of said years?



JOSEPH NICHOLISAN PLANIDIN

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is Joseph Nicholisan Planidin of Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan, in the employ of the government overseas?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	What are his duties and salary?
4.	Who recommended him?



AEROPLANES

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many aeroplanes were the .property of the Canadian government on May 8, 1945?
2.	How many are owned by the government at present?
3.	Have all the planes belonging to the Canadian government that were in other countries at the end of hostilities, been brought back to Canada?
4.	If not, for what reason?
5.	How many planes mentioned under No. 3 have not been brought back to Canada?
6.	Have they been sold?
7.	If so, how many, to whom and at what price?
8.	Was the price of said planes paid in cash?
9.	If not, for what reason?



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply will answer the question he said he would take notice of yesterday.


Hon C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The question was directed to the minister and perhaps I had better answer it. The answer is yes.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should like to direct a question to the minister arising out of the affirmative answer he has given to the member for Calgary west. Are the licences given to private stations issued as permanent licences, or are they on an annual basis, terminable at the pleasure of the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All licences are issued annually, for the current fiscal year only. With regard to class 1-A wave lengths, which are wave lengths permitting unlimited power, the following endorsation is included in the licence:
The frequency of . . . Kc/s per second being a clear channel is definitely reserved for the national system of broadcasting and this station is authorized to use this frequency provisionally until such time as it may be required for and assigned to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Major James William Coldwell: What stations are covered by such an agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think we have eight clear channels, but I am not sure that I can name them all. There are two in Toronto. One is used by a government station and the other is owned at the present time by a private company. I do not remember the wave lengths of either. There is one in Montreal used at the present time by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There is one in Winnipeg used at the present time by the Manitoba telephones. There is one in Alberta used at the present time by a private station. There is one in Watrous, Saskatchewan, owned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and there is one at Sackville, New Brunswick, which is also a C.B.C. station.



BUILDING MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Is the government contemplating the issuance of any further order or orders providing for priorities with respect to building materials?
Clarence Decatur Howe: What the government intends to do is a matter that must be made known in due course. I may say that I have no new orders in mind, but I may have something in mind to-morrow.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Is the Minister of National Defence yet in a position to make a statement regarding the retention of Aldershot military camp for permanent force training for the army?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I thank my hon. friend for asking the question. I have had similar
Army-Aldershot Camp

inquiries and representations from the Minister of Finance, the senior member for Halifax, and, I believe, most if not all of the Nova Scotia members and senators with respect to the future of Aldershot camp. The question arose, I believe, in consequence of some press dispatch, which I did not see, to the effect that training of the permanent force was to be centralized in Ontario or Manitoba. That is not accurate. The active force will include the brigade group, field units, training schools and establishments, the usual static units at district headquarters, and so on. These are to be spread across Canada. I do not recall how many schools there are, but there are several of them. One will be located at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia-an artillery school; and others will be located right across Canada: one in British Columbia, some in the prairies, some in Ontario and, I believe, in Quebec. Aider-shot camp was not used before the war as a permanent establishment where troops were quartered the year round. It will not be so used after the war. In that respect it will be in the same position as Petawawa, Ipperwash, Dundurn, Farnham, Utopia and a number of others. These camps will be used in the summer months for the training of the reserve army, and no doubt a skeleton staff will be kept there the year round. So far as the permanent force units are concerned, they will be located where there are permanent quarters. Before the war in Nova Scotia that was and will continue to be Halifax and Dartmouth.
After receiving notice of this question from several hon. members I went into the matter rather carefully. I found that the total permanent force strength in military district No. 6, Nova Scotia, will be in the vicinity of 1,200 men as against about 500 before the war. The same plan will be followed there as throughout the rest of Canada. Aldershot is to-day and will continue to be the principal training centre for the reserve army in Nova Scotia.


Mr. HAZEN:: May I ask whether any of he permanent forces will be maintained in New Brunswick?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There will be, but I cannot give my hon. friend the numbers at the moment.
Mr. PEARIvES: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister? Does he include the units of the brigade group when he refers to them as being spread across Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, that is correct.


Mr. KIDD:: Is the minister in a poskion to answer the question I asked on May 21 with reference to junior permanent force officers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked me the following question:
Could the discharge of the junior permanent force officers in the army be deferred or held up until such time as appointments in the service can be assured in their branch or some other branch of the service?
I do not know exactly to which type of permanent force officer the hon. member is referring. I- assume he means a number of permanent force N.C.O.'s who received their commissions during the war.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: That is right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: These commissions are not permanent force commissions; they are temporary commissions granted for war only. A thousand and some odd former permanent force non-commissioned officers received commissions during the war, some going as high as major and lieutenant-colonel. In the reorganization of the army some of these officers are not suitable, because of age or otherwise, for the post-war army; therefore the answer to my hon. friend's question must be in the negative.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of National Defence. Are the outstanding facilities at Camp Borden to be utilized in the training of branches of the permanent force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; Camp Borden is one of the principal permanent force establishments, and always has been.



ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Wiill the Minister of Finance, at as early a day as possible, make a statement to the house giving a list of every essential commodity in Canada at present in short supply?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not really know how to answer that question. With regard to some commodities it would appear to me to be a matter of opinion as to whether they are in short supply or not. What the hon. member is asking for is a very difficult thing to do. I do not think I can undertake to do it. If the hon. member would like to put the question on the order paper I shall do the best I can with a *written answer.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McOULLOUGH (Assmiboia):: On May 21 I directed a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply referring to the use of the Bienfait coal mines. The parliamentary assistant to the minister asked that the question be allowed to stand so that the minister could make a reply. Is the minister now in a position to reply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I proposed to make a statement on the coal situation to-day, but in view of possible developments in the United States, which will affect the Canadian situation very materially, and which may take place within the next twenty-four hours. I have deferred the statement until either tomorrow or Monday. I shall try to deal in that statement with the situation in the western Canadian mines.

PRICE CEILING POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO FARM PRODUCTS	>
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie that the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mrs. Strum.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: When the house rose last evening I was endeavouring to point out that this group have been carrying on this debate in the hope of getting a better deal for the farmers and the workers of this country. I also invited the private members who support the government to give us their opinion as to whether or not they approve the actions of the government in relation to its price ceiling policy up to the present.
In the short time remaining at my disposal I should like to put a few constructive proposals before the government and the house, in order to establish that we are not here merely to criticize, although we do not pull any punches when criticism is necessary, but also to propose steps to the government and to the house which we feel would be for the benefit of the people. I have five points which I should like to place on the record by way of indicating a certain line of action which in my opinion will meet with the approval of the great majority of the people of Canada.
My first point is that the government should permit increases in the prices of farm products and fish in relation to the cost of production. In view of the action of the wartime prices and trade board, authorized by the government, in permitting certain increases in the prices of manufactured articles-I do not need to go through the very long list of articles concerned-I do not think anyone in this house will deny that it is now necessary to give consideration to an increase in the prices of certain farm products and fish.
My second point is that the government should permit an immediate increase in all substandard wages. While in some instances wages went up during the war, wages in many other occupations are far below the standard, and there is necessity for an immediate increase in these, wages in order that the people concerned may make both ends meet.
The third point I suggest is that a floor price of $1.55 per bushel be placed under wheat for the next five years, with comparable floors under other farm products, fish, and wages. There has been a great deal of talk in this house over the contention that the ceiling on wheat should be raised. While I believe that is true to a certain extent, what the farmer wants and needs for the next five years is not so much a ceiling pegged at a high level but some certainty as to what is going to be the floor price. At the present time provision is made for a floor price of $1 per bushel for the next five years. If the present trend is to continue, the cost of production will be such that $1 per bushel simply will not be sufficient, so I think the government should not hesitate to increase the floor price to the figure I have mentioned, in view of the world situation, the possibilities of markets, and the prices of other articles.
My fourth proposal is that the government increase the income tax exemption to $2,000 for married persons and $1,200 for single persons. My reason for offering this proposal is obvious from what has gone before. The purchasing dollar to-day does not buy what the purchasing dollar bought two years ago. A single person with an income of $1,000 or $1,200 is not able to provide the necessities of life and at the same time pay income tax. A married man receiving $2,000 or less, with the cost of living as it is and as it seems likely to be for quite a while, certainly is not able to maintain a family and at the same time contribute by way of income tax.
My fifth proposal is that pensions to the aged and the blind be increased sufficiently to compensate for the increased cost of living. The reason for that also is obvious. This is
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

'the class of people who, as I think all hon. members will agree, have been hit hardest by the rising cost of living, because they are attempting to live-in some cases merely to exist-upon fixed incomes. They cannot go on strike and ask for higher pensions. They cannot organize and refuse to sell their produce. Evidently they cannot lobby the government with any success. Therefore it is up to the members of this house to show their appreciation for our old people who pioneered this country and made it what it is, and their consideration for the unfortunate people who are suffering from blindness and other disabilities. These people should have their pensions increased immediately in order to meet the increased cost of living.
I do not advance these proposals merely, so to speak, to put the government on the spot, but because I feel they are legitimate demands which the people of this country were led, during the last election campaign, to believe would be met. I am not going to rehash what was said at that time; I need only mention the fact that during that campaign there was a great deal of talk about the new social order. Pamphlets and other literature were printed and distributed to the people in which they were told that never again would this country go through what we experienced during the hungry thirties; never again would we suffer from lack of social security, and so on. I do not say these promises were made only by the party.now in power; every party represented in this house had such things somewhere in its programme. But it happens that the party across the way, the Liberal party, is in power at the present time, and it is the only party which can do these things for the people.
In order that; hon. members may not think I have concocted a synthetic set of proposals out of my own head, I should like to read a resolution which was submitted to me by an agricultural society at Ethelbert, Manitoba, in my constituency. The farmers who belong to this society do heavy work; they are not the sort of farmers someone to my right mentioned the other day, who work six months a year and spend the other six months in California. I am sure not one member of this society has ever seen Florida or California, or ever hopes to do so. Here is what they say:
Whereas the members of the Ethelbert agricultural society have always been in favour of stabilization of prices of farm produce at a fair price to the producer, provided that the things the farmer has to buy are kept at a reasonable price.
Whereas the prices of many commodities the farmers have to buy have risen considerably, and the prices of farm products have not increased correspondingly.
It is therefore resolved that this society go on record as:

1.	Deploring the action of the dominion government in allowing an increase in the price of farm implements;
2.	Recommending that the dominion government reconsider its decision to permit an increase in the price of farm machinery, or take immediate steps for a general increase of all farm products corresponding to the increased cost of production.
I could go on and quote resolutions of the same sort from other farm organizations and labour unions, in which they point out that if they are to be asked to help maintain the price stabilization policies of this country, in return they have a right to expect some security and fairness of treatment; in other words that the load will not be placed upon the low income groups of this country. That is the stand we take on this side of the house. I believe this debate has brought out what I said in my opening remarks yesterday;, that is, that if the government had taken this house into its confidence; if it had brought before the house this question of raising price ceilings and making certain unannounced adjustments, giving the members of this house an opportunity to express their opinions and give their advice in good faith, it could have saved itself a great deal of trouble and could have won the respect and support of the great majority of the people of this country. As it is to-day the government have sowed seeds of distrust in the minds of the people. To-day no one in the country feels secure, because they believe the whole price control structure is built upon sand, so to speak, which may be washed away at any time. I think it is high time the government did something to restore the faith of the people of this country in the principles of fairness in connection with price controls.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, knowing the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) as I do, and having a knowledge of her constituency, I am inclined to believe that in presenting her subamendment the hon. member has been the victim of the C.C.F. board of strategy. May I just read the amendment which was moved by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken) on May 6:
This house is of the opinion that the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm products are discouraging production of needed food and imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.
The debate was then adjourned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and she then presented the following subamendment :
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

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
producers and workers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with that?


James Arthur Ross: All that is wrong with that is that she entirely approves the present price ceilings on agricultural production.


Major James William Coldwell: That is fantastic.


James Arthur Ross: Just a minute; she has made her speech, and many of her group have made speeches. I admit they have talked in as many different directions as they have had speakers, and have signified their support of the conditions in which the farmers find themselves. She has taken the meat out of the amendment, and eliminated the words:
Price ceiling policies with respect to farm products are discouraging production of needed food.
Those words are taken out entirely. Their only grievance, according to the subamendment, is based upon the increase in the price of farm implements and steel. I have raised just as strenuous objection to that increase of 12| per cent on farm implements as has any member in the house. I am not satisfied to stop there. 1 am dissatisfied with the price ceilings on the products of the farms to-day, as are a great many farmers at this particular time. May I emphasize that in that sub-amen.dment the group to my left approves these conditions in connection with price ceilings to-day. By the wording of the subamendment. it would seem that they are satisfied with the recent increase in the price of gasoline in the prairie provinces, and with many other grievances; because they have taken the meat out of that original amendment and pinned their whole grievance to the increase in the price of farm implements, rightly oj- wrongly, after all that has taken place by way of protestations of various members to my left. In fact, if one wishes to follow that through, only a week ago, on May 16, we saw their leader rise in his place and protest against Mr. Speaker's ruling, taking the side of my colleague, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and then in almost the same breath voting the opposite way. I think we have to be careful about the wording of that upon which we are going to vote, despite protestations Which are raised in the house.
So I say there are these many grievances which are bound to aggravate the situation from the point of view of agricultural production. I say distinctly that I for one am dissatisfied with the .price of wheat to-day,
with the price of beef, the price of hogs and of dairy products, as compared with the prices in any other of the united nations with which we were associated in the prosecution of the war.
As was so ably said by the hon. member for Lake Centre yesterday, great famines prevail in many parts of the world. We know little in Canada about the cost of this war- certainly not in the lack of foodstuffs. But lightly or wrongly, with the war over, many of these farmers are letting up on their production.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) from my own province seemed to be quite satisfied with the plight of the farmers to-day. I know that he did not speak even for all the farmers in his own constituency, let alone for the province of Manitoba.
Recently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, through their executive, asked the dominion government to make an adequate study of farm costs of production at the earliest possible day and to relate the findings to the incomes of other Canadians. The federation suggested that the study should be made with all speed, and they added:
Agricultural prices cannot be fixed equitably, during the period in which they must be fixed, until the essential facts are known. Agricultural production cannot be increased unless the prices of farm products are reasonable in relation to costs and earnings of non-farmers . . . The simple quick way to achieve parity between farm and city workers is to permit farm prices to rise until the scales are balanced. Those who know something about farm earnings and incomes will agree that an immediate 50 per cent increase in tarm prices would be necessary to bring farm hours into line with city hours.
Just the other evening, when my colleague the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) was speaking, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) asked what "parity" is. I have heard him ask that many times. The minister did take a basis for organized labour, namely the years 1926-29, as parity. It is recognized throughout this country, of course, that there is considerable difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is conceded by those who follow current events that they do not see eye to eye. They are even far apart in some cases. But surely there should be agreement between the ministers and their parliamentary assistants. When we were debating this subject of parity on September 25, during the last session, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) rose in his place and spoke for forty minutes on the. subject, in an endeavour to point out that this governement was fighting to get the principle of parity prices
1S04
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

accepted and writted into the statutes of Canada. That was -the basis of his argument, which he continued for forty minutes. Yet, after all that, the Minister of Finance in this debate professed that he did not know what parity meant.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not know what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe meant by parity. That is why I was asking.


James Arthur Ross: More serious consideration should be given by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues to the most recent requests of the executive of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It is most important at this time.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) rather surprised me the other evening. On most issues he and I have been in agreement, but I thought he was wrong when he was setting forth the satisfactory conditions pertaining in agriculture, and talked about production in different parts of Canada. He did not put all the figures on the record which may be found in government reports to-day respecting the production of beef, pork, dairy products and other matters which are most important in-the production of food.
Wtih respect to my good friend from Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), who preceded me in the debate, may I say that his remarks of yesterday evening greatly surprised me when he attempted to misrepresent the statements of my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness). I interpolated a remark, and he said, and rightly, that I would have an opportunity to explain those matters later. He endeavoured to leave the impression that my colleague wanted all ceiling prices removed immediately. That is contrary to the facts. My colleague, speaking in this debate, said this among other things:
Artifieal controls are the essence of .a socialistic state, and the people of this dominion demonstrated at the polls that they do not want a socialistic state as evidenced by their lack of support for hon. members to my left. So that I think we may take it for granted as something definite that everyone will admit that the majority of the people of this country are believers in free enterprise. In view of that fact, I think all believers in free enterprise, including the government, who profess so to believe, should now be bending their thoughts and energies toward the abolition of . . . those controls which were forced upon us during the war.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was following the quotation which the hon. member was reading. I should like to know why he left out the word "all" after the word "of". It says, "of all those controls". He did not read that.


James Arthur Ross: Of all those controls. I presume that my friend and many of his colleagues, in order to put their philosophy into force, if they ever were in power and should then be of the same opinion as they are to-day, would have to continue many of these controls.


Major James William Coldwell: Many of them.


James Arthur Ross: I hope I shall never be forced to live under that. Further I hope my family will never be called upon to live under that.


Mrs. STRUM:: Does the hon. member speak for his party? Would his party do away with the wheat board and return the handling of wheat to the grain exchange?


Major James William Coldwell: That is control.


James Arthur Ross: I am speaking for myself, and I think probably my party are of the same opinion. May I say that the hon. member's predecessor in the house could not be surpassed by any hon. member in his suport of the Canadian wheat board, and I always supported him on it.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The hon. member did not answer my question. Would he put the handling of wheat back into the hands of the grain exchange?


James Arthur Ross: I certainly would not. I have stated in this house on more than one occasion, and the hon. member and other members must have heard it if they were listening, that in March 1943 the then member for Qu'Appelle and I moved a resolution asking that the grain exchange be closed and that coarse grains as well as wheat be handled by the wheat board. I still stand by that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Arthur Ross: I do not mind questions, but my time is limited, and the hon. member has already made a forty-minute speech.


James Horace King: Order. No hon. member should interrupt the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to make reference to the argument made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who put a lot of statistics on the record. I have statistics here, which I shall not put on the record, but which were gathered by the bureau of statistics and appear in the Agricultural Review, put out under the Department of Agriculture. These statistics show that the

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
slaughtering of hogs in 1945 decreased by 35 per cent over 1944. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in his seat and can correct me if these figures are wrong.
There is a decrease, not only in hog production but also in the production of beef, milk, poultry,-where the decrease is very large,- and in every other farm product, according to the government's own statistics. I cannot attribute this decrease in production of farm products to anything else but the policies of this government.
When his estimates were before the house the other day the Minister of Agriculture read letters from his constituents, as did the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and others.


Mr. GARDINER:: Not from my constituents.


James Arthur Ross: They were addressed to the minister. After all, this is a national government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We admit that.


James Arthur Ross: This government is supposed to represent all the people of this dominion. These letters showed that there had been a decrease in production of farm products, even though we had much more man-power in Canada in 1945 and 1946 than in the war years.
The bon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) yesterday extolled the leader of the official opposition. He said that when he was in Manitoba he had always argued that approximately one-third of the population at that time were farmers and were entitled to that share of the national income, and he went on to say that he was in full accord with that argument.


Mr. BRYCE:: There is nothing wrong with that.


James Arthur Ross: Price Ceiling-Farm Products

board. The Minister of Finance, under whose jurisdiction the board operates, took violent exception to the word "gestapo". That is strange, because I wish to refer to what seems almost unbelievable action taken by the board in the case I am now going to mention. I have here a letter from a prominent lawyer and outstanding citizen in my province, in which he says:
Re: Robert Stratton, MacGregor, Manitoba
The above party is an oil dealer living at MacGregor, Manitoba.
Stratton was convicted a short time ago for offering to sell a used McLaughlin-Buick car for more than the ceiling price. He pleaded guilty and so there was no evidence given, but we believe that he advertised the car for sale for approximately the ceiling price and when a buyer came he quoted the man $1,300. The man wanted to buy, even at $1,300, but Stratton did not sell it to him. The chap was a Brandon man and later phoned long distance to Stratton and Stratton, who claims he did not want to sell to this fellow at all, told the man over the phone that the car was already sold for $1,275. This was not true, as Stratton apparently had not sold the car at all.
, So far as the writer can gather, this would-be purchaser then got in touch with the Brandon wartime prices and trade board with the result that Stratton was contacted by the wartime prices and trade board officials and the Mounted Police. He told them what had happened, signed a statement, came down to Portage, his ear was immediately seized at Portage la Prairie and he was left to get home the best way he could. The writer was retained and the writer immediately drew an assurance that Stratton would not dispose of the car above the ceiling price and sent it to Mr. Siddall, representative of the wartime prices and trade board in Winnipeg.
When the case came up for trial, which was a week after the seizure of the car, my client pleaded guilty and w-as fined $50 and costs. The wartime prices officials did not think this was enough. After the plea of guilty, counsel for the wartime prices and trade board asked the magistrate to make an order to further retain the car. The writer naturally took the stand that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to do so. As a matter of fact, we thought it was unlawful for them to have retained the car for the week preceding the case. The magistrate refused to make the order and the car was turned over to Stratton.
We now have the spectacle of this ear being seized under an order signed by C. H. Blair, assistant secretary, presumably, of the wartime prices and trade board. We enclose herewith a copy of this warrant. The car has been tied up so far in Stratton's own garage, but, as you can see, the board apparently are going to sell this car notwithstanding the fact that Stratton does not want to sell it and notwithstanding the fact that he has given an assurance that he will not peddle it above the ceiling price.
We have made application to Mr. John C. Ross of Winnipeg for re-consideration of this matter and have asked him to refer it to Ottawa. We are writing you to ask you now if you would be good enough to intercede in this matter and see if he can have his ear released, as he needs it in his oil business.

The regulation under which this has been seized reads as follows:
"16. Any goods which any person buys or sells or in any way deals with or attempts to buy or sell or in any way deal with contrary to these regulations may (in addition to any other penalty which may have been imposed on any person or to which any person may be subject, with relation to such unlawful act or omission, and whether or not any prosecution in relation thereto has been commenced) be seized and detained and shall be liable to forfeiture at the instance of the Minister of Justice upon proceedings in the Exchequer Court of Canada or in any superior court, sub-'ject, however, to a right of compensation on the part of any innocent person interested in such property at the time it became liable to forfeiture or who acquired an interest therein subsequent to such time as a bona fide transferee for value without notice, w-hich right may be enforced in the same manner as any other right against His Majesty."
That, I think, is a pretty high-handed exercise of authority, and the assurances we have had in other matters with regard to the rights and liberties of the individual citizen are certainly ignored in that order. It shows there is need in this country to-day for the bill of rights which was debated here a short time ago. The letter continues:
Whether the regulation will hold water, or not, is beside the point, as people like Stratton have not money to fight these various bureaus of the- government, but for a free country this is pretty drastic procedure when officials of the government without any court order whatsoever can walk into a man's place and tell him that they are going to seize and sell his own property.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: And confiscate it.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, and confiscate it.
Nevertheless, it is the law if the regulation is valid but it is this kind of regulation that makes the people despise the law and as you know the body of people otherwise law-abiding who are evading deliberately these regulations show all too clearly that the people are not in sympathy with the law or else they would obey it. Certainly actions like this which are perilously close to being high-handed only have the effect of creating concern in the minds-of the people as to whether or not we are going completely totalitarian.
To this letter is annexed a copy of a warrant or instructions, as follows:
To Robert Stratton Esq.
MacGregor, Manitoba,
And to John C. Ross, Esq.,
Prices and Supply Representative,
Wartime Prices and Trade Board, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
And to whom else it may concern:
Whereas the said Robert Stratton was convicted under the wartime prices and trade regulations for having offered or attempted to sell a used McLaughlin-Buick car at a price in excess of the maximum price fixed for such a used car by administrator's order No. A-1489 made by the administrator of motor vehicles and parts.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
And whereas the board has no assurance that the said Robert Stratton will not hereafter sell or attempt to sell the used car at a price in excess of its maximum price.
Just think what that paragraph means.
Now therefore pursuant to authority conferred by the wartime prices and trade regulations P.C. 8528 dated November 1, 1941, and amendments thereto, the board orders as follows:
1.	John C. Ross, prices and supply representative of the board at Winnipeg is hereby authorized on behalf of the board to take and retain possession of the used car and all documents of title relating thereto and to cause the used car to be sold for cash at a price not exceeding the maximum price at which it may be sold to such person as the said John C. Ross may designate.
2.	Robert Stratton shall permit the said John C. Ross to take and retain possession of the said used car and all documents of title relating to it, shall do all acts and things which are necessary or which the said John C. Ross may require on behalf of the board to complete the sale and delivery of the used car to the person designated as purchaser and shall refrain from in any way impeding or preventing the said John C. Ross from carrying out the authority conferred upon him by this order.
Dated at Ottawa, this 10th day of May, 1946
The Wartime Prices and Trade Board, by- C. H. Blair, Assistant Secretary.


John George Diefenbaker: No right of appeal.-


James Arthur Ross: No right of appeal. The courts are disregarded. Yet the Minister of Finance rose in his place in this house at the opening of this afternoon's sitting and protested against a certain expression applied to such proceedings. I ask if anything more high-handed could be conducted by gestapo agents in the totalitarian states which we fought against for years than such an order as this.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: They were carrying on a black market, and they should be put in the courts.


James Arthur Ross: I am not favouring black marketing at all.


James Sinclair: You are favouring it right now.


James Arthur Ross: That man never sold his car. I would not raise my voice on behalf of anyone engaged in what is known as black marketing.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Will the minister answer the question?


James Arthur Ross: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: Has the hon. gentleman finished? I am not participating in the debate. I am just saying something in response to an invitation by the hon. gentleman. The hon. member has not brought that case to my attention before.


James Arthur Ross: I will admit that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And I do not know whether he brought it to the attention of the board. I would have to look into it before I could say anything about it. But I do not think the hon. gentleman knows much about gestapo methods if he thinks that that is a gestapo.


James Sinclair: He knows something about black marketing, though.


James Arthur Ross: I want to take exception to the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) that I know a lot about black marketing. I do not know any more about it than he does, and I have done my best to suppress it anywhere in the country.


James Sinclair: Yet was not this friend of yours on the telephone, ready to sell a car for $1,275, and was he not convicted in what to me as a layman is one of the courts of this country? Members of parliament, I think, should be standing up here supporting the Minister of Finance in every attempt to stamp out the black market.


Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the house has listened to a very interesting debate, precipitated by the amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken). After a careful study of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment I think we can all agree that there are two main issues before the house with which we ought to be particularly concerned. The first issue is directly contained in the wording of the amendment, which states that because of the government price ceiling policy, agricultural production is being hampered. The second issue is not stated in the wording of the amendment, but I think the speeches of practically every hon. member to my right have been to the effect that price controls in this country ought to be abolished.
I have listened carefully to every debate which has taken place in this house, both in this session and in the last, and they have left with me the impression up to the present time that the Conservative party is un-
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

equivocally opposed to the price control system which was established in Canada during the war years.
This is a very important subject. It is not only of importance to the farmers; it is of great importance to the workers, including the industrial and the white-collar workers, and I think every party in this house should have its leader go on record as to what is to be the policy of that party with respect to price control. Our leader has already gone on record with respect to that situation. I have not yet heard what is the official stand of the Progressive Conservative party in this matter, and I should like to know what it is.
With respect to the first issue, I do not think there is any question but that the government's policy with respect to price ceilings is hampering agricultural production. I am in favour of maintaining the price control system which was built up in this country during the war years. I support the maintenance of it because I happen to have had the privilege of being in another British country during the war years where price control was not in effect. I can tell the members of this house that the people in that country suffered considerably because of the fact that there was no control over the prices of goods. I refer to Newfoundland. In St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1942 a dozen eggs cost $1.20-I know, because I was there-and other agricultural products were just as high. Coal sold at $25 a ton in St. John's because there was no control over prices. While I do not agree with the economic policies put forward by the present government, I do feel that we ought to give them credit for building up in this country an effective system of price control. The only objection I have to that policy up to the present time is that they are allowing private interests to punch holes in the price system, and I venture to say that we may come to the time when we shall have to abandon price controls owing to the fact that we have allowed the system to become honeycombed by rising prices.
This is the position of the farmer as far as I can see it. Under our price control system we have permitted the prices of a large number of goods to be increased, and on some of our commodities we have permitted the price control to be completely lifted. That has resulted in a reduction in the purchasing power of Canadian farmers, because the prices of goods they have to buy have gone up steadily ever since the beginning of this year. The increase in the price of gasoline, petroleum products, farm machinery, clothing

and a great number of other commodities has reduced the purchasing power of the farming group as a whole.
But what applies to the farmer applies also to the labourer. I have listened with great interest to hon. gentlemen to my right discussing the subject, and they have tried to tell us that the farmers and the labourers of the country cannot unite on a common policy because their interests are divergent. This is not true. The farmers and the .industrial workers are in the same boat; the economic problems that confront the one group equally confront the other; and it is up to us to see that we follow some policy that will be favourable to both these groups.
I would like to put on the record an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of May 17 dealing with the increase in the cost of living to the industrial workers of the country. It comes from George Burt, Canadian director of United Automobile Workers of America, and this statement appears:
Instead of wages rising since the end of the war, they have been falling. A.verage hourly rates in money terms are down at least three per cent, real hourly rates are down nearly six per cent. Average weekly earnings dropped ten per cent and real weekly earnings, take-home pay, dropped thirteen to fourteen per cent. Mr. Burt made this announcement as the dominion bureau of statistics reported that the cost of living index had reached 120-8 as of April 1, the highest point since the war.
He goes on to say that a great many authorities in Canada have stated that if we ,are to increase the wages of the industrial workers we must of necessity increase all other costs of materials in this country, and he points out that this is not the situation. He refers to what an increase in pay would mean to the cost of production of agricultural implements. This is for the United States:
In the United States a three-bottom gang plough, for which the farmers pay $153,50, has a manufacturing labour cost of only $11.17, while a cream separator, which costs $100.84 and which bears the highest labour cost of any agricultural implement, requires a wage bill of only $14.66. In the case of cream separators, therefore, a thirty per cent increase in wages, with no improvement in labour productivity, would raise unit costs by only four per cent.
Recently I saw an interesting article in one of the western newspapers. It dealt with the increased productivity of Canadian industry in the war years, from a survey made by the war production board, which stated that in 3,750 of our largest industries, comprising forty-two different companies, the productive efficiency, when they shall have been reconverted to peace-time conditions by July 1, will have increased by some 86 per cent over

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
1939. But the additional amount of labour employed will be only 33 per cent. Reducing these two factors to equal terms, when these plants are reconverted to peace-time conditions their productive efficiency will have increased since 1939 approximately 40 per cent. That means that they will be able to make the same production with approximately 40 per cent less labour. This is not true for the whole Canadian industrial picture, but it is true for that number of industries. The only possible way in which to meet the situation is to reduce hours of labour and maintain the same rates of pay.
In order to show the effect which removal of price ceilings has had throughout the country, I should like to quote from a resolution I received from the federal union of base metal workers, No. 172, at Flin Flon, Manitoba:
Federal local No. 172. which speaks for the great majority of the workers in this community, is making strong representations to the federal government to take action to forestall the deplorable situation that is fast developing in this community. With the allowance of certain price increases and the lifting of ceilings on other products and services, we are rapidly approaching a condition where the pay envelope no longer contains sufficient buying power to meet our daily needs. We appreciate the difficulties that are being encountered in the reconversion period but feel that the workers here are being asked to bear more than their share of the burden.
That is the general opinion abroad through^ out the country. The workers of Canada are of the opinion that the government is removing price ceilings at this time, or revising them upward because of pressure that is being brought to bear by groups in the country. That pressure is being brought to bear by large industries in Canada who are anxious to make a killing on the vast backlog of production that exists in the country,,and I do not think the government of the day should yield to it. They should have stood firm and refused to grant many of these increases.
I do not want to go on record as being opposed to adjusting the price system. It may be necessary in certain instances to increase or decrease prices, but I think it should be done scientifically and should not be done until it has been thoroughly proven that the increases are necessary. If the prices of the commodities which the farmer has to buy are to be increased by increasing the price ceiling, then we must of necessity increase the selling price of his commodity, so that his buying power will remain substantially the same.
I should like to refer to a few remarks that have been made during the course of this debate by hon. gentlemen to my right. The other evening I listened with a great deal of
interest to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) as he spoke on this subject. He spoke at great length and with great force, but in all fairness I do not think that he dealt with the subject in the manner in which he should have. For instance, one of his statements was, "As a friend of labour I take second place to no one." I presume he was referring to the group as a friend of labour. I do not think the actions of the Progressive Conservative party have proven that. Their actions did not prove that from 1930 to 1935, and I do not believe they prove it to-day. It will be remembered by all hon. members what the leader of the Conservative party had to say on this subject in 1933, when there was a great deal of labour unrest throughout the country. He said that it would be necessary for the government of that day to apply the iron heel of ruthlessness when dealing with the situation. That was the labour policy enunciated from 1930 to 1935. To put the word "progressive" in front of the word "Conservative" did not alter substantially the real policy of the party.
A little further on in his address the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said that the farmer was the forgotten man. That is true. It was true especially before and after the last great war and the first great war. It is fair to say that during the war the farmer received a reasonable amount of the wealth of this country. The hon member for Dufferin-Simcoe went on to tell us that this condition had existed in Canada for twenty-five years. That is also true; but do not let us forget that during part of the twenty-five years the Conservative party rvas in power. They were in power from 1930 to 1935. They had an excellent opportunity to correct the situation at that time if they had desired to do so.
In his speech this afternoon the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) made reference to remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) who spoke in this house on this subject yesterday. He referred to remarks made by the hon. member for Dauphin concerning the speech made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I checked Hansard in connection with the matter, and I want to tell the house that the hon. member for Dauphin was quite right when he made that statement. I checked the original script of Hansard and I wish to quote it.


James Arthur Ross: I did not make any reference to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I referred to the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness).


Major James William Coldwell: No.
Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Ronald Stewart Moore: If that is the case-


Major James William Coldwell: Just put it on the
record.


Ronald Stewart Moore: At page 1751 of Hansard the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe is reported as having said:
The leading economists tell us we shall have to increase our national income, that we shall have to increase it by 50 per cent if we are to maintain these new types of fantastic Liberal policies.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe when he was speaking, and I believe the hon. member for Dauphin was also listening very carefully. I think I heard something entirely different from that. It sounded to me like "social services" instead of "fantastic Liberal policies". I checked the original script of Hansard, and that is what was said. It was "social services", instead of "fantastic Liberal policies." I appreciate the fact that the hon. members to my right do not wish it to get abroad that they are not in favour of extending social services; nevertheless I think we ought to keep the record straight on that issue.
We ought to consider for a few minutes what would happen in this country if we took off price controls. The results would be serious for the workers of Canada. If we were to take off the controls it is quite possible that our prices would increase by twenty-five per cent by the end of this year. This increase in price would take place on all agricultural and industrial commodities. If that happened we would have a spiral of inflation with which agriculture would not catch up for the next three or four years. An agricultural depression would hit this country, and it would require five or six years to get back to normal. Possibly we would not get back to normal until different policies were followed. In this regard I should like to quote what United States authorities have to say with respect to price control. I shall quote from a statement made by Mr. Paul Porter, administrator of the OPA in the United States. This statement was made before the banking and currency committee on April 17, 1946. Speaking of the possibility of the lifting of price controls in the United States Mr. Porter said:
We cannot assume that the boom would collapse in a single year as it did last time. The rise in prices might well continue. As they moved up to levels 75 and 100 per cent above current prices, the purchasing power of the dollars that American families have put into war bonds, insurance policies and other forms of savings would continue to fall. If present prices doubled, the things which a dollar bought on September 1, 1939, would cost $2.60. To put it another way, the dollar's 1939 purchasing power would have shrunk to 38 cents.	.
(Mr. Coldwell.l
If we are to follow a similar course in this country it is only natural to expect that we shall get a similar result, and I wish to go on record as being in favour of retaining price controls, with the proviso that as the situation develops the price of agricultural products ought to be/raised in line with the price control system of maintaining the purchasing power of the farmers of Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: May I rise to a question affecting the privileges of this house? The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat referred to a distinct change in the record of Hansard. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that it be looked into and the record of Hansard put in the manner in which the statement was originally made.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I have taken note of the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and I shall have the record perused and shall bring the matter to the attention of the officials.


Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: I had not intended taking" part in this debate, but it has gone on for so many days that I wish to put myself on record as being solidly behind the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) in his endeavour to maintain price controls.
I have listened to the debates, and I have listened with great interest to what the western members hare said. I am particularly concerned with what affects primary producere, and more /particularly fishermen. I am sympathetic to the problems of the westerners, and I trust that we shall get their consideration in matters that affect the people of the maritimes and" the Pacific, the fishing constituencies of the inland lakes and all across Canada. It seems to me that undue stress has been put upon the position of the farmers. I would suggest, in a very kindly way, that the farmers will get more sympathy if they do not emphasize only their own case and make themselves out to be the people wdio are alw'ays abused, because I do not think that is the case. I am sympathetic toward the -farmers; I have many of them in my constituency but, as I said, I am even more sympathetic toward the fishermen.
As far as price control is concerned, having lived in European countries where I have seen the black market work; having listened to various arguments from the opposite side of the house which are to some extent conflicting, I should say we are fortunate in having our present set-up with the wwtime prices and trade board which at least knows where it is going and what it is doing, and I hope we shall retain it for quite some time. I w-ould

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
not want anyone to think I should like to see prices remain as they are now, for all time. That would be a stupid statement to make. When supply equals demand it seems to me only common sense that we shall be able to relinquish certain price controls. At the present time you do not have to go out and sell articles; you must-go to the seller and ask if you may buy them. When the time comes that people have to go out and sell things, then some controls may be removed. There may be times when you will have to allow price ceilings to rise in order to increase production, as has been done in connection with farm machinery. I am not an industrialist, but the industrialist is a human being like anyone else, and iit seems only reasonable that he should be able to get a fair return for his efforts or for the money he has invested, just as the farmer or anyone else should.
I have only one suggestion to offer. I own a few shares of stock in a company which produces farm equipment. I would not sell those shares now, because they are very much lower than the price at which I bought them many years ago. I suggest to hon. members on the opposite side of the house that if they believe these companies are going to make so much money and are going to do so well, they should either individually or in groups buy up this stock. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I do not want to go in with them, because I do not feel like putting money into farm equipment stock at the present time. I do not believe there is much profit in it, but that is my suggestion. When some of them come back here and tell me they or their organizations hare done so, then I think they will have a little more to talk about.
I hope that eventually our price control organization and many other bureaux will be done away with, so that we may get back to where we were before the war. But we must be very careful in going about this. I suggest that it takes a man of courage to maintain these price controls and continue the policy that has been adopted by the wartime prices and trade board. It would be very easy for the Acting Prime Minister to say, "Oh, yes; we will relinquish this control and that control." It is so easy to say yes, but it is a little different when you have to say no, with perhaps some of your own constituents fighting against you and some people over the whole country opposing you. I like a man who can say no when he believes that is the right thing to do. Regardless of what happens in this House of Commons, I will leave it to the public to decide who is
right and who is wrong. I am supporting the Acting Prime Minister and the wartime prices and trade board, hoping that, as time goes on, certain controls may be dropped, and that we shall continue to receive popular support until such time as we can do away with 'all these things.


Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):: this house I do not believe that investigation was thorough or complete, and the farmers of Canada are entitled to all the facts. A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made the statement that the farmers of this country were happier-I think that was the word he used-than they had been for many years. I believe he was right up to a few weeks ago, but judging from the letters I am receiving now the farmers are not satisfied. I do not believe there would have been very much protest from the farmers if the old price ceiling had been maintained, though I think some of those prices were not exactly right. There should be a price fixing board on which the farmers, the workers and various other groups in the country should have representation, which would ascertain the proper relationship of prices and then set prices accordingly. Then there would be no kick from anybody.
What is the situation in Canada to-day? A great many people are dissatisfied. The workers are dissatisfied with their wages. The farmers are dissatisfied with the removal of the milk subsidy, for example. We have a strike in the logging industry, and we are threatened with other strikes all over Canada. According to the newspapers we are threatened with a strike of farmers right here in the province of Ontario. These farmers threaten to throw their milk down the drain. I do not like strikes; I think they should be avoided, if at all possible. I do not like them because those who do the striking are in the long run, the losers. In respect of wages, if they get increases under the present system, immediately the cost of the article made from their labour goes up, and the increase in the wage they obtain through striking is counteracted by the cost of the article they must buy.
The farmer has no protection; he is not in a position to strike. Perhaps the milk producers could throw their milk down the drain for a few days or a few weeks, but who wants to see that? Little children will suffer if a thing like that is done. We do not want to see children going without milk in this country for a month, while the farmers are throwing milk down the drain.
I heard over the radio last night that the government was going to have a meeting to consider putting the subsidy back on rmll-I hope something will be done. However, I did make the statement in the house last year, in my maiden speech, that I did not believe the government would do the things that would have to be done in order to get the things the people of this country want. Those things are security, stabilized prices for farmers. and wages for workers in industry which

will give them a decent standard of living. We want them to know they are going to have jobs all the time, and not just some of the time.
I have been listening to some of the statements made in the house, and have been surprised at some of them. The hon. member who has just taken his seat comes from a different part of the country. Then Tuesday evening the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) told us injustices were being suffered by the fishermen on the east coast. I support the fishermen, or any other group of men who work for their living; because we must realize some day, sooner or later, that wealth is produced by the people who work, and that the working class, the people who have produced the wealth of this country in the last hundred years, to a large extent have been poverty stricken.
I was surprised when the hon. member for Charlotte said this:
Sticks that are driven into the ground are anywhere from 20 feet to 60 feet in length. In 1940 I could buy a 50-foot stick for $3.50. In 1946 they are $12.50 each.
Here is an instance of a great increase in the price of something the fishermen has to buy. Where I come from, if a member for my constituency did not rise in his place in the house and protest against that sort of thing, he would not be a member very long. I am surprised that the hon. member for Charlotte did not protest on Tuesday evening when he was speaking.
Then, speaking again about the fishermen, he said:
They are standing on their own feet and not asking for help. They will not ask for help as long as they can make a living, and they are ready to work for it.
Then he went on to say:
In the winter time I have been twenty miles off shore, taking sardines on board a boat....
And so on. He proceeded to tell how hard he had to work. I realize he had to work hard for a living, and I am trying to represent people who have to work hard for a living. I want to see people who have to work as hard as the hon. member worked get something for the wealth they have produced.
On Tuesday evening we heard a speech from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). This is what he said as reported at page 1744 of Hansard:
I speak as a member of the party that is recognized in Canada to-day as being the farmers' party.


Mr. IRVINE:: Ho, 'ho, ho! That is a jolly good joke.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I do not think that is correct. Before the last election the Progressive Conservative party sent an organizer into my constituency. He could not find any Tories in my village, so he spent the evening with me.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A waste of time for the Tory joke.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: He was a very pleasant fellow and a good conversationalist, so we had a good time. But one of the things he said was this: "I cannot understand why you fellows get beaten time and again, but come back every time, and each time a little stronger." I said, "There is a reason for it. The reason is that we have a policy. We have something in which wre believe."


James Garfield Gardiner: Then the Tories all
voted for you.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Oh, you know better than that-in Melville.


William Irvine: Some of the real Liberals did.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: So that when the hon. me'mber for Dufferin-Simcoe states that his party is the farmers' party, I would draw something else to the attention of the house. This is what he said, as reported at page 1750 of Hansard:
This party stands for the removal of the ceiling on farm products.
He sits in the front row; he is one of the leading members in his party, and he makes the statement that he is in favour, or his party is in favour of the removal of the ceiling on farm products.
At another point in his speech he said that he took second place to no man as a friend of labour. Well, what would happen in Canada if the ceilings were taken off farm products? I am a farmer, representing a farming constituency. I want to see the farmers in my constituency, not get all they can get, no, but get something that will bear a fair relationship to the prices of the things they have to buy. If the ceilings are taken off farm products, either by the government -or by this other party, if it should ever get into power-what could we expect? If the ceilings are taken off one group of products, it follows necessarily that those earnings must be taken off every other product. What happens then? We have inflation for a while, and it may be that a few would benefit from that inflation. But from past experience we know who suffers most when deflation comes.


Mr. MITCHELL:: The farmer and the working man.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: You bet your life, it is the farmer and the working man who suffers most when deflation comes.
Do we want deflation? We do not. As our leader has said in this debate, we do not want high prices one day and low prices the next. What we are trying to make the house see is that we want stabilized prices, so that the farmer will know what he is going to get when he puts in a crop, so that the working man will know what his wages are going to be, and will not be losing his job.
What happens when we have deflation? We went through a period of deflation after the first great war and before the second one. I have given reasons before in the house why we have had those periods of deflation. I have been satisfied for some time that if we continue under the capitalistic system we shall have those inflationary and deflationary periods; there is no way out of it. If, as the hon. member has said, his party is in favour of taking the ceilings off farm products, he must also be in favour of taking the ceilings off every other product. That is not what the farmers of Canada want to-day, and that is not the kind of party they want to represent them.
Later in his speech the hon. member said:
Competition, reasonable pay for services, recompense for individual effort, choice of vocation-all these things are influenced by the law of supply and demand.
Economists used to tell us that two great laws regulated our economic system, the law of competition and the law of supply and demand. There was a time when those two great natural economic laws did work, but nobody can tell me that they are working to-day or that they have worked in the last twenty years. Is there competition in this country as between one big business and another? Absolutely none. There is a certain amount of competition among small business men but there is no competition and has not been for some time between the large industries in this country. We had proof of that when Mr. Duncan, manager of the Massey-Harris Company, was before the 1937 committee of this house on farm machinery prices. He was asked, "How do you arrive at prices? Do you all get together and fix prices?" He said, "No, we wait until International Harvester brings out their price list and then we bring one out like it." There is competition in this country among labourers for jobs when there are five labourers for every job, but there is no competition so far as big business is concerned.
As to the law of supply and demand, I think many of us in this house know something of that law. There are two kinds of demand.

Pme Ceiling-Farm Products

There is what we call the effective demand. Then there is another demand which many of us know more about, namely, the stomach demand. There was a stomach demand all through the 1930's, when people did not have the money to buy what they needed, and so that demand was not effective. Does anybody want to go back to the old competitive system and the law of supply and demand? I am a cooperator. I believe in cooperation. I believe that competition is just as bad among business as it is between nations. Competition is one of the things that is responsible for war and for a great deal of the hardships that we have seen in this country. Take the small business man, for instance, who has worked hard, saved a little money and established a small business. Then, under the competitive system somebody comes along and sets up a store beside him, perhaps someone with a little more capital, better stock or connected with a chain store, or it might be a large corporation. What happens to the small business man? We know by government statistics that thousands of small businesses go out of existence or go bankrupt year after year. Do we want to return to that system? That is not what the farmers are going to support.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, many speakers in this debate have presented statistics to prove their case that the government's recent policy of decontrol has meant undue hardship for agricultural producers and workers in this country. I believe, and I think in this I am in complete agreement with all members of this group, that this whole problem of decontrol facing the government to-day stems out of the lack of policies which they should have formulated during the war. If those policies had been formulated we would have known when we entered this post-war period exactly where we were going. I am sure that this government has no policy in regard to decontrol. It is giving in to pressure behind the scenes.
As a new member of this house, I would have thought this government would have learned something during the war, but I am quite sure now that we have simply the same set-up that we had during the war, a set-up for the protection of the vested interests of this country. In any proper policy of decontrol you cannot treat agriculture independently of other branches of our Canadian economy. We must recognize that our whole economy is so interlinked that farmers and workers and all the Canadian people are interdependent. But once again we see the government giving in to these powerful corporations who, behind the scenes, are exerting pressure upon it.

During the war these companies made tremendous profits. I do not wish to give figures that have already appeared on Hansard but will say briefly that in 600 odd companies listed here the profits ranged from 13-3 to 17-6 per cent. These companies have made money and they are making money again. It is true, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated, that agriculture had some of the best years it ever had during the war; nevertheless he went on to state that the average income of agriculture in its best years was only $2,000 par farm.
I should like to say a word about our national debt. On March 31, 1939, our gross debt, according to the bureau of statistics, was $3,710,610,592.87, and in 1945 it had grown to 815,712,181,527.26. This means that once again the people who made profits in the past during the development of this country are in a preferred position, with the taxpapers of this country owing money to them.
When we are planning for the post-war period we should predicate our whole policy on making available to the common people of this country the things which they produce. In 1939 we had a national income of $3 billion and that has grown to-day to a national income of $9 billion. Our whole system should be so arranged that the workers will be enabled to get a fair share of the things that agriculture produces and that the farmers will be able to buy the things they need which the industrial workers produce. Look at the number of our farms to-day that have no bathtubs and no modern bathroom equipment; at the number that are without cars and all the amenities of life that they should and could have. But the decontrol policy of this government is bringing about a situation that lowers the purchasing power of farmers so that they will be unable to buy what the industrial workers produce. Consequently vre are going to pass through another phase of unemployment.
It seems to me that the machinery companies in their pressure on this government are doing very much what the aluminum company did in the months just before the war, when they refused to go into production until they got the profits which they demanded. Tremendous profits have been made by these big companies. The Shipshaw power project during 1941 to 1945 received from the government a special depreciation amounting to $164 million, in addition to huge profits based on prices of from fifteen to seventeen cents per pound. The machine companies are also making huge profits. What the government is doing by making this gap in the ceiling on farm machinery will result in breaking the

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
ceiling on every other commodity. I have here a report from the Free Press Prairie Farmer of May 7, 1946, headed "Farm hardware price rise seen", in which one hardware merchant who specializes in hardware materials which farmers require says that price increases of from 5 to 10 per cent on farm hardware can be expected.
There was an example of this to hand yesterday in statutory orders and regulations, May 1, 1946, by this government providing that prices of metal beds, cribs and bassinettes are increased by 10 per cent and metal bed-springs, trunks and cots are going up 12} per cent. So that in fact we have no longer any control policy.
As reported at page 1781 of Hansard the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) in his speech the other day said, referring to the leader of this gronp:
....the C.C.F. party supports the government in its stand that there shall be no increase in the prices of farm products in this country.
I believe that when the leader of our group speaks he will make it abundantly clear that he never said that and does not believe in it, neither does any member of this group. We have always taken the stand that we believe in a scientific, organized Canadian economy whereby the price of farm products will bear a fair relationship to the cost of their production. But what is happening at this time? Let us consider the serious position of our 800,000 veterans, most of whom have come back only to find that the government has allowed the cost of housing to go up about 50 per cent, the cost of machinery to rise by 12} per cent, with increases in other directions. These boys and girls returning to civilian life find that their gratuities are insufficient to buy or build houses or to buy farm machinery; yet their incomes are stabilized. In consequence, they are not able to rehabilitate themselves. This is not fair, because these young people went into the services with the idea that they would not be any worse off when they came back than those who did not enlist. They find that through conditions beyond their control housing costs have gone up 50 per cent, and by a statutory order issued on May 20 the government has allowed the price of furniture to be increased from 10 to 12} per cent. So it looks as though the government in its decontrol policy has no regard for these people. The outlook is seYious.
What we need is, not a plan for agriculture alone or for the industrial worker alone, but general planning on a basis whereby our Canadian economy can be scientifically arranged so that the people of Canada can 63260-115}
absorb the goods which they produce. I do not think it is sensible to look for foreign markets so long as the people on the farms are without radios, bathroom equipment and other necessities. Likewise I do not believe that, apart from the emergency we are facing to-day, we need to worry about foreign, markets for our agricultural products. As was pointed out the other day, when we went into war and began to put pay cheques into the pockets of our workers they started to buy the beef, butter, pork and cheese which the farmers were producing, and the Minister of Agriculture himself said, when speaking in the province of Saskatchewan, not much beef had been shipped out until we had to resort to the rationing of beef. The point was that for the first time in .many years purchasing power was put into the pockets of large numbers of people.
What is happening to-day? It would seem that the same situation is likely to recur which existed prior to 1939, when the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and Mr. Douglas, now Premier of Saskatchewan, proposed on various occasions that money be provided to put to work the young men who were then on relief. The question arose then which we hear now, where is the money to come from? I suggest that it will not be many 'months before we shall have the same situation. The money will be in the hands of the financial corporations of this country, and we shall again be faced with the same inquiry, as to where the money is to come from. Yet we have the farmers needing equipment, because for six years prior to the war, owing to low prices, they did not have purchasing power, and in the six years following, because steel was needed for war purposes, they were and are, though provided with some purchasing power, unable to replace their farm machinery. While we pay much lip-service to all-out food production we are in fact achieving nothing of the kind because of these restrictions. I know in my district people are wondering if it is worth while trying to farm, and certainly the young men and women returning from the war are not going back to the farms.
I do not think I need speak any longer on this matter, but in conclusion I charge the government with failure in its decontrol policy, on five counts.
In the first place, it has failed to maintain full production in the industrial field, because it is not providing incentives.
In the second place, it has failed to maintain all-out food production because of its income
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

tax policy, the increase, of three cents per gallon on gasoline, and the increased costs of farm machinery.
In the third place, it has failed to achieve full employment. I have just inquired of the bureau of statistics as to the number of registered unemployed in Canada, and I wish to point out that at this time, when we are supposed to go into a full housing problem and all-out food production, 225,000 persons are registered as being unable to find jobs.
In the fourth place, the government has failed to distribute the national income fairly among our people. I believe that farmers and their wives who have worked long hours during the war, and workers in industry, should be entitled to a fair share of the nation's income, that it should be so distributed as to provide decent standards of living in this country.
In the fifth place, the government has failed to maintain housing and other rehabilitation costs at levels at which the veterans can decently rehabilitate themselves.
These, Mr. Speaker, are my views on the decontrol policy. I think it is absurd for any hon. member to make suggestions or even to criticize the government merely on one phase of this policy; it must be faced as a problem of the whole Canadian economy. We in this group insist that if the country is to avert another depression, if we are to have the kind of post-war programme to which those who fought this war are entitled, it will have to be worked out on a scientific basis.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for participating in this discussion is that for the last three decades in my own section of northern Ontario we have had the greatest agricultural development of any area in Canada. At the very outset I must state my belief that the discussion which is taking place on the resolution of non-confidence will prove beneficial to the people generally, because it will bring forcibly to the attention of parliament and of the Canadian public the controls which we have had during the war and which will probably have to be maintained to some extent for a great many years, if not for all time to come.
It is not popular to work for and to support controls, it was a real ordeal as far as I was personally concerned, because no Canadians, in fact no people living in democratic countries, relish controls even in war time, much less in peace time. However, I thought it my duty and my obligation, more particularly during the war, when I saw some dissatisfaction over rationing and price controls, to step into the breach and tell our people what these 
restrictions meant to them, to our war effort and to our allies, and I am going to do much the same thing even now that the war is over, because I know that controls are still needed.
During the present debate we have often been reminded that the war is over. It is true that the armed conflict is ended. But the war has left us a horrible and costly heritage, and I for one could never feel that after five, six or seven years of bloody conflict we could reasonably expect a heaven on earth to result. There was bound to be a residue of hardship for the Canadian people as well as for all the other peace-loving people of the world, in fact, for all the nations; and for many years to come, apart from the bloodshed, sacrifices will have to be made throughout the world so as to solve the post-war problems. It was not a pleasant thing even from the political point of view, and in this connection I wish to quote a statement made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) in the maiden speech he delivered last year, which was so well received on all sides in the house, not only because the speech itself was an able one but because of the reputation and the ability of the hon. gentleman who delivered it:
I was in a very small shop one day located in my riding. Like most country stores it was really a tiny departmental store. In it was a dry goods section, a grocery section, a boots and shoes section, and so on. I should think one could have taken any of those departments and put it in a good-sized wheelbarrow-. The owner of that shop was somewhat annoyed on the day of my visit. It seems there had been tw-o government inspectors w-ho came to the shop during the afternoon. They travelled in very fine cars supplied with plenty of gasoline-and this was during the rationing period. One of them examined, let us say, his dry goods; the other examined, let us say, his boots and shoes, to see that all w-as in order. From my own point of view it w-as perhaps a good thing, because I think the ow-ner of the store w-as a faithful member of the Liberal party, and I left that shop with some feeling that perhaps he might change his allegiance.
This was not my own attitude in my riding. I had no desire to inquire into the political party affiliations of anyone, retailer or wholesaler, though I have no doubt that in many instances people were irritated by the controls. We all realize to-day, however, how necessary those controls were. I do not think anyone should refer to the fact that inspectors or officials of the wartime prices and trade board were travelling around in cars, good or otherwise. It is true that they did travel, but they had to travel somewhere and they had to have some means of travelling because there was a great deal of territory to be covered. It may be true that they were using

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
more gasoline than the average citizen, but I do not see any ground for criticism there, because they simply had to travel and they had to have the gasoline.
I would, however, ask hon. gentlemen this question. Have we as parliamentarians;, have we as leaders in our own individual communities, done everything which it was in our power to do to make the controls effective? It would be a very easy matter to capitalize politically against the government on the controls. It would be quite easy for me to state in this house that I am opposed to controls as such and that there should never have been any price control system. That would be popular in my section of the country. But would that be playing fair; would it be playing the game, from the point of view of the national economy? Would it be doing anything to help toward a. solution of the post-war problem?
The motion of non-confidence has been, I believe, properly analyzed and interpreted by the farmers of the country, and they will certainly not be happy about it, nor will they be inclined to commend the leader of the Progressive Conservative party and his followers for that motion, for its implications against them. The amendment carries the implication that because of the controls that have been in effect, as a necessity because of war conditions and at the present time, our farmers have not played fair and have refused to produce to the maximum of their capacity.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of this country-I think, for that matter, the same can be said of farmers everywhere-are not only a robust people, but a loyal people as well, and we know how hard they worked during the war and are still working. Unlike those engaged in industry or in the professions, they cannot draw up a chart in the spring of the year, knowing exactly how much they will grow, exactly what they will reap from the seeds they have sown, what returns they will get for the sweat of their brows. But have not all the farmers of this country, not only during the war, but under all circumstances, and under handicaps of every kind, dedicated their vocation to the good of the country as a whole, and done the best they possibly could under all conditions?
I do not believe for a moment that controls have had any effect on the farmers in the way of influencing them to curtail production or not to produce to the fullest extent possible. They have not done that in my part of the country, nor do I believe they have done it in any other section of Canada. What is more, I am positive they will not take that attitude in consequence of a slight increase
in the price of farm implements. I am speaking for the farmers and settlers in my own section at any rate.
A little later on I wish to consider, in the light of the amendment that has been proposed, prices that are actually paid in the United States, and in this connection I will quote some comments made by certain United States newspapers of wide circulation giving the reasons for prices having been so high. We all know that sometimes there is decreased production as far as farm products are concerned, but this is not due to any government policy; it is due, generally, to climatic conditions. We can be thankful that the government cannot be blamed for the weather; if the government could be blamed for it, then no government would long remain in office,, and it is really the only thing on which it can be challenged. In my part of the country in 1944 we had about one-fifth of our average hay crop, although we received some help from the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa in getting lower freight rates on hay shipped to our section. But a good many people had to sell dairy and other cattle because costs were prohibitive. The government certainly cannot be blamed for that situation.
I should like to read something that shows how pathetic the farmer's position is. It is pathetic regardless of any government policies or controls. The following is a brief article that appeared in the Regina Leader-Post in May, 1946:
There is an anxious furrow in the brows of southern Saskatchewan people as they scan the skies these days. Early though it is in the spring season, there have been several invasions already of the dreaded enemy-dust. Eyes have smarted,throats have been constricted with the acrid taste, and the wind has whipped up to the devastating proportions of ten years ago.
Few who experienced the siege of a decade ago can ever forget that period when the whole pattern of the province's economic and moral fibre rocked and reeled to a series of constant dust storms. Agriculture was, of course, the most vitally affected. Saskatchewan farmers needed and drew upon a courage almost superhuman to bolster them against the sight of constantly drifting, precious topsoil, and the knowledge that their crops and livelihood were blowing away each day with the evil drouth winds. The fact that they did stick it out grimly and steadfastly, has become yet another saga of brave Canadians. It is to be hoped they will be spared from such another trial.
Urban dwellers felt the repreeussions of the economic depression also and doctors reported that eye, ear, nose and throat trouble sprang up overnight due to the vicious onslaught of the dust-laden air.
I have read nothing that describes so poignantly the anxiety and pathos of the farmers during their seeding season as well as in the crop season. I repeat, the leader

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
of the Progressive Conservative party was ill-advised to introduce a resolution that seeks to convey to the people of the country the impression that, as a result of certain government policies, the Canadian farmers have not been true to their calling and have not produced to the best of their ability, and have seized any opportunity to curtail production.
So far as decreased acreage is concerned, I can assure the house that there will be no decrease this year as a result of the 124 per cent increase in the price of farm implements. On the contrary, there will be a larger acreage than in the past. The following Canadian press dispatch appeared early this week with reference particularly to Ontario:
Seeding of the new crops across the country is well ahead of this time last year except in the maritimes, a survey by the Canadian Press showed to-day. And farmers are planting more wheat than last year.
Winter killing of fall wheat, hay and clover crops was considerable in central and eastern Ontario. The weather so far has been unfavourable for growth of these crops and of course for pastures too, with most milking herds still stabled.
We all know this is a backward spring, and not conductive to profitable operation so far as dairying is concerned. I continue with the quotation:
Ontario is expected to seed somewhat higher acreage of spring grains, and a considerable increase in acreage of tobacco, soy beans, corn, early potatoes, field peas and sugar beets.
Surely there is no danger of defeatism in Ontario farmers and the farmers throughout Canada, no matter whait may happen to governmental activities. I continue:
Ontario expects the biggest tobacco crop in history, with a twenty per cent increase in all types. The plants will be set out around May 24. The tobacco growers are anxious for ample rainfall right now, however.
All vegetable growing districts in Ontario expect increased acreage this year in practically all vegetables. Transplanting and seeding is up to normal in most places and well ahead of normal in others.
I just wanted to put that on the record so that parliament and the people from the urban centres will know that our Canadian farmers are not discouraged. They were at times working under a great handicap. We remember the depression; we remember the terrible years of dought in the west. We have had difficult times in my own section where we have been pushing out the borders of civilization under climatic conditions that were not ideal for farming, particularly grain farming. Year after year we had to face premature frost in the fall and early frosts in the spring. In my own farming activities it was only in the seventeenth year after

seeding grain on our soil that we harvested grain crops for seed purposes. I am showing by that, that our people are not discouraged, even by the elements.
No one will make me believe that an increase in price of a fraction of one per cent will discourage all our farmers from going ahead with their work. It is a calling with them; it is a duty, besides being t'heir way of living. They have heard the appeal of the famished people of Europe; they have heard the appeal of Mr. LaGuardia, of Mr. Hoover, of the Canadian government, of every member of this parliament, of the necessity of growing more crops to feed the people of Europe. Most of them know what happened during the last war. Therefore on this score I am absolutely at ease in speaking.
I know that our farmers do not like this increase in the cost of their farm implements. They are human, the same as anyone else. I know they will never be satisfied with their lot. But that is a happy situation, because every section of our population should agitate logically, practically, sincerely and honestly for a better place in the sun, for more comfort and prosperity than they have; in a word, for a better way of life. We do not need to worry as far as the rest of our population is concerned when that takes place. The farmers are basing their opinions on that score, but they are realists. They know that today their situation is better than it was four, five or six years ago. They hope that never again will the prices that obtained during the depression be prevalent throughout Canada. At that time eggs were selling at eleven cents a dozen and butter at eighteen cents a pound. As a wholesaler and retailer I know that this was not good for Canada as a whole. It was not good for anyone. I hope that the price and floor controls which were established two years ago will, when in full swing, stabilize prices, and give a fair amount of controlled prices so far as farm production is concerned.
May I now touch on the question of price ceilings? Farmers realize that ,it cannot be absolutely rigid; it must be resilient to some extent. The same thing applies to floor prices. At times, some of the floor prices will have to be increased and decreased. Being logical, labour also knows that the workers cannot expect a rigid wage scale. Everyone knows that the industrialists cannot work or manufacture on the same prices as ten years ago, five years ago, or perhaps ten years from now. Rigidity is never conducive to the good functioning of any economic system. They have it in some countries, but surely we do not want it imposed on us. Our farmers know

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
very weill that an, increase of one-fifth of one per cent, or one^tenth of one per cent in their cost of production is not going to upset their own activities, because they have received some increases. They received an increase recently on the price of butter, and they are satisfied to some extent, but not entirely so. I know this is a delicate problem for me to deal with, but I know of no section of our population which is more logical and, practical; they understand the other viewpoint, and I know it is my duty to express my opinions on such questions forcibly and honestly.
An hon. member when speaking this afternoon said something about hon. members who had invested in farm, implement companies. I hold no brief for the farm implement companies, because the few dollars I placed in those companies had never brought me very much. I am willing to sell what, interest I have in those companies very cheaply to any member of parliament, because I have never received any dividends except some years ago,, and those small profits very likely came out of war contracts. Therefore on that score I am perfectly at ease to speak sincerely. The statements I make here I shall make to my own people, because they will be satisfied if, with a slight increase in the price of farm implements, more farm implements can be made available.
I must state frankly-I do not know how true it is-that when some farmers learned from the newspapers that farm implements were being shipped to Europe and they were not able to get them and were having a difficult time in cultivating their land, they did indulge in a certain amount of criticism. But generally speaking-and I say this sincerely- our farmers naturally accepted that increase, because they have confidence in the wartime prices and trade board and its officers, and more particularly in Mr. Gordon. He must have been a courageous and sincere man, because with his qualifications it would, have been easy for him to resign his position and get another and an easier and more lucrative one. No matter what he did, whether he increased or decreased prices, there is a section of our population who would have been willing and ready to criticize him, and sometimes unfairly. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for staying in his position not only during war time, but also at the present time. Who will challenge the statement; who will say that Mr. Gordon could not step out of his position and go into private enterprise and, because of his own initiative and ability, make more money than he makes at the present time? Personally speaking, I say that there has been some
unfair criticism levelled against him, but the vast majority of our people deeply appreciate his great accomplishments.
' With regard to price controls, I have always maintained that it is the primary duty of the department to educate our people, to make them realize the necessity of price control. After a pea-son has been fairly warned; after the organization work has been done, and the proper publicity given to the necessity of price controls, if infractions take place in these controls the law should take its course. A splendid job has been done in that connection.
I must confess that I do not claim to know all the ramifications and all the details of price control. To do so would be presumptuous on my part. I believe it was necessary during war time, and I believe it will be necessary for a number of years to come. To think in terms of ten and twenty years is to try to fool ourselves. The era of laissez-faire has gone forever, whether it is industry, farming, labour, finance, or any other occupation. The time has arrived when, for the welfare of every section of this population, the government must, of necessity, interfere to some extent with the affairs of these organizations and social groups. No matter what we may think or say-and I have no grievance against anyone who expresses his own opinions-under our present system, which I hope will be maintained indefinitely, the capitalistic system must, of necessity, revise its way in many instances in a drastic way; it must be progressive in the full sense of the word; it must realize that controls that were existing during the war will also be necessary to a limited extent -after the war is over, for the good of the whole population.
I have in my hand the report of a speech made by Mr. C. L. Burton, president of the Robert Simpson Company Limited. I have no real criticism to offer in regard to it, because he spoke as a good business man, a man who knows big industry and the questions of the big retail and wholesale houses. However, you can see in that speech how quickly he would like to see these controls done away with. I believe in these remarks he was voicing his own sentiments, as a prominent business man; but whether or not the Progressive Conservative party took .a lead from this speech, I believe the policy of that party also is to do away with controls immediately. That is often mentioned in the Conservative press; time and again on the floor of this house they come out clearly and strongly with statements that price controls should be done away with at once. I do not believe they really want price controls done away with immediately, but that
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

has a fine political ring at the present time. Any person who has been prosecuted under the law for infraction of these controls* for instance, certainly is not sympathetic toward them. But I believe that at the bottom of their hearts hon. gentlemen opposite, hope the government will continue the policy they have followed up to the present, in gradually [DOT]retreating from control but not giving it up entirely, because they know that controls are absolutely needed. I believe I am perfectly safe in making that statement. These are some of the statements by Mr. Burton:
Canada's urgent need to-day is to cut out controls and promote production.
Canada must choose-and should choose soon- in order to establish the standard of living she wrants. We have two choices:
1.	Lai'ge production and full employment; or
2.	Small output, and unemployment, due to price ceilings and wages control.
No one has yet shown that price ceilings or price controls have been or will be the cause of unemployment. Then he goes on:
Controls were universally accepted in war time. Their administration was successful during the war, having the full support of both government and business, as well as general acceptance by the public. True, the introduction and maintenance of controls were accompanied by no small measure of publicity, and various programmes of propaganda, but on the whole wartime administrators and controllers did a good job.
If they did a good job during the war, they are doing a good job at the present time, too.
It wall be generally conceded that those controls were essential which kept out of civilian use goods necessary to the forces. In any event, whatever differences of opinion there might have been during the war were subdued and submerged in the general patriotic effort against our enemies.
Now that the war is over, controls over wages and prices are on longer needed nor are they in the public interest.
In reply to Mr. Burton I would say that the public know better. To-day the public know certain safeguards are absolutely necessary, in the form of controls. In my own section of the country, about seven months ago rent control w'as lifted, and in some instances rents increased by as much as 200 per cent. The people who had been inclined to criticize rent control immediately became awmre of how necessary and how beneficial it had been to the country as a whole during war time.
Then Mr. Burton mentioned the shortage of goods, trying to tie it up with control. No businessman could make this nation believe that the shortage of goods is due to these . controls, because the controllers have studied that situation from all angles. I do not suggest that errors have not been made. I believe

the controllers have made mistakes; they are human, and they would be the first to admit it. But they have diligently rectified their mistakes. I repeat, however, that the shortage of goods .to-day is not due to price controls, though I am still puzzled as to why certain things are done in some quarters. For instance, I can go into any store in the city of Ottawa, or, for that matter, any part of Canada, and buy all the neckties I want at anywhere from fifty cents to $5.50. These ties must represent a lot of good material. On the other hand I cannot buy a man's shirt. I should like those sitting in the front row here to look into that question, because there must be some shirting material and some shirts somewhere. - If it should be found that shirts were being hoarded in order that higher prices might be obtained, then I would ask the authorities to bring those concerned immediately before the courts of this country. I make that statement deliberately, because some lines of the retail trade are absolutely famished. I do not want to impute any ulterior motive as far as industry is concerned, but I am puzzled as to why in some stores there should be all kinds of goods, goods of only limited value as far as real wear is concerned, while in the staple lines it is almost impossible to buy anything.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Lots of ties and no shirts.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes; and something
must be wrong somewhere. I know that is where control is absolutely needed. Personally I would not go so far as to say that some traders are hoarding, but certainly there is nothing practical or logical about the situation.
It is often maintained by the official opposition during discussions in this house that our farmers should receive the same prices as United States farmers. When we deal with fiscal and national matters in this house, we are dealing with our own national economy. We do many things as well as and some of them better than they are done by our American friends, while there may be other things they do better than they are done in Canada. Would the proponents of parity prices as between United States and Canadian farmers apply the same principle all along the line and say that all production in the two countries should be on a parity ? That would be Americanism with a venegeance and would be absolutely impossible of application. Many goods are cheaper in Canada than in the United States, and vice versa. I believe our farmers realize the situation. It is only natural that they would want a higher price for their wheat when they see a higher price paid in the United States. It is only natural that they would want a higher price for their meat

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
when higher prices are paid in the United States. But, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said a few days ago, our farmers realize that this is a matter for the future as well as the present. The farmer always thinks in terms of long periods of time. When he puts the seed in the soil in the spring he knows it will be a matter of months before he gathers the fruits of his labour. The same thing applies to the public policies of the farmer. He does not look only to the immediate future; he remembers vividly when he received higher prices for his wheat after the first great war. He was not very happy under those conditions, because he knew that those prices were artificial, that they were not normal prices and that there was bound to be a reaction which would be detrimental to the wheat growers of Canada; and that was certainly what happened.
I should now like to quote from an article which appeared in Life magazine last month, dealing -with farm problems and production in the United States. I wish to make it clear that these comments relate to the United States farmer, and that I deal with this question only because it was brought forward a few weeks ago by the leader of the Progressive Conservative. party (Mr. Bracken) in asking for parity prices as far as meat and wheat were concerned. But this will show what happens in the United States, that even with the present high prices for farm products generally speaking the United States farmer is not happy. These are some of the comments:
The name of American farmer has never had a "nasty taste" before. He has been thought of rather as the backbone of our nation: as-a man who works harder, lives closer to God and nature, drinks less, raises stronger sons, votes more thoughtfully and is generally a better citizen than his urban brother. He is also thought of as getting the short end of the economic stick. But as the American businessman knows and the labour leader is learning, no stereotype is shatter-proof forever. Is it the farmer's turn to lose his reputation?
Then it goes on to explain that under war conditions the United States farmer, the same as the Canadian farmer, under a great handicap due to a shortage of labour, had so increased production that it astonished the nation and the world. These are the words:
To make all this money, and to feed our armies and allies, the American farmer increased his output during the war by over 30 per cent. He had to hump himself to do it, for the farm population (despite draft deferment and other attractions) actually declined. In fact the U.S. farmer worked like a horse from dawn to dark and nature assisted him with one of the longest spells of drought-free weather in our annals.
The next paragraph deals with climatic conditions. In the same way as did the Regina Leader, it tells the American nation the conditions under which the farmer has been working, always relying almost implicitly upon the whim of nature, and at the mercy of drought, wet weather, rain, early frost and so on. Then it continues:
The farmer whose lobbyists are among the smartest and toughest in Washington, is a political force more powerful than his numbers. But when LaGuardia began to breathe life into UXRKA and Hoover took over the famine emergency committee, fires were started both to the left and to the right of the farm politicians, leaving them nowhere to hide their naked greed. With the country at large declaring its 'willingness to be rationed and an almost scandalous glut of black-market meat, there had to be action.
Meanwhile the farm lobbies were helping congress beat the pulp out of OPA.
I want the house to remember this, that apparently the United States public is in favour of maintaining the activities of OPA. It continues:
The end of OPA would mean that grain prices would go still higher; this prospect made the farmer hold on to his grain still tighter. So to lure the grain to the dockside, government action had to take the form of a bribe.
First the farmer was offered a certificate guaranteeing him the benefit of any price increase that might occur after he sold his grain. That didn't work. Then he was offered a flat 30-cent bonus on every bushel of wheat (bringing it to $1.85) or corn (to $1.41) he sells for export before May 25. That is working a little better but not well enough. Under-Secretary of State Acheson is even talking about "seizing" the grain. At last week's official count there was twice as much wheat on the farms (some 200 million bushels) as the U.S. really needs for reserves. It is not enough to save the world, or even to fulfil our promises, but it is enough to choke the farmers who are hoarding it and damage their reputation for a long time to come.
The record of our farmers shows no hoarding; there has been no holding back, no absenteeism, if I may use that expression. No doubt they were not pleased when there was an increase in the price of gasoline. There was no rejoicing in their ranks when there was an increase in the price of farm implements, but they take these things in their stride. At the same time they know they are one of the great corner-stones of our national economy. They realize, too, that the time has arrived when, of necessity, they must more and more be recognized. These are not times when our farmers should be satisfied to be the forgotten men in our nation or in any nation.
The farmers recognize their strength. At times they have organized politically, because they have felt in their hearts at times in the past that they did not receive the attention they deserved in the national or provincial forum. It was due to that pressure and the logical arguments that two years ago floor
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

price regulations were instituted by parliament. I hope it will never be necessary to apply them. However, we know that international markets are very uncertain things, and that one cannot know what the conditions may be from day to day, or from year to year. But we do know that under that legislation our farmers, who comprise one of the finest sections in our population, under any conditions will receive satisfactory remuneration for their labour.
I have not time to discuss this matter at greater length. But I must say that our Progressive Conservative friends, and the press which supports them, would not be absolutely satisfied if price controls were entirely destroyed. They realize that those controls are necessary. Those of us who are somewhat older remember what the farmers got between 1917 and 1921. I have known a farmer along the Montreal road, for instance, who bought a farm in 1918 for $17,000, which was a reasonable price at the time, and who, after making a payment of $5,000, had to let it go because of the deflation which followed inflation. It was impossible for him to meet his payments.
We do not want a repetition of that; we want farm values to be maintained. I repeat that, generally speaking, to be succesful the farmer must possess the qualifications and abilities of a businessman, a professional man, and a financier. He knows that, of necessity, he must fight for his rights but, at the same time, he will never want anything that is not logical and practical. But I wish to make it very plain also, that he- will never want to go back to years in the past when he was the one who was paying the shot, and suffering for it.
I hold in my hand some editorials from Saturday Night. After a thorough study of the situation those who write in this periodical have come to the conclusion that, of necessity, a certain amount of control must be maintained. They go so far as to say that if, owing to the fact that the war is now over, the wartime prices and trade board should be dissolved, there would be a wish that the Minister of Finance might include in his own department a branch almost equivalent to the present wartime prices and trade board, in the matter of controls.
I shall quote only one paragraph from the Winnipeg Free Press, headed "Fighting Backwards," and stating:
The wartime prices and trade board is effecting what might be called a fighting retreat, holding each line up to the point where the rising flood of supplies makes further control unnecessary. In attempting this difficult manoeuvre it is obvious that mistakes will be made and that injustices will arise. This is inevitable.

But the over-all gain to Canada of maintaining the controls is far greater than any of the vexatious mishaps which take place from time to time. The pressure to remove the controls is very great. It comes, to far too great an extent from politicians w'ho seek an easy platform success by wanton utterance. They appeal to the narrow interests of the group they happen to be addressing and thereby neglect the national interest.
In wartime, greatly to the nation's credit, such appeals wrere ignored. They are far more dangerous to-day when the inspiration and discipline of war have vanished or grown stale. A further effort is needed.
I am going back to my constituents, and I will continue to fight for practical price control. It is not a sympathetic move; it is not popular. But I believe that in doing that I shall do my duty to my country and as a representative of my people, in speaking my mind on a question which, in my viewpoint, will be a great factor in recuperation during the post-war period.
At six o'clock the house took recess
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, since May 6 we have listened to a great many speeches on this general subject. I gather from all the speeches that everyone who has spoken has his heart in the right place; he wants the same thing. The great problem arises when he tries to determine how to get it. It seems to me that we ought to face realities in a realistic fashion. We live in an age of science. Let us therefore be [DOT] scientific in our approach to the problem which is now before the house.
The matter that we are discussing has been raised by two amendments and there have been two main questions under discussion: First food production and the dangers of discouraging food production through unsuitable prices and the need for encouraging food production by suitable prices; and second the distribution of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policy and specifically the fairness or unfairness of the share of that burden being borne by the food producers of Canada or by the workers of Canada.
The amendments assume that the share of the burden at present carried by these two groups is unfair. The amendment blames the unfairness upon the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm products and the amendment to the amendment blames the unfairness upon what it terms "the government's policies of permitting recent unjustifiable increases in the price of farm machinery and of steel". Theoretically we are now dis-

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
cussing the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum), but actually we are discussing both the amendment moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken).
In this discussion I felt that the members had a right to expect certain things. These things in large measure they did not get.
I have been disappointed. I had expected some sort of scientific approach to be used. Only about three members of those who spoke used the genuine scientific approach to the problem before us. There came into my mind certain questions. First, what is the cost of the government's price stabilization policy?
I do not recall that any member stated what the cost was. Second, who are the various classes of people in Canada who to-day are bearing a share of this burden? The producers and the workers are mentioned; call them groups "A" and "B" and tell us then what would be the other groups, "C", "D", "E", et cetera. Third, what is the share of that burden at present borne by each group, and how is that share computed? Fourth, what ought to be the share of each group, and how is the amount of that share to be computed? Fifth, to what extent does the share now borne by each group differ from the share that ought to be borne by that group, and why? Sixth, to what extent has the price increase in farm machinery and steel contributed to the difference between what each group now bears and what it ought to bear, and how? Until these questions are answered I fail to see how those who moved the amendment and the amendment to the amendment can establish their case at all.
When we turn to the Progressive Conservative amendment the house needed, in my judgment, to have the leader of the opposition name all the classes of food producers, primary and secondary, and indicate the validity of the amendment by reference to each. Probably he had in mind no such comprehensive programme, but it seemed to me that that should have come out, judging by the wording of the amendment. We ought to have been told of the situation of the producers of each of the grains, wheat, oats, barley, iye; each of the meats, beef, grass-fed and feed-lot fed; pork, mutton, poultry; each of the Canadian-grown commercial fruits, apples, pears, peaches, plums, prunes, apricots, strawberries, raspberries, grapes, loganberries; and each of the major processing vegetables, peas, beans, corn, tomatoes, as well as potatoes, milk, eggs, honey, maple products and beets for sugar-making. Until all these are dealt
with I fail to see how the leader of the opposition can establish his case, judging by the wording of the amendment.
We also ought to know what should be the price for the fishermen engaged in freshwater and salt-water fishing. Instead of having a scientific treatment of the whole case, what the members have had, as far as I can judge-and I have listened closely-is a rambling, ill-connected parliamentary talkfest, establishing hardly any fact except that something is seriously wrong with wages and prices in Canada, and tending to scarcely any conclusion other than that something drastic ought to be done about it. I believe we were all agreed on those two propositions before either the amendment or the amendment to the amendment was moved.
Just now in our national life the need is great and urgent that the members of parliament establish many important facts; that they reach many sound conclusions, and that they frame and adopt many vital policies. What we need above all things, in my judgment, in order to do these things is knowledge, detailed knowledge, and that knowledge, Mr. Speaker, at the present time is completely beyond the ordinary member of parliament. He simply cannot get it. I am not so sure but that it is beyond the cabinet ministers.
That something is very seriously wrong, we can judge by the fact that beef prices are not producing the results that we would have them produce; and by the fact of a threatened milk strike in Ontario, with literally thousands of milk producers threatening to pour their milk out on the ground or to waste it some other way unless they are given a $3 advance. These men know what it costs to produce milk, and they declare that they simply cannot produce milk at the price it is going to be, with costs as they are at the present time.
To show how serious the matter is, I am going to put on Hansard a letter in which I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) will be deeply interested. May I, in passing, congratulate the Minister of Finance because, while there is hardly a man that is more badgered than he at the present time, he is, all things considered, standing right up and taking it on the chin like a man. But just the same there are reasons for differing with some of his policies, and I am sure he realized that. This letter will be interesting to him and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). It comes from the Lethbridge Central Feeders' Association, Lethbridge, Alberta. These people feed thousands of beef in pens every year and are consequently, I suppose, about as well equipped to pronounce
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

on the soundness of the price structure as it affects beef as any group of people who could be found. Here is the letter:
Lethbridge, Alberta, May 7, 1946.
Mr. John Blackmore, M.P.
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
We appreciate the interest you take in our situation and trust that the following data will be sufficient to supply your needs.
Our contention is that the horizontal ceiling on beef works an undue hardship on the feeder who has to sell grain-fed cattle under the same price ceiling as the rancher marketing grass-fat cattle. The horizontal ceiling ignores the position the feeder plays in producing beef tonnage for late winter, spring and early summer months when beef is normally in short supply. United States has recognized the importance of the feeding industry and has acted accordingly. If our ow'n government fails to recognize the importance of the feeder by allowing him to market his products under ceilings commensurate with his costs then the cattle finishing industry will suffer a tremendous set-back.
The average daily gain over a period of years in our feedlots has been If to 2 lbs. per day. To put this on requires:
Cents
(a)	Grain-10 lbs.-Xo. 4 wheat at 99
cents including subsidy	 16-5
or barley at 68 cents including subsidy	 14-2
Average	 15-3
Oats at 47 cents including subsidy (not purchaseable at this price)
(b)	Hay 12 lbs. at $16 per ton	
9-6(c)	Pulp-40 lbs. at $1.50 per ton delivered	
3-0(d)	Molasses-2^ lbs. at 1 cent per lb. 2-5(e)	Death loss
3 per cent	 2-0
(f)	Labour	
2-0(g)	Interest, feedlot depreciation, commissions and other expenses	
2-0Total cost per lb. of gain	18-2
For all practical purposes 12 cents per pound live-weight can be considered the top price expected tor finished cattle under present ceilings. A feeder therefore is losing 6'2 cents per pound of gain.
Might I interject there to point out to the house how serious that is, if a man. feeding cattle in a feedlot is 6-2 cents worse off for every pound of meat he puts on the animal, then obviously something is seriously wrong.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He ought to stop it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shoot the cow.


John Horne Blackmore: I go on with the letter.
If the animal gains 250 pounds the total loss would be $17.32 per head. To compensate for this loss he must expect a spread in price over the in-going cost of his cattle. This spread must not only make up for his loss on the gain but must give him a profit which any business man expects who assumes such a risk. As the averfMr. Blackmore.]
age farmer-feeder feeds aproximately 100 to 150 head, a per head profit of $15 would not be excessive.
'Assuming the in-going weight of the animal to be 750 pounds the feeder must envision a spread of 4-33 cents per pound before he feels it will be worth while to feed. In other words he must buy bis feeder steers at 7-67 cents per pound in order to operate. Try to do this.
For the past few years our feeder cattle have been bought in direct competition with the packers who in the fall, will purchase anything with a kill on it. The only type of animal left for the feeder would be the skin and bones variety which the packer will buy for bones at 8 to 9 cents anyway.
Unless adequate increases are provided for grain fed cattle, either through direct subsidy to the feeder, or seasonal ceiling changes, you may rest assured that the cattle feeding industry in the west will come to an end.
Yours very truly,
Lethbridge Central Feeders,
Per A. D. Palmer,
Office Manager.
I thought that the committee would like to have that on Hansard so that they could study it. I believe that the leader of the opposition will be pleased to get that information, because it exactly supports one of the statements he made. Still, nothing is said about what to do about it, but there is the situation with respect to beef feeding in my constituency, which, I believe, is one of the finest beef-feeding areas in the country.
To see how difficult is the situation with respect to labourers, all we need to do is recall the strikes which are on at the present time or being threatened right now. According to my information, we have ,a lumber strike in British Columbia with reportedly
37,000	out; we have the seamen's union strike called for June 3, with 35,000 seamen, and a declaration that they will call out the seamen of the deep sea unless they are able to get results. There is a copper strike, according to my information, with work stopped at Anaconda America Brass Limited, New Toronto; and a rubber strike is threatened. It may be said that these conditions are to be expected at the close of a war. Those of us who have gone into matters of this kind have been impressed, I believe, with the case of these men. I personally have been greatly impressed; I have wondered how men could face life with anything like confidence while deriving such a low income from the work they were doing, and I believe something simply must be done.
I am not endeavouring to blame anybody. I am not unduly criticizing the government; I sympathize with the difficulties they are in; but then, there is the difficulty, and it is a challenge to the house. Something simply must be dona. My regret is that in all this

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
debate we have just been complaining; we have been offering no solution. In our time we are moving among conditions new and strange to see. The world is seething; we are haunted by countless anxieties; we are threatened with dreadful dangers at home and abroad. Never was there a greater need for accurate knowledge,' intensive, extensive and comprehensive, never such insistent need for courageous, realistic, epoch-making thought and action, and I submit that just such is demanded of the members of this house.
Someone will say, "Well, what has social credit to say about the question at issue? What has it to say about controls and all the rest of the questions which are being raised?" Perhaps I should give a little attention to that matter.
The social credit reaction to the questions under discussion is about as follows. First, with respect to controls, social credit does not advocate the removal of the controls too rapidly. It does not advocate maintaining controls too long. But the word which social credit likes to use in respect to controlling prices is "regulation". Regulation does not connote so much regimentation, so much threat of legal proceedings. Social credit proposes to induce fair wages and prices. There are two different ways of going about a thing: one is to force people to do it; another is to lead them to do it. Social credit believes that it is possible to organize even our society in these terrible times on the basis of inducement, and we propose to induce fair wages and prices by two main means:	first, a guarantee of equity and
stability; second, subsidies on primary production and compensating discounts on secondary products as they go into consumption, and wage bonuses. That, in brief, v is the system and 'general attitude of social credit on the matters under discussion.
With respect to prices we maintain that the price subsidy is the correct system to use. We heard with regret the government's decision to remove the two-cent subsidy on milk. We considered it a most unwise move. The government should have maintained that subsidy and enlarged and applied it far over the wide field of prices. As the days and years go by, if we are fortunate enough to see them go by without too much disaster, it will be found that the subsidy is the secret of maintaining primary production prices for every kind of primary product.
With respect to secondary products, Social Credit believes in having the government pay a portion of the retail price on such acom-modity as, for example, a binder. Consequently anyone who noticed what Social Crediters said will find that when the 12% per cent advance on machinery prices was announced, we stated, "We are not arguing that the advance should not have been made, but we are arguing that the farmers should not have had to pay it." If there had to be a 12% .per cent increase, if that had been found to be necessary, then that 12% percent increase should have been paid by direct government subsidy.
The question arises: Where will you get the money? I will discuss that point later. In the meantime, let me say this with respect to wages. Our men everywhere are dissatisfied with their wages, some justifiably so, some perhaps unjustifiably. I do not know. But where a wage increase is to be granted, that increase should take the form of a government cost of living bonus. There are some industries which are probably able to pay an increase in wages without raising prices, but all industries which are not able to do so should be assisted by the government with a definite wage bonus.
This will sound strange; it will sound epochmaking; it will sound entirely new. But just a moment's reflection on the part of hon. members must convince them that there is soundness in the proposal, because at the present time, every time labourers strike they force prices up, and when prices go up the labourers strike again to bring wages into line with prices. So that you have a vicious circle, a spiral leading to inflation, never ending.
There is only one way of dealing with that situation, namely, to determine what labourers ought to receive in any given industry, by mutual consent, study and understanding, and to see that they get it; and if the industry involved cannot pay the difference the government should. That is the social credit idea on wages.
What is the fundamental scientific approach of the social credit philosophy? First of all, social credit says: What you are to do in a nation depends entirely on your ability to produce. If you can produce enough goods of a sufficient number of kinds, you can give people pretty nearly any income which those goods can support. If you cannot produce goods, you certainly cannot have an income. If, however, you can produce goods, you ought to be able to have an income, and therefore social credit's whole approach is based on the answer to the question, how much goods can your country produce, and of how many different kinds?
Therefore the first thing that social credit would ask with respect to Canada is this. Let us have a national account book set up in
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

Canada in which we will record, with such accuracy as we can achieve, first of all actual production in'the country to-day-production of every kind what we are producing in every industry; second, what would be the capacity production? That is to say, are we producing as much as we could? If not, let that be set down. Then, what would be a reasonable estimate of potential productive capacity, considering the coal deposits, the forest wealth and all the other deposits and resources we have. What we ought to be able to produce -in the way of coal, lumber and so forth, the probable potential productive capacity, should be set down.
With that information the government would be able to draft a policy for the future, looking to increasing production and thereby raising the standard of living in the country. Having set this down as the fundamental basis upon which to work, social credit would say: You will next proceed to stimulate production to the desirable maximum, production of every kind of goods, and you should aim in a general way to make your economy as nearly self-supporting as you can. It is foolish to import rubber when you can make it; it is absurd to import sugar when you can produce it; and so on. The more nearly you can come in your economy to producing the necessities of life, the more capable you are of being independent of external influences, and the more capable you are, therefore, of governing the price structure and every other factor pertaining to the standard of living in your country. That is the general idea of social credit.
We favour a sort of national economic independence in the nation. We favour the use of our total resources, both man-power and natural or material resources, in so far as that total use is necessary to obtain the desired standard of living. If the people want a high standard they must be prepared to work in order to get it. If they do not want to work to produce, then naturally there is no income for them. Once people all over the country realize that the standard of living which they can have depends upon the amount of goods they can produce, their whole outlook on the surrounding economic situation will change.
Having stimulated production to the necessary degree, social credit says that you must stimulate consumption. There is no use in producing if you cannot consume. In normal times social credit would stimulate consumption by using wage bonuses, subsidies on prices, and by direct distributions of consumer purchasing power, taking the form of wage increases or dividends, or whatever form it may be found necessary or agreeable or desir-

able to issue it. Having taken care of the stimulation of production and consumption to the optimum degree, then social credit would say that you could raise the standard of living in Canada to the highest point consistent with Canadian production and Canadian productive capacity.	.
When social credit makes that statement it is completely in agreement with practically every speaker who has spoken in the C.C.F. organization and most of those who have spoken on both sides among the other parties. The question is, how to attain the objective? Social credit maintains that it has one or two ideas which are quite different from those advocated by any other groups in the house. Having raised the standard of living to the desirable level, social credit would say, we will now pay off the national debt with our surplus production. This is a note of hope. As far as I can make out, the concept of the Liberals and the concept of the Progressive Conservatives-I am not prepared to pronounce on the C.C.F. because they have not said very much about it-the concept of the two old line parties is this:	If you cannot
wring money out of the pockets of the taxpayers you cannot pay off the national debt, you cannot pay the interest on it.
Social credit says that is just pure nonsense, for you can pay your debt off with your goods. If you can produce enough goods you can pay your debt, provided that you manage it rightly. Then the question rises:	Can Canada produce these goods? Well, I do not think there is anyone in this house who doubts that Canada can produce enough goods in ten, fifteen or twenty years, with all her productive pow'er, to pay off her debt, and still maintain a high standard of living. But the question will be raised:	Where is the money to
come from? I wish to word very carefully what I am about to say so that every member can get its exact meaning. The money must come out of production. The commodities we can produce in excess of what the consuming public can purchase with the money they can obtain under the present debt-creating financial system-such commodities can be represented by the government with commodity dollars. The question will arise in the minds of some-I can almost see it written on the faces of some-how can you have commodity dollars? In this war we have seen developed a splendid example of commodity money. During the war the British, needing goods from members of the sterling bloc, created pounds and bought the goods they needed from the members of the sterling bloc. These members now hold these pounds. These pounds are redeemable in British goods, and just as

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
soon as the British can produce the goods to cover these pounds they will pay the members of the sterling bloc in goods and recover the pounds.	.
These pounds are not backed by gold; they are backed by British goods, both those that are produced and those that will be produced. These are commodity pounds. Commodity dollars can be created in Canada too. Such dollars created to the extent to which we have production can be used in stimulating production, financing consumption and raising the standard of living of all Canadians.
There are certain things that I think ought to be done now. I do not suppose it will do very much good to talk to the house about ideals and things to be done in the future. Let us see what we can do to-day. What can we do within the remaining weeks of this parliamentary session? These are the suggestions that I would offer. We need facts above all other things in this house to-day. Therefore we should appoint a fact-finding commission a royal commission if needs be, or fact-finding commissions, to ascertain for us in a thoroughly dependable way the information we need; and this they should do with all possible speed. I would say we should set to work a commission or as many commissions as we need to find with all possible expedition the whole truth bearing upon about eight main problems in the country: First, the production of goods in Canada; much of the argument and discussion that has gone on in this debate has been the result of insufficient knowledge, inaccurate knowledge regarding production costs. We are not in a position to get that knowledge; it is not available. A commission with such skill and of sufficient size and with sufficient money should be appointed to get that information in respect of every item of food production in this country; then everything of truth with respect to the morale and efficiency of workers. How much does a workingman need? How much ought he to have, first of all, if he is married, and, second, if he is not? How much of it should be left free of taxation? We wrangle about it in this house and nobody ever decides; nobody has any means whereby to decide. Certainly we ought to have a commission to find all these facts. Here we have the seamens union threatening a strike. Is their stand justified? Only a fact-finding body can determine the matter and give us the information with which to work. There are other topics about which we should have the full truth, namely, the justifiable cost of processing foods such as butter and cheese, canned goods, meat packing, sugar manufacturing and flour milling.
Look at the tremendous amount of talk we have had in the house -regarding what packers are able to make. What a fine thing it would be if we could have the result of a commission's investigation on this whole matter! Another matter is the cost of transportation of both freight and passengers by train tmck and bus. In the west we feel ourselves deeply aggrieved at the freight rates. We ought to know exactly to what extent we are justified in feeling aggrieved. Only a factfinding commission can determine this matter for us. We should have the facts concerning distribution, the cost of wholesaling, jobbing and retailing. We should have the cost of shelter, the cost of all kinds of building materials and of fueling. We should have the details concerning the cost of clothing. What should be the price of wool, of rayon and other clothing material? What should be the cost of processing this into the clothes that people need?
Then we should have the Canadian potential standard of living. Only a royal commission can ascertain that. We should have a national account book set up by a royal commission, showing our total potential productive capacity, and our total production, consumable or potentially consumable by Canadians, and the reductions which are essential for public service at home and abroad. Then we should have the deductions essential for servicing our debt, the deductions essential for maintaining our defence, the deductions essential for replacing capital goods and any other essentials which can be found. We should have a commission at work on this problem.
Then a commission should ascertain how we can in Canada develop the maximum consumption. Social credit has a set of proposals which, in the judgment of the Social Crediters will distribute the goods of Canada among Canadians. There are those who challenge the social credit stand; but my stand is this: If a better system than social credit cannot be found, then social credit should certainly be adopted; it certainly should be examined. It should be examined in an atmosphere in which, when a Social Crediter stands up, some silly, thoughtless creature will not shout out "25 a month", or some other idiotic expression. That is the kind of thing we hear. It is utterly impossible to have the matter fairly considered in this house.
You have never had a royal commission in Canada or anywhere else; certainly you have never had one in Canada, scientifically study social credit with the Social Crediters there to present their case. I do not think
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

we have ever had a careful investigation into the method of distributing the goods in the country, and yet this is the main problem which needs to be solved. We have solved the problem of production; we do not know how to distribute. The need of such a commission as I have indicated was clearly shown this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) when I asked if he would give us a list of the goods which are in short supply. The minister foresaw that he would not be able to answer that question because he did not know where he could turn to get that information. In my judgment that is the very thing the minister ought to be able to turn to without hesitating a second. We ought to know the goods which are in short supply in this country. We ought to know why they are in short supply. We do not know that. How in the world can we go about scientific housekeeping in this country when we know so little about the essentials?
I maintain that Canada should forthwith begin to prepare to put her house in order. It is high time that Canadians as a wThole found out just where they stand.


Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: I wish to say a few words to-night on the question to which I was refused an answer yesterday, namely, question No. 19 on the order paper of May 22, which reads as follows:
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?
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), what is a contract? I should say it would be an agreement between two parties; and if this is not a contract it is a sad day for the people of Canada. How much money could I gej, from any bank if I said that even after taking a deposit I was still in no way bound to sell? I have had various letters from my riding with regard to a former ruling by the Minister of Finance concerning the price of machinery sold prior to the date of the order, without deposits paid on the machines. These were just ordinary contracts taken prior to that date. As a matter of fact, I understand that one dealer, on his understanding of the interpretation by the Minister of Finance of mji question, agreed to deliver to his customer a tractor that had been sold prior to the date in question.
The question I asked yesterday was in regard to six small threshing machines, three of which have already been, delivered. These machines were ordered either last fall or not later than January of this year. The company

accepted these orders at $800 each; and when the agent sent in the orders, prior to the effective date of the increase, each order was accompanied by a deposit of $100. The implement manufacturer did not want to make 100 threshing machines and have some left on his hands, so that the agent was compelled to take a deposit of $100 from each farmer and turn it in with the order. This he did; the orders and deposits were taken and accepted long before this increase was considered. If these orders had been given just prior to the price going up, it might have been a different matter, but now this increase will bring the price to $900 for the three farmers who have not yet received their machines.
It is things like- this and the removal of the milk subsidy that make the farmer feel he is being unfairly dealt with by the government. I believe the minister should reconsider this matter, in the light of this explanation. Certainly it seems to me that orders taken in 1945, before there was any mention of an increase ia price, should be valid. Even if the orders were taken in January, 1946, there was still nq mention of an increase in price at that time. In all fairness I ask the minister to reconsider the matter. It is important to the farmers of the country, and particularly to these three farmers who are still waiting for their machines. Could the minister give me an answer now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are not in committee, Mr. Speaker, and I am not in a position to answer the question. This is a question which was put on the order paper yesterday, is it not?


Lewis Menary: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I shall have to see the documents and obtain legal opinion on the matter. ' Possibly I could get that from the solicitors of the wartime prices and trade board.


Lewis Menary: I may tell the minister that I have had legal advice.


James Horace King: Order. I must call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that we are not in committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. CARDIFF:: "Unjustifiable."


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; they say "unjustifiable", but they place strong emphasis upon the stablization of prices. In that regard to a certain degree they support the policy which has been advocated for some considerable time by the government. On the other hand, by confining their remarks to increases in prices of farm implements and steel they have been confining themselves largely to a certain line of criticism which has been emphasized for a long period of years in western Canada. Irrespective of party, I think we in western Canada have been opposed to high prices for farm implements, and there is an obvious reason for that. We are the greatest users of farm implements in Canada, and farm implements are more essential to the production of farm products in western Canada than in any other part of this country, in proportion to the entire cost of production. We have always maintained that it is of interest to western Canada that we should have the lowest possible cost for farm implements utilized by the farmers, particularly in that section of Canada, and it applies only in a lesser degree to the farmers all across Canada.
I should like to call attention to only one or two remarks made in relation to farm implements. I refer first to what was said by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) earlier in the discussion when he suggested that farm implements could be bought cheaper on the United States side of the line than they can on the Canadian side of the line.
If that is true-and probably it is true, because the hon. member lives within a few miles of the United States boundary line, and he should know-he can buy an implement on either side of the line. If that is true, then of course the suggestion that farm implements can go up the full amout of the increase in the ceiling is hardly in accordance with the fact. There is no duty on farm implements coming into Canada; if a person can bring an implement from the state of Montana or the state of Dakota into Manitoba or Saskatchewan or Alberta from across the boundary line, and those implements are being sold at a lower price there than they are being sold in Canada, then to the extent that they are being sold at a lower price they come into direct competition, and the price would not go up 12% per cent.
I merely say that if implements were being sold prior to this action on the United States side of the boundary at a lower rate than they are being sold in Canada, then we are assuming too much when we assume that implements can go up the full 12% per cent. I hope the condition is as it has been described by the hon. member for Souris, because, if it is, it changes considerably much of what has been said in this debate.
However, that was not the matter I rose to deal with particularly. I had in mind some of the remarks made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blaekmore).


James Arthur Ross: I think the minister will admit that these implements are at present in short production. I made the whole thing clear when I spoke upon it in this debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are in short production, but to the extent that they can be purchased on the other side of the line they influence the price. We all know in western Canada that in every distributing point there are agents of nearly all the important United States farm implement companies. There are also the agents of those- who manufacture implements in Canada, and if the price structure is lower on the other side, that does affect the position on this side of the line.
But the matter with which I wish to deal particularly is that of beef prices as related to feeders of live stock in Alberta and elsewhere,
\
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

an.d as related to others in Canada. I should like to say, first, that the last time I checked the record'-and that was during a discussion in a previous session-I found that there was less than 10 per cent of the beef marketed in Canada that was produced in feeder lots and on what are generally known as ranches. I found that 90 per cent of the beef produced in this country was produced on the farms, where the farmers breed and raise their own live stock.
They are not running feeder lots. They are breeding their own cows and raising their own steers until they are of an age to be fed. Then they feed them and they put them on the market from time to time. They supply by far the greater part, or a sufficient proportion to cause us to base our arguments with regard to the supplying of beef-for Canada upon the 90 per cent rather than upon the 10 per cent, when we are suggesting that we ought to do something which will assist the farmer.
I believe it was suggested by the leader of the opposition earlier, and, I understand by the leader of the C.C.F. the other evening when I called attention to the fact that the policy had been changed two and one-half or three years ago, that the condition which ought to prevail is that feeders should be in a position to go on the market in October and November and buy steers at from cents to 2 cents a pound less than the price at which they will be sold in the late winter or early spring; and that in order to be able to feed cattle at a profit they must be able to do that.


Mr. CASE:: Who suggested that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not "suggested"; it was said in so many words a few minutes ago. If my hon. friend had been listening to the debate he would know exactly who said it.
I have before me the average yearly and monthly prices for steers. These are the monthly average prices for good butcher steers at Toronto in all the years since 1914, and in all the months in each of those years. I would suggest to those who are advocating these policies that they take a look at this sheet which is published regularly, and is available to everybody. I suggest that they take a good look at it, because this is what it shows. I am now picking out five different years during that period. I take first the year 1920. In October, 1920 steers were selling at $10.78 and, in November, at $10.05. In the spring of 1921 the month of April, they were selling at $9.34, and in May, at $9.04. In February they were selling at $8.77.
In other words, under the system of no control and no regulation, the system under

which it was presumed that cattle were going to remain at some particular level after feeders put in their feeding stock, what happened? They put them in at $10.78 and $10.05 and sold them at $9.60, $9.34 and $9.04. Well, they not only lost 2 cents or 1} cents that they argued they must have, but they lost another 11 cents on top of that, in reduced prices.	*
Then let us come down to 1928, which was a particularly good year. The average price of steers in that period, during the whole year, was $10.48. The prices in the months of October and November were $9.50 and $9.10. In other words, an attempt was made to carry out the idea which has been advocated here. But when we get down to the month of February we find they were sold at $9.27, and in the month of March they were sold at $9.40. It was the month of April before the price was at all above the price paid for the cattle in the fall of that year.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: There were no price ceilings then.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no price ceilings then; and what I am trying to point out to my hon. friend is what he will not understand, namely, that when there was no price ceiling a policy was being followed which he and his party have been advocating ever since this debate started, and that the farmers lost more money under that policy than they have lost under any policy since then.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Would the minister permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I suggest that the minister has taken two years in which two great depressions started. Has he the picture for the years which were not the beginning of depressions?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the figures for all the years; but I suggest to the hon. member that he requires some enlightenment when he says that 1928 was a depression year. That is the best year the farmers in Canada ever had prior to this war period.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister gave the figure for the spring of 1929.


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the figure for the fall of 1928 and the spring of 1929.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is what I
questioned.


James Garfield Gardiner: The winter of 1928-29. Let us come down to'1931, which was a real depression year, and a time during which my hon. friends were in office in Ottawa. What

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
was the price then? It was $5.90 in October, $5.60 in November, and when they sold in the spring of 1932 the price was $5.13 inMarch, $5.13 in April and $5.33 in May. If you want to take the next year the price went down to $3.98 in October and to $4.09 in November, and they sold in the spring $5.39
To come down to 1937, the price was $6.19 in October and $5.74 in November. A Liberal government was in power then, but the policy being put into effect was the policy which is being advocated by all three groups on the opposition side of the house to-day in this debate. The price in the spring was $5.56 in March, $6.05 in April and $6.65 in May. We at least had the price a little higher in the spring than it was in the two months in which the beef was put in. But the price was not sufficiently high to make any profit such as has been talked about in this discussion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Were not those figures true during those depression years in every country in the world which raised cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say that the low figures were true in every country in the *world, but not the price relationship as between October and April, which is the point under discussion. I am not now criticizing the fact that prices were low during that period. But the argument is that feeders ought to be permitted to buy steers in the fall at a price II cents below the price they are going to have to sell them at in the spring. What I am suggesting is that the people who are arguing that never at any time made anything out of their cattle over a long period of years, with the exception of three or four years. There has been no opportunity of making a profit in that way with the prices that have prevailed.
I would ask this further question. Why is it that that policy was brought into effect in the first place? The fact is, as every western farmer knows, that in the western part of Canada a great many cattle are on the grass, particularly in the ranching areas; they are left out on the grass until October, when they are shipped to Winnipeg or Calgary. There were so many cattle on the market in the fall that the butchers could not possibly buy them and pay butcher's prices for them. Therefore certain persons, some of them being in the governments of the western provinces, more particularly in the province of Alberta, particularly the gentleman who at that time was minister of agriculture and his assistants, conceived the idea of advocating feeder lots. They encouraged feeders to go on the market and buy cattle in the fall, i ut them on these
feeder lots and feed them over the winter months, and thus distribute the cattle over the winter in such a way as to make it possible to market a greater number to better advantage.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What year was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was in the years preceding the war. That was the idea. That policy was advocated more strenuously by Mr. Grisdale than by anyone else during the time he was in the political life of Alberta, and Mr. Grisdale is one of the advisers of the prices board in Ottawa at the present moment. He advocated that policy in peace time, and it has something to commend it.
One of the suggestions I want to reply to is that this policy which is now in effect is a prices board policy. Strong citicism was made by one speaker yesterday or the day before- I read it in Hansard this morning-that the present policy is the prices board policy and that because it is a prices board policy put into effect by Mr. Gordon it ought to be opposed by this house, partly for that reason and partly because those making the statement believed that it was not a sound policy.
I wish to point out that the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) in relation to the prices board and particularly myself and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) have no foundation whatsoever in fact. The fact is that in the first three years of this war I advocated continuously that that policy which had been followed prior to the war and which served the purpose prior to the war was serving no purpose whatsoever during the war except to keep down the price of cattle to farmers who had cattle to sell in the fall. Why? In the period preceding the war we could not get a market for our cattle readily in the fall of the year. Therefore we asked people to take those cattle and feed them over until the spring. The price was depressed, not by design and not by the fact that there was any particular policy in that regard but simply because there were so many cattle on the market. Those who fed those cattle in the winter months did not make as much money in the spring as people are now trying to tell us they would make if we did the same thing over again.
When the war came what happened? After 1942, particularly, we had a market for everyone of our cattle that could be put on the market in any part of Canada. All one had to do to sell cattle was to offer them for sale and they were all sold
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

We were told a few moments ago by the hon. member for Lethbridge that feeders, in order to buy cattle last October and November, had to go into the markets and bid against the packers; in other words, bid against the butchers whether they were packers or not. Why? Because there was a market for every pound of beef that came on the market ready to kill.
There is no one in this house who knows anything about farmers' returns who would suggest that every farmer who put on the market last fall a good butcher steer ought to take a cent or a cent and a half or two cents a pound less for it than the ceiling price made possible, in order that some farmer or some feed-lot operator near some city could take those cattle, buy grain and feed them over the *winter and put them on the market next spring a little heavier in weight.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not argue that the farmer should take less in the fall but that the feeder should be able to get a bigger price in the spring.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no way of doing that except by having two different ceilings, and that is what prevailed down to three years ago. We had a lower ceiling in the fall than in the spring. Therefore the farmer who was bringing his cattle on the market in the fall had to take a price under the low ceiling in order that someone else could get the cattle one and a half to two cents lower than the spring price. That is the policy advocated by the feed-lot supporters now. I had a group of representatives of these feed-lot men in my office the other day, and two out of the five expressed themselves most strongly, before leaving the office, as opposed to the policy proposed and saying that the present policy was superior after it had been explained to them.
The situation does not need to be proven by anything I say with regard to it. All one has to do is to take the figures. Members on both sides of the house have been saying that what we want is stabilized prices. To go back to 1928, the average price was $10.40. The price went down to $9.10 and up to $11.48. If one takes one of the years in the middle of the depression the average price then was $5.93. The price went down to $5.60 and went up as high as $6.23.
If one takes different years preceding the war and during the early part of the war, one finds that the average from 1926 to 1929 was $9.04 for good steers at Toronto; for 1928-to go back to the year we were discussing a few moments ago-it was $11.48; for 1920 it was $12.89, the variations running

all the way from $12.89 down to $9.04 back in that period in which, we sometimes say, farmers enjoyed the greatest prosperity prior to the present time.
To come to 1941, about a year and a half after the war started, the price went down from the average of $9.04 back in those years and of $10.48 back in 1928, to $8.70. At an earlier time, just prior to the war, it had been higher than that. In 1942 it went up to $10.29. It was in 1941 and 1942 that we were having these discussions as between the prices board and the Department of Agriculture. After two years of discussions, after all these men who run the feed-lots and all those who run feeding farms in eastern Canada and those who run these small farms across Canada had had delegations in and discussed the matter, we finally, two and a half years ago. convinced everyone that the present policy was more likely to bring about stabilization and give good returns to the farmers than the policy which had been followed throughout the years preceding the war and during the early part of the war. We argued it on the ground that there is a market every day of the year with war and since we began selling beef to Britain for every pound of beef that is put on the market.
Why should there be a variation in price under those circumstances? If farmers have beef to market every day of the' 365 days and people want to eat all the meat every day, why should there be any variation in price or holding for better prices? The only reason there was that the variation before was because the supply was greater than the demand. Let me say to my hon. friends on the other side who are inclined to scoff at the idea of supply and demand, that the law of supply and demand has operated ever since there have been men on the face of this earth who have made any records; supply and demand will continue to operate, and anyone who loses sight of that fact is going to get into trouble sooner or later. When supply and demand were more or less balanced, as they were during the war period, what was the position? The average price in 1943 was $11.46; in 1944. $11.48; in 1945, $11.65. There has been a variation from $11.46 to $11.65 during those three years of stabilization, and prices are higher than the average price obtained in any other continuous three years since 1914. When one goes back over the months what does one find? Let us take 1944, which was the second year in which this was operating fully:	January, $11.78; Februarv, $11.76;
March. $11.68; April, $11.61; May, $11.78; June, $12.04; July, $11.71; August, $11.10; September, $11.04; October, $10.51

down 53

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
cents-November, $10.63-up 12 cents-December. $11.04; an average throughout the year of $11.39, and with some adjustments made recently on those prices it averages out, I think, at $11.48. All I wish to say on that matter is this, that if hon. members are in favour of policies which give stabilization to farmers they must accept the policy which is in force at present as the one that has been most successful in that direction of any policies we have had since the begining of world war I down to the present time. I do not think we can improve on that record. I think experience speaks for itself. While theories are advocated by persons who have even found them to be wrong by their actual experience, we should look at the records, follow those records, and having done so, accept the conditions which exist.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Would the minister permit a question? Will he admit that export demand has had a greater influence than any other factor on our domestic price?


James Garfield Gardiner: WTell, some people do not like to talk about exports because that has been associated over a long period of years with what we call trade. I heard a little discussion in a place south of here in the past week in which one gentleman said! that the only way we would ever get back to a sound position would be to allow the competitive element to operate freely in a world where trade operated fairly freely. Another gentleman got up afterwards and quoted figures to show what happened when we had that condition. It was not long after that till he was saying that we have more starvation in the world to-day than we ever had before. I sometimes wonder whether we get anywhere in using these general statements about things. There are so many other reasons why we have general starvation at present that I shoilld not like to say it is because we have control of trade, and there are so many other reasons Why certain things happened in certain years over the period I have been talking about that I should not like to say that any one thing caused the situation which did exist. But what I do want to say is that, in controlling prices during the last three years, in finding markets for all the meat products which we had, and in leaving a very small variation as between the ceiling price and the floor price, we have had the greatest degree of stabilization, leaving out of consideration altogether the level of the prices, through those three years, that we have had in Canada at any time, for any reason. Then, when we find that they are stabilized at a higher level than we have had for any continuous three years,
and a higher level than we have had in any other three years during the whole period since the beginning of the last war, there is not very much to be said in favour of the suggestions that we change, which have been made in the course of this discussion.
There is only one other thing I wanted to say a few words about, and that has to do with the prices which we obtain for our products as compared with United States farmers. I believe the leader of the opposition asked me some time or other-probably it was during my estimates, but it will fit in here as well as anywhere-what the relationship is between prices in Canada and prices in the United States. I took the trouble to get some of those figures and place them on record the other evening with regard to hogs, and I have them here with regard to dairy products. During the last few days we have been talking a great deal about dairy products. I must say that because of something which was said to me a few moments ago by an hon. member on this side of the house I am not going to insist that this record is absolutely correct until I get back into my estimates and I shall have the information on the question which was asked me. That question was as to the relationship of subsidies on milk in the United States to prices or returns to farmers. I cannot state offhand whether there is any subsidy which affects the return on cheese or butter, but the return on butter to the producer in Canada is 48 cents on creamery butter 92 score-and it was 92 score at Montreal that I quoted a moment ago-while in New York it is 47Yi cents. Cheese, first grade, 92 score at Montreal, f.o.b. factory, under the present subsidy which was announced the other day by the Minister of Finance, carries a subsidy return that would amount to 27 cents, and the return on No. 1 Cheddar, United States, at Wisconsin cheese exchange is 27 cents. I gave figures the other day to indicate the return on hogs, showing that, it is practically the same as it is in the United. States.


Mr. HACKETT:: Is that in the same exchange? Is it Canadian or American?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe that is figured out in a manner which brings about a proper relationship, just as it was in the figures I gave the other night with respect to hogs. This was figured in the same way at the request of the lpader of the opposition, and if there is anything wrong that enters further into the question I shall be pleased to produce these figures when we are discussing my estimates.
What I would point out is this. Under our adjustment prices we have dealt with hogs; we have dealt with cheese.; and the results
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

are as I have indicated them in relation to prices on the United States side of the line. The two products we have not yet dealt with are beef and wheat, and there have been some discussions here with regard to these products and some suggestions as to what we might do or ought to do. All I wish to say to-night is that these two products have not yet been finally dealt with.; and when hon. members are voting with regard to these amendments that are before the house, if they are in earnest in suggesting that it is most important that we maintain controls, and in the second place, most important that we maintain these controls in some kind of parity relationship, I would say this to them. I may say in passing, I hesitate to use the word "parity", saying that we have parity, because it takes a long speech to explain what one means.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: Before leaving the question of prices, would he state what is the price on raw milk per 100 pounds in the United States and in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not those prices here, but I shall have them on my estimates to-morrow. These are the only ones I have figured out. I understand that directly over the border from where my hon. friend lives there is a higher return for whole milk, but I wish to check that up to make certain before putting on Hansard a statement with regard to it.
What I was about to say is this. You have a stabilized price and you have a price on a level which is comparable with prices being obtained elsewhere; and may I say further, we have just come, out of a period when prices were allowed to run very much higher in the United States than in Canada. We as farmers took the position that we did not object to United States prices going up to a high level and ours remaining at a lower level, provided that all the commodities we had to buy could be purchased on a lower level than in the United States, and provided at the same time that we were not going to permit prices to run down as fast in this country as in a country where there were not as complete controls as we had here. We laid down those two provisos, and for that reason I would say to the official opposition, that we intend to go slow in this matter of removing controls, on ceilings if you like, but certainly so far as floors are concerned, and to maintain the position

where the farmer can get a return, during the transitional period, which is comparable with the. return he obtained during the war period.
I believe that if we do that, in spite of the criticisms that are being made in this house at the present time, when the time comes the people of Canada will judge that policy by results rather than by criticisms. Someone said to me on one occasion that I was the most criticized man in the Dominion of Canada. Probably I am. He said also that my departmental administration was the most criticized, and I said in reply that there is only one way to conduct oneself in politics, where an election comes every fourth year-


James Arthur Ross: And that is to be right in the fourth year.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have to do more than that-. You have to be right the day after the election and the first year after it is over, at least, and then you have three years to prove that you were right. If you wait until the last week or even the last year before the election you will find that the people of this country are too wise to let that kind of thing go by. The hon. member for Humboldt twitted me with feeling that I was always right. I am going to say to him that unless you do feel that you are right you will not be able to put over to the public what you do believe in, and I hope I have never attempted to put over anything which I did not think -was right. So that, if one starts in with four years ahead of him to put something over which he thinks is right, by the time he gets around to the election he has two weeks in which people agree with him, and that is about long enough. His next job is to start off again with something else which he believes in, immediately following the vote.
We went through the last period advocating stabilization of prices and came through with the most successful system of stabilization of farm prices that this country or any other country has ever had and because of that we were sent back here to carry on the policy.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) the other day, the hon. gentleman said that India had a poor crop; that the people are starving there; that the people are starving in North Africa and South Africa; that the people are starving in France and starving in some other countries. Well there are two or three reasons why they are starving in most of those countries; but there is one reason in every one of them and that is that they had a crop failure last year. In India they had one of the most complete crop failures they

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
have ever experienced, with low production; in North and South Africa they had one of the greatest crop failures they have ever experienced, with low production; and one could enumerate other areas in which there is the greatest difficulty in relation to food at the present time.
Why is it that when persons are calling attention to these facts they refuse, when they come to Canada, to say that we have had three of the poorest crops in certain wheatgrowing areas, the last three, that we have ever experienced? Hon. gentlemen who come from the southwestern part of Saskatchewan know that this year the people are receiving payments under prairie farm assistance in greater amounts than in any other year but one in the whole history of the act since 1939 up to the present time. Why? Because they have a poor crop; and when we admit that every other country is in difficulties which has had a poor crop, why can we not be honest with ourselves and say that Canada is in difficulties in delivering greater quantities of food too because she had a poor crop in the grain-growing area during the last year; not quite so poor the year before, but still poor, and poorer the year before that?
Why cannot we be more honest with ourselves and say that in the week before the week that has just gone by authorities reported that we had in Canada the poorest prospects that we have ever had in the same week in twenty-four years. Why cannot we be honest with ourselves and say these things? And let us say them to the world, and not tell people that no matter what the weather is like we are going to have a good crop this year; that all we have to do is to put in more acreage, and do more of this and the government do something and we shall have a crop just because they say so. I have said that a week ago we had the poorest condition for twenty-four years, but I do not want the house to come to the conclusion that we are bound to have the poorest crop we have had in twenty-four years. Every western member knows that if we have three good rains in June and have them properly distributed we shall grow a crop in spite of everything that has happened up to the present. With the conditions we have to-day, if we do not have those three rains, if we do not have at least two of them, we shall be talking next fall about difficulties similar to those that we have experienced before. We in this country have to take our own history into consideration.
When our hon. friends were considering this matter within the last week this suggestion was made: you ought to increase your wheat acreage seven per cent for the whole
world in order to produce so many bushels of wheat during the next year. During the last three years we have increased our wheat acreage in Canada by over fifty per cent, and we have not had as much wheat in any one of the years during which we had the increased acreage as we had in the year preceding that. Therefore I think we should face the facts and simply admit that in this country we depend upon good weather to produce feed grain. This is a country where we must feed live stock for seven months of the year. We depend upon feed grain to finish our live stock and get food upon our own markets and also to be able to export food to other countries. If we get it we shall be able to help; if we do not get it we shall be in the position in which some other countries find themselves this year. Take South Africa. South Africa is the most like this country of any country that is producing wheat to place upon the markets of the world. I sat in Washington yesterday and listened to the representative of South Africa review a story that was so nearly like our story of the thirties that one would almost believe he was talking about this country. He said: "Two years ago we thought we were goiilg to be able to help solve the problem of food shortage throughout the world. But to-day we find that instead of helping with it we are asking for food from other parts of the world."
Their area is like ours; it is a dry area. The only areas in which you can produce No. 1 hard wheat are dry ones. I do not think that can be repeated too often. No. 1 hard wheat is a good food to be utilized for dealing with situations such as we have now, because it will keep for ten or twenty years in a good bin. If you grow too much of it this year you can pass it around some years hence. We are trying to find some kind of policy that will not only stabilize prices, but do something else which is essential to the stabilization of prices, namely, stabilize distribution, so that you can carry over your big crops into a period when there is going to be a shortage instead of throwing them on the market and pressing the prices down. If we can do that we can not only stabilize prices to our farmers but also stabilize the distribution in order that fewer people will suffer from hunger throughout the world. If we recognize these facts we shall get along much quicker with the solution of our problems.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I have a question to ask-


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I rise to a point of order before the hon. gentleman proceeds. I hope Your Honour will not rule that I am too late. The reason I did not rise
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

before is that I did not want to appear to be rude to the minister. My point is this: on various oeeasions all of us over here have asked for reports from various departments, officials, boards and so on of ministers. We have been refused because we have been told that they were privileged. In his speech to-night the minister quoted things that had been said and reported to him by members of the beef advisory board. If the rule works that we cannot have these reports, then surely the converse must be true, that no minister may give us reports from persons whom we have no right to examine, and whom we do not know. It is not of great importance to-night, sir, I agree. I do not say this at all critically, but I should like to know where we are going in future. Is the minister or any minister going to be able to repeat in this house reports that he has had and we be refused reports for which we have asked? I should like a ruling on that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think the hon. member for Calgary West has - brought up the particular point which is involved in the rule. Ministers have officials, and in evolving policies they put these officials out to examine into what is going on in different places and to report back. They ask them to see certain people, discuss matters with them and report back. But once the report has been made by the officials and policy has been evolved upon it, that policy is brought before this house, and all the reasons for bringing the policy before the house is cited at the time. Everything that I have said here to-night, apart from the last remark or two about some discussions I listened to, most of which were in the press yesterday, has been reported to this house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was not thinking of that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think every other matter that I referred to has been reported to this house in previous debates.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was referring to the statement where the minister - said that he had recently consulted with some members of the beef advisory board, five of whom were here, and the other was-


James Garfield Gardiner: That was a delegation that came in from outside, not my officials.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I thought the minister said an advisory board of five that had reported here. If I am not right I apologize. I thought the minister was speaking of the advisory board.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; that was a delegation sent by the food producers to make representations.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Sir, on
another occasion I shall ask for your ruling.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I do not think it is necessary for me to give a ruling on the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary West.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Not now. I thought it was the beef advisory board about which the minister was speaking. However, I shall check Hansard rather carefully because I am still of that opinion.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I said that it was not correct. They came from the outside. I could not name them at the moment.


William Ross Macdonald: I thank the hon. member for Calgary West for bringing the matter to my attention. Perhaps on some future occasion a ruling will be made.


George James Tustin: I wish to ask the minister a question to obtain information. A few moments ago the minister compared the price of cheese in the United States with that in Canada. In Canada all cheese is made of whole milk. My question to the minister is this: Is not the greatest percentage of cheese manufactured in the United States made of skim milk?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why I compared the price in Canada with the price in Minnesota. The Cheddar cheese of Minnesota is most like ours of any cheese made on this continent.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: As usual we have just listened to an interesting address by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), during which I think he convinced himself and, I expect his cabinet that they have a good stabilization policy. In effect what he told us is that we have the best Liberal government now that we have ever had. We never had any other kind than a Liberal or a Tory government. I would say to the minister, considering their vote in the last election, that it had better be the best Liberal government we have ever had or we shall not have another one for a long time. It appears to me that in this debate many speakers have been more concerned with attacking the opposition groups than they have been in championing the cause of the farmers and the workers. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) attacked the C.C.F. and tried to prove, by quoting from a former speech of mine, that the C.C.F. are less friendly

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
to agriculture than the Progressive Conservative party, which of course is a descendent of the old Tory party under which Canada suffered during those infrequent occasions when the electors favoured them with their vote.


John Thomas Hackett: Your knowledge of history is rather incomplete.


Thomas John Bentley: Well, I have lived in Canada for a long time. However, it is the government that I am critical of just now, because they have the responsibility; and during this debate I propose to justify my criticism. I shall leave the Tories to the memories of those people who lived through the years from 1930 to 1935.
Sufficient has been said on behalf of those members of society with fixed, low incomes, such as pensioners and those who live on the earnings of their investments, to convince any fair-minded and well-intentioned government. Various hon. members have put on record figures which should convince any except those who are so set in their views as to be completely unchangeable. I am going to try and present the matter from a somewhat different aspect. I should like to examine the government's attitude toward factory owners on the one hand and farmers and workers on the other, because during another debate I charged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) with being more amenable and more receptive to arguments placed before him by monopoly capitalism than to the claims of farmers, workers and other such gorups.
The minister's claim is that the farm machinery manufacturing companies showed by their records that they were losing money under the old price structure and could not continue if not granted an increase. As reasons they gave higher factory costs, some of which are labour costs, as well as higher capital costs. I say to the minister, bring these records into the house and let us examine them. Let us apply the very same kind of reasoning to an examination of farm units, and see where we arrive when we apply the same reasoning to both groups. To do so we would have to examine a great many farm units in the country. We would take the owner of a farm and ascertain his capital valuation and fixed charges, as the government have done in the case of the machinery companies. Having done that, we would have to allow the farmer wages for each type of operation performed on the farm, as I believe was suggested during this debate by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). We would have to do that whether the work was performed by the farmer himself, by his wife or by some other member of his family. Then we would 63260-116
have to permit him to fix his selling price high enough to pay the costs. That is the privilege given the farm machinery manufacturer.
The minister says that farm machinery costs have risen by about 285 per cent. I believe that was the figure given; in any event it is close enough. He went on to say that the government had been tough, and had granted them an increase of only 125 per cent. I am convinced that most farmers would be prepared to accept an increase in the selling price of farm products in the same ratio to their costs as disclosed by the sort of investigation I have just recounted; that is, in the same ratio that 121 per cent bears to 281 per cent.
Then we must permit the industrial worker to place a value on his labour sufficiently high to cover his cost of production; that is, the cost of maintaining his labour strength and efficiency, which means buying the products of labour, of farmers and other producers. When the minister agrees to this he will be moving toward absolution from the charge of favouring his capitalistic friends.
Please remember, Mr. Speaker, that farmers must operate with a great deal of unpaid labour. Let us compare the factory and the farm. The factory owner hires someone to do the char work, and includes those wages in the operating costs of his factory. The farmer's wife frequently does the char work in the barn and hen house, but is allowed no wages. Ergo, let the factory owner's wife clean the office and factory for nothing. The factory owner hires truck drivers to deliver his products to the railroads or to the markets, and enters the wages in his operating expenses. Frequently the farmer's teen-aged son and occasionally his daughter on returning from school in the late afternoon must harness a team of horses or get in a truck and deliver a load of farm products to the market. Ergo, let the factory owner's children deliver the factory products for nothing. One could cite many cases, but these should suffice to indicate what I am driving at.
Now compare the factory owner and the factory worker. After working all day, a factory worker must go home and do his own gardening or hire someone to do it for him. He must remove the storm windows in the spring and put on the screens, and reverse the process in the fall, or hire a handy man to do it for him; that is, if he has a house. The wages of this handy man are not deductible from the income of the worker in a case of that kind. The factory owner can send a factory worker to his home to do these chores, and any others which may have to be


[Stage Direction]
Price Ceiling-Farm Products
[Stage Direction]
done around the place, and the wages of that factory worker are an expense of factory operation and deductible for income tax purposes. I am not guessing about that, because I have been a factory worker and have been sent home even in the old days to help the wife of the boss on the old, hand-style washing-machine and bread-mixer, which was hard work.
It has been said to-night that the C.C.F believe in stabilization operations. We believe in stabilized incomes as far as it is reasonably possible to have them. Possibly the best way would be that mentioned by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) this evening, when he said that we should have a fact-finding commission, which I presume would be composed of men capable of examining ever}' phase of our economic life. Probably that would be the best way; but while 'agreeing to some extent, we believe we need to move now, and for many classes of society it might be a little too late if we did not do the best we could with the information available at the present time while awaiting the establishment of this hypothetical fact-finding commission which the hon. member for Lethbridge may want, but which he has no power to put into operation. I am afraid he will have to do a great deal of talking of the kind he did to-night before he will convince the present administration that this should be done.
The C.C.F. has supported and does support the government in regard to price control, but we do so only as long as fairness is the guiding principle in such control. Certainly, if the government is- going to favour unfairly industrial owners, the C.C.F. is capable of withdrawing that support. We have no illusions either about Liberals or Tories. As announced by our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) the Liberals were elected to power by established electoral practices, and the C.C.F. will assist them in their programme as long as fairness is the guiding principle.
He stated that the C.C.F. have doubts as to the success of the announced government policy as expressed in the speech from the throne. The government is more and more giving evidence every day that it will support monopoly privilege and profit, regardless of its effect upon productive workers and farmers. This increase in the price of farm machinery, together with the recent removal, of subsidies on milk, are final proof of my statement that the minister and his colleague? will always give more sympathetic consideration to monopolistic enterprise and profits than to the needs of the working population.

I sincerely wish the announcements of the Minister of Finance regarding price increases on commodities other than farm products and wages to workers would work in reverse as did his announcement in the early part of the winter of 1941-42. At that time I was in Regina attending the annual meeting of a great farm organization. For two days the newspapers and radio advised the people to be sure to listen in at seven o'clock on a certain evening to come shortly, so that they might hear the radio address to be given by the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, Minister of Finance, at which time he was to make a very important announcement.
Well, we crowded around the radio at the appointed time with, our mouths open, all agog for this important announcement. The ministerial voice came over at the appointed time, and announced that prices of oranges and coffee would be reduced. That was wonderful news. But inside of two months both these commodities went up in price. Can we hope for such a reversal in the announcement of price increases on farm machinery and gasoline? If his announcement in respect of these items is to work the same as it did in respect of oranges and coffee, I would say we would have some hope for the future; because when the minister said they would go down on that occasion, they went up. On this occasion he says they will go up; let us hope that they will go down.
The minister contends he is not the friend of monopolistic enterprise, that he and his officials are tough when dealing with them. But in view of the favours he and his officials grant to these monopolies it is difficult to discern the same kind of toughness which he used and applied to the veterans of the last war, when he refused to grant clear titles to their farms.
Nor did he and his officials display the same toughness when dealing with the farm machinery manufacturers, the steel manufacturers and others as they did toward the province of Saskatchewan in connection with their seed grain debt. This was a calamity in Saskatchewan. No figures need be produced to prove to the country or to the house the extent of that calamity in 1937. This was followed by a year when there was a terrific increase in the price of seed grain, and destitute farmers had to buy back the products of their own farms at those increased prices, in order to continue their farming operation.
This tremendous increase in price was the result of the government's failure to retain sufficient of these grains in the hands of the public during that terrible year for the follow-

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
ing year's seeding. But having made the blunder, the government is still tough, and demands every ounce of every pound of flesh it says is coming to it. The government is extremely tough to all working-class requests for increased wages or incomes in the face of rising living costs, but was anything but tough-
Humphrey Mitchell: Where did my hon.
friend get that information?


Thomas John Bentley: I read the newspapers. You should read them sometimes.


Humphrey Mitchell: You must read them upside down.


Thomas John Bentley: But the government was anything but tough when dealing with the representatives . of the capitalistic governments during the recent dominion-provincial conference.
Then let us take the government's attitude toward Alberta when that province attempted to introduce what they believed were essential monetary reforms. The government spared no effort to invoke every single, obscure, legal technicality to prevent the then new Alberta government from accomplishing its stated purpose.
During the last session, each time members of the Social Credit group mentioned something in connection with their monetary theory there were cries from across the house of "funny money". That is a hangover from the days when the committee on banking and commerce was discussing the revision of the Bank Act and when "funny money" wras a term frequently used, and one which is sometimes attributed,-although I was not in the house to hear it, to the Minister of Finance.
But when the term "funny money" was used I noticed it was one of the rare occasions when the Minister of Finance smiled. Sometimes his smile is very pleasant; but this time, with the words, "funny money," it was tinged with sarcasm. I do not believe the Minister of Finance knows what "funny money" is, or that he would recognize it if he saw it.
I am not going to attempt to give a dissertation on what Social Crediters believe is the proper kind of money. But I am going to say that the kind of money we have had sometimes is about as funny as any money could be.
I shall tell a little story which came into my mind when I saw the sarcastic smile on the minister's face on that occasion. I would assume he is somewhere in the same age group 63260-116J
as myself-possibly a few years younger. I am informed he was reared in about the same part of Canada as I was. Therefore he musk have gone to the little schools back in the-corner by the pine groves, the same as I did.. At those schools he learned, as I did, his "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic,", and a little bit of Euclid. Possibly he was taught how to describe a circle from a given point, on s* given straight line, or something like that-Possibly he did a few simple equations, some single entry bookkeeping and a little doubleentry, with some further training about business and commerce and-bank notes.
He was told that the banks were the most solid institutions in the British empire, particularly our Canadian banks. He was told that a bank note was not money, but that it was a promise by the bank that, on demand, it would pay to bearer that amount of money in gold.
I am just wondering if, after he had completed his schooling, he went out and picked apples for a couple of months at the munificent wage of around $10 a month, which obtained in those days. Perhaps he worked for a couple of months and got in his hands two of those big $10 bills we used to have. Perhaps then he got curious and went down to the bank to see if the banker would really pay him in gold. He would walk devoutly, because in those days a bank was like a cathedral. We were not initiated into the mysteries of banking. He would walk quietly.
I can just picture this young chap going in and saying, "Is it true that you will give me a $10 gold piece for this $10 bill I have in my hand, and I can imagine the banker honouring the transaction.
He would put the money in his pocket, along with the other $10 bill he has left. Then perhaps he went back to the hills and joined the Dutchmen in quaffing a few flagons of that Scott Act brew they had in those days, and then went to sleep for thirty years. And that is not so fantastic, either.
Then he would awaken thirty years later only to find that his $10 gold piece had disappeared, but holding the $10 bill in his hand. He thought he would like to do the same thing. So he walked into the bank thirty years later and laid down his demand note and said, " I would like gold for this." But the banker said, " No, we do not have to pay our debts any more in gold. Our paper is good enough." I am sure that he would walk out of that bank and say, as he looked at the $10 bill, " By gum, that is funny money."
The Liberal government requested and received almost unanimous support for the recent legislation it brought down, and prob-
Price Ceiling-Farm. Products

ably would receive it again in the same measure, for the same purposes, providing a loan to Britain to enable the British people to purchase from us the things which we have, which they need sorely and for which we get payment before the end of the century in goods which they will produce and which we expect we shall need. But the government was very tough when it refused to consider the request of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine), who recommended a domestic investment to develop untapped resources in his riding. Yet such investment and development in that riding would, long before the turn of the century, have provided a tremendous increase in the variety of goods at present needed by the Canadian people for their own use and for trade with countries who may need those goods and have other goods we need with which they would be willing to pay for ours.
The motion before the house, Mr. Speaker, is practically a motion of want of confidence in the government for not carrying out its preelection promises. Whether it has been able to do so or not, it certainly has not done it. It has not dealt with the unemployment situation in the way it said it would, and we have *only to read the press reports from the Cana-*dian Legion convention in Quebec city to hear [DOT]their criticism. If that is not enough, let us take a very small place in Canada, where I come from. I should like to read into the record an article in the Sun, a weekly paper published in Swift Current, the city in which I live. It is a small place, with perhaps 7,000 people. It does not rover much of the Dominion of Canada. Nevertheless there is an employment situation there. I quote from the Sun of April 30, 1946:
There may be a shortage of materials, but there doesn't seem to be any dearth of labour. One local businessman found that out. The response he got to an advertisement in a well-known farm paper calling for "carpenter's helpers and a couple of men to work in a tannery," simply overwhelmed him. He was flooded by applications by letter, 319 in all, including one telegram from a very ambitious person who wanted action. From Saskatchewan came 213 applications; from Manitoba, 57; Alberta, 26, British Columbia, 16, Ontario, 7.
Three hundred and nineteen applications for three or four jobs in the small city of Swift Current! The owner and editor and publisher of the Sun is not a supporter of this party, although he is a very decent individual and tries to be fair. I continue with the quotation:
The Sun balked at the story at the outset, but when this businessman came back a few minutes later with a hugh file of letters we couldn't be sceptical any more. The letters were counted in the Sun office and sure enough totalled 319.

Quite a number of the applications for the job came from men who had overseas experience in the war. One fellow, 22 years of age, was ready to start at "not less than $50 a month."
How can a government claim through the optimistic reports of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) and other ministers here that the unemployment situation is overcome when this advertiser was deluged with applications for a job in a small prairie city? It is not a big industrial centre. So that I think the criticism which has been directed against the government has been justified.
The government professes to have made a reasonably good start in providing housing for the veterans, let alone the rest of our citizens. But here again I suggest that hon. members read the press reports emanating from the biennial convention of the Canadian Legion which is now taking place.
There was no sound reason given to this house to justify the 12i per cent increase in the price of agricultural impleihents. The Minister of Agriculture may be right technically, that the same type of implement is cheaper in Montana and North Dakota, if you can get over there and get it, and if you pay the exchange and all these other things. You can bring it over free of duty if you can buy it. But that kind of argument to support the statement that the law of supply and demand will work along the United States border facing our prairie provinces does not work, and the minister must know it. It may work some day, but it certainly does not work to-day, and we are not talking about some day hence.
We have been trying to point out that the workers and the farmers were severely hit during the 1930's. They took the small increases that were made during the war by owners of factories and monopolistic industries with fairly good grace, although they did have to do some pretty spirited talking to the government on some occasions to get even a share of justice from this government during the war. But now the war is over, and just when there is a possibility of our farmers pulling themselves out of debt and buying farm machinery or paying farm debts, or in the case of the industrial worker paying for his home if he continues to hold his job, these price increases are permitted by the government. There is no reason why these price increases should be granted to the owner of a factory who is very likely charging all the traffic will bear to make his expenses look high. A stock company, I suppose, whose stock is quoted at a high figure calls that a Lability to the public and they are supposed Ho make some return on it, and because such

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
companies have expanded their plants in war time under the impetus, not of patriotism, but because they got increased profits which they asked for at the start of the war-


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not a fair statement, and my hon. friend knows it.


Thomas John Bentley: It is very fair, and I will say it again emphatically, if necessary. If there are to be increases, everybody should participate in them if anybody is going to. If nobody is going to be allowed to participate, nobody else should get an increase. You should not start granting increases in the higher brackets until the lower brackets are first looked after. Before the war these ceilings were not all level, as I am indicating; they were like this, slanting. If you are going to puncture the ceiling at all, start at the lower level up.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is just exactly what we did.


Thomas John Bentley: You have not raised the price of agricultural products since the war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We certainly have. That is nonsense.


Thomas John Bentley: Since the war was over, I should have said. I will correct my statement to that extent because I want it square on the record.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We started first with agricultural products.


Thomas John Bentley: The government did not do it to help the farmers out; they did it because the open market prices on the Winnipeg grain exchange were going up too rapidly, and the railway transportation systems would not allow of the movement of grain fast enough from country points to where it could be delivered against the contract, to take care of it, so that they had to close the grain exchange, for trading anyway, to fix that price. You have not "kidded" anybody in the west by doing that.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are not "kidding" anybody either.


Thomas John Bentley: I do not suppose I have done much to convince the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't worry about that.


Thomas John Bentley: Hearing the applause on the other side, I am almost inclined to agree with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) in one statement he made the other evening, what he said about "rubberstamps". The impression he has left with me is that at least in one respect he was speaking the truth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: I would remind any hon. member who may want to speak that if the minister, who is the mover of the motion, speaks now he will close the debate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I hope it will be possible to finish this debate to-night, to vote both on the subamendment and on the amendment.


John Bracken: Before the minister proceeds, Mr. Speaker, you indicated that the acting Prime Minister might close the whole debate at this stage. That surely cannot be correct.	_


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John Bracken: We have before us the motion, and we have before us the amendment to the motion, and we have the amendment to the amendment. If the Acting Prime Minister speaks now he is not closing the whole debate. I just want to be clear; I am sure the Speaker was not correct in that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are some things I have to answer which have arisen in the course of this debate, and while it probably is not true that I can close it, I am expressing the hope that we can take the vote to-night both on the subamendment and on the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, may I suggest that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) is absolutely correct; but if the two votes are taken first, the leader of the government has the right to close the debate; that is, if the vote is taken on the subamendment and on the amendment, the minister will have the right to close the debate on the main motion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to detain the house for more than a few minutes, but there are one or two things which I should like to say before the subamendment is put.
In the course of this debate a number of questions have been directed to the C.C.F. group in this house. I want to say at the very outset, as I have stated on a number of occasions before, that we have stood solidly for the idea that we should continue to
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

endeavour to stabilize prices to the very best of our ability. I believe, as we have often said, that the people who will suffer most if the price ceilings are punctured are those who work on the land, in the factories and in other places where wages and salaries are paid, and that pensioners and others in like position will also be among the first to suffer if we allow prices to sky-rocket.
I wish to deal very briefly with the amendment and the subamendment. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition reads:
This house is of the opinion that the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm products are discouraging production of needed food and imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.
I believe that the statement in the amendment is true that the policies which have been followed by the government, particularly in recent weeks, have placed an undue burden upon the producers of this country. I realize that the words of the amendment, which I suppose must govern, because the written word prevails, do not carry the significance which the speeches that have been made in support of the amendment have carried. We have heard from the official opposition several times, in this debate and in a previous debate when we were discussing farm implement prices, that controls must go. The direct question has been asked of some of the leading men in the Progressive Conservative party, and they have replied as did the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and several others of his party, that they were opposed to controls, so that if we were voting on the speeches which have been made in support of the amendment we would certainly be voting in opposition to it. But when the Journals of the house are written and the amendment and the subamendment are recorded the records will carry only the words of the amendment; and the words of the amendment are plain, that an undue burden has been placed upon the producers of this country through the policies of the government. I would have liked the leader of the opposition to be more explicit as to what he meant when he spoke of the price control policies of the government. The interpretation that was placed upon it, I thought, in his speech was that the price ceiling policies that had been punctured had placed that undue burden, but there is an obscurity in the amendment because of the lack of explanation from the leader of the opposition. As I say, however, the written word is what we have to vote upon.
fMr. Coldwell.]	j
Now I have something to say about the subamendment, which reads:
This house if 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 criticized because we have specifically mentioned farm implement prices and the price of steel. Those are the two' most recent changes which have been made in the price structure which have affected agriculture; and because of that, rather than make a general and sweeping statement, we chose to direct attention to those two matters which we believe have been most recent and have had a disastrous effect on our price ceiling policy.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday made the statement that all of us must accept the view that, in the light of the explanations given so far-and 1 note the qualification

the recent increase in the price of farm machinery is unjustifiable and unfair. But while the hon. member for Lake Centre may have said that yesterday, it is not what his colleagues were saying when we debated the prices of farm machinery a short time ago, and I do not believe that all the members of his party have changed their minds in the course of the last two or three weeks; if they have they have made a complete change of mind.
While I am speaking of changing minds, may I refer to what the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said this afternoon? He said that in one breath I supported the request that the Speaker declare the proposal of the member for Lake Centre in order and in the next breath I opposed it. Not at all. What I did was to hear the discussion; having heard the discussion I came to the conclusion that the ruling of the Speaker was right, and consequently I said that that ruling was right. May I remind the hon. gentleman that, even so, a wise man can change his mind? A fool never does, and I do not think there have been many changes of mind in the ranks of the colleagues of my hon. friend in any regard. The hon. member for Lake Centre said:
Apparently they do not believe that any increase of farm prices at the present time would be justified.
And a little later he said:
The view of the leader of the C.C.F., very clearly expressed on different occasions, has been that the C.C.F. party supports the government in its stand that there shall be no increase in the prices of farm products in this country.

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
I have said nothing of the kind. The hon. gentleman referred to my speech as recorded at page 319 of Hansard in a previous debate. Like him, I am precluded from reading the exact phraseology, but if he will look at what I said on that occasion he will find I suggested that increases and changes might be necessary but that when they were necessary they should be made after negotiation among all the parties concerned. I did not say at any time that we did not believe that certain adjustments were necessary from time to time. I regret the necessity of these adjustments. I believe the government would have been wiser had it stuck to its original plan of maintaining the price ceilings in this country in the interests of the people; and although the speeches that have been made by my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party have been of such a nature that we have disagreed with most of the ideas they have advanced in support of the amendment, we are, I believe, compelled to vote for the wording of the amendment as well as for the wording of our own subamendment, and I shall have to leave the matter at that.


John Bracken: The motion before the house is one by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) to go into supply to consider the estimates proposed by the government for its expenditure during the coming year. To that motion an amendment was moved by myself and an amendment to the amendment by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) representing the C.C.F. party.
On a motion to go into supply opportunity is given to members to raise matters of major public concern or to bring forward any grievances from the electorate in any part of Canada or to discuss any other matter of public interest. The amendment I proposed raises two major matters of public interest. May I say in passing that many members have spoken of it as a non-confidence motion. Mr. Speaker any amendment moved to a government motion the speech from the throne or the budget or supply is of course a lack of confidence motion. In that connection I may say that this motion was not moved with any expectation of dislodging the government or in any attempt to do so. It was moved with the intention of bringing before the house and the government and the country two major questions of public policy, which I think are very important and, with all respect, very clear in the amendment that I moved.
Before I read the amendment may I say one or two things with respect to the debate so far. It has covered a very wide range,
and I agree with some of those who have said that much of the debate had no direct bearing either on the amendment or on the amendment to the amendment. I propose in my remarks to-night to deal wholly with the amendment, and with the amendment to the amendment, but chiefly with the former. Before I do so may I refer briefly to two or three of the addresses we have heard to-night?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in his remarks, answered partly a question I asked him the other day when he was on his estimates or on going into supply. I asked him to give a statement of the prices paid to farmers for the major agricultural products in Canada, and with it a statement of prices paid to farmers in the United States-prices paid under comparable conditions here and across the line in the United States. To-night he quoted prices on butter and cheese and indicated that they were approximately the same in the two countries.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the information now. There is a subsidy on milk entering into cheese. It is twenty-five cents with an additional twenty cents put on for these two months in connection with the recently announced policy to encourage production and there is also a five-cent subsidy on butter. -That would put cheese on the United States side about two cents a pound higher than ours with the subsidy with the exception of these two months, when another two cents is added. On butter it is about the same.


John Bracken: I did not mean to be critical of the figures the minister gave.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood that but wished to get it on the record as soon as possible.


John Bracken: The minister referred briefly to the fact of almost similar prices for butter and cheese in both countries, and with respect to the latter he has now made some modification which indicates that the price to the cheese producers is higher on the other side. On a previous occasion the minister told us that the price of hogs was not very much different in the two countries, and he said he did not have information at hand with respect to beef wheat and milk. In that connection, I might say that the wartime prices and trade board issued a release three days ago, on May 20, in which they give that information respecting milk; and since the question was partly answered by the minister, perhaps what the wartime prices and
Price Ceiling-Farm Products

trade board had to say with respect to relative prices on the other side and in Canada ought to be given. This is the statement:
In United States, where conditions are most comparable, the average price of milk in January of this year, on basis of the same size quart, was 19'5 cents against an average or 12'5 in Canada, both figures in Canadian funds.
I presume, although I do not know, that that was before the two-cent subsidy was removed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not be sure.


John Bracken: This is the statement exactly as it was issued, and it continues:
The highest price for milk in the United States is 20-6 per imperial quart as against 13 cents per quart, the highest price, in Canada.
After much debate in this house, so far as wheat is concerned, one does not need to quote again the difference in price as between the United States and Canada. It is a very great difference. It changes a little from day to day, different reports indicate. With subsidies paid over there it is eighty or ninety cents or more higher than it is in Canada. I make no point of these differences at the moment; I simply add them to the record.
In his remarks the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) dealt with two questions, first, the necessity of production if we are to increase our standard of living in this country, and, second, the value of subsidies as an equalizing force in our economy. He said that he favoured subsidies as a means of equalizing the returns to different sections of our economy. With practically all that he had to say regarding production I am in agreement. I could not follow him clearly with respect to his support of subsidies, but even there I could go with him part way.
Tn referring to the amendment and the subamendment the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) intimated that mjr amendment was not explicit as to what was meant by "price ceiling policies with respect to farm products," and that there was some obscurity in the wording. May I repeat that amendment? It reads as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the govern-ment's-price ceiling policies with respect to farm products-
If there was any obscurity there, let it be removed. It means price ceiling policies with respect to prices of farm products or the prices of other commodities that enter into the cost of producing farm products.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member did not say that.


John Bracken: I did say that. I repeat:
. . . that the government's price ceiling policies with respect to farm products-
It was not intended to be limited.
fMr. Bracken.]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Bracken: I am simply giving the explanation; hon. members may take it or not. I repeat:

with respect to farm products are discouraging production of needed food . . .
That is one of the two sections of the amendment. What was the other? This is it: -and imposing on the food producers of Canada an unfair share of the burden of maintaining the government's price stabilization policies.
That is all there is in the amendment-these two statements. They are either correct or incorrect. If they are incorrect I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) will present the government's side, showing, as well as he can, that they are incorrect. If they are correct it is a serious indictment of the policies themselves or of the administration of the policies. I am inclined to criticize the administration of the policies more than the policies themselves, because you cannot raise the price of one commodity which enters into the cost of others without creating inequities. That is the position we are taking.
With respect to the observation that speakers have talked about other things, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing in this amendment about taking the lid off controls; there is nothing about allowing prices to go sky-high; there is nothing about uncontrolled inflation; there is no attack on the principle of trying to control inflation. There is nothing in the amendment save this, that the combination of the government's price control policies and its administration of them during recent months is discouraging production of needed food in a time of famine ; and to the extent that these policies and the administration of them increase farm costs more than they do farm prices they discourage the production of food in a time like this.
Mr. Speaker, these are major questions. We take the position that we want production. We take the position that we want equity between producers and workers and business and industry. If this amendment refers only to the producers of food on the farms of Canada it is not because of any favour desired for farmers but rather that they shall not be denied equity in our economy. We hold that recent policies put them in a relatively inequitable position. I shall deal with the merits of the matter in a moment.
The first question is: Is the production of agricultural products going down in Canada or not? It will not be enough to show that production is going down to prove that it is because of the government's price policies. Weather conditions affect the yield of crops; but surely there is no one in this house who

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
will say that price does not affect production also. Price gave us production of industrial equipment in the war. The advance of almost unlimited credit to industry, together with cost-plus contracts, and priorities in needed supplies gave producers the incentive to produce and they did produce. However we may criticize details, they got production on a scale that we are all proud of. But we are not applying as generous policies now toward getting production of food in a time of famine. As a matter of fact, the government's policies are working the other way, because some of these price ceilings on non-farm products- some of the farm costs-have been raised more rapidly than the prices of farm products.
Let me deal with the question of production of food on farms. The major farm products of Canada may be grouped in two; grain or cereals, and live stock products of various kinds. There are many other lines, of course, but I cannot now deal with all. I need not discuss the production of cereals. We discussed all that a while ago. The government's policy was then clearly stated. They did not favour any increase in the acreage of wheat. It is true that the acreage of wheat has gone up, but not as a result of government policy; it has gone up in spite of government policy, gone up by taking some of the acreage that would go into coarse grains, part of which would go to feed live stock, gone up because some of the summer-fallow acreage has been put into wheat.
Let me now deal with the production of live stock products and see what is happening in Canada. Our position is that production is going down, and that the government's price policies tend to discourage production. Some speakers said that over the last ten years the production of food in Canada increased. It did. This country is gettting more populous every year, and in the last five of those ten years we had good weather most of the time. During that period, and particularly during the last three or four years, we had the incentive of favourable prices, and in the war years we had the added incentive of patriotism. Farmers were working harder, working longer hours; older men returned to help; farmers' wives and children all helped, and I include also the incentive of a favourable relative position of prices of farm products to cost, during the last three years. Taken together, that combination gave us a large production.
But what is happening now? The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said he was quoting reports of the bureau of statistics. Any figures I quote here are taken from official documents of the government.
There can be no purpose in trying to misinterpret statistics. Anyone who attempts that sort of thing will soon be caught up with. Let us have only what the truth is. What do they say? In connection with creamery butter our production in 1944 was 298,000,000 pounds and in 1945 it was 293,000,000 pounds, a reduction of only two per cent. In 1944 we slaughtered 8-8 million hogs; in 1945 we slaughtered 5-7 million, a reduction of 33 per cent.
And what is happening in more recent months? That is what we are concerned with. Now that the war is over and we are getting back to peace-time conditions, changes are being made every litttle while by the government or its officials. What is happening now? From January to March of this year, as compared with January to March of last year, our production of butter shows a reduction of 18 per cent; our production of factory cheese shows a reduction of 33 per cent; our production of concentrated milk products shows a reduction of 9 per cent; the number of hogs slaughtered show's a reduction of 50 per cent as compared with 1944 and of 33 per cent as compared with 1945. That is not a completely accurate interpretation of what w'ill happen during the whole year but it is a pretty good guide. For the rest of the year pastures will help out production, and differences will not be as great; but those are the latest figures we have, and that is what they show-a steadily declining production.
' I have taken the trouble to add up the production, the total weight, of creamery butter, factory cheese, concentrated milk products, dressed weight of inspected slaughter of live stock products, including hogs, cattle, calves, sheep and lambs. What does this show? In 1944 the total produced was, in round figures, 2,900 million pounds. In 1945 it was 2.700 million pounds. But what about January, February and March of this year as compared with the same period last year and the year before? In 1944 the total was 716 million pounds; in 1945 it was 632 million pounds, and in 1946 it was 502 million pounds, a reduction this year of 30 per cent as compared with two years ago and of 20 per cent as compared with last year.
I have admitted, Mr. Speaker, that increasing disparities in prices and cost may not cause all that reduction. Weather and coarse grain supply help; but price is a major factor, and increasing costs do discourage plans for production.
I come now to the next point, but before I deal with it let me read the amendment

Price Ceiling-Farm Products
COMMONS moved by the C.C.F. The resolution moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) reads:
This house is of the opinion that the government's policies

of what?
-of permitting recent unjustifiable increases in the prices of farm machinery and of steel have resulted in imposing on food producers and workers . . .
The rest is the same. How does that change the original amendment? It takes out of my amendment the whole question of the effect of the recent administration of these price ceiling policies on production. It removes that entirely from the immediate question before us. And that was the major economic question I wished to have this house discuss. It is important to know whether the policies being followed by the government and administered by the government are discouraging production.
I have no objection in the world to the C.C.F. bringing forward a motion such as this and discussing it on its merits. Are these increases in the prices of farm machinery and steel unjustified? On one ground I would agree that they are. They are .^justified in so far as they increase farmers' costs without increasing farmers' prices. On other grounds I leave it to the government to bring forward evidence to show that these increases were justified. It may be they can do so. I imagine they have that evidence, or they would not have put the increases into effect. I expect they will show that the cost of producing that machinery and that steel,. whether as a result of the increased cost of labour or of raw material, or whatever it be. has so gone up that enterprise would not risk its capital to produce goods and to give employment if it were not likely to have enough returns to pay those additional costs for labour and materials. If the government can show that, then responsible members will not have much choice but to accept its decision. But I suggest that this is an amendment which might have been brought in by itself. As it is, it discards altogether the heart of my amendment, which I submit is a proper and an important economic question for discussion and decision, not necessarily on party lines though, as this house is constituted, probably that is too much to expect.
Then the C.C.F. amendment goes farther and says these things:
. . . 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.
I have no objection to the words "and workers" being put in, but I wonder what farmers

will think of people who frame an amendment which suggests that food producers are not workers.
I have dealt with the question of whether or not production is going down. In this connection I should like to read from a report of the Ontario department of agriculture dated May 14:
Production of butter by Ontario creameries in . the first four months of 1946 was down more than 1,500 tons as compared with the output in the same period last year, the Ontario department of agriculture said to-day in its monthly dairy report.
Cumulative output of creamery butter for the first four months was 15,327,400 pounds against 18,806,400 for the same period last year. Butter production in April, 1946, was 5,352,100 pounds against 6,117,500 for April, 1945. Stocks of creamery butter in storage warehouses throughout the province up to May 1 was 1,064,400 pounds against 1,478,000 in the same period of last year.
Then it goes on to give similar figures showing decreases in the production of cheese, but 1 shall not take time to put more of the statement on the record.	.
I have been dealing with the question: Is production going down?
I wish now to deal as briefly as I can with the question of recent price ceiling decisions in their relation to equity for farmers. The. point is:	Are price ceilings, as now being administered by the government, affecting unfairly the producers of this country? Are they or are they not? If not, then that section of my amendment should not be supported. If they are, then it should be supported.
What are the facts? I have here a statement showing the dates when all these price ceilings were established, a statement of the date of the last subsidies, and what they were.
At this late hour I shall not take time to deal with all of them, but if I were to make a brief summary of them, it would be this:	Except
for minor changes, the majority of price ceilings and subsidies in farm products have been constant for two or three years. There have been some minor increases in recent months, of course-indeed, there have been two or three small increases since this debate started. Sometimes I have wondered why there was this long delay in proceeding with the motion which was moved some two and one-half weeks ago.
I have said that except for minor changes, the majority of price ceilings and subsidies on farm produce-have been constant for two or three years. The policy of this government with respect to price ceilings in the early years of the war was to fasten upon agriculture a level of prices 20 per cent below parity, and it remained that way for some years, even under serious protests from

House of Commons
organized agriculture, and from every student of agriculture. About three years ago that condition was changed. I shall not go into the question of why. Perhaps rising world prices helped. An hon. member of the C.C.F. has said it was because of victories by their candidates in the west. But I have sometimes had the notion it was because in December of 1942 the official opposition took a stand for a square deal for all agriculture, as a start to raise the price of wheat from 90 cents to S1.25-which was done by the government the very next year.
I may say to the house that at no time except the last three years has agriculture had anything like a square deal at any time since the last war-only in those three years. On the basis of what some called parity-and it is parity only in one narrow technical sense, but not real parity-it was well treated in those three years. But on the basis of real parity, that is a farmer receiving a fair proportion of the nation's income, it has not had that kind of parity even in those three years.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming it is the pleasure of the house to continue so that we may have the division to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Bracken: I think I can finish in about ten minutes, but I do not wish to detain the house if it wishes to adjourn.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That the house be not adjourned at eleven o'clock this day.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Before putting the motion, may I point out that a motion to vary a standing order of the house cannot be moved without unanimous consent. If that were not so, hon. members on this side of the house would have no protection from the majority.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was my impression, too.


James Horace King: I call the attention of hon. members to standing order 45 which says:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If there is any serious objec-, tion I would not insist. May I ask, informally, if there are likely to be other speeches.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then I think I ought not to press the motion. Usually these things are done in an atmosphere of consent. I have a strong feeling that we should not proceed 63260-117*
to-night, and I shall not press for it. I therefore suggest that the leader of the opposition continue until eleven o'clock.
Motion (Mr. Usley) withdrawn.
On motion of Mr. Bracken the debate was 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 Friday, May 24, 1946.


John Bracken: I am glad to support the motion, and I would gather that it has the unanimous agreement in the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Bracken: With reference to the debate, might I point out that though I would have been through in about ten minutes I agree with the leader of the house that it is not desirable that we proceed.
Since the Acting Prime Minister desires to have interim supply, may I point out also that, so far as this party is concerned, we shall help him to get it, if by to-morrow evening this debate is not concluded.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Thank you; but I do hope it is concluded.


John Bracken: I am just saying that we shall be agreeable to a postponement of the debate at that time, if necessary. If we do not conclude the debate in the afternoon, we shall help the Acting Prime Minister to get interim supply to-morrow evening.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 24, 1946.