1948-01-28

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I had a question which I had planned to direct to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) but speaking to him a few moments ago he intimated that it might more properly be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not expect an answer immediately, but perhaps I might be permitted to ask the question. In view of the legislation before the house dealing with the conservation of Canadian foreign exchange I I should like to ask if the government has received any official representation from the government of the United States as to the manner in which Canada should participate in the European recovery program commonly spoken of as the Marshall plan? If so, will the minister make it available to the house at an early day?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): When I have seen the exact terms of the question just asked by the leader of the opposition I will be better able to give him an answer.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I should like to answer three questions which were asked yesterday with regard to the Veterans Land Act. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) asked whether meetings similar to the one held in AVindsor had been held with veterans from Niagara Falls, Welland and St. Catharines. I should like to inform the house that late in October an official of the department did meet with those veterans who were resident on the Welland, St. Catharines and Port Colborne subdivisions. On the basis of his report of that meeting certain recommendations in regard to adjustments on the selling price to veterans are now before the government.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) raised a question yesterday in connection with the Braefoot Veterans Land Act subdivision at Victoria, British Columbia. I would tell the hon. member that the director of the Veterans Land Act has visited this subdivision during the past two weeks and made a personal inspection of the situation. He returns to Ottawa early next week and I am awaiting his report and will have further information later.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) asked yesterday what proportion of the cost of remedial repairs to Veterans Land Act houses is being charged to contractors and what proportion will be paid by the government. It is not possible to give a specific reply to this question at this time. The remedial program, as hon. members well know, is an extensive one, and is not yet completed. As my predecessor assured the house, close study is being given to the question of costs incurred and expenditures made under the remedial repair program by senior officials of the department including legal officers. Where the department finds that action should be taken to recover from the contractor I can assure the house that action will be taken.
Mr. FLEMING:: Is the minister in a position now to answer the question I asked him yesterday with reference to submitting this whole question to the public accounts committee or a royal commission?


Mr. GREGG:: I am not in a position to answer that today.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Postmaster General, in view of the acute concern which prevails among the rural mail couriers whether he intends to act on the suggestion made last session by myself and others in the house that a special committee be set up to inquire into and try to find a solution for this problem, which has gone unsolved too long.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Not exactly in the form my hon. friend suggests, but I intend to bring a bill
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

before the house asking for a year's extension of the legislation of last year in order that supplementary payments may be made to the rural mail contractors.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all remember the fine atmosphere that was created in all parts of the house by the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I congratulate them on their efforts.
My first word today, notwithstanding the finding of my deskmate yesterday, must be to pay my tribute to two great Canadians. Neither of these men occupied the first position in my mind when I came into the house in 1935. One of them I thought was a little over-cautious and the other I thought a bit loud. But when I saw these two men in action and when I learned that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) began his day by keeping quiet and reading a chapter out of his old bible, I knew that under his leadership the country was safe. And when I saw the late Lord Bennett in action, sitting over yonder, I could not but admire him, and today I prize amongst my chief treasures a book autographed by him, the life and times of John Wesley. Of course if the book had been the life and times of John Knox I would have appreciated it just as much.
Nobody living in Canada today can say that price control is not a live issue, unless he is blind or just does not know. We at the head of the lakes are intensely interested in price control and I do not know of any better way of investigating the subject than by the special committee which the Prime Minister has promised to set up. While I am not advertising myself I should like to be on that committee because there are things which I think I know.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I represent Fort William, which together with Port Arthur at the head of the lakes and the Thunder Bay district is going to be the hub of Canada. We have industries at the head of the lakes which I am proud to say pay their men decent wages. If the hon. member who is president of the Great Lakes Pulp and Paper Company

were here I would perhaps say a little more, but I know that labourers are taken into that pulp and paper company at ninety cents an hour to start. I think that is good pay, considering that I myself when a student got a job wheeling brick at fifteen cents an hour.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. There is too much noise in the house and it is difficult to follow the hon. member.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not accustomed to speaking to an audience that is not quiet, but my hearing comes to my aid now.
We have in Fort William a progressive city council which believes in advertising home industries. We have an industry there known as Canada Car which manufactures street cars and trolley buses. Just as that industry was coming to the top and showing that it could produce a good thing, the city of Fort William scrapped its street cars and now we have nothing but buses. I am sure that hon. members from the east and the west would like those trolley buses immensely, they are so efficient and comfortable. There is one thing I should like to say about that industry. I hope there will not be any other industry set up in Canada that will be treated otherwise than Canada Car is treated. The company has established an expensive tooling and jig equipment plant costing thousands of dollars, and this industry is now the father of perhaps twelve other industries in Fort William which it supplies with work and helps to keep the employment rate in Port Arthur and Fort William very high.
The needs of Fort William stand out prominently. Let me mention first our public park. We have at the head of the lakes perhaps the best tourist attractions that there are in Canada, but the park is pretty well surrounded by Indians. I pay my respects to my fellow Indians of whom I happen to be an honorary chief of the Chippewa tribe. When you ascend Mount McKay, if you happen to come to the head of the lakes, and I am sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will be glad to provide free transportation, you go up and up and then all at once you can see Thunder Bay and the two cities of Port Arthur and Fort William like twin sisters living together in harmony and peace. The Rocky Mountains has no scenery to equal it, and the maritimes none to surpass it. We think that Mount McKay would be a great attraction for tourists not only from the United States but from Canada, both east and west. It would let our people

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
east and west see what we have. It would teach the people from the west to be very modest in speaking of their own beauty spots. Half way up the mountain the scenery is magnificent. I have heard of a man travelling west who was so much affected by this scenery, thrust upon him suddenly as he came to the mountain, that he could not speak.
Seventeen miles west of the head of the lakes we have Kakabeka falls with a 190-foot head. Niagara falls excels it in having more water, but not in having more beauty. The next need that we have in Fort William is development of the trans-Canada highway in order that people may pass through and see what we have. The third need at the head of the lakes is that which is occupying a very prominent place today in the country to the south of us, the St. Lawrence waterway. We think that is an absolute necessity. Whenever this matter has been discussed all the governments of Canada have supported it.
We need the development of our mines, and I am glad to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will keep an eye on this because he has an eye capable of looking ahead and seeing what will be to the best advantage of Canada. When I think of the Shebandowan belt which runs away up to Atikokan, which was investigated by the Department of Mines and Resources, I have visions of what can be accomplished in that great area. I want to emphasize that. If any hon. members have money to help develop it I should be glad to give them information. In that belt can be found gold, silver, zinc, lead, nickel, platinum, chromium and other valuable minerals. They are all there ready to be tapped, and we expect that some day there will be great development. It is reported that a camp is to be set up there consisting of four hundred men. Of course we cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports.
In the constituency of the Minister of Trade and Commerce there is Hemlo, a very fine mining prospect. I have a resolution on the order paper which is in the interest of prospectors, and it will be dealt with later on.
Another thing that worries us at the head of the lakes is the pension of veterans of the first war. I can see a man living in a cottage who was getting $100 a month, perhaps a little more now; he has to pay his rent. If he had not enlisted in the first war he would1 be earning $250 a month today. I can see another young man who played on our football team. He was getting $30 a month. He did not get farther than England; but I think that under the leadership of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) such cases will be taken care of.
Our old age pensioners also need further consideration. As I said last year, if the Liberal party is left in power long enough the old age pensioner will be getiing $50 a month. I addressed a group of old age pensioners before I left the head of the lakes. I asked how many of them were getting the Ontario bonus, and there was not one. When I think of the progressive spirit of the Premier of Ontario I believe this condition will be remedied pretty soon and old age pensioners will not be paid $30 a month but $40. If that comes about before very long I will not take a back seat in thanking the Premier of Ontario for his generosity, but I am not going to thank him until these old age pensioners get their $40 a month.


Mr. FRASER:: They will get it; do not worry.


Gordon Graydon: Leave it to George
Drew; he will give it to them.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: There are some things I should like to speak of that are all provincial. At the head of the lakes we are so far from Winnipeg in the west and Toronto and Montreal in the east that I suggest we need a university in that area. That is something that the ministers in the province of Ontario should consider.
It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that I do not put money in 'the first place. A bank book may be a most important book, but there are certain things that money will not do. It will not build character, though it may be an aid. In the city of Fort William in the last three years we have decided to take care of our boys and girls. We have a supervised playground in the summer and we have twenty-four hockey rinks supervised in the winter. That is why hockey players from Fort William and Port Arthur are sought all over Canada. They are taught to skate as soon as they are able to learn. I saw two three-year old boys skating around and one of them tried to take the feet from under me while I was bothering him. The other day I had out on a rink fifty pee-wees from twelve years of age downwards. If you want to have real fun get out and manage a group of boys when it is fifteen below zero with a northwest wind blowing. I can assure you you will not be cold.


Gordon Graydon: Take a look at the Bolton Peewees on the sports page of the morning paper.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: This brings me to another need' in Fort William. We have not a big hockey rink. Our hockey rink, the Prince of Wales, was taken over by the Department
The Address-Mr. Brooks

of National Defence. Thanks to the generosity of Port Arthur we play our big games over there. If the Minister of. National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will take this into consideration he can help us get our big community centre and our big rink going. When we were trying to help ourselves our junior chamber of commerce raised $107,000 for the rink, but we are still short, and if the Department of National Defence, aidtd by the common sense of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, would give us another $100,000 we certainly would say "thanks" and give him a cone in the bargain.
I have nothing further to say because I think speeches on the address in reply to the speech from the throne should1 be cut down. Our speeches should follow the injunction of Edward Hersey Richards, who said:
A wise old owl sat on an oak,
The more he sawr the less he spoke;
The less he spoke the more he heard;
Why aren't we like that wise old bird?
I wish there were more like that old bird.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be able to follow the injunction of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mclvor), but since he spoke only of Fort William, and I do hope to mention, a few other matters, I may have to take more time than he took.
I agree with what the hon. member said at the beginning of his speech with reference to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the late Lord Bennett. A man does not reach the prominence of premiership of this country without having considerable ability, and that reminds me of an incident about which I had not intended to speak if it had not been brought to my attention by the hon. member w'ho has just taken his seat. I refer to an incident which occurred last night, when the memory of one of the greatest men that Canada has produced was insulted in this house. I was very much surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear the applause given that insult by certain members on the other side of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It did occur to me at the time that if a man has a personal grudge against another who has passed away, he could very well forget that grudge and let the dead past bury its dead.
It has been a long time, Mr. Speaker, since the speech from the throne was delivered. We had to read it again after the six weeks which have elapsed, to see just what it contained.

Like the hon. member who has just taken his seat I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder on their addresses. Both hon. gentlemen acquitted themselves well, as we would expect. I agree with what was said by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), and I join with him in his protest against the negligence shown in regard to shipping through the Canadian ports of Saint John and Halifax. I am sorry that something has not been done to correct that situation. I also sympathize with the members from the city of Halifax with respect to the position in which they find themselves at the present time; because, reading the press from that city, we see that the promises which were made to the people at the time of the by-election are not being carried out. Today, as a result of failure to implement those policies, thousands of men are being thrown out of work in Halifax. I refer to the promises made to the shipbuilders, the shipyards of that city, when they were told during the campaign that there would be work for their men. Today however, on account of lack of employment, the men are leaving at the rate of 100 and 150 a day. As I say, I sympathize with these hon. gentlemen in the position in which they find themselves at the present time.
In the speech from the throne mention was made of conditions in Europe and Asia, and the hope was expressed that those conditions would improve. During the last six weeks, instead of improvement there has been a marked deterioration. We had all hoped that when this war was over our allies, who had fought so hard together to bring about what we had believed would be peace in this world, would exert their efforts to see that that condition became a reality. We have been disappointed-not so much by the efforts of some of our allies. We have been disappointed in the fact that one ally during all these months has been more hostile in its efforts than any other, not trying to help; and when we read of disclosures which have appeared in the press in the last few weeks regarding the attitude which that ally was prepared to take, even at the beginning of the war, I for one am not surprised at the attitude it is taking today.
We all realize now that it is impossible for a communist country to work with the democratic countries, because communism and democracy are so far apart. They are as different as oil and water, and it does not seem possible for them to work together or to mix.
We sometimes hear people ask-not so much now perhaps-why it is that the situa-

The Address-Mr. Brooks
tion is so bad in Europe today. I do not think we have to make a very careful study of that situation to realize why. There are millions of people who are living on very short rations, virtually starving, people without coal and consequently without warmth, people without machinery to run their factories and carry on their business, people who have no transportation, people whose houses have been shattered. For this reason we realize that the situation is bad and it is impossible for those people to do much to help themselves.
We talk about austerity in this country. Austerity, Mr. Speaker, is a misnomer as far as conditions in Canada are concerned. I believe there are few people who are without food in this country. It is true we have to pay much more than we should, but we have food, warmth and clothing, and we are in a position or should be in a position to help those people who have almost nothing.
The United States is the only country in the world today that seems to be in a position to help the people of Europe. The European recovery program which my leader spoke of this afternoon is intended to help those people. He asked what Canada was going to do to augment the European recovery plan. I think it is becoming abundantly clear that while Canada is one of the nations who suffered least in this war, apart from the loss of her young men, while she is a country with more natural resources probably than any other in the world, nevertheless, owing to the policies which this government has been carrying on, we are not in a position today to bear our share of the burden in helping the European countries.
As one hon. member said yesterday, we ourselves are tending to lean on what is known as the Marshall plan, wondering how much help we can get from it in order to place ourselves in a better position. That is a humiliating position for a country such as Canada, a position in which we should not be placed at this time.
This afternoon it is my intention to deal with some matters which are of great interest, I am sure, to all members and to all the people of Canada. I was pleased to see in the speech from the throne that certain bills relating to veterans affairs would be brought before this house, and that we would consider plans for a low rental housing project for veterans.
May I first of all express regret at the loss of the former minister of veterans affairs from this house. I have been associated with him for the past twelve years and I found him a kindly, genial man and one whom it was 5849-41
always easy to approach. However, we have in his place an old friend of mine, a friend of many years, a man who was bom in my own constituency, a man who from his military career and his association with veterans affairs should make a very good minister. I congratulate him on his appointment. May I say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, however, from the experience that we veterans have had in the past twelve years in this house, that if he is to get the results to which our veterans are entitled he will have to be tough with some other members of the cabinet and will have to be more than ar yes man when these matters come up for consideration.
It has been unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that for over a year we have had no opportunity in this house to discuss veterans affairs. Not since the committee of 1946 has there been an opportunity here to bring before the house matters pertaining to veterans affairs. The attempt has been made on several occasions. It was tried in July 1947, and I myself, in the short weeks before Christmas, tried to bring up the matter. But it has been impossible to bring before the house the questions that should have been brought up.
May I say this to the minister. Our experience has been that veterans affairs estimates are always the last estimates dealt with, and in recent years have been left to the last few days of the session when it is impossible for us to discuss veterans affairs as fully as we might wish. I hope the minister will see that veterans affairs estimates are brought down early in the session so that there will be an opportunity to discuss problems which are of the greatest concern to thousands of men across the country.
The matters which are of concern to the veterans today are matters which are also of concern to our people, chief among them the cost of living and the question of increasing pensions. Before discussing these matters, however, I should like to call attention to a statement made in this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on December 9, 1947 when he was speaking of the high cost of living and also of the increase in wages which men had received across Canada. At page 95 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
I should like to give the figures provided by the dominion bureau of statistics for average weekly earnings. I shall give the October 1 figure as compared with the average for 1939, which was 100-1. The figures I am giving can therefore be compared directly with the cost of living index, which was 100 in 1939. The figures are as follows:
The Address-Mr. Brooks

I would point out here that as far as the veterans are concerned, the figure has remained at 100 since 1939. But how about others? The figures given are as follows:
Average
weekly
earnings
Manufacturing industry	 163-6
Logging industries	 223-3
Coal	 157-6
Mining	 151-5
Metals	   148-9
Communications	 139-2
Then he goes on:
Transport	 150-1
Street railways	 146-3
Construction and maintenance	 163-5
Services, hotels, restaurants, etc. ...	161-0
Trade	 137-2
Finance	   129-6
I repeat that for the veterans, the men who fought for this country, the men who are so greatly disabled that it is impossible for them to do any other work, the figure has remained at 100. These men have the same responsibility as the men who are working in the mines, in the forests or on the farms. They have their families to look after. They have their purchases to make. I ask this house if it is fair that these men up to this time should be receiving only 100 while others have been receiving anywhere from 129 to over 200 per cent.
What has been offered by the government to remedy this condition? At page 490 of Hansard on December 19, 1947, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) told us what he would do at that time for the veterans of this country. He said:
In the case of disabled veterans and pensioned widows . . . the government will recommend that the increase should be $10 a month...
I ask you Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) at that time said that it was inadequate, that it was an insult? The terms used by the hon. member for Nanaimo were echoed from one end of this country to the other. It is no wonder that the provincial commands of the Canadian Legion all across this country demanded that justice be done for these men. This increase was to be retroactive to October 1, 1947. But here are these men in the midst of winter, when their expenses are at their highest point-with coal, food and everything going up; butter at seventy and some odd cents a pound, milk at seventeen cents a quart and everything else nearly in proportionbeing asked to wait longer before they receive even this $10 a month.
Just before the former minister of veterans affairs left office he made an announcement to the press. He said that certain proposals

would be placed before the veterans affairs committee for the rectification of this situation. His first was:
As forecast in December by Prime Minister King, increased allowances to disability pensioners and those recipients of war veterans allowances incapable of augmenting their allowance by casual earnings.
I am sorry that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is engaged at this present time because I should like to ask him for an amplification of that statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is here.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was asking the minister about disability pensioners and recipients of war veterans allowances incapable of augmenting their allowance by casual earnings. Just what was the proposal of the government as far as that augmentation was concerned? I was asking if he could tell me how much it is the intention to increase it, whether the matter is to be left to a committee, or just what the intention of the government is. I hate to go all over my speech, but I was reading from Senator Mackenzie's announcement in the paper on January 20.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I might inform the hon. member for Royal that in [DOT]the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, it is not customary to question ministers.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe I have the right to question him, but he does not have to answer unless he wishes. The article also says that there will be:
Additional protection for the children of veterans by enlarging the definition of an orphan to take in a child with one parent dead and the other having abandoned it.
We agree with that. It is not a serious matter but it is something that should be dealt with. The article mentions that there will be:
Extension of the Veterans Insurance Act to cover merchant seamen and members of the permanent forces.
We also approve of that. As a matter of fact we have been trying for that for years, as well as other benefits which we consider the merchant seamen are entitled to. The article continues:
Amendment of the Veterans Land Act to *allow veterans taking university training to switch to land settlement after a short period of training. At present, those starting university training cannot move into any other category.
We also approve of that. The article goes on:
Another Veterans Land Act amendment to allow veterans to transfer from university to vocational training.

The Address-Mr. Brooks
That also is a good move. But none of these get to the root of the trouble the veterans are having today, and that is, as I pointed out a moment ago, the great increase in the cost of living and the lack of increase in what the pensioner has been receiving.
I was interested in a recommendation- m-ade by veterans organizations that the term "war disability compensation'' be substituted for the word "pension". I think that would be a good move. After all, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the word "pension" conveys to the minds of -the people the right meaning with regard to this mon-ey which is being paid to the veterans. We realize that it is impossible to compensate these men- to the full for the sacrifices they have made. We cannot compensate them for -the suffering they have undergone. We cannot compensate them for the loss of hope of carrying on normal lives in this country. We cannot compensate them for the many other privations they have endured. Still, I think the word "compensation" is perhaps more fitting than the word "pension."
The recommendation that the Canadian Legion has made, I think, is that the rate for 100 per cent disability be increased from $75 to $100. The $10 increase mentioned in December would bring it up to $85, and they are asking for a further increase of $15. I might point out to the house that in the United States, where I think conditions are very comparable, a veteran does not receive $100 for total disability, but $138. Old age pensions, workmen's compensation and unemployment insurance rates all have been increased, and I do not think I need argue longer to impress upon hon. members the necessity of increasing the basic pension to veterans.
Following along the same line, today the allowance for a wife is $25, and it is recommended that this be increased to $35. I do not think this would be too mu-ch, and I hope the government has under consideration an increase to that amount. Such increases will require amendments to the various acts. No doubt they will be discussed at length by the veterans committee. In the meantime I would recommend that the government authorize a bonus or payment in some other form in order to tide over these people until something definite is done. There is also the pension to a widow who lost a husband overseas. or who has lost her husband since the war, which today amounts to $60 a month. It is recommended that this be increased also.
I think we all agree that $60 is a very small amount to expect any widow to live on at the present time. If she has one child she is
5849-41J
allowed an extra $15, making $75 in all. In these times, with the high cost of living, it is impossible for anyone to maintain a house on that amount. I would point out that if you place a child in- an orphanage it costs you about $30 a month for maintenance; I think that is the usual rate. Yet we allow a veteran only $15 a month for the first child and $12.50 for the second. I would recommend that the government seriously consider increasing these allowances to widows and orphans.
Now I come to the matter of the war veterans' allowance. I believe it should be increased in the same proportion, or in greater proportion, because at the present time in my opinion that allowance is too small. When this committee is set- up I hope the terms of reference will also cover the matter of war veterans who served in England in the first war, but not in an actual theatre of war. As hon. members know, such a veteran is not entitled to the war veterans allowance. There are many thousands of these men across Canada today who are suffering privation, and who feel that they are being very unjustly treated. I hope this matter also will be on the agenda when this committee meets.
On many occasions hon. members of this house have brought to the attention of the government the plight of imperial veterans in Canada, and this matter also has been discussed in the committee. From my observation there would seem to be an almost unreasonable prejudice against -imperial veterans in Canada. Many of these men have lived in Canada for over twenty-five years. They have raised their families here; they have helped build up this country. We all know that during the last war no class of our citizens were more ready to serve-and they did serve-than the sons and daughters of these imperial veterans. So I would ask that the terms of reference be made sufficiently broad to cover these veterans.
I remember that during the sittings of the 1946 committee we received a delegation of widows of non-pensioners. I remember when they appeared before the committee; I remember their presentation. I believe any hon. member here who sat on that committee will agree that no finer presentation was made by any delegation that appeared before us. I hope therefore that the terms of reference will also take in this question, so that these ladies may be given some further consideration.
One matter which has been given much thought by this house and by the veterans across Canada, and which has occasioned a good deal of trouble, is the question of housing. It was not settled a year ago; it is not
The Address-Mr. Brooks

settled today, and possibly it will not be settled for some time. I think perhaps the situation is better today than it has been in the past, but there is still much to be done.
I congratulate the government on seeking the opinions of the veterans themselves. Yesterday the minister told us of the consultations his department was having with the committee headed by Mr. Price, and I feel the veterans themselves can give splendid advice to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the government in helping solve this difficulty. They have made numerous recommendations which are extremely practical. The latest, in regard to a rent equalization fund, I think will commend itself to the minister and to the government. From my own experience I would say that where veterans themselves have been allowed to build their own houses, as they did in many cases, the cost has been many hundreds and perhaps thousands of dollars less than the cost of the houses built under the Veterans Land Act. I know of houses built in my own town which I am satisfied cost only half what it cost the department to build similar houses. I am glad to see that the committee I mentioned a few moments ago has recommended that priorities for supplies be granted veterans who wish to build their own houses. If they can get the materials I am satisfied they can build houses which in five or six years will not be worth only half their cost, as I am sure will be the case with many houses being built across Canada today.
Hospitalization, of course, is something which concerns the department very deeply. Generally speaking I believe the hospitalization throughout Canada is good. I have heard comments to that effect, but there are exceptions and one is to be found in my province. The hospital at Lancaster was supposed to have been extended over a year ago. I believe that plans have been completed only recently. This hospital is considerably overcrowded. The government promised that the military hospital at Sussex would not be closed until suitable accommodation was provided at Lancaster. The hospital at Sussex was closed and Lancaster is still overcrowded. I fear that it will be a long time before suitable accommodation for veterans is provided there.
Another matter in connection with hospitalization has been brought to my attention. We know that at this season of the year many hundreds of men come into hospitals for treatment, most of them old soldiers. I understand that the reception given these soldiers is not what it should be. My attention was called the other day to a case at this same Lancaster hospital. A man who was partly

paralysed, who could not feed himself, came into the reception room and he was told to sit down on a chair to wait. There were dozens of other men there. Sometimes these men have to wait hours sitting on hard chairs. I hope the minister will look into the matter of the reception of patients coming into hospitals and see if things cannot be made easier for them.
There are other matters which I should like to see included in the terms of reference of this committee. I hope the merchant marine will be included in the benefits, because I do not think these men have received their just due. The Red Cross are asking for certain benefits. In reading Hansard of July, 1947, I note that the former minister of veterans affairs promised that their case would be referred to the next committee on veterans affairs.
Consideration should also be given to married students who are attending the universities. Any one who knows the situation at the universities knows that married students are having a difficult time. I am sure that the minister, who was the president of a university up until last year, realizes this. These men are not in the same position to go out to earn money as are the single veterans. They have the responsibility of caring for a wife and sometimes for children, and their lot is not so easy. I hope the minister will consider providing some relief for these deserving men.
It has always seemed to me that the children of men who gave their lives overseas should have the same opportunity for high school and university education as the children whose fathers are still living. The soldier who gave his life earned not only the right of food and clothing for his children, but also the right of proper education for them. I think the department should consider giving to these children the rights the veteran would have had had he returned' alive to this country.
I should like to mention a very sad case which was brought to the attention of the public a few months ago. We sometimes become smug and think that things are running smoothly, but suddenly something happens and we realize that underneath a serious situation exists. I refer to the case of Henry Page, a 59 year old veteran, who murdered a doctor in the veterans affairs department and afterward committed suicide. This man was a veteran of the first war. He had suffered a gunshot wound and had contracted arthritis. His pension was cut twenty per cent and evidently he became desperate in these serious times and took revenge on the person

The Address-Mr. Brooks
who he thought was responsible. I am sure that Doctor Bowie was not personally responsible. I understand he was a fine doctor and sympathetic toward the returned man. Nevertheless this happened, and I wonder if there are not many men across Canada who are also in similar desperate circumstances. When you find one man ready to take extreme means to correct his situation, there is no doubt that there are hundreds who are also suffering but who are not ready to take similar means of correction. The policy was absolutely wrong. A man 59 years of age, suffering from a gunshot wound and arthritis, should not be told that his health had improved twenty per cent and that his pension would be reduced accordingly. In 1936 Mr. Justice Taylor recommended that there should be no reduction in pension in cases such as this. It is not reasonable to reduce a pension at that age. The pensions should be stabilized. He recommended an automatic increase in pension at the ages of 55, 57 and 59 years. I hope that this matter will also receive the attention of the veterans affairs committee when it meets.
I shall deal now with another matter which is of great interest to the maritime provinces- fisheries; we cannot seem to get away from the present Minister of Veterans Affairs, who was until recently Minister of Fisheries. A fisheries prices support board was set up. That is a good idea, and I hope they will pay more attention to the Department of Fisheries. However, I must add my voice to the criticism which has been made of the administration of the Department of Fisheries. Since I first became a member of this house in 1935 there have been many fisheries ministers, and I do not think one of them was qualified for that position. There is no question that they were all qualified for other positions, but what would you think of appointing a man to the Department of Agriculture who had no agricultural experience? We were all greatly surprised when my hon. friend from New Brunswick was appointed Minister of Fisheries. We thought it was quite a slap in the face to the other seven Liberal members from the province. There were seven members besides three Conservative members from whom that appointment could have been made. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) is not in the chamber. He comes from a fishing constituency which is contiguous to the Bale de Chaleur. Knowing the hon. member's ambitions I am sure that he would have been ready and willing to take any job at any time it was offered to him. There is the member for Gloucester (Mr. Richard)
where the finest codfishing in the maritimes is to be found. He was formerly a member of the New Brunswick cabinet. Surely he had the necessary administrative ability and the salt air in his nostrils and knew enough about fish to take this portfolio.


William Ross Macdonald: I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I just finish this sentence, Mr. Speaker? There is the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Maloney), and the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson). All these men represent fishing constituencies in the province of New Brunswick, and yet the government selects as Minister of Fisheries a man who comes from an inland constituency. I know he is a good fisherman so far as trout is concerned, but I certainly do not think he was qualified for the fisheries post. As my hon. friend beside me suggests, these other men already had seats in the house. Is the portfolio of fisheries to be dangled as bait for votes all across this country? Is it to be dangled next in Vancouver Centre as bait for people to vote for the present government? Our fisheries department deserves more consideration than that, Mr. Speaker, and more attention than it has been given.
I have considerably more to say on>
fisheries but as my time has expired I shall take somt other opportunity to do so.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that most members of the house feel somewhat embarrassed) as they approach the wide field of varied1 discussion which opens up when we come to debate the throne speech. It reminds me of a story I heard a good member of the Mormon church tell in Alberta about a week ago. He referred to the days when the followers of that faith believed in polygamy and told the story of a man who had a great number of very beautiful wives. Returning home from a holiday this man found all his beautiful wives lined up on the porch or around the front gate to greet him. He looked at them and smiled' and said, "Darlings, I really don't know where to begin". As we look at the wide field which opens up before us in this debate we feel at a loss to know just where to begin. It would perhaps be best for us to be monogamous at least on this occasion and to confine ourselves to one particular theme, and that I intend to do. Then I shall know where to begin and where to finish.
When the hon. gentleman who leads this party in the house was speaking in the debate
The Address-Mr. Irvine

before the Christmas adjournment he moved the following amendment to the amendment:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to use the powers provided by parliament to control prices, and by their actions have caused alarming increases in the cost of living and a dangerous lowering of the living standards of the Canadian people.
This is not the first occasion on which the C.C.F. leader and his followers have brought this subject to the attention of parliament and: the people of Canada. We have continually, persistently, warned the government and the people that the removal of price controls would result in just such a condition as we are now facing in the Dominion of Canada, and since the controls were tampered with and the decontrol policy of the government was introduced we have time and again brought to the attention of the house the urgency of restoring the price controls that had been removed.
We have tried to present the case for price controls in time of peace as well as in time of war. Indeed I would say that we need price control more in time of peace than in time of war; for, while in wartime there are opportunities for many people in certain positions to become wealthy, nevertheless there is also an aroused patriotic sentiment which may have some effect in staying the greedy hands of those who would like more profits than would) be fair. If it be true, as some contend, that price control is practical in time of war because then the nation has an objective which overshadows in the public mind the petty greeds which dominate in times of peace but is not practical in peacetime when there is no such common objective,
1 say that there could be no more serious and damning criticism of the soul of this nation than an argument of that kind. It indicates that we lack not only vision but leadership.
I do not hold the view that we cannot rise to our peacetime responsibilities. I believe that the people of this nation can and would rise to the responsibilities of the national *objectives for peace just as readily and as wholeheartedly as they rose to the national *objectives in time of war. I repeat that to assume otherwise is to insult the moral consciousness of the people. To those who believe that we cannot afford to have definite national objectives in peacetime I say let us give it a trial and see what the people will do about such peacetime objectives as I have mentioned.
The C.C.F. party anticipated the removal of price controls and persistently warned against that policy. I propose to put on record the views of the different parties in this house so 
that the people of this country can be clear in passing judgment as to what has been the policy of this and other parties in regard to what is now the most urgent issue before the people of Canada. I would say to the hon. gentlemen who occupy the position of official opposition in this house that, while it is wholesome for them now to protest against the rising costs of living, they must accept their fair share of the responsibility along with the government because they have been consistently urging and pressing the government to do exactly what it did, and now that the chickens of their policy have come home to lay, they do not like the eggs. Well, they will just have to gather them because so far they have advanced no other policy than that of allowing free private enterprise to have its head and run any place it likes, whether it runs to millionaires or to starvation for the masses of the people.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Not starvation for the masses. Let us be fair.


William Irvine: The masses of the people bujr goods. I am talking about high prices, and the masses are affected by the conditions which have arisen by the actions of the government, advised by the opposition, in the removal of controls and subsidies.


John Lambert Gibson: But not starvation. Let us be clear on that.


William Irvine: First, I wish to make a reference to a speech made by the hon. member for ICindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) on November 23, 1945, as reported at page 2462 of Hansard: In order to reconvert to a peacetime economy we must retain some of these controls. The government must have some of these powers so that reconversion may be orderly, or at least as orderly as possible. Otherwise, in the mad scramble back to the promised land of free enterprise, a lot of people will be crashed, and I am -afraid that i't will be largely the little man the forgotten, man-who will suffer the most.
On March 27, 1946, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had this to say, as reported at page 317 of Hansard:
I believe that some adjustments must be made in the prices of farm commodities, but let me say to these gentlemen at once that if prices are allowed to take flight, then we are in for .a severe trimming of the consuming population of this country. Inevitably the prices of all the things the farmer has to buy will rise, but the prices of the things he has to sell will trail the prices of the things he has to buy. The worker will find himself chasing prices upward and wages never catching up with them.
On August 27, 1946, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) introduced an amendment calling on the government to reconsider the dropping of the milk subsidies.

The Address-Mr. Irvine
That amendment passed this house by sixty-nine votes to forty-one, and that was 'the last we heard of it except that we were not going to get it.
On January 31, 1947, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) endeavoured to move the adjournment of the house to discuss the effects of the removal of the milk subsidy. Then on March 20, 1947, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar introduced an amendment which read, as reported at page 1597 of Hansard:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the headlong decontrol policy of the government has depressed the standard of living of the people, threatens the country with economic chaos, and is surrendering the future of Canada to profiteering and monopoly.
And be it further resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give immediate consideration to the introduction of a system of orderly and democratic controls so as to provide stable price levels and equitable price relationships in order to eliminate the injustices which now exist and to arrest the rapidly rising cost of living.
Then on April 14, 1947, a C.C.F. amendment was moved by the ho-n. member for Rosetown-Biggar as reported at page 2012 of Hansard, as follows:
This house desires to record its opinion that the government should give consideration to the immediate restoration of price control on and lower prices for the necessaries of life, particularly articles of food and clothing, shelter, household appliances, and supplies and machinery needed by the farmers in connection with their work;
Further, this house is of the opinion that the harmful and dangerous effects of the rising cost of living demand immediate and effective action.
Then on December 12, 1947, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved' an amendment designed to continue the wartime prices and trade board in effect until December 31, 1948. Only the members of the C.C.F. voted for this amendment; yet the government has announced that it will come back to the house and ask for an extension of the power to that time.
Now, sir, events have since proved that the predictions made by this group were correct. They have confirmed our fears and underlined during the last few weeks the wisdom of our suggested proposals. The events have also proved equally clearly that the expectations of free enterprise policies are false. We have been told by those who have been defending the removal of price controls ever since it was first mooted and ever since the campaign of big industries in Canada at the last election brought the matter to the attention, especially of the leading free private enterprise parties
of Canada, that all that was needed to have not only full prosperity but eternal continuation of it was to release the head of this free enterprise creature and let it wander where it would; that if we would do that then, as sure as the sun rises, we would see a release of an abundance of supplies to the common people; that the high prices would then bring about a keener competition; that there would be a greater outflow of goods and that prices would fall to the lowest possible level, forced down by competition and efficiency. That was the philosophy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What a hope!


William Irvine: The beast got its head for
two or three weeks and you saw what happened. Today, as a result of that, prices are going up like a thermometer in a Chinook wind and people are protesting the encroachment on their standard of living in every section of the Dominion of Canada.
I want to refer for a moment to the price index. I know this has been quoted. I shall not weary the house with it; I shall just point out that the last figure we have-and I question whether these figures can be accurately arrived at, the prices move up so fast-is that it has risen forty-six points since the 1939 basic index figure was struck. The cost of living is still mounting, and it has never gone up faster than it has in the last few weeks, so that if the tendency continues, and I think that it will-there does not seem to be any policy in the offing on the part of the administration to make any alteration to the tendency until such time as the money in the pockets of the consumers has been completely exhausted and they are unable to buy the goods on the market-then of course we shall have the customary slump and that will be regarded as the natural cure, if you please, of free private enterprise, a cure which works havoc in the belly of the nation. That is the cure. But there are kitchen economists who know far more about the cost of living than our experts who tabulate price indices. These are the people who not only know in their minds that this is taking place; they know it in their monthly budgets; they know it in the reduction of the food that they are able to buy for their families and in the reduction in the purchase of other utensils that are necessary for human life. These are the people who have been raising the greatest protest right across the Dominion of Canada.
Perhaps I should here indicate the outstanding arguments which from time to time have been brought before this house in defence of
64S
The Address-Mr. Irvine

removing price controls. Last session there were those who laid stress upon its unconstitutionality. I am always afraid when we come to the constitutional argument because that is the burial place of every idea, and while we may have a very interesting funeral service, that is the end of it. We cannot do anything if the constitution does not say we can do it; and if there is any reasonable ground for taking the position that the constitution may be used as an excuse, that is just as good as if it did really mean it, because we stop right there. In that connection, although it is jumping fences for a moment, I hope that this nation will seek the same powers which Australia and New Zealand have already taken to write their own constitution as, when and where they want to, and in the way they want to, and so that they may do what they want to. As it happens, I believe the privy council is on record to the effect that this parliament has the authority to legislate on any matter which affects the great majority of the people of this nation, and no question more directly affects so large a number of people-in fact, it affects all of the people, whether on the profit side or on the buying side-than that of prices and that which is involved in price control.
It was argued also that if we are to have price controls we must have subsidies, and of course you cannot have subsidies unless you tax the subsidies out of the people. Therefore, it was contended if you tax the subsidies out of the people it will be like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. But even if subsidies did mean that, we would still be better off with them than without them; for with them, even the opponents of subsidies concede that we break even, by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. But without subsidies some one takes money out of one of your pockets and puts nothing back in the other.
Here is the position of the Financial Post on that matter:
A good many millions of expenditure, for example, have been lopped off in the elimination of special subsidies.
That pleased the Financial Post very highly. It goes on:
Actually, of course, it was largely a case of taking out of one pocket and putting it into another, plus the not unsubstantial costs of operating the complicated system.
Then it went on to deal with milk and so forth. In connection with this matter of subsidies I should like to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley). He pointed out to this house that we spent

approximately $200 million a year in subsidies, but that the expenditure of that amount in subsidies meant a saving to the consuming public of Canada of approximately two and one-half billions a year. That statement of the former minister of finance can be set against the uninformed speculation of the hack writer of the Financial Post. Then I come to a statement by Mr. Donald Gordon, who administered some very important affairs during that time. He said:
The subsidy system under price control is aimed to keep down the cost of raw materials at the earliest stage of manufacture. This in turn prevents one rising price from feeding upwards to another, as it would otherwise do, because each manufacturer or wholesaler or retailer who handles the goods adds a percentage of the cost to him, as his profits. -Consequently the higher the price, the higher the profit mark-up, which is based on a percentage of cost, and so the higher the final price to you. That is why the collective saving made by all you consumers far exceeds the amount of the subsidy which is of course paid by you collectively as taxpayers.
That was a statement made by Mr. Donald Gordon -over the CBC on November 8, 1946.
There is one other argument which is usally brought forward in this house, and it is brought forward, I think, to try to embarrass the C.C.F. members. That argument is that price control means wage control, and of course they say that organized labour would never for one moment stand for any kind of wage control. And so they go on to argue, blindly and without the facts, that the present high prices are due exclusively to the rise in wages. Yet some wages have gone up as high as ten per cent, I believe, in the last year or so. But some profiteers have placed their profits at from -as high as 400, 500 to even as high as 1,000 per cent.
Let me say this, as it has been said substantially before both by those who are authorized to speak for organized labour and by members of this house. So far as I know, nowhere has labour definitely refused to consider the control of wages. What it has refused, what it has every right to refuse, and what I hope it will continue to refuse is to sanction the arbitrary fixing of a wage level for working groups who are already receiving substandard wages, and then preventing any opportunity of their ever getting out of that position. That is the great fear. First of all, let those who would have a fair wage in relation to the economic system declare that no body of wage earners shall receive less than is required at current prices to purchase a decent standard of living, and then you will be on the road to meet the situation. But at the present time, I think it is quite clear that it is profits and not wages which are making prices high.

The Address-Mr. Irvine
Mr. GIBS'ON (Comox-Alberni): That is not true.


William Irvine: My hon. friend somewhere- I do not know whether he is a friend or is honourable


John Lambert Gibson: Honourable and honest.


William Irvine: I heard somebody say it was not true. My hon. friend, whoever he was, knows no more about what is true in that regard than I do and maybe less.


John Lambert Gibson: I am not talking about it.


William Irvine: Therefore his statement will just go for what it is worth, which is not very much, in this connection.


Mr. GRANT:: Just like yours.


William Irvine: I have figures, if I had the time to give them, to indicate the rise in profits. I believe the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar did place on the record a great many figures dealing with that question; but I will take the reports I see in the financial papers of Canada from time to time, and in particular reports which came out not more than a couple of weeks ago, which stated that last year's profits in Canada were at an alltime high. The standard of living of the Canadian people at this moment is not at an all-time high, and standards of living are measured by the income which goes to the common people in wages. There is your answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Real wages.


William Irvine: Real wages are the only kind we can talk about when discussing standards of living. There seems to be a tendency for this country to be hitched to the United States in every conceivable way, and since they abandoned price controls we have abandoned them. But since they abandoned them in the United States I see by their labour statistics they have estimated that to have a living standard in the United States at the present time it requires from $3,200 to $3,600 a year. Therefore if we are going to raise our prices as high as they have done in the United States we must raise wages a great deal higher than they are now if we are to be able to buy as much on this side of the line as they are able to buy-and they are not buying too much over there.
There are two sharply conflicting points of view on this matter of price control. I have run through the outstanding arguments and given answers to them. What is the position of the free enterprise parties in this house, 5849-42
that is to say the three other parties? They take the view that price control is incompatible with free private enterprise. I believe that is true.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: That is not true of the Social Credit party.


William Irvine: I am glad my hon. friend denies it. I am glad to register that denial for him, but so far they have not denied it. They have always voted for the removal of such price controls as we have. I know they have said they have some peculiar type of price control up their sleeve which some day they will reveal to the world. But at the moment the only kind of price control that we have or have seen or know about, they have refused to sanction and they have no substitute for it. That is why I have classified them with the others. Price control is described by our free private enterprisers as incompatible with free private enterprise. 1 believe that is true, but so much the worse for free private enterprise. All that you are really saying in that argument is that free private enterprise, as we know it, must go for the very reason that it is uncontrollable; that it thinks of nobody but itself and refuses to be controlled by anybody but itself.
The other view is that price control is an essential feature of a planned economy and that a planned economy is imperative in the modern world. Those views are the sharply divided viewpoints in this house. The latter view is held, of course, by the party to which I belong. The other view is largely held by all the other parties in this house. What are the views of the people of Canada in so far as their views are discernible at the present time? What do they think about this matter of controlling prices? They are far less concerned about an abstract fallacy known as free private enterprise than they are about the menu for their children, paying their rents and buying their clothes. According to the latest Gallup poll taken on that question, seventy-six per cent of the people of Canada said, We want price control. We do not have anything to say about your free private enterprise and what it will do or will not do. We want price control because prices have gone out of control and we cannot follow them since we have not the income with which to chase them. So we are asking the representatives of the Canadian people to control them for us so that we may be able to live. According to reports in the press, the government has been inundated with wires, letters, deputations and resolutions from all over Canada asking the same thing, namely, Will you please control prices?
The Address-Mr. Irvine


An hon. MEMBER:: So we get a committee.


William Irvine: This manifest urgency on the part of the common people explains the anaemic gesture made and proposed by the present administration. In fact, it is so anaemic that you will hardly see it. It hardly moves at all. Gesture number one was that they reimpose some controls. I have all of them here but I will not quote them. Amongst them were meat, butter, certain types of fertilizers, imported fruits and vegetables, rents, sugar, molasses, oils, fats, certain kinds of fruits and vegetables and so on-a handful of things. That is, as I say, the first gesture. And I think the government had to make that gesture in order to appease the public.


Mr. KNIGHT:: To survive.
Mr. IlRVINE: The public demanded' some action.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: And some of their backbenchers.


William Irvine: I hope so. The government made that gesture, and about that gesture there are one or two things I want to say and say very quickly. In the first place, the government, in its gesture, did not make any gesture toward rolling prices back to where they were on those things which they have engaged to reunpose controls. They have allowed those who handle such goods to make their killing and then they fix the prices pretty well at the point where they finished rather than where they began.
Next the government imposed controls on only a mere handful of items. I do not need to tell the government or hon. members who support the government that such a move is merely playing with the issue. Everyone knows that the price of any commodity will ultimately enter into the cost of other commodities, and that the only way to make effective price control is to make a blanket price control which gives a measure of equal justice to every industry in the dominion of Canada. We cannot play-act by taking one little thing here and one little thing there and letting all the rest go sky-high if they want to. So I say this government must make up its mind, and the opposition will have to make up its mind as to whether it is going to fall with the government on this issue or be able to have an alternative view that will stand the test of public scrutiny in the near future. The government must make up their minds whether they are going to impose controls as they know how to do, as they did so well in the war and with such good results, or they will have to trust themselves to private enterprise and stand by the consequences. Do

not run away when you see the consequences coming, like you did the other day in running back to price controls. That is not free private enterprise. But having trusted to free private enterprise, when it fell down the government recoiled from the consequences a little bit and made this gesture to appease the aroused public.
The next gesture that was made was a proposal which I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has given to the public and has spoken of in this house, namely, a proposal to appoint a parliamentary committee to investigate the -whole matter of prices.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wonderful.


William Irvine: This is an action which, to me, will mean inaction. That would seem, of course-although I must not say it is because it is not parliamentary-to be the design of the suggestion. But it is not unparliamentary to say that the result, and the only result, that we see coming from such an action, will be no action at all. It is a method of letting the people of Canada think that something may be done while nothing will really be done. It will be very much like the old price spreads investigation. They will hold it for a year or two, pay big fees to lawyers, print a huge document, make a contribution of a piece of literature to the literary mausoleum of the nation, and that will be the end of it. It is not investigation that we need most at the present time. What are we going to investigate? To tell us that prices are high? Everybody knows that. Are we going to investigate how to control prices? The government knows that because it did so for years during the war. So that is something we do not need. If further factual information were needed or happened to be demanded, very well, let us go after it. But let us distinguish between the work of such a committee seeking factual information for administrative purposes and the urgent need for control of prices now to help the people of Canada.
Let me illustrate, Mr. Speaker, exactly what I mean. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) was speaking about the beauty of the great lakes. Suppose he were standing on the wharf and saw a number of people struggling in the water; saw that they were drowning and were shouting for help.


Mr. MacNICOL:: He would jump in right away to save them.


William Irvine: And get drowned along with them. All right, I hope he would jump in. But his government does not do that. His government says, These people are making a shout. What are they shouting about? Some-

The Address-Mr. Marquis
body says, They are drowning. So the government, instead of sending a lifeboat, decides to appoint a parliamentary committee to investigate how the water got there to drown them. Now, when they have discovered the sources from which came the water which is drowning the poor people, they think that will be quite sufficient; that as soon as this is exposed the natural law will no longer operate, the water thereafter will run uphill and refuse to make a lake in which anyone can drown. That is to say, the object of the parliamentary committee proposed by the Prime Minister is that when you expose profiteering, if indeed you happen to find any, then the profiteers will be so ashamed they will stop profiteering for ever after, become awfully good boys and reduce prices to a really decent and honest level.
That is the substance of all we may expect from this committee. I am opposed, and I believe I can speak for my group when I say we are opposed, to a committee of that sort. We are not opposed to finding facts at any time, but we do not want a committee that will be substituted for the action immediately necessary to reduce the cost of living.
(Translation):


Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, in these days of faltering peace, since the end of the war, we are faced with an ever increasing and unprecedented international crisis. It would be regrettable, however, that the conflict which wrought havoc upon the world and caused serious complications even in our own country, should give rise to a bid for votes and make us lose sight of our own responsibilities.
At the end of the war, our first move was one based on Christian charity. Despite the heavy sacrifices which had been imposed upon us, the health of our economy was not seriously impaired. When called upon to extend a helping hand to the unfortunate victims of hardships and sufferings, we did not hesitate in the performance of this act of justice which, to a great many of us, was not inspired by any consideration for ties of blood.
Today, the outlines of two camps have become clearer, the clash of opposing doctrines and interests has pitted two different ideologies against each other: the one, democracy, revived and inspired by Christian liberty; the other, dictatorship, driving the masses to a state of atheistic and materialistic serfdom. Between these two opposing forces lies an abyss seemingly most difficult if not impossible to bridge.
5849-42J
We have reached a time when politics become a sacred calling, when partizanship and selfish intrigues must forever disappear from our midst, when the sole objective of our statesmen must be to preserve and develop the spiritual and material assets of our own and other countries. It is with these thoughts in mind that we must assume the heavy responsibilities which befall us and which are fraught with such serious consequences.
Mr. Speaker, certain fundamental principles are unalterable: namely faith in God, love of country and the exercise of a judicious freedom which allows us to live without hindering the freedom of others. The balance between man's spiritual and physical life must also find its place in our social and especially our family life. Canada's amazing growth among the nations of the world is a result of the unity, stability, fecundity and faith of the Canadian family unit. Love of the soil, respect for authority and Christian traditions have given the family the strength and courage to overcome obstacles and to develop a budding colony into an autonomous and free nation which compels recognition from the rest of the world.
But for a quarter of a century, and especially since the first great war, subversive elements have been undermining the family. More and more, monopolized vice imposes its corrupting dictatorship to the Christian world. That is one of the evil forms of materialism which we must face. Godless, pornographic literature and movies fill our young people's hearts with a searing poison which threatens to destroy the tender shoots that would develop and strengthen the Canadian race. I take this opportunity to ask the authorities concerned to exercise a more rigid and more efficient censorship.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that juvenile delinquency is increasing and that the evils of divorce are spreading when magazines and films set up free love as the best way of life and concubinage as an attribute of freedom. Those who marry with that ulterior motive are eager for affairs, for numerous and disastrous marital experiences.
In the national interest, it is urgently required that the various governments join forces to stem the rising tide of the poisonous floods that threaten to engulf the sturdy but still young spirit of the Canadian people. There is a radical means of checking the divorce calamity, which most people recognize as a menace but which many hesitate to
The Address-Mr. Marquis

fight energetically. I repeat, that by prohibiting divorce entirely in Canada, or at least in the province of Quebec, the ideal solution would be found. However, since such a proposal cannot win general acceptance, it would be fitting to resort to remedial measures.
For instance, we could, first, insist that the senate committee be provided with weightier and fuller proof. The match at the bedroom door and the trailing of the party concerned by an agent who makes a specialty of such cases are but flimsy tricks that scarcely add weight to the proof required for the breaking up of a home and family.
Secondly, the divorce committee's reports should be distributed to the members of parliament at least one month before the first reading of the bills, thus giving them the opportunity of carefully considering the evidence and of rejecting several of them.
Thirdly, divorce bills ought to be introduced separately in the house so that each member could take a decisive attitude in each case. In spite of the fact that Quebec members and some from other provinces are formally opposed to such procedure, these bills are passed in bulk without careful consideration of the evidence given. Moreover, since all other bills are introduced separately, there is no reason to depart from the general rule in a matter of such importance.
I submit these humble suggestions to the kind consideration of my hon. colleagues.
Were not the Fathers of Confederation anxious to foster the full development of the Canadian family when they guaranteed provincial jurisdiction in matters of education. The two great races which have given birth to the Canadian nation have an equal and absolute right to raise their children in their own language and faith. Any breach of this sacred privilege interferes with the development of the intellectual and spiritual resources of the'nation itself. Let us not forget that national unity is founded upon the respect of the minority's rights by the majority. More and more people are beginning to understand this principle of justice, which should be recognized in all provinces. As far as schools are concerned, the French-speaking and Catholic minority should enjoy the same privileges as the majority. Any attempt by socialists to standardize education will be strongly and steadfastly opposed by all of us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 
Eugène Marquis: May I be permitted to quote in this connection two excerpts from an address by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) to the convention of the Canadian Teachers' Federation on August 13, 1946:
I am convinced that real national unity, national pride and love of country can better prevail when teaching is left to provinces and to local organizations under them, to which this right duly belongs. I fail to understand how the cause of education or the cause of Canada could be promoted by an attempt to reduce the privileges and duties of provinces in this vast sector of our national life.
I quote further:
Far from trying to centralize in Ottawa all the functions of government, we are anxious to render more secure and more complete the autonomy of provinces, of all the provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Eugène Marquis: But no other aspect of provincial autonomy is more important than provincial autonomy in matters of education. No other service established by the provinces in the interest of their people is more essential to the well-being of these people than education.
Every Canadian and every government should choose as its inspirational motto to encourage both races to develop to the full in their respective faith and language. In order to attain more easily the height of success in the field of material progress, there is no better way than to develop the spiritual wealth of the families which make up the Canadian nation as a whole. In a people which believes in God, material and spiritual values are indivisible.
Mr. Speaker, we must, therefore, be grateful to the federal government for having initiated and applied a policy of social justice with a view to the welfare of the family. It has understood that, if fortune does not smile equally on everybody, everybody without distinction must nevertheless be endowed with the means of attaining a state of comparative comfort. Such is the social function of family allowances, whose benefits will be felt by this and future generations. Let the hon. members think of the number of young men who will thus be enabled to safeguard their health, develop their talent and contribute more to the progress and greatness of our country! It will perhaps be possible, before long, to modify this legislation to some extent, in order that it may prove more adequate and more generous as far as large families are concerned.

The Address-Mr. Marquis
Social justice means the protection of the weak and the unemployable. The King government has shown an interest in the citizen through every stage of the latter's life. Family allowances, old age pensions, unemployment and labour benefits, aid to the blind, all these constitute welfare legislation of which we may well be proud.
There remains however a class of people who have not, as yet, benefited from the government's generosity. I refer to the crippled or the invalid who are unable to earn their own livelihood. Their condition is pitiful. They are forced to resort to begging or to accept misery. It seems to me that free, frank and loyal co-operation between the provincial and federal governments might have brought a solution from which these unfortunate people would have benefited.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Eugène Marquis: I nevertheless hope that our own government will give substantial help to these unfortunate members of our great Canadian familj'.
I would not make bold to claim that the state should assume all the obligations and take care of all the problems of the people. Charity and mutual help must continue to draw closer the ties that bind the members of a family. But nevertheless the state could extend to the outcasts of life the generous benefits it has bestowed on children and1 old people.
Mr. Speaker, if the government must balance its budget, a similar obligation is incumbent on the heads of families. That is a pretty heavy task in these difficult times. Family income, including allowances must ensure food, clothing, housing, hygiene and health expenditures and an education consonant with the aspirations and aptitudes of every one. In the labouring class, salaries have been on the rise for the last few years, but on the other hand the prices of necessities of life have reached a higher level.
It is very difficult for people of the middle class to plan a budget. That will not surprise anyone, because when poverty and starvation threaten part of humanity, we must share our resources in order to alleviate the sufferings of the afflicted and protect them from materialistic slavery. However, some profiteers are *overdoing it in a criminal way. They endanger the life of the depressed and starving peoples of Europe as well as the economic security of their own country.
Since I have been a member of parliament,.
I have heard stirring appeals in favour of free enterprise. According to the conservative members of the opposition, free enterprise was supposed to enrich a hundredfold the citizens of our country, who were not too badly off. We know how certain supporters of free enterprise speculated on feed, feed grains, meat, butter *and other necessities.
We are in favour of private enterprise, but provided it is truly free. It will be free, if the wealthy do not reduce the workers, the farmers or the middle class people to slavery,, if cartels and monopolies do not control production or hoard up goods in order to raise prices unduly. It will be free if the State does not take over all undertakings or properties so as to* transform the common people into mere robots; finally, it will be free if it does not become a slave to economic or political dictatorship.
I do not believe in Toryism, which would give a free hand to monopolies whose hunger for wealth has for a long time been curbed by war controls; nor do I believe in socialism whose aim is not to plan our economy but rather to put it under the domination of the government through the control of every individual's activities.
To my mind, it is the duty of the State to lead the -various classes in the path of order and progress, to ensure a proper balance between ithe different groups of citizens, to protect the weak against the strong, but not to enslave them. Briefly, its duty is to curt>
abuses and not- to wait for them ito vanish through the force of circumstances or the evolution of events, as claimed by members of the Conservative party.
If the farmer could fight on equal terms with certain intermediaries, if the consumer could freely discuss prices with certain distributors of commodities, then we would have a free economy. But as soon as one group enforces its will on another, you have a dictatorship. The Liberal party's policy has been to prevent such dictatorship and I take it upon myself to suggest, in this respect, a: more constant and efficient watchfulness. That is controlled economy, ensuring social justice-to all, and not state socialism, which tends ten rule the citizens' activities in every sphere. Indeed, I believe in a government which leads free citizens and protects them against
The Address-Mr. Marquis

abuses, and not in a Government which monopolizes the public wealth and under which citizens become servants or slaves of the State. In order to protect the weak from the strong, we must not deprive them of their liberty, but give them the means of resisting victoriously.
I believe that at present the best method is to set the prices of essential commodities at a family budget level. Would: it not be advisable to adopt a legislation tending to establish a reasonable margin of profit on the trading of essential commodities? Such com trol could remain in force until a steady balance were ensured and until the provinces had taken a concrete attitude on matters within their scope. I am deeply convinced that the government, whose policy it is to grant justice to all, will continue to ensure our country's economic stability.
The worker may have his troubles, but our farmer also has his problems. Certain parts of the country are not conversant with the specialized character of our agriculture. Farming in our part of the country is not industrialized1; we cannot determine the amount paid in wages, the cost of purchasing and repairing heavy and: essential implements, or the profiit resulting from the sale of a particular product, be it ten, twenty, thirty or even fifty thousand bushels of wheat. Agriculture is a family undertaking. From dawn to dusk every member of the family helps, to the limits of his ability with the plowing, with mixed farming, the sowing, the haymaking, the harvesting, the weeding, the care of livestock, the supplying of firewood, the repairing of tools and so forth.
When the holidays come around', the younger children take the herds to the pasture grounds, put hay in carts and do all sorts of chores to lighten the parents' burden. All efforts combined produce, at the end of the year, a modest income, which cannot be compared with that derived from the large farms of western Canada. Very often, the children, from the youngest to the eldest do not receive any salary. They live together, happy to join in the family's occupation. The father acts as a sort of trustee of his children's earnings. When they marry or leave the home, he gives each son his rightful share by purchasing a farm or shop or by handing over to him a modest sum of money.
In all fairness, the family of the workingman, the farmer or the small wage-earner should be provided with a sufficient budget to meet essential expenditure. Because the
price of various necessities has risen, I feel that present income tax levies are extremely burdensome on the head of the household when they compel him to deprive his dependents of what is essential to their health or intellectual advancement.
Has the time not yet come to grant full income tax exemption to married people earning no more than $2,500 without reducing, in any way, family allowance grants? Would it not be fitting to authorize deduction of the amounts required for classical or university training? In order to keep our youth in Canada and1 to foster new homes, I feel an exemption of at least $1,250 would be warranted. These are not maximum figures, of course, and our people would enthusiastically welcome more liberal exemptions.
Mr. Speaker, the income tax legislation, as interpreted and administered, is working a hardship on our fine people. The farmer is not allowed to deduct the wages which he has administered on behalf of his son, unless there was an actual handing over of the money during the year in which it was earned. This is likely to harm the unity which should prevail within the family, and to impair teamwork. I believe that the act should be amended so as to allow such wages as deductible expenses, when it is established that the money was earned by the son's work, even though it was administered by the head of the family.
In certain cases, the interpretation of the law varies with the district. For example, in some places, when a young farmer inherits from his father a farm which he might have earned by his own non-remunerated labour, a tax is levied just as if he were the recipient of an annual revenue. In other places, the amount is spread over several years, which might exempt the heir from the obligation of paying a tax. This seems right to me, since, in- the first instance, the estate is to a large extent mortgaged by succession duties and income tax. I therefore suggest that there be but one -interpretation of the law so that it may, in future, tend to ease the burden placed upon our farmers.
Let us not forget that it was the farmers of Quebec who opened up this country to civilization, cleared it and brought to confederation its greatest strength. Their traditions and the nature of their farming operations must be protected.
Mr. Speaker, at this critical moment in history, when our economy needs to be enlightened by science, it is of the utmost importance that farming in the east receive

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
particular attention. The western plains have opened for us the doors of foreign trade, but it is the mixed farming of the east which has always been the cornerstone of our internal economy.
Do I need to remind the house that Ste. Anne de la Poeatiere, in the historic county of Kamouraska, is an educational and agricultural centre unmatched in this country. It has the oldest agricultural college in Canada. Devoted priests and enlightened and experienced farmers have brought that institution into being by contributing their own -funds. As a result of the untiring work of those advocates of farming and their successors, Ste. Anne is today the beacon which sends forth its light throughout eastern Quebec and even as far as the maritimes. The college gives a first-rate classical education while the High School of Agriculture and Fisheries trains farmers and fishermen. Nearby, -the Dominion experimental farm makes available to farmers of the district the results of its research and experience. But the more farming develops, the more does it need the help of science. Practical research should be intensified.
Soil analysis, acclimatization of new varieties and the study of plant diseases should be carefully fostered in order to adapt Canadian agriculture to present needs. I therefore ask the Right Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to provide us with liberal grants for the advancement of agricultural science, which is so essential to our country's progress.
In truth, only a full measure of social justice will supply us with effective weapons against communism. The family is the basis upon which rests any well-organized Christian society. Union among our families, balanced relations among the various classes, and the economic liberation of the masses will help us pursue our glorious rise towards an era of progress and happiness. Man, happy to live freely of the fruit of his labour, will never accept communist or socialist slavery. Let us keep the farmer on the soil, the worker in the factory by helping them over passing difficulties.
As long as our farmers keep working with a smile, as long as they derive greater strength from their faith, as long as they remain the masters of their heritage, neither socialist nor communist materialism can stop in then-hearts the flow of Christian life. The clamour of war will never muffle the song of bells echoing with the joy and pain of the -tiller of the soil. At the end of a life filled with toil and sacrifice, dedicated to his family and to his country, his duty done and the promise
of eternal peace so soon to be fulfilled, he may say with Lamartine:
Si quelque main pieuse en mon honneur te sonne, Des sanglots de l'airain, oh! n'attriste personne, Xe va pas mendier des pleurs a 1'horizon,
Mai* prends ta voix de fete et sonne sur ma tombe
Avec le bruit joveux d'une chaine qui tombe Au seuil libre d'une prison!
(Text):


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a few observations in the debate in reply to the governor general's speech of December 5, 1947, at the commencement of this session, and- I wish to refer especially to a portion of the speech which states:
My ministers are concerned with increases in prices which have added to the cost of living. In certain instances, increases were felt to have been unjustified and price ceilings have been restored. Officials in the departments of government most immediately concerned have been directed to keep under constant supervision conditions of production and supply which tend to raise the level of consumer prices.
The demand for the products of our primary industries generally continues to remain at high levels. In view of the price fixed for the 19481949 crop year under the wheat agreement with the United Kingdom, you will be asked to consider a measure to provide for an increase in the initial payment to producers.
A few days prior to our convening after the Christmas recess the Canadian Association of Consumers, under date of January 20, sent a brief to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and, I think, to all hon. members, pointing out fhe difficulties of the consumers across this nation with respect to the advancing cost of living. In- one paragraph they point out specifically that the reimposition of subsidies on hard wheat and coarse grains to bring down the price to consumers of meat, bread and dairy products is necessary to halt the inflationary trend.
I wish, first of all, to endorse most heartily the remarks made this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), and more especially the arguments he so well advanced on- behalf of our veterans and their dependents, many of whom find it very difficult to provide the essential food) for their families. The hon. member did a splendid job in indicating the difficulties of these citizens of Canada who have done so much for us.
I wish also to compliment my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) on the stand he took with reference to the assistance, which was announced prior to the Christmas adjournment, of ten per cent in some cases to our veterans and their dependents. As he so well pointed out, that is altogether inadequate. I add my word to those
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross

we have heard from other members at this time on behalf of our veterans and- their dependents, who find it so difficult under these conditions to provide properly for themselves and their families. I hope the situation will be reconsidered in the near future.
I have here the Economic Annalist, a journal which is put out under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his statistical branch. It is dated November, 1947, and at page 77 it refers to the Geneva conference of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations. The director general, Sir John Boyd Orr, addressing the conference, said:
The report placed before you today raises problems of the utmost gravity. There is the continuing world food shortage. In Europe next winter-
That is this winter.
-and spring, three years after the end of hostilities, there will be millions who will be worse fed than they were during the war.
You will hear arguments throughout the country about how well off the producers of these particular foods in Canada are today, that is to say, the farm producers. In the same journal there is a report on a survey which was conducted by the officials of the federal Department of Agriculture and the University of Manitoba in southwestern Manitoba, giving the actual experience of 216 farm operators as disclosed by farm business records obtained in the summer of 1946, which form the basis for the description of the economics of farm organization in southwestern Manitoba. I quote from the report:
The Information was obtained through a farm business survey conducted jointly by the economics division, marketing service, dominion Department of Agriculture and the department of political economy, University of Manitoba. A record of the entire farm business for the year June 1, 1945, to May 31, 1946, was obtained from each of these farmers.
The area for the study was the extreme southwestern portion of Manitoba lying mostly in Manitoba crop district one. This area took in Reston, Melita and Boissevain. Their type of farming was set forth in the report. As regards land utilization, the total area per farm averaged 547 acres at Reston, 529 acres at Melita and 471 acres at Boissevain. In the report there is a great deal of detail which I will not go into, but I should like to set forth some of the essential points given.
In livestock distribution, it is stated that all the farms studied had some livestock. Of the 216 farms, 211 raised cattle and 140 kept hogs. All but seven farmers had some horses used entirely or partly for farm power. Poultry

raised primarily to provide eggs, and meat for home consumption was found on most farms. Very few farmers raised many sheep.
In terms of animal units, the total per farm for all farms studied was 28-5 animal units. This was distributed as follows: cattle 18-5; horses 7-4; hogs 1-7; and other livestock, mainly poultry, 0-9. The largest number of farm animals was found on farms in the Melita district. These averaged 30 animal units per farm as compared with 29-5 animal units at Reston and 26-2 at Boissevain.
In the matter of farm capital, the average investment was $11,062 per farm for all farms studied. This was distributed as follows: real estate $5,122; livestock $2,264; machinery and equipment $2,858; feed, seed and supplies $818.
I think that is pretty much a self-contained type of farming among these 216 which were surveyed. As to the financial progress made, the report states:
While some of the farmers have been operating the present farm for a long -time, 67 per cent of the farmers have commenced operating the present farm within the last fifteen years. For all the farms studied, the average number of years the present farm has been operated by the present operator is 13' 1 years . . . The present over-all net worth is $13,895 per farmer, representing an average increase in net worth per farm of $713 per year as a result of income from all sources. When calculated on the basis of income from farm activities only, the average increase in net worth per farm was $600.
This was up to June 1, 1946. Production in 1947 had decreased considerably, as most people know. I do not think anyone will argue that these farmers have made any great killing during this time. I do not think it can be successfully contended that they have been wheat mining. They have pretty well established the self-contained farm and produced food, generally speaking, for others as well as for themselves.
I said I wished to deal with a few particular items set out in the report of the consumers' organization. I sympathize sincerely with these people. During the past recess when I was at home I visited a number of homes in Manitoba where there were small children, and in my opinion the net income received by the head of the average family could not provide sufficient milk, meat and other foods to take care of these children properly. Neither the children nor the other members of the family could be properly cared for on the income received.
That is the situation we find in Canada today. It is the situation in cities, towns and villages because the wages of the so-called white-collar class throughout the war years were unfairly frozen. The members of this

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
class have received no increase in income as labour has, and where there is a small family we find hardship and suffering. These people cannot properly provide the necessities of life, on the income they have.
The first item I wish to refer to is bread.
I do not know whether many people have yet realized in Canada that throughout the war years the farmer subsidized all the consumers of the country as well as the people of Britain, so far as bread is concerned, and they are still doing so. That is the situation today.
I am not sure where some of these difficulties arise. I know that in 1926, which was in normal times, in the city of Winnipeg when wheat was selling at $1.56% and flour at $9.25 a barrel, bread sold at seven cents a loaf. In . 1946, the first year following the war when the miller was buying wheat for 77% cents, bread was selling at eight cents a loaf. He was paying less for wheat and charging more for bread. I do not know what the exact figures are for bread today, but I believe the prices is ten or eleven cents in Winnipeg; and the miller still buys wheat for less than he paid in 1926, because he buys wheat from the producer in the prairie provinces on the basis of $1.55 Tort William, the same figure at which the wheat is supplied to the United Kingdom under the contract.
Obviously, therefore, there is a disparity that someone will have to explain. I cannot tell the house how it comes about, but these are the figures, and there is that added cost which is not in the wheat that is used in making the bread.
There is one matter which has often been discussed in the past, to which I will refer now, and it will be discussed in the future as well. That is this matter of wheat and the fact that the prairie producer has subsidized all the consumers in this nation, let me repeat, as well as the consumers of Great Britain. The Minister of Agriculture, with his prairie advisers, made the greatest speculation-some say gamble-in wheat the world has ever known. They sold short 600,000,000 bushels, 440.000,000 bushels of which had not then even been seeded, over a term of four years and at prices which no man could foresee. The world price of wheat, which the right hon. gentleman vainly tries to brush aside at every meeting on the prairies turned against these gentlemen.
On the last day of this session before we adjourned for Christmas, on December 19, the Minister of Agriculture stated that there is no such thing as a world price of wheat. He and his advisers have lost their gamble and so our farmers have to forfeit huge sums in cash
on this wheat they have produced. The Minister of Agriculture may argue with words, but he will find it difficult to argue against simple arithmetic or the terms that he himself placed in the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. Why should the prairie farmers alone subsidize Britain and the Canadian people with cheap wheat? I am not arguing that they should not be subsidized; but, if so, that subsidy should be borne by all the taxpayers of this nation, as has so often been pointed out in this house. Every time we refer to the loss that has been borne by these producers, the figures have become greatly increased and are much more alarming. I have before me the Searle grain index report under date of January 21 of this year. Right at the beginning I want to say that no member on any side of this House of Commons has ever refuted any of the figures contained in that report which their able research men put out. These are authentic figures which can be proven if anyone has doubt about them. According to this report, under the heading of cash losses to farmers:
From August 1, 1946, to December 31, 1947, a period of seventeen months, the loss taken by our wheat growers on the wheat they have delivered to country elevators comes to the following staggering sums, all as compared with what farmers would have received had they enjoyed the full world price set daily by the Canadian wheat board itself for class 2 wheat.
The Minister of Agriculture to whom I referred is a member of the wheat committee and responsible for the wheat board and the setting of this price. The report continues:
(a)	On the wheat hauled by farmers and intended for shipment to Britain, $296 million.
(b)	On the wheat hauled by farmers and intended for domestic consumption in Canada, $152 million.
A grand total of $448 million lost by prairie farmers in seventeen months; a loss equal to more than the value of one whole prairie wheat crop; a loss equal to the entire dominion receipts from all forms of taxation in the year 1938; a loss which averages $1,900 for each prairie wheat-growing family, and with the losses still increasing greatly day by day.
It will be remembered, too, that prior to the start of the wheat agreement August 1, 1946, the government had marketed our f armers' wheat for several years at less than the world price. These losses to farmers for the years 1943, 1944 and 1945, come to an additional $409 million.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is a total loss since 1943 of $857 million on wheat produced by the prairie farmers of this country. That is a heavy subsidy to ask one class of people to carry for that term of years, especially when you remember that, on the other hand, they were the only class of people making such a contribution as that who were so controlled.
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross

I am not going to argue about exports and subsidizing the consumers of this country. Nobody has objected to that. But all the other producers who have been exporting to the other markets of the world have been allowed by this government to receive the world prevailing prices. I have often mentioned the implement manufacturers, the lumber producers and so on, but the farmers have been the only class of people to be put in the strait-jacket by the government of the day. More than that, the policies of this government in this respect and in respect of the controls on the essentials of food1 that I have mentioned and am going to refer to, have been directly responsible for creating the chaos that we find ourselves in at the present day.
I made some reference to the Minister of Agriculture and what he pointed out on December 19. If anyone wishes to refer to the remarks themselves, he may do so by turning to page 504 of Hansard. There, speaking about wheat and the Chicago and Winnipeg markets, the right hon. gentleman stated:
I am saying that there has not been a world price during the last few years.
He made the same statement at Dauphin and many other places throughout the prairie provinces during the past few months. In this report which I have of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1945-1946, there is written in at page 10 a copy of the United Kingdom wheat contract, and a portion of it reads as follows:
In determining the actual price in the last two years regard will be had to the extent to which the agreed price for the first two years falls below the world price for that period. Our farmers are therefore protected from crippling losses should there be a world slump in wheat prices. This is the commercial advantage which Canada secures.
If there has been no world price, as the Minister of Agriculture has said, I should like him to explain what that "world price" in the sentence there meant at that particular time. The immediate ex-minister of trade and commerce gives full credit to the right lion, gentleman for having negotiated that agreement and for being responsible for the drafting of it. I think he owes some explanation to this -house if it does not mean anything and if there is not a. world price.
Before I leave that matter of wheat I -want to say-and I am speaking -personally now, and stating my own views on the matter- that the majority of the farmer-producers are at the present time dissatisfied with this marketing set-up and the -price they are receiving in Canada. A recent poll shows

that some sixty-five -per cent are dissatisfied with the present state of affairs respecting the marketing of their wheat. I fully realize that in my time we have had two royal commissions which studied and investigated the marketing of wheat in this country. I fully realize that last session we had before this house amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and that in spite of the request by the leader of this party, myself and others, the government refused -to refer those amendments to the standing committee on agriculture. Notwithstanding all that, I firmly believe-and I make it as a personal request- that -the government, before they bring in certain legislation on further payments, should grant a reference to this standing committee on agriculture and make that reference broad enough so that they can thoroughly investigate the production and marketing of this great commodity which is so essential to human welfare throughout the world. It is the greatest export commodity produced in this nation. As the Minister of Agriculture and others have said, it is the most essential food for human welfare in all the countries throughout this world. I would hope that the government could see their way clear to grant a reference to this standing committee on agriculture so that they could call before that committee the officials of the producing and marketing agencies-yes, and consumers if you like-of this nation of ours and that we should at least have an opportunity of trying to find out what is best with regard to this great commodity in the interests of these people at this time. I think we are entitled to that. I trust the government will give serious consideration to that suggestion, because to me wheat- is an important item in the economy of this country. At -present we have a government monopoly the like of which we have never had in all the history of this nation. Surely this committee should be entitled to investigate and study that very important matter.
I want to say something about dairy products. Previously I stated that I liad seen families in cities, towns and villages, who in my opinion were not able to provide sufficient milk for their youngsters. Today in many centres milk is costing more than- twice what it cost before the war. I am sure hon. members have all read of the trouble that has been experienced by the milk distributors in the great Winnipeg area. I have complimented these organizations on the job -they have done in keeping the producers from going out on strike, I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
house that, according to 'the officials of that organization, some sixty dairy herds in that area have been liquidated and put completely out of production in the last few months. That is a serious matter. Even in the vicinity of my own trading centre of Melita-and I know the same is true of other sections of the west-many of the local dairy herds have gone out of production; and this town of Melita, with a population of some eight hundred, has to have milk shipped from Winnipeg and Brandon in order to supply the consumers. That is a situation which should not exist in an agricultural community; yet it is true in many centres throughout the prairie provinces. The price of milk varies in different centres, ranging anywhere from seventeen to twenty cents a quart today. Again I say that is a serious situation, and it has been brought about by the policies of this government throughout the war years and in the period that has intervened since the end of the war.
I have here a reference to Britain's subsidized farmers. A year ago I put a good deal on record in reference to their farm act, setting out how they could severely penalize a farmer for not carrying out their instructions. He can be sentenced to jail, as well as assessed a heavy fine. This reference deals with the matter from another angle, and gives the other side of the picture. According to this article the government of Britain are still spending a colossal sum of money to subsidize food. They are spending $1,600 million annually in food subsidies. That is a sizeable sum of money, which must be raised in taxes, and a great deal of it goes directly to the farmers in order to keep down the cost of food to the consumers. Milk, which sells to housewives for fifteen cents a quart, even in country areas, is heavily subsidized. That price is much lower than milk is costing us right in our farm areas. Over there, farmers get approximately eighty cents a dozen for eggs, a great deal more than the price we are
receiving for the eggs we sell to Britain. Those eggs are sold in grocery stores one at a time for about three and a half cents each, or at about half their cost, and the subsidy covers the balance.
I do not want to labour this matter, but I do want to point out that notwithstanding the fact that this colossal sum of money is being spent, the situation is very unsatisfactory in Britain todlay. The article I have before me states:
Meanwhile, life in Britain is becoming harder and harder for the bulk of the people. Only officials, bureaucrats and politicians are immune from the harrowing anxieties which all other classes of the community daily endure.
It goes on to point out that they must line up in queues and then in many cases, despite their ration tickets, they are not able to get the food they need for their families. It discusses the position of the butcher, who is not able to obtain the meat he requires; of the fishmonger, who does not know when he will be able to get enough fish; of the baker, the grocer, and so on. I do not want to weary the house further with this, but I do point out that the condition existing in Britain at present is very unsatisfactory.
I believe I have said enough in regard to wheat and milk to indicate that if this situation is allowed to continue it will not be long until we shall be unable to procure the necessities of life; and that should not be allowed to happen in this country. It is the result of very bad administration. I should like to say something about meat, and about the coarse grains issue which has come up in this country; I want to give some figures in that regard, but I see it is almost six o'clock, so I would move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Ross (Souris) the debate
was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West) the house adjourned at 5.57 p.m.

Thursday, January 29, 1948