1948-02-09

Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I would ask the former minister for air or the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he does not think that the present R.C.A.F. hockey team is living up to the traditions of the air force. The air force started out with the criticism "too little and too late." Our hockey team was criticized as too little and too weak, but they have covered Canada with glory, and I should like to know what the minister thinks about it.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in fairness the hon. member might have mentioned that the R.C.A.F. Olympic hockey team only won over there because they borrowed three of the finest young Toronto players, Lieutenant-Commander Wally Haider, graduate of the university of Toronto, George Mara, and Murray Dowey, three fine young Toronto native sons. As goalkeeper the latter had five shut-outs and only five goals scored against him over there in eight games. Toronto also won the Olympic hockey championship at St. Moritz with Toronto Granites, and also Varsity grads in 1927.
As a past president of the Argonauts I would also point out to hon. members who saw the pictures here last Saturday night of the Rugby final between Argonauts and Winnipeg Bombers, at the fine Rugby evening, for which we are indebted to St. Patrick's college, also sent here by President Thomas H. C. Alison of the Argonauts and shown by our great player, Joe Krol, that we were the only senior rugby club that did not play any imports last fall.


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I should like to say that all Canadians are proud of the achievement of the Royal Canadian Air Force hockey team in winning the Olympic championship. Messages of congratulations have been sent from all parts of Canada. I had the pleasure of sending one yesterday congratulating the team on living up to the famous motto of the air force,
per ardua ad astra, the meaning of which I am sure is known to all members of the house. I do feel that the air force are to be congratulated on the splendid success of their team and in overcoming the difficulties that they encountered in bringing this honour to Canada.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the first reading of Bill No. 9 (from the senate) to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the first reading of Bill No. 10 (from the senate) respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. INDIAN AFFAIRS

Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved:: That a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to continue and complete the examination and consideration begun by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, pursuant to a resolution of the house on May 13, 1946, and continued by a commission under the Inquiries Act, appointed by order in council P.C. 3797, dated the 11th day of October, 1946, and further continued by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, pursuant to a resolution of the house on February 13, 1947, of the Indian Act, Chapter 98, R.S.C. 1927, and amendments thereto, and to suggest such amendments as they may deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, the following matters:
1.	Treaty rights and obligations.
2.	Band membership.
3.	Liability of Indians to pay taxes.
4.	Enfranchisement of Indians both voluntary and involuntary.
5.	Eligibility of Indians to vote at dominion elections.
6.	The encroachment of white persons on Indian reserves.
9S6
Inquiries of the Ministry

7.	The operation of Indian day and residential schools.
8.	And any other matter or thing pertaining to the social and economic status of Indians and their advancement which, in the opinion of such committee, should be incorporated in the revised act.
That the following members be appointed to act on behalf of the House of Commons on the said joint committee, namely:
Messrs. Arsenault, Brown, Brunelle, Bryce, Blackmore, Case, Castleden, Charlton, Church, Farquhar, Gariepy, Gibson (Comox-Alberni), Glen, Harkness. Little, Matthews (Brandon), MacLean, MaeNicol, Raymond (Wright), Reid, Richard (Gloucester), Stanfield.
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting their honours to appoint senators to act as members of the Senate on the said special joint committee.
That the records, exhibits and evidence received and taken by the joint committee during the two last sessions of parliament and by the commission aforesaid, be made available to the said joint committee and made part of the records thereof.
That the said committee have power to appoint from its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary to deal with specific phases of the problem aforesaid with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and to print such materials from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and members of the House of Commons and the Senate.
That the said committee shall report from time to time and that the provisions of standing order 65 limiting the. number of members on special committees be suspended in relation thereto, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. It arises out of the administration of seed grain liens made under the authority of a dominion statute passed in April, 1915. At that time the act was administered by the Department of the Interior. I understand that the responsibility in that connection has now been taken over by the Minister of Mines and Resources. By the agreement authorized by this act the dominion government maintains liens which have priority over municipal claims. My question is this: In view of the fact that the dominion government does not appear to regard these liens as live assets, will the minister consider taking steps to have them wiped out?


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me this question just before I came into

the house. The government did not consider the suggestion made by the question that these are not live assets. As a matter of fact in 1927 powers were set up to deal with all cases where complaints are made with regard to these assets, and adjustments are made from time to time. The matter is the subject of government policy, and the Minister of Finance may have something to say about it.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. When can the veterans who are at present attending university expect an announcement regarding their application for extra assistance or a cost of living bonus?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I assure my hon. friend that a statement on the matter will be made as soon as possible.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I should like to ask this
question. When will the minister call the committee on veterans affairs? That has something to do with it.


Mr. GREGG:: When the committee is authorized.



FLAXSEED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, of which I sent him notice before coming into the house. Will the government control the sale of flaxseed this year? If so, what will the price be and when can the minister make an announcement?



REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF EMBARGO ON SHIPMENT TO THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Menary: Will the dominion government consider the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle going into the United States so that Canadian cattle will take up the full quota allowed on that market?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Orders of the day.

Prices Committee


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.


Lewis Menary: Will the minister answer?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, neither one of the questions applies to my department.


James Horace King: Order.


Lewis Menary: May I ask the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker?


James Horace King: I understand that the hon. member has put his question. I suggest that he put it on the order paper.



COAST GUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence of which I have given him notice. Since he is not in his seat I shall appreciate it if an answer is given tomorrow. Has the government given further consideration to establishing a coast guard on the west coast of Canada, especially in the light of the recent wreck of the Clarksdale Victory on the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport.):: I think the question might have been more properly directed to myself than to the Minister of National Defence, and I am happy to answer it. The matter is one which has been given consideration not only by the Department of Transport but also by the government as a whole, and while the establishment of a coast guard deserves a great deal of sympathetic consideration, on the other hand when one considers the tremendous cost which would follow the extensive establishment of coast- guards on all the coasts of Canada he cannot help but come to the conclusion that the cost would be entirely out of proportion to the matter to which my hon. friend referred. I should bring to the hon. member's attention, however, the fact that at the present time the existing facilities for such service are marine service steamers, fishery patrol vessels, Royal Canadian Mounted Police vessels and also the search and rescue squads of the R.C.A.F., which are devoted almost exclusively to air rescue, but which oftentimes have come to the assistance of marine casualties.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: None was there when this boat went down.



APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO PRICE INCREASES AND MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King that a select committee be appointed to examine and report on the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living, and matters pertaining thereto.
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday night when this debate adjourned I had said a good deal, and I am not going to repeat anything that I said at that time. To pick up the discussion where I left off, I suggest to the house that the government was not smart when it refused to accept the amendments proposed by the official opposition and by the C.C.F. group. All that the amendments suggested was to broaden the scope of the committee, to give it latitude with regard to bringing in some recommendation.
If the committee is restricted so that it cannot do anything, then it serves very little purpose and the investigation will not mean very much. I have in mind the industrial relations committee which was handling a serious and urgent problem. I know how it functioned; I know of the restrictions which were placed on it. It had no legal status, no right to recommend, no right to file a minority report. It was merely a matter of getting something backstage and out of the mind of the public.
Had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government accepted the amendments proposed, in effect they would have been tying every group in the house to the committee, but by refusing to permit any latitude whatsoever, as suggested by the opposition, the several groups in the house are placed in the position of having to consider whether they are being logical or not in accepting membership on the committee if and when it is set up. I consider that the last amendment of the C.C.F. group was a proper one and that the house should have been permitted to vote on it. Believing that, I am going to read it again to refresh the memory of some hon. members who were home on Thursday and Friday. The amendment reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
this house is of the opinion that the present crisis demands and the people of Canada want not a parliamentary committee but action by the government to restore price controls and subsidies.
Prices Committee

The reason I say this is the motion that the house should be voting on is that this is the issue in the country, whether the government likes it or not-not the matter of setting up a committee. Every hon. member, irrespective of the side of the house on which he sits, if he is honest with himself will tell the house that from all sections of the public in his own constituency-farmers, church organizations, Canadian legion, non-political organizations- all of them have been submitting resolution after resolution to hon. members demanding the reimposition of price controls and the reenactment of the subsidy arrangement to halt the trend in the inflationary spiral that is now on. That matter should have been voted on in this house, because that is the issue. But' it was not done, and the government will have to take the responsibility for it.
In my opinion the setting up of a committee would be all right provided action were taken first to try to hold the line where it is at the present time; then the committee could investigate and ascertain the reason for the present inflation and the matter of profiteering, so called. But that was not done, and the responsibility for the delay in getting something done will have to rest with those who voted against our proposal to have action taken immediately.
In the matter of increase of price-and the increases have been drastic in the last four or five months-in my opinion it is not an accident. The Minister of Finance told the country, not in this house but through the press and over the air, that the present trend in prices was going according to plan and that they would strike a certain level and then level off. If the inflation we have today is planned inflation, then we should cease wasting time in the house discussing the matter. Personally I believe it is.
My conception of the present situation is that there is such a tight integration between the economies of Canada and the United States that price levels in this country are going to reach the levels prevailing south of the line. In my opinion that is the trend. But I would suggest to members of this house that they also take note of what is happening in the United States according to today's press. The stock market is getting shaky and prices are beginning to fall. That is the initial step towards unemployment and depression. It is not a good sign, and the time is not far distant when that trend will put the "not wanted" signs up on plant and factory gates.
What is the reason? The reason in my opinion is that the Marshall plan in the United States has not got under way as soon as it

should, with the result that purchasing power in Europe is nil, goods are beginning to pile up in the United States, the market is getting shaky, prices are beginning to fall, and the next thing in the United States will be depression and unemployment.
I urge the people in charge of the economy of this country, that is to say the government, to watch things in the United States, not to follow events blindly, because in my opinion the thing will tailspin over there unless Truman gets the support of his government and the reimposition of controls and subsidies towards which he has been working for some considerable time now.
I do not think a committee investigating this matter in Canada at this time is the proper kind of action. It is too serious. Something must be done about it quickly. What will they investigate in the matter of profiteering? In my opinion there is no such thing as profiteering in Canada. Under the present system anyone in Canada who has something to sell is legitimately entitled to charge what the traffic will bear, and in the present trend that is indicated clearly. Butter for example was selling at 70 cents a pound. The government undertook to put a ceiling on it, but it did not put a ceiling on it. It put a sky on it. It was jumped from 70 cents, and a ceiling of 73 cents was put on.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not true.


Clarence Gillis: It is true. So when your committee sits and takes evidence, where will be the line of demarcation? How will you determine what profiteering is? When is a man a profiteer? Under the present scheme he is allowed to charge as much as he can get. There is no law in this country that will enable the courts to determine when a man is profiteering. There may be exorbitant prices, but there is no law that says a man cannot charge and get for what he is selling, for any commodity he is handling, whatever he can get under the present scheme of things.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Is the farmer making an exorbitant profit?


Clarence Gillis: You have no fixed profits. That is one thing we have urged in this house time and again. We have been urging that in addition to fixing prices and regulating wages, profits also should be fixed. Profits are one of the big factors today in this country-one of the factors that have got us into the mess we are now in-because they are uncontrolled until such time as the government is prepared to lay down some definite regulations with regard to the margin of profit anyone is permitted to make, taking anything in excess of

Prices Committee
that in the form of excess profits. But you have nothing to investigate anywhere, and you cannot bring into this house anything that [DOT]will condemn anyone in this country for any price he 13 charging.
In the hands of the government just now there is all the necessary machinery. There is the Combines Investigation Act. This matter has all been gone over before and there is no necessity for me to go over it again, but I strongly urge that if you set up a committee it should go into the matter thoroughly. It is not a bad idea to have a committee that will go thoroughly into the whole economy, overhaul it, and bring some evidence into the house on the necessity for legislation to control and regulate things in this country in the interests of all the people. But in the meantime, with the present upward trend of things in this country, action should be taken by the government, even if it be a temporary action, to reimpose controls and subsidies in order to hold the line where it is at the present time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thought this member would. Is the farmer making an excessive or exorbitant profit? No advice from the rest of you over there. Is he making an excessive profit?


Mrs. STRUM:: You are a farmer. Is he?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am asking the present speaker. I will attend to you a little later.


Clarence Gillis: Your question was?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is the farmer making an excessive or exorbitant profit at the present price of butter?


Clarence Gillis: I think the question is rather silly. The farmer in this country is not an exploiter. He is being exploited. The major portion of the income that the farmer should be receiving today is taken by Canada Packers and the Swift Canadian people. They fix the price, they tell him what he is to get, and they take his commodity and market it without restriction.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member is always fair. Do I understand he is afraid to answer or will not answer the question?


Clarence Gillis: I answered it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You did not.


Clarence Gillis: You sa:d something about butter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is your
answer?


Clarence Gillis: If the answer goes over your head that is not my fault. The member for Fraser Valley said something about butter. Certainly the farmer is not making money on butter. The speculator is. These are the things I want to see controlled immediately. Put a stop to that, then check up, and if you are wrong in the reimposition of controls and excess profits tax and subsidies, you can change it on the basis of the evidence you have. But to say in this house that the people of Canada do not want the reimposition of these controls is absolutely not correct, because I know the press every day is full of it. There are demands for it, pleas for it from all sorts of organizations. The labour organizations are preparing new wage demands, there will be new fights and all that sort of thing. These simple steps that I have suggested would stop all that, and if your committee took six months or a year-


Mr. MITCHELL:: Can you have price control without wage control?


Clarence Gillis: No, not effectively. But there is no one in this country that I have ever talked to on that question who was opposed to having wages controlled provided they were not fixed at substandard levels as they are today in this country in many cases. You will find that labour in this country, if you will control profits and prices and keep them within reason will co-operate with the Minister of Labour and any board which he may appoint in keeping their wage demands within reason. There is no argument on that score.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the story in the trades congress, and the hon. member knows it as well as I do.


Clarence Gillis: I have been in the game for a long time, and that has always been my conception of it and still is.
I know' that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, and I shall conclude by once more urging the government that they consider seriously the immediate reimposition of price controls; and second, that subsidy arrangements on essential commodities be made effective as they were during the war. Where is the money coming from? There is a large surplus in the hands of the government which could provide subsidies for a year w'ithout any additional taxes. But if it is necessary to carry out the policy of subsidies for any extended period, corporation profits in Canada indicate clearly that there is room for the
Prices Committee

reimposition of the excess profits tax. It is sad to sit in this house now after being here during the period of the war and listening to speeches made from both sides of the house with regard to the question of money. During the war everyone said that what is physically possible will be made financially possible. That was fine during the war. The economy was controlled to some extent; ministers had some authority and some responsibility, and they carried out that policy. There was no shortage of money. We were giving away billions of dollars. But now that the war is over we are back to the old machine that we had up to 1939.
A moment ago the 'Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) said the cost of a coast guard on the Pacific coast would be too great.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say that.


Clarence Gillis: The minister said it would involve a large expenditure of money.


Lionel Chevrier: I referred to the cost of a coast guard service, which is an entirely different thing.


Clarence Gillis: The minister said it would cost a lot of money. It is again the question of money. Money is the limiting factor in developing our country. In my opinion, it is not money that counts. I think that every member here has a mission to perform as he is passing through this life.


Lionel Chevrier: And that is to ask for more and more.


Clarence Gillis: No; to make this world a little better than it was when he came into it. If the Minister of Transport would build that causeway which has been suggested and put his name on it-call it Chevrier bridge-long after he left this part of the world people would say that he was a great Minister of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: They will say that in any event.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: And they would say that he created new wealth in the country. If he puts a coast guard out there at the Pacific coast and we pay taxes to keep it up, so long as service is given nobody kicks about taxes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: If they are getting something for them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Social credit.


James Horace King: Order.
[Mr. Gillis.J


Clarence Gillis: I would strongly urge upon the Prime Minister that when he is making his speech he pay some attention to the many resolutions and press statements which are going out across the country, emanating from the ordinary people who have to buy and who receive just enough to get a bite to eat. I suggest that the Prime Minister pay some attention to these statements and try to stop price increases, and then let the committee carry on and investigate. If on the basis of investigation you find you have not been right, you can correct your mistake. If you have been right, you can continue on and extend your policy.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: I have only a few words to say on this motion, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: -unless I am provoked into saying more than I had1 intended to say. I believe this motion has been introduced largely because in the house and the country there is a great deal of confusion on fundamental principles. I believe that the public generally-including most of the members of this house, have not yet a proper conception of fundamental principles. I do not think we have yet reached the stage where we have clearly defined in our minds what constitutes a properly functioning democracy. I shall try in a few moments to give my views as to what constitutes a properly functioning democracy in relation to this particular resolution.
First of all I think we shall have to spend a little time in defining the duties and responsibilities of the electors as such; then we shall have to try to come to some conclusion as to what is our particular duty as members of parliament and what generally speaking is the duty of the government. If we can come to an agreement on these particular aspects of the matter we shall make more progress in considering resolutions and motions such as the one now before us.
I think the confusion which exists in the public mind arises because there is not a clear differentiation between the duties of citizens as such and the duties of members of parliament. Member after member has risen in this house and said that the people of Canada demand' price control. As members we have been receiving resolutions, letters and telegrams from labour bodies, organizations of various kinds, and individuals, demanding that we support the reimposition of price controls. I wish to say, as I have said in reply to those who have written to me and telegraphed me, that I do not think that the

Prices Committee
people who write these resolutions and letters have a proper understanding of their duties. I do not think the public ought to be concerned about the methods that are used to achieve results. Generally speaking what the public wants is a higher standard of living, or a lower cost of living. It is a result they want. They are not concerned with controls as such. Control is a method1 by which they think a certain result can be obtained. In my opinion the only reason people throughout this country are saying they want price controls is that they are taking direction from a lot of misguided leaders. These are people who have assumed1 or have been given leadership ini labour and other organizations here, there and1 everywhere, and they are saying to the people, "We want price controls. Ask for them." So they have a chorus of people all over the country from coast to coast saying, "We want price controls," whereas it is not price controls they want at all, but rather a higher standard of living, a lower cost of living. That is what they ought to be concerned about.
I feel that if the great majority of people in this country were able to differentiate between results and methods we would not have this resolution before us at the present time. If the people were organized as a functioning democracy they would be demanding of the members of this house, particularly those on the government side, that they produce certain results, and if they cannot produce these results they should resign. First of all, I believe, people will have to learn to distinguish between results and methods; then they will have to organize themselves in such a way that they can effectively demand the results they wish. At the present time in this country, and probably in every country in the world, the people are not so organized. They are divided into parties in a dozen ways, and the parties are quarrelling and quibbling over methods. One says we want price controls; another says we need socialization and nationalization; another says we need monetary reform, and the people are divided over methods while methods are something about which the people should not be concerned at all. So I think one of the first things the people must do in this country is to learn to distinguish between results and methods, and then organize in such a way that they can obtain from their democratic institutions the results they want.
As long as we are operating under the political party system I feel that the government has the responsibility for bringing about the results the people want. As far as the
information which may be obtained by this committee is concerned, the government has adequate facilities at the present time for obtaining all the information it needs to give the people the results they want, so I think the committee really is superfluous. Yet I am not going to oppose it. If this committee, which is to be purely a fact-finding body, did nothing else than show the people that the charges the C.C.F. and the communists in this country are making are unfounded, it will be well worth while.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who has just resumed his seat, in a manner typical of C.C.F. speakers, harangued us once more on the subject of profits alleged to have been made by corporations and companies. If the committee does nothing but indicate and establish that the high cost of living is not due to exorbitant profits, I think it will be well worth while.
The hon. member who preceded me made some statements about the profits the packing plants were making at the expense of the farmers. He was interrupted by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), who asked whether he considered that the farmers were making exorbitant profits, but the hon. member for Cape Breton South adroitly sidestepped that question. Here is something which may interest the C.C.F. members, who are constantly making the charge that high prices are due to excessive profits. During the packing plant strike last fall an item appeared in our western newspapers as to the profits the packing plants were making. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this statement, but at least it is what was said by one packing plant. This item was headed, "Packing plants claim 35 cents profit on $100," and this is the way they itemize the cost content of the commodities they process.
A chart released by Burns & Company Limited shows how every $100 of their income from packing house operations in 1946 was distributed.
$81.42 went to the producers, for livestock, poultry, cream, etc.; $10.03 were wages to employees. Supplies for packaging finished products used up $2.70. Power, transportation and advertising claimed $3.82. Depreciation of plant and machinery amounted to 99 cents. Interest was 31 cents (bonds, 21 cents; bank, 10 cents). Income and property taxes took 38 cents. Profit was left at 35 cents on every one hundred dollars.
This appeared last October, and I imagine other companies have made similar statements. I should like to see the C.C.F., through those who serve them on this committee, try to establish that this is not true, that the profits were far in excess of 35 cenis
Prices Committee

on every $100 of products sold. And I should like to see them tiy to do that in connection with all the essentials, at least. My suspicion is that they are just a bit afraid they are not going to be able to substantiate their charges, so now they are somewhat reluctant to see the committee set up. Well, here is their opportunity to make good on the charges they have been making.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: They do not want to take it.
Mr. IvUHL: I do not want to suggest there may not be what could be described as excessive and exorbitant profits by certain cor-oorations, and I am not saying I support that; but the general impression left by C.C.F. speakers is that all private business is in the same boat, that they are all a bunch of bloated profiteers. I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) made a good proposition to the C.C.F. members the other day when he suggested-


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: All right; go ahead.


Edward George McCullough: In the debacle which followed the removal of price controls last fall Mr. McLean admitted that a packing house firm made a profit of $2,000,000. Do you consider that fair?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That depends on so many factors. A broad statement of that kind does not mean anything. You have to take the figures in relation to other figures. I cannot go into all the details that are involved; it would be a long study. What I am concerned about is general principles.


John Lambert Gibson: And you stay with your principles.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I was about to say that if it is so easy to make these profits; if there is so much money to be made, as is alleged by the C.C.F., why do they not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, pool their money and go into the packing business?


John Lambert Gibson: They
haven't the nerve.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: They would probably go on the rocks.


John Lambert Gibson: Or the ability, either.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: If the committee does nothing more than bring out evidence to show the content of the prices of commodities, so that
IJIr. Kuhl.]
we can see whether exorbitant profits are causing the high cost of living, or whether there are other causes, then it will have been well worth while. Nevertheless I say the government has at its disposal now, plenty of facilities for finding that out for themselves. That is why in my opinion its action in setting up this committee is purely a process of delaying tactics, postponing the evil day, and not having the courage to face the issue at the present time. I am sorry if I appear unduly critical of what our friends of the C.C.F. have been saying, but I believe they deserve a good deal of criticism.


Mr. MOORE:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I noticed that when C.C.F. members spoke on this subject they were definite about the sources from which they obtained their material, making special reference to the dominion bureau of statistics; the Financial Post, and other publications. Does the hon. member question those statistics?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The value of statistics is often closely related to the interpretation placed upon them by the person using them.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The hon. member did not hestitate to give statistics.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: We have all heard the statement that figures may not lie but liars figure. I am not imputing any motives to anyone, but I do say that quite often from the same set of figures two people may arrive at two different conclusions, depending upon the point of view of each. That is why I say that in setting up this committee it may not be possible to arrive at any definite conclusion; we may not know a great deal more after we have finished with it. However, all we can do is go as far as human limitations permit. Beyond that we cannot go.
One thing we should certainly try to do is to agree upon some fundamental principles. Principles are eternal, and surely we should try to reach unanimity of opinion on a few principles. If we succeed in that most of these other things will take care of themselves.
I have said that I am sorry to be so critical of our C.C.F. friends, but they are bidding for power in this country, and I am not prepared to give them any power. I do not want to give anybody any power. The people should control-not a few party politicians. It is about time the people of Canada found out that many of the charges the C.C.F. are making are just a lot of political hot air, without any substantiation, and it is possible that this committee will help to do that.
Mr. MacNI'COL:	Is not the expression
"hot air" too mild?

Prices Committee


Walter Frederick Kuhl: It is about time the people of Canada found out that the philosophy the C.C.F. advocates is the same totalitarian concept which the communists propagate. It is about time our people found that out. I know the C.C.F. disavow any similarity between the two philosophies; but, listening to them, if one did not hear mention of the C.C.F. or the L.P.P. or whatever camouflage they parade under, he could not tell the difference between them. They both talk the same language. They both condemn the profit system and they are both opposed to private enterprise.
Philosophically speaking, there is no difference between them; so why are they avowed enemies of each other? In my opinion the only reason they oppose each other is that they are rivals for power-and that is the only reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because we are democrats, and you do not understand that.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: My hon. friend has referred
to democratic socialism. Well, you might as well talk about black-white or east-west or up-down. Democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms.


Mr. KNIGHT:: Or Progressive Conservative.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That is just about as consistent. I believe it was the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) who coined the expression that the only difference between the C.C.F. party and communism, or between socialism and communism, is that communism is socialism in a hurry. And that is about all the difference there is.
I said earlier that I had only a few words to say, unless I was provoked. I have said a. few words about the C.C.F.; now let me say something about the Progressive Conservative party. I do not think one need spend a great deal of time with them. But I agree with them wholeheartedly that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MacINNIS:: As one Conservative to
another.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: One can prove anything by taking language out of its context. Wait until I finish my sentence. I said I could approve of them wholeheartedly in their advocacy of a continuation of the system of private enterprise; I agree with them wholeheartedly on that. But I must say they are most inconsistent when in one breath they advocate a reduction in taxation and in the other an increase in services. Surely it must occur to them that that is an impossibility so long as 5849-63
they accept the financial policy which evidently they are prepared to accept. They do not seem to wish to subscribe to the financial policy offered by the Social Credit party. They have not one of their own, and yet they presume to' try to achieve the same results as Social Crediters advocate. I suggest to them therefore that they consider seriously some of the statements they make in that respect. They cannot have it both ways. If they are going to have reduced taxation, then they must offer an alternative to secure the money they require to run the country. They have not offered any suggestion as to the way in which they would obtain the necessary money if they reduced taxation.
We have advocated reduced taxation-and I personally have gone so far as to advocate the abolition of all dominion taxation, except for the purpose of withdrawing redundant credits. As an alternative I have indicated a substitute. Thus far however the Progressive Conservative party have not done that.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: At least they should be progressive.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Now I want to say something about the Liberals.


John Lambert Gibson: They have awfully thick hides.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I do not think it is fair for the Prime Minister or his supporters to ask the whole membership of this house to assume a responsibility which is the Liberal party's, as the government of this country. They accepted the responsibility of running this country. They wanted that privilege, and it is their duty to accept the responsibility. If circumstances are not just to their liking they should so organize their affairs that they can give the people the results they want. My fear is that the government in setting up this committee are simply passing the buck to parliament and making parliament the goat for their sins.


Mr. IRVINE:: And what a goat that will be 1


Walter Frederick Kuhl: They have always said of the things they do in a general way that they represent the people, that they have been elected by the people and therefore the people want the things they are doing. I feel that is only partly true. Under our present political party system of doing the nation's business we do not get a true reflection of the will of the people at all. I do not think it is completely fair for the government to say that what they are doing represents the policy and will of the people. I will go further and say that it is my personal and candid opinion that
Prices Committee

the Prime Minister and his satellites have gained power and kept power in this country largely through tricking the people into voting for them. I will give a specific instance of that.


William Irvine: Twenty-five dollars a month.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: No, that was not a trick; that was a genuine objective, and this country will never see prosperity until there is sufficient consumer purchasing power. If people in this country would forget party and' vote on issues we would get results. The people do not vote on issues at all. It is time we divided on issues and on principles instead of having a sham battle over party differences.
I was just saying that I thought the Prime Minister and his associates retained power in this country largely through tricking the electorate into voting for them. I should like to give what I consider an instance of that. The Prime Minister, unless he suffers from a lapse of memory, must recall his own statement away back in 1935, supposed to have been made in Saskatoon. He said:
Canada is faced with a great battle between the money power and the power of the people, a battle which will be waged in the next parliament. I plead for a sweeping Liberal victory to carry out my policy of public control of currency and credit. Until the control of currency and credit is returned to the government, .all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile.
Those are very noble sentiments, and no doubt the Prime Minister and1 his supporters will claim that those proposals have been implemented. That may be their conception of it, but it certainly is not mine and I doubt whether it is the conception of the people of Canada. In the light of that statement I will go so far as to say that the Prime Minister and those who support him have betrayed1 the people of this country. They led the people to believe that they were going to do battle with the money power. If they did do battle they certainly dtid not win out but rather succumbed to the money power. Until the people organize themselves more effectively they will be at the mercy of party politicians. The Prime Minister led the people to believe that they were going to get results, and he indicated the means 'by which those results would be attained. But nothing of the sort indicated by the Prime Minister has been done. I know that he and his supporters will urge that they have done so, but that is not my opinion. In my opinion they betrayed [DOT]the people.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: They fought on the side of the money power instead of against it, and are still doing so.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: So far as the people are concerned I do not think they are to blame for the present circumstances. They have done their duty and are still prepared to do it. They are willing to produce tremendous quantities of goods and services. They have the necessary knowledge and facilities to raise production far in excess of what it is now, but because the Liberal party under the leadership of the Prime Minister have not carried out their own program the people at the present time are being prevented from doing what they otherwise would do. The murderous taxation imposed on this country at the present time is discouraging production in every possible way. Surely the greatest contribution that can be made to attacking inflation is to increase production, but when taxation is such that the farmer, the worker and everybody else is discouraged from increasing production how can we effectively combat inflation? So I say that the responsibility is largely that of the government and nobody else. They are pursuing a financial policy which is not in the interests of the people of Canada, and I suggest that they do a little conscience-searching and look at some of their own statements in the past with a view to carrying them out. If they will only do that it will go a long way towards taking care of the situation, and they will certainly receive my support. But they do net seem to be willing to do so, therefore they will simply have to take the consequences.


John Horne Blackmore: No, the people will.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: In conclusion I wish to put on record a few sentences from a radio broadcast I made in reply to those who sent me telegrams and letters asking me to support price control. I do so in order to indicate my stand on this particular question. I said this:
I appreciate all the letters and telegrams which I have received from electors of my ridmg expressing concern about the high cost of living. If such communications indicate nothing else, they indicate that the people responsible for them are aware that they have *a member of parliament and that thev have a right to expect him to serve them. This is as it should be and I appreciate this demonstration of democratic action.
I have a criticism, however, of these letters and telegrams tand it is this: Most of them demand that I as the member of parliament for Jasper-Edson support the reimposition of price controls in Canada. Such demands arise from a confusion as to what are the duties of a citizen and what are the duties of a member of parliament. As I see it, it is the duty of the electors to demand results and not to indicate the methods by which those results are to be obtained. What the electors of Jasper-Edson, along with all other Canadians, really want is a higher standard of living. I am cer-

Prices Committee
tain that if they knew that a higher standard of living could be secured without price controls, they would never demand of me that I support the reimposition of price controls. I am personally convinced that Canadians can enjoy their just share of national production without the government resorting to a system of price controls. I would go further and say that a system of price controls would retard and restrict production, which in turn would lower the amount of goods which could be made available for Canadian consumption.
Time will not permit me to elaborate on this statement but I consider it to be true.
My suggestion therefore is that the electors of Jasper-Edson, along with all other electors, would conform, much more to democratic principles if they would demand results of their members of parliament rather than suggest methods by which they think those results can be achieved. Price control is a method and may not be a desirable method. This is a matter for experts to decide and one about which neither the electors nor members of parliament as such should be concerned.
I would suggest, therefore, that in the future, all demands directed towards me and other members of parliament be in the nature of demands for results rather than for the methods to be employed.
Let the electors unite in a demand for a drastic reduction and ultimate abolition of all dominion taxation and they will strike the most effective blow possible at the high cost of living and will at the same time be demonstrating truly democratic practice.
That is part of the reply which I gave, and that is my attitude on the subject of control. In addition, I suggest that the time is opportune for us to consider a little more seriously some of the fundamentals to which I have referred. I am satisfied that if we do that as a nation it will not be long before the people get the results that they really want.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to talk very much about this question of controls, because it is quite apart from the subject matter of this resolution. My hon. friends to the left have advocated the reimposition of controls and subsidies. It is not just as simple as that. If you keep making statements long enough and make them plausible enough, as they have been doing, you can get many people to believe what you say. I do not intend to discuss that question now.
Like everybody else, Mr. Speaker, I do not need to say that I realize the cost of living is high and also that the cost has steadily risen over the last year. I do not think anybody will say that that is not so. The question before the house at the present time is a resolution to set up a committee to inquire into, not the cost of living, but the recent rise in the cost of living.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) drew attention to the fact that in 1919 a similar resolution was introduced by Sir Thomas White. I shall deal with that later on. The
Prime Minister said that it was passed without any debate, and I gathered from his remarks that he thought this resolution should have been passed with very little debate. He said that it was a similar resolution. Sometimes resolutions are not just what they seem on the surface. When one goes into the question of what resolutions mean, what their implications are, he may find that they are not as simple as they seem. In examining the whole thing I found that out to my own satisfaction.
I make no apologies for taking part in this debate. I suppose that I, as well as other members of the opposition, will be criticized by the Prime Minister for the delay which has been caused in the last three or four days in debating the resolution. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that any blame which may be attached to us for taking part in this debate in the few days that have elapsed since the resolution was introduced will not be nearly as much as the blame which will be attached to the government and to the Prime Minister if they delay action until the committee has reported without recommendations, has reported some of the facts, since it will be many months before anything is done, before any information will come from the committee so that the government and the country will be able to take action as a result.
My concern in taking part in this debate is the concern I have for the people who have to pay the prices of today. I am concerned especially with the people on fixed income-pensioners, superannuated people, widows, and the like.
What are the terms of the resolution? It reads in part:
That a select committee of this house be appointed to examine and to report from time to time as to:
(a)	the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living;
(b)	prices which have been raised above levels justified by increased costs;
(c)	rises in prices due to the acquiring, accumulating or withholding from sale by any persons, firms or corpora; ions of any goods beyond amounts reasonably required for the ordinary purposes of their businesses.
I shall not read it all. The resolution goes on:
That the committee shall consist of Messrs: Beaudry, Cleaver, Fleming, Homuth, Johnston, Knowles, Lesage, Martin, Maybank, Mayhew, McCubbin, Merritt, Nicholson, Pinard, Smith (Calgary West), Winters, and that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
The committee consists of one cabinet minister, four parliamentary assistants and five members of the Liberal party, a total of nine Liberal members; four Conservative members, two C.C.F. members and one Social Credit
Prices Committee

member. That includes all of the opposition. I shall have something to say about that later.
In introducing the resolution the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 744 of Hansard:
I might begin by saying that I believe all hon. members of the house are agreed that the question of the recent rise in prices, particularly of the increase in the cost of living, is a matter of nation-wide concern.
The Prime Minister's statement is accurate, to say the least. Not only are members of the House of Commons concerned with the recent rise, not only is it nation-wide, Mr. Speaker, but it extends over the past year, as illustrated by the following figures which I intend to put on Hansard, since they have been obtained from the January copy of the Labour Gazette. These are the figures month by month adjusted to base 100 for August, 1939. The January increase was -8 points; February 1-1; March 1-7; April 2-4; May 1-8; June TO; July -7; August 2-8; September 2-8; October 1-4; November 2-5 and December 2-3. It does not look to me as if there has been any considerable recent rise. The increase has been pretty steady over the year. The total rise is 21-3 points in the year, and the average was almost 1-8 point per month.
Food increased from 145-5 on January 1, 1946, to 182-2 on January 1 of this year, or an increase of 36-7. As I said before, it is not just a recent rise that is concerning the people, but the rise that has taken place over this year. I am surprised, as I am sure the country is surprised, that the Prime Minister used that word "recent". I know that the house and the country would like to know why that word "recent" was inserted in the resolution. They appreciate the significance of it, because it will effectually prevent any inquiry into the effect of government policy on the cost of living. The Prime Minister went on to say, at page 744 of Hansard:
This afternoon I do not intend to go into the question of the causes of the rises in prices, or of possible remedies, but merely to bring forward a motion on one related matter which is part of the government's program in dealing with this large question.
In view of the nation-wide concern over the increases in the cost of living it is surprising to me that the Prime Minister did not go into the question of the causes. I think the country is disappointed that some statement of this kind was not made by the Prime Minister at this time. He has had long experience in these matters. In 1920 he had no hesitation in telling the country that he knew- all about it, what the causes were and all that sort of thing, and what he would do about it when he was returned to power.
	'
It seems to me that he is strangely silent now, and also strangely silent on other matters relating to government policy.
This resolution, the Prime Minister says, pertains to one of a series of measures which the government has adopted and other measures that the government will bring forward later. Mark that word. The government will bring forward measures later. But the people of the country do not want a committee; they want some kind of action on the part of the government.
What other measure has the government up its sleeve which it will bring forward later? It does not do the people any good to have these measures brought forward later. The Prime Minister says that for obvious reasons some parts of the program could not be disclosed, and then he refers to taxation proposals which he says cannot be disclosed before the budget is brought down.
What a change of attitude has taken place on the part of the government! How selfrighteous they are all of a sudden. Go back to November 1947 and they did not hesitate to disclose and to bring into force by order in council some of the most drastic legislation that has ever been perpetrated on the people of Canada, when parliament was not sitting, by way of the prohibition of imports and also the imposition of the twenty-five per cent excise tax.
If the government have a policy about things they intend to bring forward later, why not bring it into force now? Why not bring in a budget now, so that whatever tax reductions may be given to the people may be had now and not two or three months from now? Why not give some relief at once by reducing the eight per cent sales tax and the twenty-five per cent excise tax?
I recall when the Prime Minister in the election campaign of 1935 went from coast to coast and fairly howled against the sales tax, telling the people at that time what an iniquitous thing it was and what he would do if elected. He would cut the tax-cut it out, I think it was. But what did1 he do? Right after being elected, after getting a majority and coming back, in the budget of 1936 the tax was not cut but was increased from six to eight per cent. I have no confidence in promises of that kind as to what the government will do by reason of something they have up their sleeve.
Promptness is what is wanted in this connection, and now is the time to take action. A reduction in these taxes would have a great effect on the cost of living, and the responsibility is the government's. I would like them now, more especially the Prime Minister, to

Prices Committee
spring into action, although that seems funny language to use about this government. If he really meant what he said in connection with the sales tax in 1935, about the iniquity of the sales tax, and if he meant 'his previous promises to reduce the tax or cut it out, if the promise was not one for election purposes, as he definitely established in the pre-war years, the Prime Minister would have his Minister of Finance bring down a temporary budget, now while the house is in session, and materially reduce the eight per cent sales tax and the twenty-five per cent excise tax. It would be far better to do something like that.
The government imposed' other taxes by order in council when parliament was not sitting, and they could take action now while parliament is sitting. Why should they not bring in something of that kind? It is estimated at the present time that they will have a surplus of between S700 million and $800 million. Well, why not take some of that and give the people a little relief?
Talk about the high cost of living! When you think of it, every man, woman and child in this country pay taxes on the average of $187. Think of it-S187 per capita. That certainly has a lot to do with the cost of living. Take a family of four and multiply that amount four times and see what it comes to.
Another thing that enters into the high cost of living is the taxes caused' by the number of people in the employ of the government, and that should be taken care of.
Let us take an example of the working of the sales -tax. In 1939 the sales tax of eight per cent meant $8 on every $100 worth of goods purchased. These same goods now cost S150 and the tax on these goods is $12-the very same goods that were bought in 1939. That amounts to 12 per cent tax on the same goods bought in 1939. Not only that, but the eight per cent tax pyramids many times on the cost of the necessities of life of the people; it is eight per cent on the labour content of an article all the way from the raw material to the finished product. As a consequence at each stage those engaged in the operations have of necessity to charge more for the wages of their labour.
So there is a pyramiding. Therefore the sales tax cost content of the article now would probably be more like 20 per cent, or an equivalent of about 30 per cent in 1939. Government policy is responsible for a considerable portion of the high cost of living, as can be easily seen through the spiral of tax increases.
Now I come to the words of the Prime Minister as reported at page 745 of Hansard where he said:
In 1919 Sir Thomas White, who if I recollect aright was then minister of finance, introduced a motion for the establishment of a committee on the cost of living. He did so by a motion very similar to the one I am introducing at the present time.
As I said before, he calls that a very similar motion. Let us see what the motion was that was introduced by Sir Thomas White in 1919. These are the words:
That a special committee of the house . . . be appointed for the purpose of inquiring forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel and other necessaries of life ... to report to the house from time to time the result of their inquiry with any recommendations they may make with a view to effecting a reduction in such prices and rentals.
Although the Prime Minister calls his motion very similar to that one, the only similarity that I see is that they are both resolutions. This committee set up in 1919 were not limited in scope; they were not limited to the examination of recent prices. They had a direct, definite function to fulfil. More important, they had a duty to report their recommendations to the house, so that the report with recommendations could be debated in the House of Commons in a democratic way. The committee here have no power and no teeth. They have no power to make recommendations to the wartime prices and trade board, to the combines investigation commission or anyone else. It is true that the individual members of the committee will have the power, and the right I suppose, to go to any of these government bodies and demand some kind of action, but how much that would mean or how much satisfaction they would get I do not know. By the rules of the house and the very nature of the committee, parliament will be prevented from making recommendations or debating matters under discussion before the committee.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) said he hoped that the scope of this committee would be kept within practical limits; otherwise we shall lose the substance by grasping at the shadow. That is exactly what will happen, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister what he means by practical results-no recommendations-inquire into only the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living. I think the minister has plenty of cause to fear, because shadows will be all that will emerge from the committee. Let us go into what will be examined by the committee. The personnel of the committee is, to say the least, not non-
5849-G4
99S
Prices Committee


Mr. MAURICE HARTT (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the hon. member who has just taken his seat will have the strength to recover from his terrific exertions, and that his energy may be restored to him; and I trust he may live for many years to treat us to these intellectual, profound and social questions in a way which is evident b himself, but impossible for us to follow.
Prices Committee


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I would not expect you to follow it.


Maurice Hartt: One at a time, please; I am ready to listen. A week ago today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) brought into the house a motion asking for the appointment of a parliamentary committee to study the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living. In the period of that week we have listened as attentively as patience would allow to a tirade of speeches, about which, were I permitted to criticize,, I would have something to say. However, I am hoping the house will be as generous to me as I try to be to it when I refrain from criticizing both the form and content of those speeches.
I look now at the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I must say he inspires me to say that we did hear a good speech here and there. His was one of them. He knows I am an admirer of his, and he will not be surprised when I extend to him this compliment.
But we heard many examples of circuses. On our side we heard it said that it is not right to ride two horses at the same time-a most profound discovery! Then, on the other side, that it is not proper for two horses to go against each other in opposite directions. Then we listened to the statement attributed to Barnum and Bailey, that you can fool some of the people some of the time. These great sociologists, these great statements about Bamum and Bailey-and I regret the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is not in his seat at the present time to see what a monumental statement he has made, and what a profound contribution he has offered in the debate! We were threatened with sit-down strikes and exclusions, and one gentleman of the cloth got us down to the boogie-woogie basis: "Open the Door Richard"; "You Can Have Her; I Don't Want Her; She's Too Fat For Me". And he might have added "Bungle, bungle, bungle; I don't want to leave the jungle", which perhaps would have been equally appropriate.
We have listened in the hope that these gentlemen would balk themselves out, or that someone would come forward with a definite and complete proposal which could be put into effect. But that did not happen. One can divide the objections into three categories. The official opposition wanted a bigger and better committee, with powers to report and recommend. In the second place, they say that the present government agencies should look into this matter of the high cost of living. Someone suggested that the removal of the sales tax would be a remedy, although the

Financial Post has pointed out how absurd this would be for the national economy of Canada.
And when a bigger and better committee with powers to recommend is suggested, I am free to anticipate, in the same manner as hon. members opposite, what would happen. Not one of them understands the contents of the bill to be brought down. All they have before them is a motion stating that the government wants to appoint a committee to investigate into the causa causans, into the definite and absolute cause for the rising prices.


Mr. FRASER:: What bill is to be brought down?


Maurice Hartt: One at a time; when one starts, others follow.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What bill is to be brought down?


Maurice Hartt: The bill appointing the committee.


Mr. GRAYDON:: There is no bill.


Maurice Hartt: All have been speaking from conjecture and anticipation, and have been circumscribing the limits of the committee to be appointed. They are all guessing into the unknown, and1 are prophetically predicting what the government has in mind. Not one member of the opposition parties can state what the procedure of that committee will be. Yet they criticize it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is there to be a bill? We do not know of any, and I do not think hon. members supporting the government do, either.


Maurice Hartt: When the motion is adopted by the house, as I have no doubt it will be, it will constitute an authority for the government to set up the committee with the powers given to it. That is what I meant.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But there is no bill.


Maurice Hartt: It constitutes a bill; it constitutes a law.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But no bill.


Maurice Hartt: It is my guess that if this committee had been given the right to recommend there would not have been one member in the house who would not have objected' to the government's relinquishing its prerogative as a government, and permitting a committee to recommend policy to the government. The government would then be divesting itself of its constitutional rights and powers, and would say to the committee, "Your recommendations are acceptable." That is exactly what it means.

Prices Committee
Hon. members opposite have insisted upon the committee's recommending rather than reporting to the house. I do not see any difference; there may be a difference, but it is without distinction. I ask any hon. member of this house, if this committee were given the power to recommend, would they renounce their rights to discuss such a recommendation? If not, why do they insist upon it? If they insist upon it, it is only for a dilatory reason. That is one admission I want from them.
The opposition side has emphasized that the government should use the existing agencies, the Combines Investigation Act and the wartime prices and trade board, and in support of their argument they cited the speech made by the present Prime Minister in 1934, when he was leader of the opposition, in connection with the inquiry then proposed. I am not exactly sure of the facts, but I can take a chance and submit this to the house-I am frank in saying this, though it causes an hon. member to cough-the Conservative government abolished the Combines Investigation Act. I am speaking from memory because you can all see that I have not a note before me.


Mr. HANSELL:: Well, well.


Maurice Hartt: "Well, well," is most appropriate from a gentleman of the cloth of the boogie-woogie school. It tunes in nicely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When was it abolished?


Maurice Hartt: By the Conservative government, I believe.


Mr. MARTIN:: They repealed it in 1910.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is entirely wrong.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Who was in power in 1910?
Mr. MACKENZIE IvING: In 1919 a board of commerce was substituted for it.


Maurice Hartt: I am not surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite quote Barnum and Bailey; but they do not need to quote them; all they need to do is to bring in the public; the circus is right here. There is no foundation for my hon. friends' laughter. The Prime Minister has made the statement that the Combines Investigation Act was repealed and a board of commerce substituted therefor.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: In 1919.


Mr. FULTON:: Ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare when it was repealed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said 1910, but I meant to say that the Conservative government had repealed the Combines Investigation Act of 1910 and had substituted for it two other
pieces of legislation, the Board of Commerce Act and a so-called Combines and Fair Prices Act in 1919.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was an improvement.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Did you write the rest of it?


Maurice Hartt: Talking about improvements, a man was found crying one day and, when asked why, he said that his wife had died. They asked him how she died and he said that she died of improvements. The doctor was telling him every day that his wife was improving until finally he found her dead. If the Conservative party goes on improving it will strangle Canada.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The Conservative party by your analogy must be Canada.


Maurice Hartt: My hon. friend has not forgotten the last trip he took with me. The Conservative party, a party with a history- I do not say what kind of history-and with a tradition, or what is left of it, repudiated the Combines Investigation Act, but today they say that we should proceed in this crisis under the Combines Investigation Act, which they had some years ago declared as inadequate and no good.
Much ado has been made of a speech the present Prime Minister made in 1934 when he said that the proper course was to proceed by way of the Combines Investigation Act, and there was a lot of laughter from the other side of the house when that speech was quoted. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister was right when he made that speech in 1934 and was right when he introduced this motion, and I will tell you why. Was my hon. friend talking to himself?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said he is on both sides of the fence as usual.


Maurice Hartt: To judge from the hon. gentleman's hair, he should be a good Liberal.
The price spreads committee of 1934 was instigated by the Hon. H. H. Stevens, a gentleman very fond of sensation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


Maurice Hartt: Oh, we remember 1925 and 1926 when Mr. Stevens, later minister of trade and commerce in the Bennett cabinet, one who shared ministerial responsiblity and was supposed to speak for the government of Canada, made certain charges on the floor of this house against the then minister of customs, Mr. Boivin, in regard to prices which caused a split between him and Mr. Bennett, with the result that the destruction party,-or was it the reconstruction party?

was formed.

Prices Committee
When the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, said that the investigation should be conducted under the Combines Investigation Act, he was right, because a minister of the crown had made definite and categorical charges. Mr. Stevens said:	This
is what is actually happening; and he indicated where it happened and who was responsible. He made specific charges and asked for a committee of inquiry. But today the story is entirely different. No one on the floor of this house has made a definite charge as to where the misfortune, the difficulty, the ill, the trouble lies. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), whom I respect for his reasonableness and fairness, will confirm my statement that the Combines Investigation Act was meant to be an investigating agency of the government, to be applied with respect to a specific commodity in regard to which there is an artificial combine between producers and distributors to raise or lower prices artificially. But when a situation arises affecting the whole national economy, when a price rise takes place from Vancouver to Halifax, though to a much less extent than the rise amongst our neighbours to the south, we say that we are going to ascertain the primary cause of that rise and, when found, parliament will apply the remedy. The Prime Minister consequently is right this time just as he was right in 1034.
The Progressive Conservative party suggest no remedy whatsoever. The leader of the official opposition discussed the removal of the sales tax and the hon. member for Lake Centre followed and repeated the same remedy. The Financial Post came out and completely refuted the statement that removal of the sales tax would be the remedy. It would help the manufacturers; it would help the distributors. They would absorb it into their profits but the consumers would get no benefit from it. So much for my hon. friends of the Conservative party. I now come to the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Maurice Hartt: The hon. member does not need to say that; we know he is here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


Maurice Hartt: And you are here because you are here. There is no other reason. You have heard that ditty, "We're here because we're here." The C.C.F. party has developed the " Gimmes." It is gimme, gimme, gimme. They treat the Canadian people as if they were a bunch of mollycoddles. Well, this is a

nation of pioneers. They want to be on the giving side and not on the taking side. "Give me controls; give me subsidies; reduce taxes; gimme."


Mr. CAMPBELL:: All we ask for is a square deal.


Maurice Hartt: If my hon. friend takes it from the measurement of his person, it is quite square; but this government does not legislate for classes. This is a government that legislates for the nation.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Since when?


Maurice Hartt: Since the hon. gentleman has learned to read, since the hon. gentleman has learned to walk, the Liberal party has governed and legislated for Canada and not for groups.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Never.


Maurice Hartt: And incidentally, we do not usually speak of classes, and we are not looking for that publicity like a flash in the frying pan.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Hartt: It is all right to go back to the electorate and say, "We asked the government to give." Back-seat driving is the easiest thing in the world. Get behind the wheel and see what you can do.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: We will.


Maurice Hartt: You got to the wheel in
England and, good heavens, that little island is melting away as if it had never existed; so much so that Attlee, Bevin and Morrison have come out lately and said to the workers what no capitalist employer would dare say. Mr. Attlee said: "You must work more hours; more production and more work, if you do not want to face starvation and bankruptcy." You would not dare repeat that on the floor here, although you turn around and say, " Look what we are doing for the people."
Speaking is the cheapest form of obtaining votes, but it is not a fundamental principle. My hon. friends say, " We want controls." Speaker after speaker of the C,C.F. has risen in his place and said, "Give us controls and subsidies; give us; give us." I would ask any one of the hon. members, at what point shall the controls start? Where shall they begin and where shall they end? To whom shall subsidies be given at this juncture of our economy? It is all right to say, "Give us controls." If I thought that was the remedy, I would ask for the same thing.
What does the Prime Minister require from this committee? If controls are the remedy, we shall give controls. If controls are necessary



194S

[Stage Direction]
Prices Committee
we shall impose them; but where? Shall they be imposed on the farmer who has raised the price of his produce 200 per cent above the 1939 level? Shall it be given to him? Shall a control be imposed on the food producers whose costs have gone up 200 per cent?
Mr. ARGUE:: The farmer is already controlled in the price of everything he sells today.


Maurice Hartt: These things are not fundamental-	,


Hazen Robert Argue: Come on out in the country .and say that.


Maurice Hartt: I hear speeches about the
poor farmers; the next thing we are going to do for the farmer is to chew the food and put it into his mouth. Don't tell me-


Mr. McMASTER:: Liberal policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) think -of that?


Mr. MacNICOL:: He shakes his head.


Maurice Hartt: I hope the time taken up ini cross-fire by the hon. gentlemen will not be counted on my time. If you take any chart, and if you are objectively sincere in your statement, you will find that the cost of food, judged on 1939 levels, has risen 200 per cent. I have a chart which was published in the New York Times last Sunday which I am willing to produce and deposit with the house, and let any hon. member refute that statement. If you are thinking of your constituency, perhaps you will be able to get a few more farmer votes. Then, go ahead and do it, but the truth must be faced. I represent .an urban constituency, and if we have to pay seventy-one cents a pound for butter it is because in this house you are hollered down, you are told you must not speak about the farmer. Well, now, somebody has to tell the farmer that we know what we are paying today. Industrials have gone up 162 per cent, according to the Nejv York Times; but if we are given controls, shall the controls be imposed today at the present levels? Would the C.C.F. suggest that? Would they impose subsidies? Would they offer subsidies to the farmers whose products have risen 200 per cent? Apparently that is not practical; that is not acceptable; that is not desirable; and from what we have seen of what has happened in England and from what we have seen happen in Soviet Russia, controls and subsidies are the shortest way to bankruptcy.
If Prime Minister Attlee had to come out and say, "We need1 more production, we want
our workers not to ask for a higher increase in wages-" and) these are the words of Attlee. If Bevin had to use the same language, if Sir Stafford Cripps had to ask for it, what would happen to the economy of Canada; if the C.C.F. were in power here? They would have to impose the same conditions. England is today spending one billion and a half in subsidies, and they do not know how to get rid of them. Consequently I do not see that the suggestion is practical. I read in a letter published in the Citizen that milk is as expensive in Scotland as it is in Canada. It is selling at about fourteen cents a quart over there, and I am willing to produce that letter from a visitor to England to that effect. Therefore, when you insist that the Canadian people be given subsidies and that controls be put on the economy of the country you are misleading yourself and you are misleading the people of Canada.
Alternately you say, "We produced an amendment and if you do not accept our amendment we may go on strike." I think hon. gentlemen are much too public-minded to make statements of that kind. They know their obligation to the country, and if this government is wrong in presenting any kind of remedy it is best for hon. gentlemen who are on the committee to fight from inside and remedy the conditions, but not threaten to go on strike. As a matter of fact, I do not think they will go on strike. Personally I think they will be vocal inside and outside of parliament so that their electors will read what action they have taken.
The Social Credit party object to the word "recently" in the motion. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the word "recently" is appropriate, as you will see, and I recommend the financial chart of the New York Times to hon. members, which indicates definitely that the cost of living has risen sharply since 1946, not only in Canada but in the United States'. The same thing applies to England and1 to the other countries. If it has risen since 1946 and we are now in the first months of 1948 it has risen recently, I submit to the leader of the third opposition party. Hon. gentlemen know what happened in this world cataclysm from which we have just emerged and the general economic dislocation which has taken place.
When the Prime Minister, speaking in this house, said that conditions have developed beyond the control of Canada, a roar of laughter went up from the Conservatives. What would actually have happened if Canada had been an airtight compartment administering its own economy, and having
Prices Committee

complete control, without relationship to other nations? Would the cost of living have been as successfully coped with as it has been until now? The demand for commodities by other countries, whether or not they are able to pay, the necessity for these commodities, has produced a world situation which has confounded the economy of Canada, and if we are honest with ourselves we shall find that the cost of living in Canada has risen less than in any other country.
There is no country that can equal Canada in the administration of the Canadian government. Of course we all want to better conditions in Canada. I do not suspect that any hon. member had not the finest motives in speaking on the motion. But we must realize the facts that face us in the conditions under which we live. If it had been a Canadian question entirely, and one could say that there was a difference in the selling price as between commodities, a difference in operations, in cost of production, and that some middleman or some combine had caused this difference, the situation would not be the same. But it is not solely a Canadian situation. Yet this government had the courage; this government, which managed the country during the worst years that we have passed through, had the courage to come forward and say, "We will appoint a committee and if there is any remedy"-they did not say it would not be applied-"whether it is the sales tax, or the Combines Investigation Act, or the wartime prices and trade board, or controls, or whether it is subsidies, we will apply it."
There is nothing before this house so contentious that it should have taken a whole week of discussion. I appreciate the generosity of the leader of this house, the generosity of the Speaker in allowing everyone to wander wherever he wanted. Hon. members could speak about every subject they desired. That was tolerated and accepted. They tried one's patience sometimes, but it was acceptable. I repeat, however, that there is nothing so contentious in the motion as to require such a lengthy discussion. If the report of the committee is not acceptable to the house we shall have ample time to discuss the remedies that are to be applied. But it is this government that first introduced controls and subsidies. It was not any other group that did it. We did it successfully when it was necessary, and this government will cariy on and see that the cost of living is compatible with the earning conditions of the worker in Canada.


Mr. D. S. II ARK NESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. 
Hartt) seems a bit confused as to what the motion is for. He appears to think it is preparatory to introducing a bill or something of that kind. However, he is no more confused in regard to this issue than he appears to be in connection with any other question which he attempted to discuss. The only thing he seems to be certain about is Barnum and Bailey and I suggest that he join that organization. I am sure they would furnish an appropriate setting for his talents.


Maurice Hartt: I will go there to see my *hon. friend.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Speaking to the motion, I should like to make some comments on the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on Tuesday last. Such comment is particularly applicable, because I believe the whole tenor of 'his speech is typical of the attitude the government is taking on this motion to set up a committee to study prices. The general effect of the minister's speech was to misinterpret what has happened and thus mislead the house and the country. The minister attempted to prove that farmers and farm organizations are well satisfied with the agricultural policies which he has followed and with the food contracts into which he has entered. To prove his case he read a letter from the Canadian poultry council expressing satisfaction with the new egg contract with Great Britain. Later, some doubt was cast on how far that council represented the poultry growers, but in any event the production of eggs is not one of the major agricultural activities of this country, not that it is not important.
This was followed by a resolution passed at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting in Brockville some ten days ago. If anyone reads this resolution I think he will admit that it does nothing to 'help the minister's case. This was followed again by another resolution in connection with livestock, a resolution which is definitely condemnatory of the government and its policies. Why the minister thought it was the reverse I do not know; I presume it was wishful thinking on his part. I should like to read this resolution, which is reported at page 803 of Hansard:
Whereas during the past year there has been a serious decline in hog production and in cattle slaughterings, which if not checked, may result in an actual shortage of supplies of meat on the domestic market. . .
If there is anything favourable to the government in that statement I do not know what it is.	.
And whereas the embargo against the shipment of livestock to the United States has acted as a most effective price control on livestock and livestock products;

Prices Committee
Resolved that this meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture strongly protest the reimposition of further price controls on livestock and livestock products, unless these are accompanied by a policy of over-all control of prices of those goods and services which constitute the farmers' production costs.
The minister tried to make it appear that that resolution approves the policies he has been carrying into effect. I submit that everything in it is a condemnation of what the minister has been doing.
The minister next attempted to show that the beef producers were in accord with his policies and ideas. Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. He went into a long rigmarole and tried to confuse the issue, but the telegram he read from the National Council of Canadian Beef Producers is a condemnation of his policy, if anything is. This is the telegram:
Resolved that this council go on record as approving the restoration of the right to private export of cattle and to all the benefits accruing therefrom.
This resolution is interesting, because the question arose at Lethbridge on the day following the meeting which the Minister of Agriculture had with the beef men of Alberta. I should like to read a few extracts from the newspaper account of that meeting to indicate what the livestock men really think of the minister's policies and so forth. This is headed:
Cattlemen applaud secession threat.
Stockmen wiring gov't to restore private export.
Minister of Agriculture gets some boos after chiding westerners at Lethbridge.
This is from the Calgary Herald of January 16. The report then goes on:
A request that western Canadian cattle producers join with him in demanding that the west secede from the east if the dominion government persists in its decision to keep the United States market closed to Canadian commercial cattle, was made by George Ross, of Aden, when he addressed the Friday morning session of the western stock growers association.
Mr. Ross, who is chairman of the western section of the council of Canadian beef producers, was speaking to a resolution which asked that delegates go on record as asking for "restoration of private export of cattle and participation in all benefits accruing therefrom."
In other words, this is the very resolution which the minister read into the record, attempting to show that it was favourable to him and his policies. The report goes on:
Mr. Ross said that he was cognizant of the seriousness of the statement which he had made but he felt that the situation was such that drastic measures were required.
His threat of secession was received with loud applause.
Mr. Ross has led the fight for restoration of the United States market over a period of years.
The speakers who followed were unanimous in support of the resolution-
That is this resolution which the minister read the other day.

although a few of them said that further representations to the government appeared useless in face of the definite stand made by the Right Hon. James G. Gardiner Thursday night that there was no possibility of the market being reopened for the present.
I do not think there is much use in my reading any more of these extracts.


Maurice Hartt: That is enough.
Mr. HARIvNESS: I have one other here:
The cattlemen sat in grim silence as the minister outlined in detail the government's agricultural policy as it related to the beef industry . . .


Maurice Hartt: That is enough.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the kind of thing that happened there. The livestock men who were there were definitely opposed to the government. Yet the Minister of Agriculture comes into this house and reads a resolution they pass and tries to make it appear that they approved his policy. The situation is really rather a ridiculous one.
In addition to trying to make actually one of the most violent protests against his policy appear as a stand in favour of it, the minister totally disregarded the numerous resolutions he has had from influential farm bodies condemning his policies and asking for a change. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) and I put on the record before Christmas the stand of the Alberta Farmers' Union in connection with this government's agricultural policies. Perhaps the minister has forgotten what the stand of that body was, and I should like to refresh his memory in connection with it. This is the convention program of the Alberta Farmers' Union held on December 1 to 5, 1947. It is filled with resolutions condemning this government's policies. I will take up the time of the house to read only parts of one or two. The most important one is probably that in which they decided to hold a nondelivery strike if the government did not meet certain demands. Here is the resolution:
Whereas the increased cost of production of grain caused by higher prices of machinery, higher wages, gas, higher overhead, etc.; and
Whereas the withholding of the final payment on wheat until 1959, works a hardship on the farmer in financing current operations; and
Whereas the wheat contract between Canada and Great Britain previously at $1.55, now $2 per bushel, is a farmer subsidized price, and
Whereas the farmers are also subsidizing domestic consumption; and
Prices Committee

Whereas the farmers should not be asked to subsidize government agreements; and
Whereas price controls have been removed which under present marketing conditions will discourage the production of wheat.
What is that except condemnation in strong terms of the government's agricultural policy by the largest farm body in Alberta, which is fairly representative of what the farmers are thinking. The resolution goes on as follows:
Therefore be it resolved, we recommend, that our board of directors take the necessary steps to call a strike in 1948 unless the following demands are met namely,
1.	Initial price on wheat to be raised to $2 a bushel basis Fort William and Vancouver.
2.	The final payment on participation certificates to be made at the end of each year's operations, and the participation payments for the crop years 1945-46 to be made immediately.
3.	That if the dominion government wishes to sell cheap grain to domestic market or the international field, pending the setting up of the factfinding board and the establishment of parity price, that they subsidize from the dominion treasury, the difference in price between the British wheat agreement and the price paid on the export market.
4.	That the Canadian farmers should be paid the market price on domestic sale of wheat and any necessary subsidy paid by the dominion government.
From that I would say that the farmers are so well satisfied with the present policies of the government that they threaten to strike if these are continued. That is how well satisfied they are. Here is another resolution. Without going into all the "whereases", it is as follows:
Be it resolved that we ask the dominion government to immediately lift the embargo on the shipment of livestock to the United States.
Here is another one with reference to the dominion government's coarse grain policy, which reads in part as follows:
Further be it resolved that this A.F.U. convention severely reprimand the dominion government for this type of decontrol, which allows speculators to make an enormous profit at the expense of the producers. This type of decontrol will not be condoned by this convention.
And so on. So much for the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture made to try to have it appear that the farmers were in favour of his policies. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker,
I would say that the minister's speech was a bare-faced attempt to make black' appear as white, and as such was completely misleading. Perhaps he was only talking for the benefit of some Liberal party members who do not know the situation, in an effort to build himself up for the leadership of his party at the coming convention. I do not know of any other good reason he might have had. Certainly any of the persons who know the situa-

tion would put little stock in what he says. The speech which the minister made is deluding the people who believe him, and also himself; that is particularly true in regard to the statement, which appears at page 806 of Hansard, that the farmers' chief concern is that the Liberal government remain in power, to keep them in a favourable position. I think anyone who is in contact with the farmers at the present time knows that probably the last thing that is concerning them is keeping the Liberal party in power. It is certainly far from their chief concern.
I have always known that the minister was a man with plenty of nerve; but I did not think, particularly after his Lethbridge meeting, that he would have the nerve to make a statement such as that.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has lots of nerve.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to tell the minister that, as a matter of fact, not ten per cent of the farmers of Alberta would vote for his government and his policies today.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Or in the other provinces either.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A number of former Liberals have told me that. For example, I was talking to a farmer just a few days before I came to Ottawa, and he was full of complaints. He said, "You know, I worked for your Liberal opponent in the last election, and I have voted Liberal all my life; I have worked in nearly every election in the Liberal campaign. But now I am through. I will never cast another Liberal vote." That is the attitude of a large number of former supporters of this government amongst the farmers of the west.
The minister's efforts to misrepresent what the leader of this party said in this debate and at other times are on a par with his statements in regard to the farmers' ideas on his agricultural policies. The same line of misrepresentation, or perhaps what we might call devious argument, has been followed by other government ministers; for example, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) in his attempt to ridicule our leader's call for a reduction in the sales tax, when he tried to put over the idea that what the leader of the opposition wanted was a reduction in the sales tax on liquor and tobacco. I believe that was an unworthy effort on the right hon. gentleman's part, and that the country will think considerably the less of him because of it.
Then again, the minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) stated that the leader of the opposition and this party had advocated the abolition

Prices Committee
of all controls. When asked to say when and where he said, "Let us be frank and honest about it." I would say that he is the first one who should take his own advice. Let me tell him now that, to my knowledge, this party and its leader have never advocated the abolitio'n of all controls. Some individual members of our party have done so, certainly, but what this party advocated, and what it did pass a resolution about at an annual meeting some two years ago, was "the immediate abolition of all controls on the products of the farm and ranch". That is quite different from the abolition of all controls. If the government had taken that course in their decontrol policy I believe'the whole country would be much better off at the present time. Instead, however, they did just the opposite, and took off practically all controls except those on prices of agricultural products. A great many of our present difficulties have been the result.
Most of the outcry about the rapid increase in living costs has been over the rise in food prices. I suppose this is only natural, because we all have to think of our stomachs and what goes into them at least three times a day. I fear that a considerable number of urban workers blame the high food prices on the greed of the farmers and think that at the present time the farmers are getting too much, without knowing the true situation. It is noteworthy that no one in this house, to my knowledge, and no business or labour leader throughout the country has maintained that the farmer is getting too much. The fact, known to all well-informed persons, is that the farmers are not getting their fair proportion of the national income. If, then, we accept, as I think we must, the fact that the farmer is not getting enough, it follows that prices for farm products are too low rather than too high in comparison with farm costs. Where, then, is the remedy? I believe it is in the bringing down of farm costs, and in lessening the spread between the price the farmer receives and the price the consumer pays.
Farm costs can be brought down in several ways. The first is by increasing production; but the policies of this government have been such as to reduce production rather than to increase it. Farmers have not known where they stand or what the situation is likely to be in the future. They have been at the mercy, as far as prices are concerned, of the Minister of Agriculture and the whims and fancies of this government and its so-called expert advisers. As a result, they have been afraid of the future, afraid to expand their production in many lines. Let me give an example. I happen to be raising some hogs, and have 5849-65J
determined that I can raise five hundred for considerably less per hog than I can raise fifty, and I am taking means to obtain that number. At the same time nearly all my neighbours have been liquidating their hogs. They say to me, "You are taking a terrible gamble. The way Gardiner has been fiddling around with prices of livestock and coarse grains, I would not touch a proposition like yours with a ten-foot pole." That is just an example which illustrates quite well, I think, the lack of confidence that prevails among our farmers at the present time, and, as a result, their unwillingness to plan for increased production. I may add that I am going ahead because, unlike the man whose letter the minister read just before Christmas, and who said he had confidence in God and Gardiner, I have confidence that God and the Canadian people will not permit the Liberal government to continue to mangle agriculture and the whole Canadian economy very much longer.
Another way in which farm costs can be brought down is by the reduction or abolition of the sales tax and1 other indirect taxes on the things farmers must buy in order to produce. If a farmer buys a truck today several hundred dollars of the cost is due to indirect taxes and the mark-up of these taxes which causes them to pyramid1. That money, must, of course, be recovered from the consumer through increased prices. If such farm costs were eliminated farm products could be sold at lower prices and still leave the farmer better off than he is at the present time. Similarly, a reduction in indirect taxes would lessen the spread between the farmers' price and the consumers' price.
These remedies are open to the government now. No committee is required to examine into them and1 take up several months while nothing is done. If the government wishes to bring down food prices let it put into operation policies which will restore the confidence of the farmers and thus increase production. Let it remove or reduce some of the indirect taxes and thus reduce farmers' cost and price spreads. Let it prosecute profiteers, if it can find any. Surely, with all the resources of men and1 machinery in the various government departments and1 agencies, and with the mounted police, they can uncover profiteering much better than a committee of this house. The government already has the power to do this, and to take the necessary punitive measures.
There is one other step the government could take as a temporary measure to relieve immediate hardship. That is, to pay subsidies, on a limited number of essential foods, to
Prices Committee

pensioners and' low income workers. During the pre-Christmas session I suggested that this could be done at practically no administrative cost, in the case of milk for children, by including with the monthly family allowance cheque milk tickets, worth five cents each, for each child for every day in the month. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) pointed out that the same system could1 be used for bread and meat. It could also be used for pensioners, by enclosing the tickets with their monthly cheques. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) tried) to ridicule the idea of a milk subsidy toy saying we would) be subsidizing restaurants, people with high incomes, and so forth. But a scheme such as I have mentioned would not subsidize restaurants or any other institutions, or persons with higher incomes, because the amount paid out to them could be collected together with the income tax.
I want to make it clear that I advocate these subsidies only as a temporary expedient to relieve immediate hardship. I do not believe in the general principle of subsidies. In most cases the administrative cost is high and must be paid in higher taxes, so that in the end the goods cost more to the people as a whole than they would otherwise. However, prices are too high for our pensioners, whether they are veterans, old age pensioners or others, and for our lower income workers. Why, then, does the government not take steps; why has it not already taken the steps open to it, to reduce these prices? In my opinion, it has been a case of bad policies, badly mismanaged. The government now seeks to cast the responsibility for its failure on a committee of this house.
There is one thing I am glad the government has done; it has rejected the policy advocated by the C.CJ?., of a general reimposition of price controls. Such a policy is absolutely unsound, I think, for one outstanding reason. It would cut down production, and only by increasing production can prices be brought down in the long run. I should like to say to the C.C.P. and all others who advocate the reimposition of general price controls that you can bring down prices in that way, by law, but you cannot secure production, particularly as far as the farmer is concerned. The only way people will produce is for a profit; that is a truth which should be self-apparent. The only way they would produce otherwise would be under a system of slavery such as one finds under fascism or communism. I believe all will agree that such a system has no place in Canada.

Therefore it seems to me that the advocacy of a system of price control is one which is working against the best interests of this country and of the world as a whole. There is a world shortage of foods; everyone recognizes that. The advocating of a poliey which would increase that shortage is, in my opinion, very closely approaching the criminal.
I have dealt chiefly with agricultural matters and food, because the great clamour is over food prices. However, my remarks are equally applicable to other fields of production, particularly of primary products. I believe the general application of the principles and remedies I have indicated would go far to bring down prices and put our economy on a more sound footing.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate because I consider it is one of the most serious issues which ever faced the Canadian people, and one which should have the serious consideration of all members of the house. I resent the fact that this resolution to set up a committee is placed before us, when through the latest Gallup poll the people of this country demanded action. So far as I am concerned, the resolution brought in by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is nothing short of a smoke screen, as has been pointed out by various members of this group. In my view, anything short of immediate and definite action on the part of the government to prevent the rise in the cost of living would be insufficient at this time.
It seems to me that during the debate many hon. members who, on previous occasions, lent their voices to the government's throwing controls out the window are now taking a different attitude. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has said that his party, as a party, does not believe in complete decontrol. I do not wish to spend much time in refuting what he said; but during the last few years I have listened attentively to addresses by hon. members in his group; and if they do not stand for decontrol, then I wish their leader would come out on behalf of their party and make a speech which would make it unmistakably clear as to the intent of their party in regard to price controls.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) is reported in Hansard for Monday, February 3, 1947, as follows:
The situation is of course further complicated by decontrol in the United States. The lifting of controls there has further complicated the problem of the business community here in various ways and contributed to the situation whereby we have the anomaly of high employ-

nient and scarcity of many necessities. All the indications are that delay from now on in Removing controls will cause constantly increasing difficulties.
And then I quote again from Hansard for April 18, 1947, where the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) states:
The point in my mind here is that the administration of controls, the enforcement of controls, inevitably involves the cutting down of democratic freedom, the lessening of political democracy, in my submission, as well as economic democracy.
And he goes on, speaking of controls:
Indeed it seems to me that at the moment the trouble with the control policy of the government. or the stage at which it has arrived, is that it is only half a plan. It is half control and half decontrol and neither half is working That is why we say the sooner you get rid ot it, the better.
And even the financial critic of the official opposition (Mr. Macdonnell), speaking on the budget, had this to say on May 6, 1947, as reported in Hansard:
At the moment it is particularly unfortunate *that we here who believe in removing controls, and I am one of those, at the present time are at a most unsatisfactory moment, as you might say, from the point of view of the people pi the class of which I am speaking. We are in a period when there is bound to be a certain shaking out of prices, a certain inequality.
Due to the pressure of hon. members to my right, and the people for whom they speak, we have got just what they asked for.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. FLEMING REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN OTTAWA &quot;CITIZEN OF FEBRUARY 9

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In this afternoon's edition of the Ottawa Citizen, on the front page appears an article headed "Government price body ready for work." The article is written by Frank Swanson, Citizen parliamentary writer, and I should like to quote the first several paragraphs of the article. It says:
The sixteen-man parliamentary committee on prices which has been the storm centre of debate in the commons for a week will get down to business tonight or Tuesday, it was indicated in government circles today.
It is understood that meat, bread and milk will form the subject of early hearings which will likely run on an ambitious five-days-a-week, three-sittings-a-day basis.	.
First meeting of the committee will be given over to the appointment of two counsels-one
Privilege-Mr. Fleming
English-speaking and one French-as well as election of committee chairman, vice-chairman, secretary and accountants.
Health and Welfare Minister Paul Martin, only cabinet nominee on the body, will head the group, it is understood. Vice-chairman will likely be one of the four parliamentary assistants' which the government has nominated to the committee. Probably Ralph Maybank.
In spite of their unhappiness about the liar-row scope of the body, it is understood that members of all opposition parties named by the government to sit on the body will attend sittings of the committee.
An interim progress report likely will be made by committeemen at the end of the first month s sittings No final report will be forthcoming until toward the end of the present session ot the house, sometime around July.	.,
First witnesses to appear before the committee will be K. W. Taylor, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board and 1 .	[DOT]
\fpfirpp-or-
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The
article is based on pure newspaper speculation, and the hon. member should not read any further but state his question of privilege.


Mr. FLEMING:: I point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is an article appearing in a reputable journal, written by a responsible member of the Press Gallery and attributing statements to government circles. What it means is this, that before this committee is even appointed, before the house has even reached a decision on the matter-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The
article is speculating on what may happen. I do not think there is any question of privilege at this time. If the hon. member would like to direct a question to a minister at some later time he may do so, but I do not see any question of privilege at the moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This report is not merely conjecture as to what may happen but states what will happen. Some of the statements are qualified by the word "likely , but others are firm statements of what is to be done. That being so, I contend it is a breach of the privilege of this house, that statements should emanate from government circles before even the committee is appointed, as to what it is to do, who the witnesses are to be, and when the committee is to report. It means that the members of the committee become mere puppets.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat. The article I have listened to is merely speculation on the part of a newspaper man as to what might take place in the committee. It contains no statement from any member of the government as to what will take place. I call on the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough).

Prices Committee



APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO PRICE INCREASES AND MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King that a select committee be appointed to examine and report on the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living, and matters pertaining thereto.
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I was discussing the motion of the Prime Minister to set up a parliamentary committee to investigate the high cost of living in this country. I do not intend to repeat what I said before six o'clock. I feel that the problem facing this country today is one which cuts across all political lines, and that it is so urgent it is of the utmost importance that the government take action now. I feel that a motion to set up a parliamentary committee merely to go into the reasons for the high cost of living is simply sidestepping the issue with which the government is faced. No issue could have aroused the Canadian people from coast to coast more than they have been aroused by the government's going back on its price control policy. I intend to quote later on from statements made by the Prime Minister himself on government policy. Today the rising cost of living has made it impossible for many of our people to make ends meet. Petitions and letters are coming to my desk every day from all kinds of organizations and individuals urging us to induce the government to reimpose price controls and arrest the rising cost of living. If nothing is done to halt that rise it will finally result in many people being thrown out of jobs, general unemployment, and we shall go into a tailspin and have a deflationary period in this country which will cause widespread unemployment and distress to all our people. Therefore this is no time to ask us to assist the government in setting up a parliamentary committee merely to inquire into the reasons for the high cost of living.
It has been amply proven, according to the Prime Minister's own statement, that the terms of reference and the powers of the committee are such that it can serve no useful purpose in the emergency facing us. The committee will be tied to the apron-strings of the Prime Minister and when it approaches dangerous ground and starts investigating embarrassing things which may require gDvern-
ment action the Prime Minister will start pulling the strings so that the committee will get off that dangerous ground.
As I have said, I have received petitions and requests from organizations across this country representing every cross-section of our Canadian life-consumer organizations, church organizations, veterans' organizations, and just let me say here that the veterans are one class of our people who are perhaps being mistreated to a greater degree than any other class. I do not forget for one moment the promises made by the government prior to the 1945 election that when the veteran came back he would have a home and a job and would not be any worse off than if he had stayed in Canada during the war. Yet, despite the urgent need for housing today we find that many veterans are not able to use their savings to buy a house because of the high cost. The government should, in my opinion, not hesitate for one moment to take action either to increase the veterans grant or make it possible for him to have a home by reducing the cost of living in this country.
We know that during the war the government urged the Canadian people to stop buying unnecessary goods so that they would have some money with which to buy things when goods became more plentiful after the war. Right after the war again we see, particularly in regard to the veteran, the cost of furniture, the cost of housing and the cost of everything which he needs to make a home for himself rising to such an extent that he finds it impossible to rehabilitate himself. Rather than set up this committee I would particularly ask the government to take action and increase the grants to our veterans who arp undertaking vocational training. That is a group for whom I have great regard. I would urge the government to increase the assistance so that they may continue their vocational training. According to the Ottawa newspapers, there is some indication that some veterans in this city are already giving up their vocational training simply because the grant allowed them at the present time is not sufficient to enable them to continue their studies. If, instead of taking action at this time, we set up a committee in the hope that one or two years hence conditions in regard to price levels in this country will be entirely different I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the kind of action the veterans want now.
I should like to refer to labour unions. I have received1 recommendations from various labour organizations across the country asking that I do whatever I can to have the govern-

Prices Committee
ment reimpose price controls and roll back the cost of living. I hold one of these representations in my hand1. It comes from the Canadian Congress of Labour, which speaks for 360,000 workers across this country.
I shall read one paragraph from a letter of December 12:
For many months now, our organization has been repeatedly urging the government to take action to cheek increasing living costs and protect the living standards. Our representations have been completely ignored and the government has continued a reckless policy of wiping out controls and subsidies, and wiping out with them the hopes which Canadians have had for a better standard of living. As Canadians our membership is convinced that we are entitled to a better standard of living, and that such a standard is quite within the realms of possibility.
This letter goes on, to ask the government to follow this program; first, the reimposition of price controls; second, the reimposition of excess profits tax; third, the removal of the new excise taxes on Canadian goods, and fourth, raising the income tax exemption.
I should like to refer to farm organizations. I do not believe there is a single hon. member who has not received representations from farm organizations asking for the rolling back of prices and the reimposition of price controls. They are not asking for a committee of this house to investigate costs. They believe, as I do today, that the government have all the facts necessary to take action on this matter. I would say, together with representations that have been made to us, that if the government thought there was a need for such a committee to cope with price controls, that committee should have been set up in 1945, at the end of the war. We should not have had to wait until we are in a state of inflation in this country, and then, in order to turn the heat off the government, a committee is set up. The present, policy of throwing all controls out the window is absolutely contrary to the policy, even of the present government. They must have listened to my hon. friend to the right, to the Trestrails, and to the Gladstone Murrays on the outside, or they surely would not have undertaken such a policy as we see today. I am glad that there are some hon. members on the opposite benches who have the courage to rise in their places and give expression to their views. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Spad'ina (Mr. Croll). He showed great courage the other day when he rose in his place and advocated something being done in the way of reimposition of controls rather than the setting up of a committee.
I should like to read from the government's policy on price and wage control in the transitional period, as contained in a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada at Ottawa on January 31, 1946. It reads as follows:
The government refused to accept the view that serious inflation and economic disorder were inevitable consequences of war. Our country may justly claim to have pioneered in the field of anti-inflation control. Because the people of Canada have wholeheartedly supported this stabilization program . . .
I might say to the Prime Minister that in this country we have a type of democracy, sometimes not recognized, which between elections permits the people in various ways to show the government the things which they want. I think the Gallup poll is an indication of what the people want and perhaps a true representation of the feeling across the country. In the last Gallup poll we find that fully seventy-six per cent of the people are in favour of rolling back prices and the reimposition of controls. When we find that, I think that is a democratic way of the people indicating to the government their wishes. Therefore I say to the Prime Minister the people want and are asking for price controls so that their standard of living may be maintained and safeguarded.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
The need has not yet passed for emergency measures to avert the threat of inflation and dislocation. Shortages both at home and abroad are still widespread and acute.
We have evidence, sir, that that situation exists today. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who said the other day it is quite clear that the causes of the present inflation in this country are shortages of goods and large consumer demand which cannot be met by present production.
In his statement the Prime Minister continued:
The steps, which, concern both price and wage control, have been thoroughly considered. They represent no weakening in the government's intention of preventing inflation.
Later on he said:
It was principally concerned with breaking bottlenecks which tended to restrict supplies and with preventing and discouraging speculation.
I want to say to the Prime Minister and to the cabinet particularly, today we have speculation, and that is the reason for the rising cost of living in this country. I am quoting extensively from the Prime Minister's statement, because this was the government's policy in 1946 and, of course, it is the policy
Prices Committee

which they promised to continue in the postwar period to prevent unnecessary inflation. I continue to quote from the Prime Minister:
The government has acted as promptly as was feasible in removing controls. It has sought, however, to avoid the obvious dangers of hasty and ill-considered removal of regulations still urgently needed. The process of adjustment will continue until all emergency controls are dispensed with.
Later on he said:
_ Nevertheless we still face conditions of possible inflation which, if not controlled, would unquestionably lead to startling increases in costs and prices, and in the general cost of living.
Then later:
The disaster of soaring prices and living costs must be prevented not only because of the injustices and suffering that would result therefrom but because it would arrest progress toward a healthy peacetime economy. Inflation would lay the basis for a severe depression.
I am quite sure today that the ramifications of the decontrol policy of the government has done just that. It has set the basis for a depression in this country and, affected by the psychological fear which is apparent across the country, the people are afraid of what the future holds for them. That danger is still here and this government should take immediate action to do something about it.


John Lambert Gibson: What would you fellows have to talk about if you didn't have inflation and depression?


William Irvine: You.


Edward George McCullough: To
quote further from the Prime Minister's statement:
Nothing would restrict a lasting increase in production and employment more than a sharp rise in prices which would cut demand down to the present restricted level of supply.
Therefore the Prime Minister himself has seen the danger that would result from the decontrol policy if it were brought about before we had adequate supplies to meet the pent-up demand in the country. At the end of the statement, speaking about the decontrol policy, he says that its purpose is to protect the value of wages and wartime savings. I say that had this government gone out and stolen money from the pockets of the people, of the veterans who had saved a few dollars for rehabilitation, or if they had appropriated it and put it into the hands of big business interests, they could not have done it more effectively than they did by allowing the speculative element to enter into the situation as we see it today.
Before the dinner recess the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Hartt), speaking on this resolu-
tion, asked whether we of this group would favour farmers' prices being under control. I understand he is an urban dweller and therefore he may not appreciate the fact that farmers' prices are under control. Almost every farm commodity is under control. However. I speak as a western farmer; I speak for those in my own constituency and for other farmers of the west who see the picture as I see it, and I say that I do not think the western farmer should be asked to be the anchor of our Canadian economy, at his expense. And that is what we saw during the war.
The western farmer is a pretty easy-going fellow. He does not want anything excessive, but he wants a fair price. The farmers of the west want the people of Canada to have food at decent prices, and we want it for all the people of the world. We have not asked for decontrol and high prices but for parity prices. We feel we have a right to our fair share of the national income.
We have never asked for the decontrol of our coarse grains and wheat in the west. For the last twenty-five years every bona fide farm organization in the west has asked for a stability price and long-term agreements whereby we would have consistent stability for farm products. I have always wondered, since coming here, why the government saw fit to leave ajar the door of the Winnipeg grain exchange and allow rye futures. When the coarse grains were thrown on the market, with the debacle that followed, we had the answer. Not a single letter has come to my desk asking for the opening of the Winnipeg grain exchange. It is high time, instead of having a committee such as is proposed, we close the Winnipeg grain exchange and that gambling house for ever, because if there is anything that is a black spot on Canadian democracy it is the grain exchange and that den of robbers who have been speculating on the farmers' grain and produce for so many years.
I remember not long ago the leader of the opposition, in reply to the leader of the C.C.F., said that he and his party were in favour of the open market as well as the wheat board for the marketing of the farmers' wheat. During the two years when the farmer was able to sell his wheat on the open market, as well as the grain board, the average in the year 193S-39 was as low as 50-38 cents at Winnipeg and 511 cents in the year 1939-40.
This is my view'. If we are to have stability in agriculture; if we are to ask western agriculture to be the anchor of our economy, the first thing we must do is to give the farmer a just and fair price for his produce. In other

Prices Committee
words, he must have parity, and we have not seen that in the past. If things go on as they are, with this fiasco that we have had in connection with coarse grains, then those who have not had feed grains and have had to buy food for their livestock at 100 per cent more than formerly, will not be able to produce beef, pork, butter and cheese for the Canadian people and the people of the world.
At this time, when we are asking our people to go all out in production in order that in Canada, where conditions are conducive to an effort on our part to assist in establishing peace throughout the world, we should make conditions as favourable as possible so as to enable the farmers to produce to the maximum. That is not the condition today. Once again, for the information of the hon. member for Cartier, I wish to show that the farmer is not getting excessive prices for his produce. I have here an article that appeared in the Veterans Advocate of February 1, 1948, in which the question is asked: "The farmers' loss is whose gain?" We find in this article canned tomatoes costing the consumer from 25 cents to 27 cents a tin, whereas the farmer gets 3} cents, and tomato juice is 18 cents to the consumer and li cents to the farmer. There are various prices listed.
What has happened to the farmer's cost of production. I have here an article in the U.F.C. Injormation, giving the new prices the farmers are paying for farm machinery as compared with those of December last. A Cockshutt 80 tractor now sells for $2,258 as compared with the former price of $1,703.90, or a difference of $454.10. A Cockshutt 6-foot tiller, 11 blades, on rubber sold formerly for $545 and the present price is $605. A Cockshutt self-propelled combine sold formerly for $3,458.85 and the present price is $3,843. I have a whole list showing that the general increase is 15-1 per cent over the prices' of December last. When you consider that there was a 124 per cent increase in machinery, a subject which we debated in this house, when this group proved conclusively that prices were excessive, I say there is no reason for the contention that these machine companies, whose profits are for ever increasing, have the right to charge these prices. There was no reason whatsoever why farm machinery should have been decontrolled when it was.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Is it not a fact that the price of rye in Canada in the last two years has been at its peak, the highest ever known?


Edward George McCullough: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did the farmers not get the benefit of that price, and was that price not made by so-called speculation?


Edward George McCullough: The
farmers who had rye sold it and made a profit, but I maintain that there was no demand from the western farmers with regard to rye futures or the sale of rye.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have answered the question. During that period did the Saskatchewan pool maintain its seat on the Winnipeg grain exchange?


Edward George McCullough: Yes, it. did. But I will say this in answer to the hon. member for Calgary West. While the pool officials have seen fit to sit on the Winnipeg grain exchange, I will tell all those who advocate the grain exchange that the pools have consistently gone out and said that the Winnipeg grain exchange does not operate to the benefit of the farmer and should be closed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It did in rye. Did it not get you the highest price in the world?


Edward George McCullough: I have indicated the increase in the price of farm tractors. I have here an article stating that Alberta veterans need 2,000 new tractors. Many of us here have sons or relatives or friends among these veterans who need these things, and now, in that one item alone, it will cost these veterans, to buy tractors this spring in order to rehabilitate themselves, $90,000 more than it would in December last. What are we doing about it? What is the government doing about the matter? It is doing nothing about keeping its promises that the veteran would be able to rehabilitate himself on a fair basis.
A great many remarks have been made in the press and amongst various members with regard to the farmer and the higher prices which he is getting for his products. I want to say that before the controls came off, some of our neighbours sold steers right off the grass and received fifteen cents a pound for them. I have here a copy of Livestock News of Wednesday, February 4, the latest issue which has come to me. According to it, choice steers are selling at from $16 to $16.50 and choice handyweight steers are selling at from $15.50 to S16 a hundredweight. The farmer is still not getting a fair price for his livestock and for his beef. I could go on to quote the various prices the farmer is getting for his produce.
I have here an article in regard to the sale of dressed poultry. Many of the people in
Prices Committee

the east think the farmers are getting exorbitant prices for their poultry. This article was sent to me by a lady who produces prize turkeys; and for eighteen-pound special turkeys they were getting thirty-seven cents a pound. That was the price in December of last year. I am sure that this does not reflect in any way the prices which the consumers had to pay for turkeys. I might just say here that turkeys over and above eighteen pounds in weight are degraded and sold at a lower price. They are sold at five cents a pound less than if they weigh under eighteen pounds, for the same quality of turkey. So, as hon. members can see, they have the farmers both coming and going. I remember that years ago, when we were producing turkeys, we had to have them over eighteen pounds in order to get the /op price.
To get back to the committee which is proposed to be set up, simply because of the terms of reference the fact is that this committee will not be able to make recommendations to this House of Commons. The whole thing would be grotesque and stupid if we expect anything from it to arrest the rising cost of living. I have here an excerpt from the 1937 special committee on farm implement prices. It indicates that substantial profits on capital were made by the companies engaged in the agricultural industry. It goes on to give the amount of profits and would also indicate that prices were excessive at that time. Since that time prices have risen steadily. We had a 12j per cent increase in farm implement prices in the fall, and now those prices have again gone up about 15 per cent.
The psychological factor of this whole debacle which is facing us is more serious than anything else. It has placed the Canadian economy in such a position that, unless something is done immediately with regard to it, we may very well find recurring the conditions in the years of the thirties. Because we point out to the government the fact that action should be taken, I do not think for one minute they can say to us, as did one hon. member the other day, that the C.C.F. are always pointing to other countries and what wonderful systems they have there. Everyone in this group, and I think every member in this House of Commons, realizes that we have the best country in the world. All we in this group are trying to do is to make it a better country, one in which there will not be any hardships and one in which a person who is willing to do an honest day's work will get an honest day's pay. We want to take the

speculation out of the production of food so that our farmers will be given a fair return for their labours.
I could tell the house stories, which perhaps many of those on the opposite benches would not believe, about the farmers in my own province who, in the thirties, went to the north when the government represented by hon. friends to the right were in power. They went up north and are still there, living in houses without floors and without a decent standard of living or any of the amenities of life.
As a western farmer, I state again that we want the people of Canada to have food at a decent price level. We feel that the Canadian people are our best customers. I have here a chart which indicates that in one city, in Toronto, the fluid milk sales dropped from 12,500,000 quarts in May, 1946, when it was selling at eleven cents a quart, to 10,500,000 quarts in August, 1947, when it was selling at sixteen cents a quart.


John Lambert Gibson: Why not all move out to British Columbia?


Edward George McCullough: This is not what we want.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask a question?


Edward George McCullough: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What was the rise in pries to the producer during that period where you spoke of the price to the consumer? I think you will find that they follow one another almost absolutely.


Edward George McCullough: That is true. But this government, in a particular vote in this house in September a year ago, went on record as saying that the subsidies be continued, and that is what I am in favour of. I am in favour of this government seeing to it that our children and our people should get the necessary foods so that they may have decent health.


Maurice Hartt: Who is to pay for it.


Edward George McCullough: I have
been speaking of the high cost of living. Perhaps the government does not see fit to guarantee that our people may have such a diet.
I might say that I have here an article entitled "Prime Minister, health minister eat well- No Pett diet for them; Ottawa."


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.

Prices Committee


Edward George McCullough: Very well. The article reads:
The supper diet recommended as adequate for Canadian workers by Dr. L. B. Pett, chief of the nutrition division of the federal department of health and welfare, is not considered good enough for the Prime Minister of Canada.
At the recent dinner meeting of the National Liberal Federation advisory committee at which Mr. King made his famous "resign" speech, and at which Minister of Health, Paul Martin also spoke-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is just a newspaper story.


Edward George McCullough: To
continue:
-the menu was as follows:
Supreme of fruit; consomme fermier, roast native turkey-
I do not know whether they imported them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that at eighteen cents a pound?


An hon. MEMBER:: C.C.F. turkey.


Edward George McCullough: I
continue:
-cranberry sauce; green peas, au gratin potatoes; arctic roll, strawberry sauce.


An hon. MEMBER:: Applesauce would be better. .


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did they have butter or oleomargarine?


Edward George McCullough: To
continue:
AH this for $2 per plate. Nothing lavish. Just a good meal. But here is what Mr. King's government recommends for a Canadian workingman's supper in these high price days-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that his time is exhausted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Mr. POULIOT:: Let	him come to the
toothpicks.


William Irvine: Let him finish one sentence, Mr. Speaker.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I am not so sure the hon. member is m order reading a newspaper article.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is just a menu.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest that a meal is always in order.


Edward George McCullough: Just a moment; here is the rest of the article, with the other menu:
Creamed Green Peas on Toast Orange Custard Pudding Milk (Children only)
Wonder whatever happened to Marie (Lct-enm^tcakel Antoinette?
5849-66J


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I have heard much about control and decontrol, inflation and deflation; and I am very sorry, but I have no newspaper articles or speeches from which to quote this evening. I listened carefully to the previous speaker, and I am sure I shall be fair to him if I summarize his remarks by saying that he is in favour of the imposition of controls. I am sure that is a fair conclusion to draw from what he had to say.
I am not at all interested in what has been said or written about this matter. I try to visualize what would have been done if any other party had been in power. What, at the present time, is the policy of the Progressive Conservative party, the official opposition?


Edward George McCullough: Better tell them; they don't know.


Mr. GRANT:: Miscellaneous.


Jean-François Pouliot: I take this very seriously, for I have high regard for my colleagues who belong to that party, as well as for all my colleagues in this house. Apparently the official opposition are against controls. They have denounced them. They have said the policy of controls is wrong. So what is the difference between the views of the opposition and the policy of this government? There is none at all, and I cannot understand why any members of the official opposition should criticize the government for the policy that has been adopted because, if they had been in power, they would have done exactly the same. That is what their party did during the first war, when Mr. Hanna was controller of food. He was unsuccessful; but control had been imposed by the Borden or unionist government. Therefore there is no difference between the main policies of the official opposition and the policies of this government.
That is one point. I now go to the Social Credit group. If they had been in power the policy probably would have been that which this government has adopted. I took the trouble to inquire about it; I want to be fair to them, as I try to be fair to my friends of the Progressive Conservative party. I was told they were not opposed to controls, provided that they were not imposed by force. I wonder if I summarize correctly the main view of that group.
Apparently there is only one opposition group in the house with a policy different from that of the government. That is the C.C.F. group. They are for controls; it is unmistakable. That is an honourable opinion, as all opinions sincerely expressed are honourable, but I truly believe they are wrong and I shall
Prices Committee

explain that to them in a very quiet, unbiased and serene manner, yet in a very realistic way.
The official opposition should be proud of the decision of the government to institute a committee to study the causes of unrest, and I mean unrest in matters of inflation and undue increase in prices. The government is just a committee of parliament. Therefore, when a matter is referred by the government to the House of Commons or the Senate it shows that the government has placed confidence in parliament. This is a case where the official advisers of the government are not asked for advice. The matter is submitted by the accessory, the government, to the principal, the House of Commons; it is referred to a committee of the house for study. That is a mark of confidence by the government in parliament; and all those who are strong advocates of responsible government should be among the first to pay tribute to the government for the institution of this committee. What is the use of reading speeches made in the past, by anyone from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) down to the humblest member of the house, when conditions were entirely different?
I believe in the wisdom of parliament. What is wrong sometimes, and what I complain of, is that irresponsible people, who are not the bumpers for the policies of the government, give advice which may be good sometimes and may be bad some other times, but advice that should not be relied upon without the assent of parliament. This time the government has taken parliament into its confidence and has said: we will appoint a committee composed of members belonging to all parties in the house, who will meet together, who will make a survey of conditions, who will study the rise in prices, and who will report profiteering. This is the substance of the motion now before the Chair, and this I find fair. I have enough confidence in the honesty and wisdom of my colleagues to believe they will do a good job, upon one condition; that they will not listen to lectures that may be given them by so-called experts but that they will inquire into the facts. They will be in the position of judges conducting a probe. Have you ever seen a judge listen to a lecture by a witness? That witness would be sentenced for contempt of court if he tried to lecture the judge sitting on the bench. What is the duty of those members who have the signal honour of having their names on this committee? It will be to inquire into the facts and to try to know exactly which prices are too high to be considered fair. In the second place, they will have to find out why those prices are so high, and, in the third olaee, the remedy which they can suggest to

the House of Commons and the government for the improvement of conditions. This is obvious.
How can hon. members insist upon the imposition of controls? It means that they are so biased that they want the government to impose controls now, before an investigation is made.


Edward George McCullough: We do not need one.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend knows all, he should have said so in his speech. But, instead of that, he read newspaper articles; he did not let us share his knowledge. His duty was to inform us. Either he knew all, or he did not; and if he knew all he would not have had the time to read one line from the newspapers. If he did not know, why does he pose as knowing so much?
It is dangerous to try to know too much. It is important to learn a lot; and when a man is so sure of himself that he will tell the House of Commons of Canada that he has nothing to learn from anyone, then he should resign and go to other places. I regret- saying that and it is most unfortunate that I find it necessary to do so. I do it, in spite of the personal respect I have for the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough). I have not been cruel to him, and I do not want to be, but I consider this is one of the most important matters which has been brought before the House of Commons. It is the first time in my long political career that a government has come back to the House of Commons for information in order to dtaft a policy for the whole nation from coast to coast.
Members who serve on the committee should beware of the expert lecturers who will try to shape their education, cite decimals and tell the committee what, in their opinion, should be done. People like that, if there are any, should never be listened to. What the committee needs is the facts.
Let me give a few examples which may be useful to the committee, if they are ready to do a good job. First, I shall give credit to the official opposition. I can remember a time wffien the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board was a kind of ogre. He was a man who was most disagreeable, who considered himself infallible, who would not listen to anybody and who was ready to defend all the wrongs done by his staff and the personnel surrounding him. Strong representations were made by the official opposition, and they were successful. Today that ogre is in the cupboard, and he has

Prices Committee
been replaced at the wartime prices and trade board by a mild-mannered gentleman.
I give them credit for that; they have improved conditions.
Even if the policy of the C.C.F. party is to impose controls, I will tell them that it is dangerous to leave controls free of the authority and jurisdiction of parliament. Let me tell the house what happened with respect to the control of feeds. A gentleman from Montreal was appointed controller. As I said before, after he was here his firm made a thousand per cent profit. He sued nearly all the grain brokers and grain merchants-of Montreal for one reason or another-with the exception of his -own firm. His usefulness ceased in September, when there was no further control on oats and other feeds. But that man is still in office, and his incompetence has been the cause of the chaos in connection with the delivery of feed grains to eastern farmers to feed their stock. He is still in charge and is still receiving his salary. He says that he is writing his memoirs because he wants to inform his successor in the next war about what has to be done in connection with feeds in this country. He is writing his memoirs, but that fellow should be fired at once. That is one example.
Some years ago I introduced a bill to dispense with the economic council created by Mr. Bennett. I thank the Prime Minister for the support he gave me on that occasion. Mr. Lapointe said "carried" at the time, too; and the bill passed second reading, committee stage and third reading in five or six minutes. The House of Commons dispensed with Mr. Bennett's legislation creating an economic council.
I am opposed to economic councils. The wartime prices and trade board, as at present constituted, is one economic council we do not need, and I will tell the house why. If we are to take deputy ministers in the various departments and permit them to make policies for the country, we must remember that each man is not an expert outside his own department. When those men belonging to various departments are put together, one who is supposed to be an expert on agriculture cannot be an expert on mines. The so-called expert on mines cannot be an expert on agriculture. That is something which the committee may realize in due course.
I will tell hon. members this, that the trade policy has worked so wrongly in my constituency that the wardens and several mayors have complained to me about the manager of the branch of the wartime prices and trade
board in my constituency. I made representations to the chairman of the board. They were unsuccessful, and finally the only relief that I could secure for my people was to have that branch of the board closed. Needless to say, those men are strongly opposed to controls, because they suffered injustice from the man who was in charge of controls there.
This is not a matter which should be considered with acrimony. That would serve no useful purpose. This government is in office and, when we hear vehement speeches made against government policy, what other policy could be suggested except the imposition of controls without investigation, and, therefore, without any possible cure?


Mr. CAOUETTE:: What about a dividend?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to speak. The question is so serious that it could not be settled with a dividend that never comes. On the other hand, is it not possible for the members of this house who belong to all parties, which will all have representation on this committee, to show that they can leave aside all political partisan considerations in an endeavour to serve the nation in a great emergency? I have enough confidence in my colleagues to believe that they will leave aside all party considerations for the time being. Let us appoint the committee now; and, after it is appointed, each party will have the privilege and the right to make due representations, to call witnesses and to hear and learn from them, and then to express a wise opinion when the time comes. There will also be interim reports from the committee which any member of the house will have the privilege to discuss from any angle. Therefore, why not appoint the committee now and leave aside all party considerations until something comes out of the committee, something good to be praised, or something bad to be criticized and reformed. In that way we shall make progress.
I will tell you more than that, Mr. Speaker. Last week I was down home, and what did I find were the needs of my people? The needs were exactly as I have just expressed them. They said: We are fed up with these speeches made in the House of Commons which have no practical effect. If any party opposes the appointment of this committee, what advantage will that be to that party? Nothing. It is time, sir, for the members of the House of Commons to show that they realize that here is an opportunity to do a remarkable piece of work in the interests of all the people, and when the members of the
10 IS
Prices Committee

committee meet together they will have an opportunity to discuss the whole question fully and to form subcommittees on special items. Then the house will be in a position to make progress with other pieces of legislation and the people of Canada will be happier and better satisfied.
Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, the symptom of inflation is a rising cost of living. I should have been much better satisfied with the terms of the resolution if it had attempted to go farther than its terms indicate in explaining or seeking to explain why the cost of living had gone up.
The proposed prices committee resolution now before us is first, to examine the causes of the recent rise in prices; second, to see if there has been any profiteering; and third, to see if there has been any undue hoarding.
Everyone knows, without further diagnosis, that the patient has smallpox; but this committee proposes to probe a few pocks, take the patient's temperature-we already know it is high-and see if there are any unnatural stoppages. Of course the committee doctors must not examine the fundamental, long-term causes of the disease, nor must the doctors prescribe. Any surface findings the committee is to report, but it must not go into the root cause of the trouble and make recommendations to cure. No; that is to be left to the government, which already knows why prices have been rising but would very much like to find a scapegoat, to blame someone else for the pock marks of rising prices and forget that its own policies have caused smallpox in the economic blood stream.
I shall endeavour to point out the causes of the present inflation, of which the rise in the cost of living is only the symptom. I hope to indicate how the government's fiscal policies have been responsible; how its prodigal spending and the enormous tax burden have added fuel to the fires; how those taxes have discouraged production, which is the only cure; how the vast increase in the number of government employees has lessened production by talcing workers away from industry.
I shall show how the government's foreign exchange policy of embargoes, quotas, and tariffs, has added to the cost of living. I shall offer the government a constructive suggestion on how to reduce the price of vegetables, allow their importation, and still save United States dollars; and, lastly, show how the sales tax has pyramided costs, and give the government an answer to help remedy the dire situation in which it has plunged all our people who now find that their dollar does the work of only sixty cents.

Even the official Dominion Bureau of Statistics index shows that the cost of living which was 100 in 1939, has risen to 148-3 in January of this year. In February of 1947, that official index was 127. So I hope that the rise between 127 and 148 within a twelvemonths period will be considered sufficiently recent to be probed by the committee should it be set up.
To most people, inflation and the cost of living are the same thing; but the disease of our economic system is inflation; the rising costs are but a symptom. During the five years 1942-1946, the government spent S9.383 million more than it collected in taxation. We paid as we went for about half the cost of the war. Taxation went up from what now appears as insignificant rates to prodigious proportions. The Canadian people did well to stand the pace as well as they did, and our record of taxation compares favourably with that of any other country engaged in the war. Here I can find no criticism of the government.
Our total bank deposits went up from $2,500 million in 1938 to $6,000 million in 1946. Someone owns that money today. It may be in the form of bonds, but it is nevertheless available to be spent. Our active note circulation, the money in our pockets, went up from $205 million in 1938 to $1,100 million in 1946; over five times as much money in active circulation. At the same time the physical volume of goods about doubled. Obviously with the physical volume of goods only doubled, and five times as much money in our pockets and a great deal more credit available to us, it is easy to see what might easily happen to the cost of living and to the rise in the price of goods if people keep bidding up for them.
In 1946 I said to the house, as reported at page 3297 of Hansard, for that year:
That is the reason why many people will tell you that we already have inflation, and why the minister should tell the people of Canada how and when is the way out, if he really knows.
What the people want to know today, sir, is how can they manage on their present incomes when the cost of living continues to rise month by month. This committee differs from former committees on prices because we now have a background of inflation. We hope the government will explore that avenue of approach before it goes into the currents and eddies of the inflation tide against which labour, management and capital must all fight for their own preservation.
If the government, with its majority, insists on the passing of this resolution, then the first two witnesses who should be haled before the committee are Mr. Graham Towers, Governor

Prices Committee
of the Bank of Canada, and Doctor Clifford Clark, deputy minister of finance. No one is in a better position than these two gentlemen to explain the causes of our inflationary disease, and no one can tell the committee better why prices have risen.
So far, according to any press dispatches we have seen from the sources alleged to be close to the government, there is to be no examination of the cause of inflation. We are to go immediately into the cause of various price increases of particular industries; and yet, if there is to be any sound background for the committee's work, if the people of Canada are to understand the nature of the price increases we have been subjected to, then we certainly should understand the financial background in which our economy is today operating. Except to blur the record and to find a scapegoat, it is difficult to know why the government wants a committee. The government knows the causes of the rise in the cost of living. The recent rise, to which the committee's endeavours will be confined, is but the virulence and, we hope, the crisis of the underlying malady.
As to profiteering and hoarding, this house has already had set forth the adequate powers under the Wartime Prices and Trade Board Act. Section 8 reads:
No person shall sell or offer for sale or supply any goods or services at a price that is higher than is reasonable and just, or withhold any goods or services from sale or supply for a price that is higher than is reasonable and just.
And under the Combines Investigation Act, we have in the words of the present Prime Minister in 1934:
... a Combines Investigation Act which provides all the machinery necessary for the purpose of making the fullest possible kind of inquiry into any matter preventing or lessening competition or restraining trade.
Never was there a more direct criticism, implied, though it may be, by a prime minister of his own administration.
The government's prodigal spending, which is now more than met by ruinous taxation, is a prime cause of the high cost of living. The only way in which the people of Canada can provide the $2 billion of taxation, which is the yearly take of the government, is by providing goods and services which they sell, and giving their share of taxation to the government. Obviously the $2 billion must come out of the cost of these goods and services, and on that account it must be admitted by all that taxation does enter into the cost of production. Most taxes, it is admitted, directly enter into the cost of things we buy, and the income tax reduces the amount we should otherwise have to make ends meet. Before the war, the
federal government alone spent about $500 million; now it spends $2 billion, or four times as much. Is it any wonder that living costs have nearly doubled? There is scarcely a group of people, or workers, in Canada today which has the bargaining power to enforce higher wages or incomes which has not exercised that power; and one of the chief causes for asking for greater wage rates or greater salaries is that so much has to go in taxation. These conditions unquestionably have an effect on increasing the cost of all goods and services, and constitute one of the most important reasons that we have today a cost of living which can scarcely be met.
Let us get down to the amount of the tax on each individual Canadian, women and children included. This year the government budgeted to spend $164 per head of our population; but our revenues are running at such a high rate, nearly a billion dollars more than contemplated, that that additional amount is equal to $80 per head, man, woman and child. Of course, all that money cannot be saved. We have veterans allowances, old age pensions, interest, family allowances and so forth to pay for; but just imagine what even $50 per head would do for some of the families who are today having a most difficult time to make ends meet, and yet $80 per head is the amount of surplus which the government is taking from the taxpayers of this country by direct and indirect taxes over the amount for which it budgeted. If there ever was profiteering surely that term could be levelled at the present government in exacting so much from the Canadian public during the time when they are having difficulties in feeding their children and paying the normal bills of the ordinary Canadian household.
The trouble with the government is that it does not want to reduce taxes. If a department decreases its expenditures it becomes, in its own eyes, less important; and if it does not use its appropriation it finds it difficult to get as large an appropriation in the following year. That is understandable human nature. Whatever the government thinks it needs it just orders and sends you and me the bill. There is no distinction made, as far as the government departments are concerned, between what they desire and what they really need. They just go ahead and order it, because they can make a superficial case out for it, and you and I get the bill. I know of no family in Canada that could operate on that basis, and1 certainly there is no business in the country that could operate on such a basis. There is no effort to save and the people are left to get along with what
Prices Committee

little is left. To borrow a phrase of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), the government just "lets things rip'', and then tells us: "Look what we do for you". My constituents, who range from the highest to the lowest in the income brackets, are sick and tired of this monkey business and would rather spend their own money according to how they see their own urgent needs.
The real solution of our problem of rising prices is more production. The government has encouraged spending on new factories and new machinery. That is all to the good, because it ensures greater employment and lower costs. A note of caution, however, is in order; for, like many good things, it may be overdone or done too quickly, leaving a vacuum when our reconstruction and capital equipment industry will not be occupied full time. In the city of Toronto last year, of the total construction that went on there, 85 per cent was for industrial and: commercial buildings and only 15 per cent for home accommodation. The five-day week has not helped in aiding production but has, on the contrary, increased prices.
The government's easy-money policy, a hangover from artificially cheap borrowing to finance a large part of our war costs, has given an undue stimulus to expansion and rising costs. At the same time, it has worked a great hardship on those retired people who must live on their savings, mostly invested in government bonds which formerly yielded 4 and 5 per cent and now only 2| per cent with which they have to meet the rising cost of living and higher taxes.
We have heard that the export of much of our produce to the United Kingdom and Europe on credit is the cause of our higher prices. That is as much fiction as fact, for most of our exports abroad consist of surplus wheat, bacon, metals and lumber. If these natural markets for our natural products were not kept open, then, while it is true the surplus would cause a glut of the domestic market and the price would fall, it would be disastrous to our producers and demoralize the whole economy. Our only alternative would be to ship the surplus products to the United States and other world markets which would temporarily take our products at world prices.	.
The result of this would be that domestic prices would rise to the world level and the cost of living index would rise still further, so that the result of shipping abroad on credit at arranged prices is to keep down the price level in Canada. The rise in the cost of living index from 143-6 in November to 148-3 in 
January, nearly five points in two months, is probably the fastest rise on record and is directly attributable to the government's policy of shutting out cheap imports from the United States.
The food index alone went up nearly nine points during the November to January period. Embargoes and quotas, entirely the result of the government's mismanagement of our dollar exchange position, not only disrupted much of our business and caused unemployment, but resulted directly in an increased cost of living, an increase probably much greater than would have resulted had we reduced our dollar to ninety cents American.
The sad part of the government's present policy is that it does not effect any permanent cure, and our exchange position is only righted so long as embargoes are maintained. It is like a patient who must take insulin to prolong his life but who is never permanently cured. Devaluation, on the other hand, is a natural, permanent and less painful self-righting process. To these government restrictions on trade may be added the imposition of excessive taxes on household articles, which have greatly added to the cost of setting up homes by young veterans and other young married couples.
Here I should like to offer to the government a suggestion which I hope will be constructive, on how to restore the normal and healthful diet of the Canadian people-fresh, green and leafy vegetables, as the booklets of the minister of health indicate-and at the same time a policy which will conserve exchange, which is the only reason our people have been reduced to an austerity and, at the same time a costly, diet.
The proposal will do four things. It will:
(1)	Permit the importation of lettuce, cabbage, carrots, beets and tomatoes, and any other vegetables the government wishes to include;
(2)	reduce the cost of food; (3) keep the channels of cattle and beef exports to the United States open; (4) result in a net saving of United States exchange.
I hope the Minister of Finance will be interested in this. The chief reason for not allowing cattle to go to the United States is that we wish to send as much as possible to the United Kingdom and do not wish to disturb the price level in Canada. But what has been the result of prohibiting the import of fresh vegetables from the United States? Our people do not eat more bread or more potatoes. They must substitute some other food for the fresh vegetables they do not consume, and the salads they very much want and cannot have. So they eat more meat, a costly

Prices Committee
substitute, and more fish and more fruit of a kind that can still be imported with United States exchange. My information is that restaurant sales and other sales of these products have gone up substantially because there are no salads or vegetable plate dinners to offer their customers.
If more meat is consumed in Canada that meat is not available to the United Kingdom. My recommendation is that the additional amount now consumed in Canada be exported to the United States, where there is a market and where prices are much higher than they are in Canada. Thus, through these vegetable imports healthful diets will once more be restored to the Canadian people. The western cattle raisers will be delighted to have the channel to the United States kept open even for token shipments. The cost of living will be reduced because vegetables are cheaper than meat and fish, which can also be exported to the United States; but even domestic fruits and vegetables in season will be cheaper than if the embargoes and quotas are maintained.
That domestic fruits, and vegetables will be cheaper arises from the fact that the present restrictions reduce the volume handled by our wholesalers and retailers by about 40 per cent. Their wage bill and overhead must be borne by the reduced volume with resulting higher unit costs of everything the housewife purchases. Restore their volume and down go their unit costs and the price to the housewife.
Imports of five vegetables mentioned from the United States for the eleven months ended November 30 last were as follows:
Cabbages	 $ 952,472
Carrots	 1,208,014
Beets	 144,000
Lettuce	 2,601,712
Tomatoes	 3,476,295

That is approximately $6 out of every S1,000 of imports into our country. In 1939, the last year when the export of cattle was permitted, 201,000 cattle found their way across the border. At prevailing prices the export of about 25,000 beef cattle would bring in $8,382,000, or the cost of all vegetable imports I have outlined. Since this amount of cattle represents probably less than the amount of additional meat eaten because of the vegetable restrictions, an amount equal to the additional meat otherwise eaten may be exported, and thus a surplus of United States exchange over the cost of the imported vegetables would result, and with no hurt to the United Kingdom food contracts.
Thus the policy would restore normal diets, lessen food costs, please the western cattle
raisers, and add much needed United States exchange. A businessman would put the policy into action within a few hours. By the time the various government committees are through creating imaginary difficulties and showing why it cannot be done the summer will probably have come and gone.
The proposed committee on prices may find that, when the cost of an agricultural product or manufactured article is increased in order that encouragement may be given to its production, those who process and distribute the article, from wholesaler to retailer, will probably have applied their usual percentage mark-up just as they have to apply their usual mark-up when prices decline. Perhaps the chief offender in this respect is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, since he must assume responsibility for the crushing burden of taxation imposed on our people. The sales tax of eight per cent is pyramided on the increased price and it is no wonder that the country's treasury is bulging far beyond expectations. The government might well have reduced this eight per cent tax and set an example to businessmen, both large and small. But no, the government prefers to sit back and profiteer far beyond the needs of the government's requirements and let the people suffer; but fortunately, this time not in silence! Indeed I was much surprised when I learned of the incidence of the sales tax, because I had always understood that not only shelter but food were totally exempt. I found, however, that bacon was not exempt from the sales tax. Any processed food or smoked meat is subject to the sales tax; and if the people of Canada have wondered why some of their products, such as bacon, have gone up unduly in price, it is because of the mark-up of prices all along the line; and certainly the government's eight per cent sales tax has been pyramided on the increased prices so that the end product has been a high price indeed.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) had some remarks to make about a proposal I made in 1946 to the effect that consideration at that time might be given to an increase in the sales tax. He was fair enough to read the whole quotation. At that time, and particularly in 1943 when I first made the suggestion, the government was seeking, through compulsory savings and higher income taxes, to drain off surplus spending power in order to lessen the pressure on rising prices because civilian goods were not available. Today the situation is far different and the problem of our people is to make enough to make ends meet. Had the suggestion been followed, the sales tax today could1 well have been lowered.
Prices Committee

Furthermore, my proposal, as was obvious from the quotation which the minister read, was not to increase taxes but rather to shift the burden from the high income taxes on lower brackets so that the worker would have more "take home" pay. People then as now will not work additional hours, will not increase production if the government puts on heavy additional taxes on additional income. Such taxes are incentive destroying, and the only way to cure inflation and rising prices is to increase production. Our economy still suffers from this ruinous policy of the Liberal government and the sooner it is remedied, the better for all our people.
Both the present and the former minister of finance have pointed out the bad effects of additional rates of tax on additional income, but have lacked the courage to tackle the problem; and it is no wonder that today we are faced with rising prices. It should be brought home to the government that, according to the 1945 figures, 45 per cent of the income tax is borne by those whose incomes are not over S3,000; and 60 per cent by those whose incomes are not over S5,000. The 1916 figures scarcely differ. Those whose incomes are under S3,000 provide 44-3 per cent of the total income taxes and those whose incomes are under 85,000 provide 60-6 per cent. It is difficult to understand why any government would impose income tax at the S750 level on single persons, and at the SI,500 level on married couples when it is a well-known fact that neither single nor married people can live, even according to minimum standards which we have set for the Canadian people, on such small incomes.
If the proposed committee, which is considered unnecessary because the government already has the machinery, is set up, let us hope that t'he government will be sincere in its efforts and first investigate the cause of inflation and the resulting higher price level, and remove the beam from its own eye before it seeks to remove the mote from the eyes of others. Let it call Mr. Towers and Doctor Clark. Let it examine its own policies, its expenditures, its mounting army of civil servants-who would otherwise be engaged in direct production-and especially the colossal burden of discouraging taxation, all of which result in less production and higher prices to the Canadian people.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My reason for rising tonight, Mr. Speaker, is that I am one of the few speakers who have been invited to speak. My good friend the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) came into my riding, spoke kindly to me and invited me to speak here tonight.

I cannot imagine that anybody would invite the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) and the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), who read these essays we heard tonight, to speak.
I have seen this new look and I do not like it. It reminds me very much of speeches made from that corner over there. It is long enough to cover up what might be exciting but not long enough to cover what we know is not exciting. We now hear a new sound over there. I rose in my place-this can be checked in Hansard; and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) knows it-not today but over a year ago, and stated what I thought about price controls and the need of possible reimposition. Now we not only have the new look over in this end of the chamber and from the junior Conservative party down in the other end; but we have a new sound- the sound of those who have suddenly found out about the increasingly high cost of living, and have suddenly awakened to the need of controls. I listened with a great deal of interest to those two essays, the one from the great western Conservative and the other from the great friend of the down-trodden common man, the people who are suffering and the people in Rosedale who have nothing.
I heard only part of the speech of my friend, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough). I did not hear it all. I am sorry that the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) is unfortunately not able to be here tonight, as he is ill. In my opinion he is a great Canadian. However, I heard the hon, member for Assiniboia quoting the menu of a banquet we apparently had here. I do not know why I did mot get in on that. I did not hear what he said about my leader's speech, but I heard what he said about the banquet that was served. I have here the menu which I understand was served at Regina at the time of the manifesto, and I intend to quote this menu as it was handed to me a year ago. I saved it, because my hon. friends opposite, having had their great experience at banquets, want to see that their people are properly served, as we believe our people coming from all parts of Canada should be properly fed. It is the banquet, as I am informed-


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Where did you get that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: From a very good C.C.F. friend of mine.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: What hotel did1 the
catering?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know, but I did not interrupt when your colleague read our menu, so please do not interrupt me.

Prices Committee
I would imagine the catering was done by the ladies' auxiliary of the C.C.F., judging by the menu. Here it is:
Kippered salmon Kippered tuna Salmon sides Shrimpraeat Crabmeat Bloaters Canned tuna Canned salmon Kippered shad
Kippered salmon tips Kippered black cod Kippered grey cod Kippered snacks Kippered herring Kippered sturgeon Pickled herring Canned anchovies Smoked halibut Caviar
That is just the first part. Here was where the ladies of Qu'Appelle brought in the masterpiece:
Fruit Supreme Clam Chowder Spring Salmon Steaks Garni Peach Charlotte Coffee
Cigars	Cigarettes


Mr. BENTLEY:: Any horsemeat?


George Alexander Cruickshank: We must keep our export trade somehow, even if we have to export some of that horsemeat in some of the boxes not yet made in those factories in Saskatchewan. I really think I am going to enjoy myself, because I always have a lot of fun with my good friends of the C.C.F. I have been listening to a certain man who, when it comes to looking after the welfare of the common man, has sacrificed far more than anyone else in that group over there. I refer to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). What he has done without and gone without for them!
So that there may be no misunderstanding about the matter. I want to put on record the position of my riding as I understand it in regard to price control. When I spoke over a year ago I was following the new sound, the speech by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) in which he said, "Take the controls off butter. Let it go to a dollar a pound or more." Now we have another new voice across the way saying, " Put on price controls." I really feel sorry for these poor people from Toronto. In the middle of winter they are not allowed to get any crisp lettuce and celery from California. It is not fair to them. I wonder what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), representing some farmers, has to say about that. For over fifty years we have been working to build up our agricultural trade. Now we have a chance to do so, but poor Toronto cannot get its celery and crisp lettuce in January. Don't worry; I am coming to my own party after a while.
I made my statement on price controls over a year and a half ago. At that time I quoted the leader of the C.C.F. party, and said not only did I think many of the
controls that had been taken off would have to be put on again but that many more would have to be imposed. I believe that today. I am going to tell the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who, I think, has one of the most brilliant young minds developed in many years, that, in my opinion he made a mistake. When he brought in his austerity program I believe his mistake was that the very same night he did not reimpose controls at least on basic foodstuffs. That should have been done. I believe more controls will have to be put on. With conditions such as we are living in now, which are surely emergent conditions, no man in this house can say it will not be necessary to resume the payment of certain subsidies. If there is a different program that will solve the problem I should like some hon. member to tell me what it is. I do not know.


Angus MacInnis: Investigation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am coming to
that. In my opinion, it will be necessary to resume certain subsidies. Let me give an instance. The price of feed for poultry has gone up fifty per cent in less than a month, while in the same period of time our eggs have gone down twenty-five per cent. You cannot possibly produce under those conditions. From the opposition we have heard a lot about the high cost of living, the cost of butter and other farm products, but very little has been said about the rising cost of farmers' production. Of course I would not expect that from Rosedale, because I suppose they hardly know what a cow looks like there, though I have an idea what they may mistake for a cow. In my riding-and I believe I speak for every person in it-we do not like the idea of controls, but we do not know of any better solution at the present time. We do know the cost of living has gone up so much that certain price controls must be reimposed. We do not know of any other solution at the present time than the reimposition of controls and the resumption of subsidies.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: How about reducing taxes
instead?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I heard the junior Conservative member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) say today exactly what the Prime Minister said, that this is a fact-finding committee, not a policy-making body.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: What has that to do with
the question?
Prices Committee


George Alexander Cruickshank: Never mind. You
had an hour and a half to attempt to say Something; now give me fifteen minutes really to say something.


James Arthur Ross: Time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is not time;
I am watching the clock. Souris has made five speeches already, and all he contributed was a little more about wheat.


James Arthur Ross: That is chicken feed, George.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All right; go on. I rather enjoy it. Some years ago I named a day for the hon. member for Souris; that day was April 1, and it still holds. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that one of our basic foods, Marquis wheat, was first produced in Agassiz, British Columbia, in 1906. Take that home to Souris.
I now want to refer to the Social Crediters, who seem always to vote with the Conservatives.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not always.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I know ; sometimes you are fair. I believe the hon. member for Jasper-Edson will admit that he said this was to be a fact-finding committee, not a policy-making committee. If anyone has to assume responsibility for policy making it is the government of the day. If they do wrong they have to stand or fall by it. I believe this debate has developed into another Olympic controversy, where that goat Brundage has been doing all the talking. Here I am contributing to it now, and I will have to cut it short. Why do we not get on with the problem and try to find the reason for the increased cost of living? We have all the machinery to prosecute those who profiteer. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is listening to me. I do not think he takes my advice all the time, but I believe he should bring back the excess profits tax or something equivalent. I want to go after the people that members of the opposition represent ninety per cent of the time, the people who profiteer at every possible opportunity on the poor men whom hon. gentlemen opposite try to defend now, a year and a half after they asked that controls be removed. The people of my riding are determined not only that we are to have a fact-finding committee but that, after that committee has done its work, you may judge my riding by my vote in this house if the government does not undertake suitable action to remedy the situation.
Mr. F. S. ZAPL1TNY (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I am sure the hon. gentlemen who call "question" realize that they are sitting on the government side of the house. We on this side have been calling "question" on the matter of price controls for the last two years. They have not seen fit to do anything about it; therefore they should not show such impatience today. I believe we have just heard from the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) some words of real wisdom. If I may offer a suggestion to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who always makes such delightful speeches in this house, it would be that the next time he has a lecture to deliver he direct it toward the administration which he supports. Today the hon. member criticized this group for advocating price control, and no sooner was he finished than one of his colleagues sitting directly behind him rose in his place and supported the stand taken by this group. Surely, if advice is to be given it should be given at home first.


Jean-François Pouliot: I gave advice to no one.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I believe the question we are now discussing is so serious that we should not attempt to divert the attention of this house or of the public from it by any side issues of any kind.
Some of the lectures we have been listening to from the government side of the house would seem to leave the impression that, in some mysterious way, by setting up a committee the government is doing what the public demands. I have not seen anywhere in the press any demand, nor have I seen any resolution sent to members of the house demanding a committee of investigation. But I have seen plenty of demands-and so have other members-for action now on the question of price control.
I do not believe the people who have been following the course of this debate will be satisfied with what they have heard thus far from cabinet ministers who have taken part in the debate. One of the forgotten factors, it appears to me, has been the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who is most closely concerned, or who ought to be most closely concerned with the question of price control, has seen fit not to have anything to say on the question. We have heard from other cabinet ministers and from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself; but the Minister of Finance has kept his counsel. I am not making this assertion, but it would almost appear as though someone in his party has told the Minister of Finance that he has made a bad enough mess

Prices Committee
already, that he has made enough trouble, and that, therefore, he should keep his peace during the debate.
The question around which the debate seems to revolve is as to whether or not this proposed committee is to be of any real value to the country and to the House of Commons. We have been assured by some on the government side that this committee can and will bring something of value into the consideration of the question of prices. However, the other day one hon. member, whom I cannot call a Liberal, but who sits with the Liberals, and who apparently is within the confidence of the caucus of the Liberal party-


John Lambert Gibson: That is wrong-not the caucus.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will quote what he had to say, and then he can tell me whether he speaks on behalf of the government.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How did he know whom you were talking about.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Apparently the cap fits well. On February 4, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said this, as reported at page 865 of Hansard:
I am quite sure that none of the hon. members is so politically naive as to think any recommendation brought in by this so-called committee, this, may" I say, junior cabinet committee, will reflect anything but government policy.
If ever there was a clear case for having suspicion as to the motives of the committee, and its possibilities, then certainly here is very good material upon which to base that suspicion. The minister-well, he is not a minister yet-the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-


John Lambert Gibson: I am hopeful.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He is not a real Liberal probably.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: What kind of Liberal?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He sits with the party which supports the government. Yet he tells us in the house that we should not be so naive as to think any recommendation brought in by this so-called committee will reflect anything but government policy.


John Lambert Gibson: Is that not true of any committee? Let us be fair.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If that is true-


John Lambert Gibson: It does not apply to this particular committee; it applies to any committee.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If that is true, then there is no reason for setting up this committee, at all.


John Lambert Gibson: I did not say that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I know.


John Lambert Gibson: Quote me through to the end.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not know what my hon. friend bases his opinion upon, but it is difficult to judge his position in the house. He reminds me, sir, of a hamadryad-


John Lambert Gibson: I am an independent.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -and in case he wonders what that is-


John Lambert Gibson: I do not have to follow the party line; and you are not used to that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: A hamadryad, Mr. Speaker, is a mythical nymph which lives with a tree, or in a tree. It dies with the tree, but is not part of the tree. That is the position he occupies on that side of the house. He is not of the party; he is simply with the party, and I think he will die when the government goes down.


John Lambert Gibson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not think this is a much better seat than the one I occupied adjoining the hon. member for Cartier who is no longer with us?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It probably is; but I am afraid the hon. member will find it too warm for comfort before very long. And while I am on that subject I might say to my genial friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that he has seen fit on several occasions to give advice to the C.C.F. group in the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why don't you take it?


John Lambert Gibson: I hope it was helpful.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Only recently he twitted the C.C.F. by saying that he wishes we would take his advice and appeal to the more intelligent electors in the country. I have found it strange that every time we did make an appeal it was the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who answered.


John Lambert Gibson: Since last December.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: However, the question I was discussing was as to whether or not this
Prices Committee

proposed committee would be of any real value. I believe the best authority to whom we can turn is the Prime Minister himself. Speaking on February 2, when introducing the resolution, he said this:
Once they are convinced that, having regard to an existing situation, prices are just and reasonable, they will be content to try and find ways of making necessary adjustments-
I do not know what those adjustments could be. It could only mean that they would be content to live on a lower standard of living. Then he goes on:
-but what they do not like is the idea that some individual or firms or corporations are profiting unduly at their expense-
That is a definite statement, that they are profiting at their expense unduly.
*-and that others are hoarding in a manner which prevents the people from getting the benefit of that plenty which there may be in the land-although it is not as great a plenty as it may have been at other times.
It will be noted that the Prime Minister had no doubt in his own mind as to whether there is undue profiting-which is another way of saying "profiteering". He makes the definite statement that people do not like the profiteering and hoarding that is going on.
Then, turning to another page, we find a most significant statement, if taken in relation with this one.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not interpret that English the way you do at all, may I say.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You can place your own interpretation upon it. Then, on the next page we find this:
The committee is not intended to be a prosecuting tribunal; it is hoped it may save the need for prosecutions.
Well, in one place we are told that the people do not like the hoarding and profiteering that is going on, and in another place we are told that this committee may save the need for prosecutions. What inference can be drawn from those two statements? It is that if profiteering and hoarding is going on, the hope is that this committee will not result in prosecutions, but will act as a sort of whitewash to avoid anyone's being embarrassed by the investigation. I cannot see that the government is serious in proposing the setting up of this committee, if we are to judge by the speeches of those who are supporting it.
I said a while ago that the Minister of Finance has not spoken, but that we have heard from other ministers. One of them was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner),

who spoke about the position of agriculture in this country at the present time. I am not going to refer at length to what he said, but there are two statements or two assertions which are worthy of some little scrutiny. With one of them-1 thoroughly agree. He, I think, proved most conclusively that the farmers of this country have been called upon to carry an undue share of the price of stabilizing the economy of the country, because his own figures and arguments prove that not only did the farmers pay their share of taxes which went eventually into subsidies in all directions, but they subsidized those who are the consumers of their food products directly out of their own pockets by providing cheaper foods, or by providing foods at cheaper prices than they otherwise could have received. In other words, the farmers have subsidized the consumers in two ways: first, they did it indirectly through taxation; and, second, they did it directly because they had to accept lower prices than they otherwise would have received.
The other statement he made was that farmers in this country have in recent years experienced better prices than ever before in the history of Canada. I shall not go over the whole map to find figures, but comparing 1947, the most recent figures I could get, with 1920, for example, the farmer was ini a much better position in 1920 than in 1947 in relation to the prices of farm products and the prices he paid for farm implements. It is illusory to talk merely of prices because they are simply a reflection of purchasing power at a given time, and if the value of the dollar falls by 50 per cent the price does not mean what it meant before. So, instead of taking prices only I am going to give a comparison of farm commodities in exchange for farm implements. In 1920 it took only 99 bushels of No. 1 northern Manitoba wheat to buy a double disc drill. These are dominion bureau of statistics figures. In 1947 it took 239 bushels, if we take the initial price of wheat. Of course participation would cut down the number of bushels required to buy the same drill. To buy a binder in 1920 took 110 bushels, and in 1947, 295 bushels. To buy a mower in 1920 took 38 bushels, and in 1947, 112 bushels. To buy a gang plow in 1920 took 65 bushels, and in 1947, 128 bushels. Certainly on the basis of wheat it cannot be said that the farmer is in a better position in 1947 to buy farm implements.


John Lambert Gibson: How about his mortgage?

Prices Committee


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not going to take time to reply to the hon. member who reaps the harvest that he does not sow from lumber.
If we take steers as the commodity in exchange for farm implements, in 1920 it took 21 hundredweight of good steers to buy a double disc drill, and in 1947, 24 hundredweight. In 1920 it took 23 hundredweight to buy a binder, and in 1947, 29 hundredweight. In 1020 it took 8 hundredweight to buy a mower, and in 1047, 11 hundredweight. In 1920 it took 14 hundredweight to buy a gang plow, and in 1947, 13 hundredweight. That is the only case in which the position was more favourable in 1947 than in 1920. So much for the position of the farmer from that angle.
There are those who have said they do not agree with the C.C.F. on controls because it would involve subsidies, and definite statements were made both on the government side and by the Progressive Conservatives that they do not believe in a permanent policy of subsidizing. It is hard to understand that attitude when we realize that we have had in this country ever since the days of the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald a permanent policy of subsidization, with the exception of a very few instances, and that both governments, Liberal and Conservative, have followed the same policy up until today. It is false to claim that we have not had a permanent policy of subsidization in peacetime when one remembers the tariff policy instituted in the early days of this country and maintained to a greater or less degree by all governments ever since. The tariff has had the result of subsidizing certain industries of this country. I am not saying that in itself was a bad thing to do, but in many cases it was unfair to the prairie provinces and to the maritimes. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) said, as reported at page 772 of Hansard'.
In the view of us who sit on this side of the house the subsidy system is not a system which can be permanent in our economy. It is not a peacetime system. It is a system which served its purpose during the war and under those extraordinary conditions. We do not agree with my hon. friends of the C.C.F., but we discuss their views and they discuss ours, and ours differ on that point. We do not believe in subsidies as a permanent peacetime policy, and we endeavoured to get away from them as quickly as the circumstances which had made it necessary to resort to them during the war permitted us to do so.
I say that is not a statement of fact; it may be a statement of opinion. The minister may not believe in subsidies personally, but it is wrong to say that it has never been the
peacetime system followed by this or other governments in this country, because we have always had the tariff system in Canada and it has always been a system of subsidies. He went on to say:
The government got away from the subsidy system as quickly as they could when the war ended.
They got away from it faster than parliament had asked them to do. It is well known that this house asked the government to continue the subsidy on milk, but the government reversed that decision and removed the subsidy. We may understand why the minister made that statement when we see that he started off on the previous page with this statement:
There are things which are believed by a great many of us-and by me among others- which may not be facts at all.
That may, of course, explain the situation.
Turning to the C.C.F. in this debate, we have been accused by various members in the house of wanting to impose on the people of this country some sort of system of control they do not want. The facts do not bear that out. We are here to represent the people who have elected us and, to a degree, all the people of this country. The people of this country have expressed their opinions by resolutions, letters and in public meetings, asking us that something be done immediately to solve the problem of the cost of living. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley admitted only a few minutes ago, he does not know what could be done immediately, other than price control while the government took time to study the situation. What we are asking for is immediate action on price control until the government or any other group on this side suggest a better solution. That would give' them time to formulate their ideas. Because we suggest that and because we have used the opportunity afforded by this motion to express our opinions, we are accused by some of almost all kinds of ulterior motives.
I want to place on the record in summarized form what we have been trying to impress on the government and the house, so that it will be there as an alternative to what the government itself proposes, which is the setting up of a committee. Our proposals may be summarized briefly in five points:
1.	We suggest that the government reestablish price controls and subsidies on the essential commodities of life.
Prices Committee

2.	That the government establish "markup" control; that is, control of profits in cases where general price control is not feasible.
3.	That the government remove or reduce indirect taxes such as the sales tax, which bears most heavily on those with low income.
Those are three points that could be dealt with by the government tomorrow. They still have power under the provisions which set up the wartime prices and trade board to do the first two of those things anyway, and the third could be done .when the budget is brought down.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the difference
between a subsidy and a sales tax? The subsidy is in effect a tax. It has to be paid for by taxes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The two things are the
very opposite. A subsidy on milk, for instance, enables those in the lower income groups to have a health food which otherwise they may not be able to get. In the case of the sales tax, of course, you are depriving them of that much more income which they could spend for that commodity; therefore the two things are practically opposite.


Humphrey Mitchell: Who pays the subsidy?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: All the taxpayers of Canada pay the subsidy.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course they do. The working classes pay the subsidy.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Let us not forget that under the income tax we tax according to ability to pay, while in the case of sales tax it falls indiscriminately upon all, whether they are able to pay or not. I realize that there is a difference of opinion. The other day I say a statement in a publication, The Letter Review, which some hon. members may have received. The editor of that paper states clearly that the government should not tax according to ability to pay but should tax where it hurts the most so that the people would know that they are being taxed. I do not subscribe to that view. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) does, then he and I differ in that.


Humphrey Mitchell: My point is this, if I may say so. Why not be logical about it. Subsidize 100 per cent and then we shall get everything for nothing and everybody will be rich.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't be ridiculous.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The Minister of Labour may be drafting a new Liberal platform when he says that; I do not know; but that is not

what we suggest. We are quite serious about this. I do not think the minister should try to ridicule the suggestion. We are quite serious that subsidies are an instrument in connection with price control to make sure that the producer who has to sell a product at a reasonable price may not lose in the course of his production what is coming to him.
The fourth and fifth points are less immediate; nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, they are, I believe, more fundamentally important, and in the long run I think they will have a greater effect than any other.
The fourth point is that we should encourage co-operative enterprise by removing all obstacles to co-operative development. I will come back to that in a moment.
The fifth point is that we should socialize monopolies and launch an immediate program of public enterprise in fields where public ownership is most suitable; this to act as a stabilizing and balancing effect on private enterprise.
I wish to discuss these last two points. The first three have been made sufficiently clear by all hon. members of this group who spoke on this debate and many others. Someone may say, why do you propose that we encourage co-operative enterprise? What has that to do with the price situation? Well, it has very much to do with it, because hon. members may have noticed1 that a co-operative association never raises its price unless it is to bring it up with the level of private enterprise. The reason for that is that the owners of the association are also the customers, and there is no reason why a customer, as the owner, should charge himself more money for doing business with himself. A co-operative raises its price only to keep in line with that of private enterprise. Then it turns back the surplus, or what private business would call profits, to its customers in the form of dividends. A co-operative in this country would be just too happy to lower its prices right down the line in order to make it possible for people to buy its products at a lower price, and there are some in private enterprise who ask why they do not do that. The answer is very simple. If a co-operative were to lower its prices there are those private enterprises who would immediately go up in arms and say, "Why, they are using unfair competition", and so on. Therefore many years ago the co-operatives established the principle under which they charge the same prices as their competitors and then turn back the surplus in the form of dividends to their customers.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member permit a question on that?

Prices Committee


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, if it does not take too long.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will put it as quickly as I can. The 'hon. member of course, does not believe in the taxation of co-operatives.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He does believe in subsidies to the consumer. Let us assume that all business is done by co-operatives. Then you have no taxes to pay your subsidies, have you? That is the end of your road, if you will just look at it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not think the hon. member expects an answer to that sort of hypothetical question. In the first place, I have not suggested, nor has anyone in this group, that all business in this country should be done by co-operatives. In the second place, if all the surplus of business went back to the customers instead of into profits there would be no need for subsidies.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No Canada at all.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The reason we suggest, as a long-range solution to the price problem, that we encourage co-operative enterprise by removing all obstacles-and one of these obstacles is that which the hon. member for Calgary West referred to, namely, the taxation of co-operatives; that is a separate question that I will not go into now-is, first, if we have co-operatives on a wide scale in this county-I am not suggesting that they are applicable to every individual business in this country, but they are applicable to many fields not yet touched'-we would have an important and valuable balance wheel to our private enterprise economy. There is a tendency-and no one will deny it; none of my most ardent private enterpriser friends will deny it-for private enterprise to run hog-wild when there is an opportunity to do it, and it is necessary even for its own preservation that there be some sort of balance wheel to keep a reasonable profit in sight instead of taking all that the traffic will bear.


Maurice Hartt: Private enterprise has done very well until now.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Well, it has done so well that the Prime Minister has had to propose that we appoint a committee to investigate why it has failed.


Maurice Hartt: People are not starving here as they are in England.


Mr. McKAY:: Shame.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: That is disgraceful.


Maurice Hartt: Read Attlee's speech and find out. It is the truth. Read Attlee's speech.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am sorry I was not in
the house-


Angus MacInnis: Are conditions the same? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who brought about these conditions?


James Horace King: Order.


Eric Bowness McKay: Shame on you.


Maurice Hartt: The British empire was the greatest financial centre in the world until the socialists came into power.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying. I am sorry I was not in the house when the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Hartt) made his speech. I hope he is not going to make it over again just for my benefit.


Maurice Hartt: It would be helpful.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: My fifth point is-and I
think it is the most fundamental-socialize monopolies. Why? Well, in the first place, the Prime Minister in his speech on February 2 intimated that the price situation today is not due to combines and monopolies as was the case in 1934 when the price spreads committee was suggested. He tried to point out that it was a different situation; but, as a matter of fact, we know that at the present time, and particularly so after the war ended, there has been a tendency for monopolies and combines to strengthen their position because they control the sources of distribution; and when there is a shortage of goods, when some firm or business is in control of the distribution of these goods, they have a golden opportunity to squeeze out their competitors and form an amalgamation or combine and in that way corner the business.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the hon. member say somebody did that, or is that just theory?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If my hon. friend would read the report of the Combines Investigation Act or the Labour Gazette he would find evidence to that effect.
Why do I suggest socialization as a remedy? There are those who say, well, we have the Combines Investigation Act; why cannot that be used to unscramble the monopolies, to enforce free competition? I have an excerpt from the royal commission on price spreads of 1934, taken from page 50, under the heading,
Prices Committee

"The prohibition of monopoly and maintenance of compulsory competition." Here is a significant statement:
A Standard Oil company, however, may be unscrambled into its separate constituents, but it is open to question whether these can be compelled effectively to compete.
We know very well- that no monoply or combine, if unscrambled by law, can be made to compete against itself under the free enterprise system. The thing does not make sense. We have another bit of evidence on that from the committee on farm implements in 1937. In their report to the house they said:
The lack of free price competition in this industry, as in many other industries is one of the real problems in modem economic life.
Then they go on to say:
From the standpoint of the business executives, price competition was not a satisfactory condition, and escape from it was one of the salient reasons for the formation of large corporate units by the amalgamation of smaller previously existing companies.
That tells us in plain language that you cannot make a monopoly turn into a free enterprise institution. You may unscramble it by law but you cannot make it compete. The process will start all over again, amalgamation will take place, and price competition will be squeezed out. It is only natural that it should be so, because under the capitalist system, those who are in business, those who are trying to make as big a profit as possible, try every trick of the trade known to them, and one of those tricks is to do away with your competitor. It is the natural process of capitalism. It is no use denying it because it is there, and there is no law on the statute books effective enough to make monopoly competitive business. It will not work. The only way in which monopolies can be effectively handled is to place them under public ownership, so that any surplus or profit that may be made will go to the benefit of the people of the country. As a matter of fact, we have already done that to some extent in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you make any profits in Saskatchenwan?


An hon. MEMBER:: Saskatchewan is
doing very well.


An hon. MEMBER:: How is the boot factory doing?


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the price of bricks?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Have you enough
boxes to put them in?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, and we can even bury a few Liberals in the boxes that are left over.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that what I have to say has started a lively debate in this house, because these are problems which have to be debated. However, time is passing. I think we all need to realize in this house, what the newspapers and public opinion across the country have made quite clear to all hon. members, that the people want action now. They are not particularly concerned as to how the government will approach the problem in the future. They want something done today.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What do you charge for lumber manufactured under public ownership in Saskatchewan? What do you charge per thousand?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not charge anything for lumber. In the first place, I do not live in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Fraser Valley may think I come from Saskatchewan, and perhaps that is why he asked the question. I do not come from that province but from a province close to Saskatchewan. I am not going to attempt to answer the question because it has nothing to do with what I am saying.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Don't you know what your party does?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, but you do not know what yours does. The members of the Liberal party have been doing a good deal of interrupting in the last few hours, and I might offer them a little advice in a friendly way if they wish to take it, namely, that they heed the warning issued them by their own electors. I know that the people of western Canada, and certainly the people of Manitoba, the farmers and labourers who are the backbone of that province, have expressed themselves in no uncertain terms for price control now, and if the private members of the Liberal party want to do both themselves and the government a favour, and to render a public service to the people they represent, instead of interrupting and trying to belittle and ridicule the efforts of this group, they should be in with us pitching to make the government act instead of setting up a committee.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet spoken in this debate. I made one speech in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, because I thought there was no other problem in Canada quite so pressing as the problem of

Prices Committee
prices, but as a mother and a housewife I must say a few words before this debate closes.
We have had some very interesting speeches on the whole subject of setting up a committee to investigate prices, and I was particularly interested in the vicious attack made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bra-dette) on the price of milk, milk subsidies and so on. I thought it was too bad I had not answered him that night, because it would be an interesting debate for a mother and a bachelor to fight over a bottle of milk. In the last couple of weeks I have thought it would be a very good thing if the members of the government in this house could change places with their wives who have been doing the shopping in the last six months.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is tough on the Prime Minister.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: If the Prime Minister and other hon. gentlemen on the front benches were to exchange places with housewives we would not be quibbling over subsidies. Those hon. gentlemen do not understand what it means to shop these days. Every time I start to keep house for a while-because I usually eat out when I am alone in Ottawa-I know that every time I have a grocery order filled I am shocked at the way a $5 bill has shrunk. You carry home a little sack in your arms and it is a couple of dollars. I think the gentlemen who are deciding on the food budgets of the nation ought to take it upon themselves to do the family shopping for a week, and then they would be better fitted to judge the matter.
We have had some interesting statistical debates in this house in the last couple of weeks. I have indulged in some statistics myself, but tonight I will not try to convince you on the basis of statistical argument. Instead, I will try to make you see reason by presenting to you the ordinary everyday problems of the family. I listened to the defence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) the other day, and I must say I think he is one of the most honest and fair-minded members in this house. He said that the statement he had made was predicated upon a supposition, and that no one knew what we would have had to pay had we not had price control. If I misinterpret him I hope someone will correct me, but that was what I understood him to say. I understood him to say that we could not compare prices in the inflationary period following the last war with prices in this period because, after the last war, we had not attempted to control prices, and because
we had attempted to control prices this time no one knew how far they would have gone without control. That is what I took from his statement and if I am wrong I hope to be corrected.
On January 8 the Ottawa Citizen published a chart showing that, since the removal of controls, our prices have shot up to nearly the same heights as prices following the last war. The headline to the chart is "Prices zooming toward 1920 peak". So that, while perhaps we do not know to the last dollar what we saved through the exercise of control, we do know that we have lost nearly all the gains that we were able to achieve by controlling prices in that period.
We have had many references to the cost of subsidies and many criticisms about paying subsidies, and every once in a while the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) gets up and tries to embarrass people who believe in subsidies by asking us, "Do you intend to control the cost of labour? Do you intend to put a price control on labour?" And, by the way, that is uttered in a tone that suggests it is the $64 question. Let me point out that we are now paying subsidies on feed grain and have been for some years without controlling the cost of farm labour or the cost of labour used in the transportation.
We are not attempting to control the wages of the people who work on the railways or the wages of those who work on the farms and feed the grain on which this subsidy is paid. We are not attempting to control the price of labour in the coal mines where we are paying a coal subsidy. We are not attempting to control the price of labour in the gold fields where we are giving certain assistance in the production of gold. So I submit that that is a false argument or a false defence; and it is not preventing the paying of subsidies in those industries I have just mentioned.
We are not objecting to subsidies on coarse grain for the eastern farmer; but, in the interests of the health of this nation, we say that you cannot afford to bring about standards of nutrition that will undermine the health of the people. I wish you gentlemen would learn the nutritional facts of life. I wish you would learn that you cannot raise babies without milk. I wish you knew that the pre-school child needs it just as badly. I wish you would scan the maternal mortality figures and the infant mortality figures; take the evidence of your own health department and see what lack of proper nutrition does to the expectant mother and what it does to the dental condition of school children. Take the nutritional
Prices Committee

surveys that your own public servants have conducted and see the sort of nutrition that prevails in Canada even in the best of times, the nutritional level which obtained under price control with the payment of subsidies, and compare the nutritional standards which can be maintained today on the same wages. If you do that, you will see that the removal of control and subsidies is a foolish kind of economy. This is the most short-sighted kind of saving of money that this country ever indulged in. You are undermining the health of your children. You are preparing the way for the same sort of statistics that you got when you began to examine the youth of this country when you wanted them for military service. There was no end to the monev you could pour out to equip those young people to fight, but you are now proceeding to withdraw the food from the mouths of their children. I hope you will consider that in the light of your position, although I think the people who want to do something about the matter are in the minority.
I want to commend the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). I do not think he will get either into the cabinet or into the senate.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, now, nowl


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I also want to commend the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I wish there were a few more people on the other side of the house who had the courage, fortitude and common sense that these hon. members showed, because this is not a party issue. Subsidies are not a party issue any more than taxes are a party issue. These are just methods for distribution and these are just means for protecting the Canadian people. I think it is silly to make things like taxes, pensions and subsidies into party rows, because those things have no more to do with parties than the simple devices of municipal government-the building of highways and roads, and the improvement of our country-have to do with them. It is a great pity that we do not make up our minds to speak as we think, instead of hiding behind party fences when an issue of this kind comes up.
That is about all I wish to say, except that I just want to go back again for a moment to the hon. member for Cochrane, because I wish he would learn the facts of life.


Maurice Hartt: He is far too young.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: To talk in the same breath about milk, the new look and providing people with motorcars is to show a terrible lack of development. To talk about the new look

and long skirts in the same way that you talk about milk without which human life can not be maintained in a new-born infant and without which no standards of health can be maintained, is to show the most abysmal lack of knowledge of the facts of life.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: He is a bachelor.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: That is what I say. People who have not a knowledge of these facts of life should not be permitted to run this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the Prime Minister?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The Prime Minister had the good sense to bring in family allowances, and I hope to convert him to the idea of subsidies on milk. Again I urge you to think of milk, bread and meat, as well as fruit and vegetables, as the basic necessities of life itself. I urge the government to begin immediately to put controls on butter, not at seventy-three cents a pound, but down at a point where people who have more than two or three children can afford to buy it.


Mr. SINNOTT:: Is the farmer getting too much?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Has the hon. member not learned how much the farmer gets out of these prices?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have milked more cows than the hon. member ever saw.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: If it comes to a cow-milking contest with my hon. friend, I will take him on at any time.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Let us go out to the experimental farm on Sunday.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I grew up on a farm and I married a farmer.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I will take the hon. member up on that challenge, and meet her at the experimental farm.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am surprised at the hon. member. Of all members, the farmer members should know what share of the seventy-three cents the farmers get.


Maurice Hartt: Fifty-nine cents.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: There is another farmer.


Maurice Hartt: I will join the cow-milking contest.


James Horace King: Order.

Prices Committee


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The other night the hon. member for Cochrane said he thought it was a good thing to let the person who bought meat and milk know how much it cost the farmer to produce those things. I want to point out through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this house that that does not represent what it costs the farmer; that in between the man who buys the milk and the man who milks the cow is a great distribution system which takes off often far more than the farmer who produces these commodities gets. Not only that, but these high prices create a great deal of confusion and resentment in the minds of the consumers. I live in cities for part of the year and hear the comments made, by people who do not know the situation, on the greed of the farmer, the way he is rolling in wealth and the profits he is making. High prices and the withdrawal of subsidies do not lead to understanding; they lead to more confusion, more resentment, and more beclouding of the picture. The farmers are not getting more than it is costing them; and hon. members on every side of the house will support that statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Ask the farmers what it is costing them to produce a pound of bacon now that we have taken the ceiling off coarse grains. Ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley what it is costing to produce a dozen eggs-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: -or what it is costing the dairy farmers to ship coarse grain from the prairies now that we have put coarse grains on the speculative market again. It is not a matter of revealing what it costs the farmer. It is a matter of permitting a group of people to speculate in foodstuffs. The government should take action with regard to that by restoring the ceiling on coarse grains and taking them out of the hands of the speculators.
I shall sit down mow, Mr. Speaker, but I urge the government to act. They should, of course, investigate. The committee should investigate. But I think we should not investigate with an eye to rationalizing our position. We should investigate with an eye to uncovering abuses, if abuses exist. But I do say that in the meantime, while the committee is investigating, the government should restore prices to a level which will permit the Canadian people to buy the protective foods which are needed every day, and should pay subsidies in order that the producers shall not suffer.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Som hon. MEMBERS: Filibuster.


Thomas John Bentley: Two or three hon. members called "filibuster" when I rose. I should like to remind the house that I have not taken part in any debate since this session resumed;, and spoke only once in the pre-Christmas session.


An hon. MEMBER:: A nice time to choose.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, it is a nice time. Probably the house will be sitting until the middle of the summer, so that any time will be a nice time to make a speech. I have chosen this time to say what I have to say on this particular issue. First, I want to say that I appreciated the speech of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) the other day. It has been eulogized by others on this side of the house, and I wish to add my voice to theirs. I think the hon. member spoke words of wisdom. One part of his speech I did not quite Like, however; that was when he said something about a little man on our backs. I want to assure the hon. member for Spadina that, as the popular song has it, the little man is not there; he was not there yesterday and he is not there again today. I have no Little man on my back bothering me at all. Otherwise I agree with what he had to say.
I listened carefully the other day to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley), because sometimes he inspires me with his sense of fairness, though at other times he has rather the opposite effect. He took it upon himself to chastise the British government when he told this house the British government had a tiger by the tail in the form of subsidies, and were afraid to let go. I have not heard any squawk like that from the British government, but I suggest that our government in Canada have a tiger by the tail in the form of inflation and runaway prices. They are afraid to let go. Now they hope they can swap places on the tiger's tail with a committee and, in the resulting confusion, escape the gaze of the tiger. The government wants to set up a committee with no responsibility at all, exbept, as they say, to discover facts, and time and again they have challenged us to say why we do not want that committee. Tonight I am going to submit some evidence which I hope will be factual enough to convince the government that something should be done now.
Prices Committee

Before doing that, however, I want to point out to this house that when the government desires to do something rapidly it can find plenty of power. When the government does not want to do something, then it can find all kinds of ways to stall; and that is what we have here. I can remember during the last session of parliament, and even during the session of 1946, hearing warnings from this side of the house. It is not often I agree with my Conservative friends, but some of them did warn this government that there would be a shortage of United States exchange in this country before very long. I remember the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) pooh-poohing the idea, as of no particular importance, as late as June or July of 1947. Then it finally caught up with him. Did the government call parliament and invite this house to set up a committee to investigate ways and means to deal with the situation? No. They moved with the rapidity of a rattlesnake and right away prohibited the importation of a great many necessary things from the United States in order to begin conserving American dollars. No committee. No stall. They acted with great speed, as they can when they feel the time is suitable to do so. Not only did they move rapidly in restricting these imports; they moved just as rapidly in placing a heavy excise tax on a great many things manufactured in Canada, with the immediate result that only those in the higher income groups were able to buy those commodities and pay that tax. Those in the lower income groups were having a hard enough time getting along, and were completely shut out of that market. As I say, when the government wanted to do that they did Dot set up a committee. They did not know under what law they could take action. In fact we have been told in the house that they were doubtful about their power, but suddenly they discovered that, under the regulations governing the foreign exchange control board, they had the power necessary; and they did it.
I submit that, while that was a serious matter, it was no more serious for the people of this country than the high prices which prevail at the present time. I remember quite well another time when the government acted very quickly. That was early in the session of 1946, when the then minister of finance informed the house, without any previous word whatever, that the wartime prices and trade board had given permission to Canadian manufacturers of farm machinery to increase the prices of that machinery by 12i per cent. No committee was set up. We asked for an investigation to show us there was good

reason for the increase, but in that case the government did not need a committee. They acted' rapidly without it, and we were disappointed in the result. Shortly after that, or along about the same time, without any reference at all to a committee, the government moved swiftly to permit a S5 increase in the basic price of steel.
Then, at the end of the session of 1946, as has been mentioned here previously, by vote of this house, with all political lines dropped, the government was given complete authority to continue the subsidy on milk. That was a non-party decision. Every party, I believe with few dissenters, agreed to it. The government did not set up a committee to find out what made parliament do that. It did not set up a committee to find out whether or not it was necessary. It simply ignored the wishes of parliament, with no reference at all to any committee. No committee was set up when coarse grains were released from control last fall. No committees were set up when a great number of these things were done. I am beginning to think this government has some particular ulterior-I withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker; it is wrong-some hidden reason for wanting this committee to stall this particular investigation.
I want to mention something else the government did without consultation with this house and without reference to a committee, which to me was one of the most reprehensible things the government has ever done. I should have known better, but I did not believe it when I saw in a newspaper a few days ago that the government actually had passed an order in council withholding compulsory savings to be applied against arrears of income tax. So I asked a question in the house, and I was amazed when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) replied that such was the case, and that the authority was P.C. 28 passed on January 8 of this year. No committee was set up to decide whether the government had the right to withhold money which had been taken from the people in the first place by compulsory methods, with a promise made then and repeated since that the money would be returned at a certain time. I think that action was most reprehensible, and certainly the government took it without reference to any kind of committee.
I said at the beginning that I was going to submit what I thought was some fairly conclusive evidence as to why prices are high. Tonight my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough) put some price increases on record. These prices which I shall quote are fob. Saskatoon. I shall not

Prices Committee
refer to all the machine companies, but shall deal only with the Massey-Harris Company, and I shall refer to it later in another connection. I find that a Massey-Harris 21A, 11-foot self-propelled combine with auger table, less cleaner, carries a new price of 83,791.90, whereas the old price was $3,379.55, representing an increase of $412.35.
I could go down the list and give similar increases all the way through. Then, I would refer to a statement from the Financial Post of November 15, 1947, where the profits of the Massey-Harris Company are set out. I mentioned a little while ago that Canadian farm machine companies had been permitted to increase by 12] per cent the price of their machinery manufactured in Canada. In that connection, may I point out that this House of Commons was fooled. I do not know whether it was done deliberately or not, but it was certainly fooled on that occasion.
All hon. members will recall that we fought strenuously that 12] per cent increase, but that in the course of the discussion we were informed that the 124 per cent increase in the price of farm machinery would take place at the factory door. We thought then that $100 worth of machinery manufactured and ready for shipment outside the factory door would increase in price by 124 per cent. However, when I got home that winter, following the session, I found that $100 worth of machinery had added to it the transportation costs to the point of delivery, and sales costs, and that the 12] per cent was added on to the whole sum before the machine reached the ultimate consumer. Not only did they make 12] per cent on the manufactured cost, but they made 12] per cent on what they paid the railroads or trucking companies for transportation; they made 12] per cent on what they paid agents for selling, and on various other costs which enter into the selling of farm machinery.
We claimed at that time that neither Massey-Harris nor any other farm machine company needed that increase. The Financial Post of November 15, 1947, shows that in 1945 Massey-Harris made a profit of $1,588,480 and that in 1946 they made a profit of $2,125,570, or an increase of 34 per cent. But in dollars
and cents that is an increase of $537,000. I submit that even those in the house who believe in private enterprise being entitled to its profits must realize that, with a profit in 1945 of $1,588,480, they did not require another $537,000 on top of that in 1946. We were told they needed that increase in price because they might go into the hole if they did not get it. The actual fact is that they made greater profits; and there is every reason to believe that these same companies have increased their profits again in 1947.
The prices I hold before me went into effect in November, 1947, and the same increases could be shown for Cockshutt, John Deere and Massey-Harris. As I said before, there must be some hidden motive for all this. I read in the Globe and Mail, which no one will suggest is a C.C.F. party organ, an article by Warren Baldwin who is somewhat concerned with the meaning of all this. He is inclined to think, as I do sometimes, that we are getting too closely enmeshed in the American economy, and that we are entirely too much governed by decisions taken in the United States. I know the Minister of Finance refuted that suggestion rather heatedly when it was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that the government is taking orders from Washington. Perhaps it is not; but all indications are that we are heavily influenced by United States decisions.
If the European recovery plan ever does get into operation, apparently it is the intention that a great deal of the money voted for that purpose shall be used for the purchase of supplies in Canada.
On motion of Mr. Bentley the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume, if there is no objection, that all hon. members will be prepared to continue with this debate tomorrow. If there is no objection we shall call it unanimous.


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