1949-11-02

FOOTBALL


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In this case it is a matter of very personal privilege, because I am being bothered. This morning's Citizen-I notice at the top of the page it says it has been an independent paper since 1844; I want it on my side-says that I have fixed the odds in the east-west football match at three to one on the Calgary Stampeders. I am asking one to three. My telephone has been ringing every ten seconds for the last hour, as a result of calls from people wanting this sucker money. I want them to know that I am not betting that way.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: 1.	Are authors' and authors' fees subject to income tax?
2.	Are authors' and writers, whose main income is derived from other sources, subject to income tax?
3.	Are authors and writers whose income from writing is less than 25 per cent, obliged to estimate in advance, their earnings from this source, and complete and file income tax remittance form T7B?
4.	Does the ruling on authors' fees apply alike to all sections of Canada?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) No, if the balance of the income of the author or writer is, to the extent of three-quarters or more of his total income, from salary, wages or other remuneration.
(b) Yes; if the balance of the income of the author is not, to the extent of three-quarters or more of total income, from salary, wages or other remuneration.
4.	Yes.



IMMIGRANTS


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Of the 261,260 immigrants brought into Canada during 1946, 1947 and 1948, how many were (a) Roman Catholics: (b) Jews; (c) Protestants?
2.	Of the 54,733 displaced persons brought into Canada during 1946, 1947 and 1948 (a) how many had contagious diseases on arrival at Canadian ports; (b) how many at North Bay, Ontario?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	(a) and (c) No statistics are kept of the religious affiliation of immigrants, (b) 14,416 of Hebrew racial origin.
2.	(a) and (c) No statistical record of this information is kept, (b) Information not available.



RENT CONTROL


Mr. Henry:: 1.	Is there a lawsuit pending in the Supreme Court of Ontario in which certain property owners ask that court to find that the federal government has ceased to have legislative power to enforce rent control in Canada?
2.	What steps is the federal government taking to be sure that all possible facts will come before the court in evidence to enable the court to properly decide whether or not the federal government has power to continue rent control in Canada?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Attorney General of Canada has instructed leading counsel in the action, and the crown will be guided by his advice in the conduct of the litigation.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: What were the localities in Newfoundland where field parties were located for the purpose of conducting (a) geological surveys; (b) topographical surveys; (c) geodetic surveys?


Mr. Maybank:: (a)	Geological surveys: One-mile mapping in the Terrenceville, St. John's, Hodges Hill and Bonavista areas, and in the Labrador iron belt. Reconnaissance mapping started by the Newfoundland government was continued.
(b)	Topographical surveys: Parties were engaged in establishing control for mapping on the isthmus connecting Avalon peninsula to the main island, in the Bonavista area, and on the Quebec-Labrador boundary.
(c)	Geodetic surveys: Precise levelling was carried out by one party in an area starting at St. John's and extending along the coast of Conception bay, and thence inland to Bonavista. Triangulation was carried out by one party on the Fogo peninsula south of St. John's.
i 368

Questions



INCOME TAX


Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	What was the amount collected in income tax during the years 1946-1947-1948?
2.	What was the cost of collecting these amounts in each of the above years?


Mr. McCann:: The total net revenue collected by the taxation division, Department of National Revenue, from federal income tax, excess profits tax and succession duty in each of the fiscal years ended 31st March 1946, 1947 and 1948, also the cost of collection in such years, were as follows:
(1) (2)
Fiscal Year
Total Net	Cost of
Collections Collection
1945-	46
1946-	47
1947-	48
$1,453,373,330 $11,796,342 1,435,731,759	13,734,591
1,317,706,891	19,627,980



PUBLIC SERVICE-EXEMPTION OF EMPLOYEES FROM GARNISHEE OF SALARIES

Mr. Knight:: 1.	Are federal government employees exempt from legal action designed to garnishee their salaries?
2.	If so, by what statute is such exemption provided?
3.	Does such exemption apply to all federal government employees, and if not, to what categories does it apply?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Salaries or wages of federal government employees cannot validly be garnisheed.
2.	There is no statutory exemption, but the provincial statute authorizing garnishee proceedings does not extend to employees of the government of Canada.
3.	Yes.
kind, giving particulars; (d) services, including utilities; (e) maintenance; (f) any other expenditures not hereinbefore specified?
3.	How many civilian employees were there in each of the above colleges in each of the said years?
4.	How many military personnel were on the staff and establishment in each of these schools in each of the said years?



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What combines or alleged combines have been reported by the commissioner, under the Combines Investigation Act, to the Minister of Justice, since 1935?
2.	What corporations were involved in each combine or alleged combine?
3.	In what instance have prosecutions been undertaken?
4.	In what instance have prosecutions been successful?
5.	What was the penalty in each case?



FEDERAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. Winkler:: 1.	How many boards and commissions are there under federal jurisdiction?
2.	How many officers are there on each of these boards and commissions?
3.	How many are full time and how many are part time occupations?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Pearkes:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents and papers connected with the application for naturalization and the issuance, on February 28, 1944, of a naturalization certificate to Lieutenant-Colonel A. G. Wygard.


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: 1.	What ships have been employed this year in charting the harbours in Newfoundland?
2.	What harbours have been thus charted?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	The Acadia, the Cartier and the Henry Hudson, of the Canadian hydrographic service.
2.	Fogo, St. Anthony and Port aux Basques harbours.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	What was the total expenditure in connection with (a) Royal Military College; (b) Royal Roads, in each of the years 1947 and 1948?
2.	What was the cost of (a) pay and allowances for military staff and personnel; (b) civilian staff salaries; (c) supplies of all and every nature and
(Mr. Maybank.j



REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF ADDRESS OF MR. MARTIN AT LAKE SUCCESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Yesterday the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) asked me a question about a report in the Ottawa Citizen of a speech made at Lake Success by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I have here the report which appeared in the Citizen of November 1, and I should like to read the relevant passage so that the words quoted may be in their proper context. The portion of the report to which I refer reads as follows:
Many persons have criticized the United Nations as a mere debating society, Martin said. But the fact that the countries come together to air their grievances was ample justification for the body.
Then this is quoted:
"Just think of the world tension that would exist if the Yugoslav question were not being discussed in the United Nations." he said.

He pointed to United Nations work in Palestine and Indonesia as examples of its success in keeping conflicts from becoming widespread war.
Then there is another quotation:
"We have begun here the kind of organization that will some time exist as surely as our federal and provincial and city governments exist."
That is the end of what is stated as a quotation. The report goes on:
The United Nations will gradually assume legislative character and the International Court of Justice will assume responsibilities similar to those held by national supreme courts.
From this report I think it will be apparent that the minister was not stating government policy, or policies of any kind, but was attempting to make a forecast of the kind of development of international co-operation which those who desire to see lasting peace and security in the world would hope for some time in the future.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has a report been made by the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act on alleged violations of the act in the flour milling industry? If so, will the minister table it?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: My hon. friend did not give me notice of this question. I shall be glad to give a reply tomorrow.


Mr. Maclnnis:: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister tell the house whether Mr. F. A. McGregor, commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act, has resigned, and if so, whether his resignation has been accepted.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall give to the hon. member for Vancouver East the reply that I gave to the previous question. I shall be glad to give an answer tomorrow.


Mr. Graydon:: There should not be very much trouble in answering that question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When the hon. member becomes Minister of Justice, perhaps he will deal with these questions.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Will the Minister of National Defence make a stateinquiries of the Ministry ment as to the extent to which the recommendations of Admiral Mainguy's report are being implemented?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I could not make a full statement on the orders of the day, but I can say that a survey of the report would indicate that there are approximately forty or forty-one specific recommendations. Thirteen of these recommendations had been carried into effect before the report was given to me. Six others are being proceeded with immediately. Four constitute part of a long-term program. The remaining eighteen are dependent on government policy, or are still subject to consideration. I shall be very glad indeed to deal with these matters more fully when the estimates of the department are under consideration, which I hope will be at an early date.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would it be asking too much to ask the minister to tell us which of the recommendations have already been implemented? Merely to say that so many have been implemented does not really convey any information to the house.


Brooke Claxton: It would require a lengthy statement to deal with the recommendations, and I do not think it is the practice of the house to have such lengthy statements made on the orders of the day. If it were the wish of the house, I could spend half an hour or an hour going into them, either now or later, but I am sure it would not meet the hon. gentleman's wish. I can say that the report itself indicates that many of the recommendations have been carried into effect. These are matters which were receiving consideration both before the incidents which gave rise to the inquiry occurred, and after it commenced.
With regard to some of the more important recommendations, such as the Canadianization of the Canadian navy, of course I am in complete agreement with that, and will see that everything is done to implement it. One of these recommendations dealt with the putting of a maple leaf on the funnels of the ships of the Canadian navy. I had already given instructions to that effect, before the inquiry was set up, and that course was being taken as the ships went in for refit. Another recommendation has to do with officer training. There I might put it to the house that the officers who were largely concerned in any of the incidents were officers who had been trained under a system different from that which is now in effect, and which is much more genuinely Canadian than anything before, but has not yet been in effect long enough to produce any considerable number of officers for the navy. That, however, is coming. I could deal with other matters,

Inquiries of the Ministry but since it is hoped that the estimates of this department will be reached next week, it would be much more convenient to go into them then, and into any other matters relating to the report.


George Randolph Pearkes: What about the training ship?


Brooke Claxton: H.M.C.S. Ontario has already been set aside as a training ship. That is one of the recommendations which had already been carried out.



CROWN PROPERTIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Caiherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made some weeks ago in the press that it is the intention of the government to make payments to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown properties throughout the country, will the Prime Minister at this time say whether this legislation will be put into effect before the end of the present session of parliament?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The recent press statements
referred to by the hon. member were not authorized by the government. I should not like to add anything today to what was said on the subject on October 26 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), as reported on pages 1154 and 1155 of Hansard. Perhaps it might be well to recall it to the attention of hon. members. He said:
The whole question of crown properties in municipalities has been under consideration for some time. I think the Prime Minister indicated to the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities that it was hoped to be able to make a statement at an early day as to what government policy might be in that regard.
Then the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked this question:
Will the statement be made before the end of the present session?
The Minister of Finance replied, "Yes." TRADE



PRESS REPORT OF REMARKS OF MR. DONALD GORDON IN NEW YORK ON NOVEMBER 1

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Yesterday 1 handed in a question for the order paper. The chief of orders and notices told me that I would have to bring the question up on the orders of the day or on a motion to go into committee of supply. My question for the order paper was as follows:
1. Has the attention of the government been called to an address delivered by Mr. Donald
[Mr. Claxton.l
Gordon in New York as reported in a Canadian Press dispatch appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of Tuesday morning, November I, as follows:
"Gordon calls on U.S. to Assume Role.
North America, and particularly the United States, must assume the new role of furnishing a ready import market for the goods of other nations.
Only by this action can the dollar shortage be effectively and permanently overcome, Mr. Gordon said in an address prepared for delivery before the 36th national foreign trade convention.
Coupled with the opening of markets, North America also must supply development capital for less advanced reasons.
Mr. Gordon said that, while past measures had served to fill the dollar gap temporarily, the fact was that North America's export surplus to the world must be eliminated or at least greatly reduced by increased imports if the dollar-short countries were to be placed on A sound basis."
2.	Is this government policy, or is it not?
3.	As head of the national railways was Mr. Gordon authorized to make this statement?
Did Mr. Gordon make this statement on behalf of the government, and did he go there for this purpose, or not?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry, but it is not possible to state government policy after the hon. member has read some newspaper report in tones that we cannot hear.


Thomas Langton Church: I think that if they all came home from New York, the whole carload of them, there would be some hope of world peace.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 1, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Thatcher.
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I was amazed and disappointed at the answers which were given-or rather were not given- by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to the questions of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The country as a whole will be very uneasy until the answer to these questions is forthcoming; for it has been reported from very reliable sources that Mr. McGregor has resigned as commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. I know not whether the rumour is well founded, but if it is, I shall say this, by way of tribute to the man and to his work, that his services will be sadly missed by this country as a whole, for he is

a man who has done splendid work. He has stood up squarely against what I personally consider to be forces of iniquity. He has not only faced the enmity of those great forces which he has been trying to investigate-and under handicaps-but he has stood up against laggard negligence in high places in regard to his investigations.
I propose today to bring against this government a general indictment in that it has not protested, for the protection of the consuming public in this country, against the depredations of combines formed in restraint of trade and for the deliberate purpose of consolidating their forces in order to exploit the public for their own profit.
Perhaps there is some justification for the common talk that prosecutions are often taken against the little man, and that he is shown no mercy. He must keep within the bounds of propriety-yes, and within the bounds of law. But when dealing with the public, if you are big enough and sufficiently consolidated you can do almost anything, and do it with impunity. I shall not go as far as one of my colleagues went the other day when he said that one could get the measure of justice for which one could afford to pay; but I do say that immunity is sometimes enjoyed by these combines. And as it is so enjoyed it is nothing short of a national disgrace.
Let me remind the house of four particular cases which I have in mind. In the past there have been submitted to the house certain reports, known as McGregor reports, having to do with alleged combines in the dental, optical and bread-baking industries; and I understand the report is now ready but has not yet been tabled in respect to the flour milling industry. A question was asked in the house today in regard to that report, but was not very satisfactorily answered.


An hon. Member:: Not answered at all.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No, not answered at all. Whether or not proof of illegal activities in this latter case has been found, I do not know; nor shall we know until the report has been tabled.
What has been the fate of these reports? What action in the interests of the people of Canada has the government taken in these matters? So far as practical results go, none. A feeble and anaemic attempt at prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act was made in the case of the dental combine. I believe it was Mr. Ilsley who reported to the house that, because of legal technicalities, the matter had been dropped. In the meantime some of our aged people on small incomes are going without dentures. A dealer in dental supplies in my own city of Saskatoon was refused supplies from his wholesale
The Budget-Mr. Knight house unless he agreed to sell the articles supplied him at prices dictated by the combine. This is not a matter of conjecture; it is a matter of proven fact.
Is this what my hon. friends on the government side of the house mean when they talk to us about freedom of enterprise? This gentleman, who happened to be a personal friend of mine, was forced out of business and out of the exercise of his profession by the depredations of these people.
In the matter of optical supplies, old age pensioners have been doing without the spectacles they need. I am glad to be able to say that in my own province the load has been taken off the back of the individual, or off his purse, since the government of that province began furnishing, along with free hospitalization and medicine, glasses to old age pensioners requiring them. But the high prices impose a heavy load upon the social services branches of that government.
The general public has become increasingly the victim of these high prices, some of which may be attributed to the depredations of these combines. The cost of living is high enough now, goodness knows.
If I might digress for a moment from the particular subject in hand, I would refer to an article appearing in my Saskatoon paper which I read this morning, and having to do with price increases. It says-
An increase of six or seven cents in the retail price of a pound of coffee was forecast today as a result of a five-cent boost-
And it will be noticed that the boost is only five cents.
-in the wholesale price. The retailers expect the new prices will take effect at the beginning of next week.
When compared with these other combines to which I have referred, this is only small potatoes; but it is an indication of the trend of the times. When these people were asked to explain a six or seven cents increase in the retail price in view of a five-cent increase in the wholesale price, one retailer explained that these were additional operating costs which the increased price would impose. The consumers are now paying an average of sixty-five cents per pound for coffee.
Let me return to the McGregor reports, which, I say, are tremendously important. With the exception of the action taken in the dental case I do not know of any action having been taken in the others. And so these commercial highwaymen carry on their nefarious trade under the benevolent eye of this government. I shall be told that the eye of the government is not benevolent in that regard. Well, we can judge only by their lack of action. I shall be told that the statute known as the Combines Investigation

The Budget-Mr. Knight Act is not a piece of legislative machinery at all, but so much legislative scrap. With that I agree. I shall be told it has no teeth. Whose responsibility is that? Who drew up the legislation? Has this government no law officers of the crown? They have known of this inefficiency for years. Why has not the situation been remedied?


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Should we shoot them without a trial?


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: Will	the	hon.
member permit a question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I anticipate the hon. member's query? If he is going to ask if he may ask a question, may I say that I am not prepared to permit it at the moment.


Alan Carl Stewart: Will	the	hon.
member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: He said no.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not know what comment the hon. member wished to make, but I fancy there are cabinet ministers who ought to be able to defend themselves without the help of backbenchers across the way.
There has been too much delay in these matters. To a layman the process of law is inconceivably slow. The man in the street, the ordinary chap like myself, thinks to himself, with some justification:	We have in
Canada a legislative body to make and to amend the law. We have here, we hope, an executive body to carry out that law. The reason we can get no action is that the government is apathetic and has not the will to act.
I would ask whether or not that is a reasonable supposition for the man in the street to entertain. The process of law operates slowly, like the mills of God. We are told that though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small. May I say that the analogy applies only to the first part of that statement, because it seems to me there is always an escape somewhere for these culprits between the upper and nether millstones. They can find loopholes somewhere in the drawn-out and tortuous proceedings.
That word "tortuous" is a good word. It makes me think of a couple of good lines-I think they are from Horace, although I am not certain. In any event they relate to the story of the young Roman who for hours faced his tormentors-and I presume they would correspond to the crown prosecutors of today-but who stood firm and refused to divulge the name of his partners in guilt, and omne tempus sciebat quae tortor pararet- during all the time he was keenly aware of what the tortor was preparing for him. The


culprits in this combines matter do not appear to be worrying unduly over what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is preparing for them. I have no doubt that when the Minister of Justice was studying law his parents and relatives were proud of him, but may I say to him that when the Romans had a tortor in the family they did not tell anybody about it. A tortor was a twister of the rope-in short, a hangman.
In view of the answers that we did not receive this afternoon I am going to suggest that the prisoner at the bar is not the guilty party so far as these combines are concerned. The only bar at which they stand is the bar of public opinion. The real prisoner at the bar has been this man McGregor, this investigator of combines in this country, who has resigned. He is the man who stood staunch and true in the face of iniquity and in the face of great odds, knowing, too, perhaps all the time, what was to happen to him. Has it happened? I cannot say much more about this until I have the facts. I have directed some general indictments of negligence against the government-I almost said criminal negligence, but I am not just sure that the word "criminal" would be parliamentary.
I should like to say a word or two about the companies which supply us with gasoline and fuel oil. The parity of their prices is not wholly coincidental. On October 13, 1949, Hon. J. W. Corman, attorney general of Saskatchewan, addressed the following letter to the Minister of Justice:
Dear Mr. Garson:
On behalf of the government of Saskatchewan I respectfully draw your attention to a news item appearing in the Regina Leader-Post, September 24, 1949, which reads in part as follows:
"A price boost ranging from one cent to 1-3 cents per gallon on gasoline and a half cent per gallon increase on light fuel oils, effective immediately, due to devaluation of the Canadian dollar, was announced Saturday by A. A. Turner, Saskatchewan manager of Imperial Oil Company.
Other major companies are expected to follow.
The increases in gasoline and fuel oil prices is a reflection of increases made in Alberta crude oil prices, made to permit Alberta fields to come back into balance with world prices following devaluation of the Canadian dollar.
'The effect of devaluation was to reduce Alberta crude prices below their competitive level,' he said, 'and current adjustments made up the difference'."
As reported on page 880 of Hansard of October 18, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) asked the following question:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, a copy of which I have sent him. Can the minister state whether he will comply with the request of the attorney general of Saskatchewan that an investigation be made under the Combines Investigation Act into the recent price increases in crude oil, gasoline and fuel oil?

I should like to quote what I consider the only pertinent part of the minister's reply, as follows:
I do not think I should publish the letter before he receives it, but I shall be glad to have it tabled tomorrow.
The next day a copy of the minister's letter to Mr. Corman was tabled. The gist of the contents of the letter written on October 18 by the minister is contained in one paragraph. Hon. members should remember that this is the reply of the Minister of Justice of the Dominion of Canada to a request that an investigation be made. The paragraph reads:
We do not think from the information we have that the increases in prices to which you refer were the result of an agreement. It would appear to be the action of the largest company in the industry setting prices which its competitors later followed.
The oil companies must have been encouraged when they saw that answer. They must have felt more secure after that particular statement was made. However, Mr. Corman was not pleased with the answer he received, and he made a public statement on the matter, part of which I should like to put on the record of this house as follows:
I am still of the opinion a prima facie case for an investigation has been made out. The Minister of Justice has evidence pointing to the fact that all major oil companies raised prices in Saskatchewan at exactly the same time, by exactly the same amount and gave as justification exactly the same phony excuse, devaluation. That would be enough circumstantial evidence to send a man up for trial on a murder charge and, when backed up by a request from a provincial government should be sufficient to justify an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act.
The minister states that, from information he has, he does not think the increase in prices by the oil companies was the result of an agreement. He does not say what information he has nor how he got it, but in any event it is not necessary to prove an agreement. The act uses the words "tacit arrangement", and a combine exists if that tacit arrangement has the effect of (1) "fixing a common price or resale price"; (2) "enhancing the price of an article"; (3) "preventing or lessening competition in purchase, sale or barter".
So much for Mr. Corman's reply. The oil industry has been much in our minds lately, and apparently it is much in the minds of some of those who live outside our country. While on a fishing trip this summer I was in Calgary, and I remember picking up a copy of the Calgary Herald which contained a news item accompanying a picture of a number of United States magnates who were up there discussing how best they could dispose of our Canadian oil. I know that in the panicky expediency of our immediate dollar situation we seem to be prepared to part with almost anything for United States dollars, but I hope that we shall not too readily sell our natural resources birthright for a mess of pottage, either from the United States or anywhere else.
The Budget-Mr. Knight
As I say, we are paying a lot of attention to oil these days. I think it is even more vital to our economy than United States dollars. This parliament has been giving favourable consideration to applications that have been made for permission to build pipe lines to transport oil from place to place. I supported most of those applications wholeheartedly. However, the price of oil was recently raised all over the country, and the reason given was the devaluation of our dollar. Of course that action did not receive such hearty support. The government recently introduced a budget resolution to do away with the eight per cent sales tax on oil, and I think most hon. members will agree with that. The oil men have been attacking this sales tax, and there is no doubt that its imposition bore heavily upon certain oil fields, notably the one at Lloydminster. As I say, that is all right, and I supported it. I believe that action was necessary, because they were competing with coal which was not under the burden of that particular tax. Most of us welcomed the taking off of that tax. I say we welcomed that encouragement of the oil industry.
One of the large oil companies has received a licence from this government to transport oil outside of our national boundaries, and I believe that that is against the wishes of the majority of the people of this country. I have no doubt my backbencher friends on the Liberal side will rally behind their Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), just as our Saskatchewan friends rally behind the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), irrespective of what they say or do. They have to demonstrate their faith in the men who lead them.
These companies have obtained valuable considerations. Their business will be greatly augmented and their profits greatly increased. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) looks with unsuspicious eye, with naivete on this setting of prices. But how are the companies prepared to reward the consuming public for this favourable consideration? This brings me to the specific matter which prompted me to speak today, although this other question, which I consider much more important, has arisen. I wish to consider particularly the extent to which the situation which I am now about to describe is the direct result of the pronouncement of the Minister of Justice that he could see no evidence of combined action in the recent rise in the price of oil. I suspect it has something to do with it. A company selling fuel oil will feel much more comfortable when they know they have the Minister of Justice, if not on their side, at least looking upon them with some benevolence. He is smiling at me now, and I

The Budget-Mr. Knight hope in the same spirit. At any rate, I wish to state the following facts which I shall prove.
In my home city of Saskatoon many people, and among them myself, have changed from coal to oil for the purpose of heating their houses. They have done so not only because it is a clean fuel but also because many people believe that, with oil wells upon their doorstep, it will follow ipso facto that a supply of oil will always be available, and at reasonable prices. Like the Minister of Justice, they are perhaps somewhat naive. They must have been startled out of some of their naivete by the news of Wednesday last when an announcement was made that fuel oil, which is costing Regina consumers 14-6 cents per gallon, was to be sold to Saskatoon consumers at 18 cents per gallon.
Even hon. members from eastern Canada know something about the geography of that part of the country, and have some idea of the distance between those two places. Of course inquiries were instituted, and notably by our local newspaper in Saskatoon. I should like to quote from a news report appearing in that paper. I do so because it presents the situation more clearly than I can, inasmuch as they are on the ground. It is from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of October 27, 1949. I shall not read it all because time is slipping along, but the pertinent part is as follows:
Information obtained showed that Imperial Oil, Hi-Way Refineries and Husky Oil were the three main wholesalers of domestic fuel in this city. Imperial Oil transported crude oil from the Lloyd-ininster field-
If I may break off there, it is rather interesting to note the expense these companies have to deliver oil to my door in Saskatoon. It is an interesting point when you are thinking about whether there might be any collusion between them. The article continues:
-to Regina for refining and then shipped a portion of the domestic fuel here for consumption. Hi-Way also obtained crude from the Lloydminster field and refined the fuel oil at its local plant.
That is at its Lloydminster plant, which I had the pleasure of seeing about a month ago. I hope you have the picture. I continue
to read:
Husky's fuel oil was refined at its Lloydminster plant and shipped to Saskatoon. Also obtained were freight charges said to be paid by the three firms. Imperial reportedly paid 3 [DOT] 22 cents per gallon to transport crude from Lloydminster to its Regina refinery and a further five cents per gallon to ship domestic fuel from Regina to Saskatoon;-
It looks like a lot of freight to ship a gallon of oil from Regina to Saskatoon. I expect that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is paying some attention to me, will know whether refined oil carries a higher freight rate than crude oil. It appears

that it is costing eight cents per gallon to take it from the point of production at Lloydminster to the refinery at Regina, and then back to Saskatoon. The article continues:
-an over-all freight cost of more than eight cents per gallon to deliver fuel oil here.
Hi-Way Refineries were said to pay 2 [DOT] 3 cents per gallon to transport Lloydminster crude to its Saskatoon refinery.
They have a small refinery in Saskatoon. The oil is brought there from Lloydminster, refined, and delivered by truck to homes like my own in Saskatoon. The article continues:
Husky Oil was reported to pay 4 [DOT] 44 cents per gallon to ship refined fuel from its Lloydminster refinery to this city.
There you have the situation. You have a tremendous diversity in the cost that each of these companies has to pay to deliver a gallon of oil to my door, but the price of the oil is the same, 18 cents a gallon to me, and 14.6 cents to my friends in Regina.
The newspaper report went on to say:
Few officials of the firms involved were available for comment. Those available declined to make any statement.
Like the minister today they declined to make any statement until they had further considered the matter. I wonder why they would need time to consider it. I wonder why the minister should take time to consider the matter of the resignation of the combines commissioner. I am going to suggest that the officials of these companies needed time for exactly the same purpose that the minister needed time, to consult their colleagues and then to come out with a definite answer agreed upon by the whole lot. If that is not collusion then I do not know what collusion is.
I do not blame the officials of these companies for not making any statement rashly, because it is certainly a situation which needs careful explanation. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is a great difference involved in the expense borne by each of these firms to deliver oil at Saskatoon; and yet, as I said before, the price is exactly the same. I presume the minister would not call that collusion, but just one strong company setting a price which the others are inclined to follow. As to the validity of that argument, I shall allow the house to pass its own judgment.
I can give you the judgment passed upon the matter by editorial comment in the west, again in the same newspaper to which I have already referred. The editorial is too long to give in full, but I shall read some of the parts relevant to the argument which I have already advanced. It reads:
With the disclosure that we are paying 3i cents more for a gallon of fuel oil than Reginans, the smell which surrounds the whole oil industry in this

province becomes even less delectable than it was a couple of weeks ago when Mr. Corman asked for a federal investigation. It will be recalled that the attorney general's request was prompted by a rise in the price of oil products announced simultaneously by all the companies. This, thought Mr. Corman, constituted a first-rate case for the investigation of the industry under our federal trust-busting act. In a rather weak and unsatisfactory statement-
Hear, hear.
-Mr. Garson disagreed with this contention. He did not think there was any evidence to indicate the existence of an "arrangement" between the companies to restrain trade or control prices. What was more likely, he said, was that Imperial Oil, by virtue of its hugeness, was the price leader in the oil industry, and that the smaller companies simply followed its lead. He pointed out that unless the existence of an "arrangement." tacit or formal, can be proved, our anti-trust laws cannot be applied.
So the matter stood until a few days ago when we discovered that, whether by "arrangement" or not, we in this city are paying a good deal more for our oil than we should. The wrathful reception accorded this news is entirely justified since this city enjoys advantages which in all justice should provide us with oil at a price well below that in Regina.
Saskatoon is supplied by three oil companies- Imperial, and the two independents, Husky and Hi-Way. Almost all the oil used here comes from the Lloydminster area.
That area is not very far away.
Imperial carries its share of this crude to Regina, refines it there and returns it to Saskatoon. On the other hand, the oil sold by the independents is refined either in Lloydminster or in Saskatoon. Thus, to deliver an oil product in Saskatoon costs Imperial a great deal more than it does the independents. In fact, according to figures provided by the railway, Hi-Way enjoys a freight advantage of 53 cents on each hundredweight and Husky an advantage of 31 cents.
Yet the price of oil is the same to the consumer in each case.
Yet despite this our oil prices are based on the cost of carrying crude from Lloydminster to Regina and returning oil products to Saskatoon. In other words, our independents are accepting the Imperial price. On the face of things, even allowing for more efficiency in Imperial's refining processes, the independents should be able to sell oil here well below their big competitor. Under conditions of free competition this is precisely what would happen.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the last line of that paragraph: "Under conditions of free competition this is precisely what would happen". I regard this as particularly intelligent editorial opinion; and in the view of that editor, price competition among these companies is not free. In other words, in regard to prices there is no competition.
The newspaper goes on to analyse the position of the independents in the matter. These companies realize that in a price war, Imperial, with its world-wide resources, could and would simply put them out of business. There is no reason why the independents should seek any price war. Why should they be dissatisfied with the present situation,
The Budget-Mr. Knight when it contains so much that is in their favour? As very little chickens, they are content to bask in the warmth and protection of the mother wing.
This is the situation in my native city, but I expect similar conditions prevail in other parts of Canada. I feel that the whole matter-and by that I do not mean only the oil business, but also these other things-is of such vital importance to my own constituency that I considered it worthy of a public airing here; and I feel that it is even more important as a matter which involves the country as a whole. However, I am well aware that companies of this kind cannot be shamed into action. I well remember how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) used to tell about reasonable prices. We would plead with him to see that the great interests of this country should not exact too much profit, and he would tell us he was quite sure that the mere publication of these things would shame these people into decency. May I say that shame and profits do not mix. So I know companies of this kind cannot be shamed into action which would interfere with their profits. We have a government in this country which has as one of its major functions, as I see it, the protection of the people as individuals, protection from those who would twist the law in order to exploit them. I call upon the government to take immediate remedial action. By so doing it has an opportunity to allay the suspicion, now often present in the mind of the man in the street, that he has no protection from the depredations of those who bring together money and power in a combination with which he is unable to cope.
If I may direct one last word to the minister, if the resignation of Mr. McGregor has not taken place I wish the minister would deny it, so that our minds may be at rest on this particular matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate, but in view of the spirited attack we have just heard, particularly in reference to myself as minister, I think it behooves me to take some cognizance of the remarks of my hon. friend, and to attempt, albeit extemporaneously, to reply to them. Without the privilege of examining the report of his speech in Hansard to make sure I am answering every detail, I think it is not unfair to say that his attacks fall under three heads, as I understood them; first, with regard to dental supplies; second, with regard to optical goods, and third, with regard to the letter I received recently from the attorney general of Saskatchewan, relating to petroleum products.

The Budget-Mr. Garson


Mr. Argue:: And flour.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, flour is the subject concerning which I was asked these questions, to which I replied that, having had no notice of them, I should like to bring down an answer tomorrow; I must adhere to that position.
I want to go into the matter of dental supplies in some little detail, because it has a bearing upon all these other matters. In that instance the report of the commissioner was published in July, 1947. It alleged that seven manufacturers and seven wholesalers of dental supplies, all members of the Canadian Dental Trade Association, had formed and operated a combine which had effect throughout Canada. Most of the companies had their headquarters in Toronto. Two had headquarters in Fort Erie, Ontario, and one each in Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver. Several had branches in different parts of Canada. In 1945 these companies controlled about eighty-seven per cent of the dental supply business in this country. In the report handed to the Minister of Justice in 1947 it was found that these companies had agreed upon common wholesale prices for their products and had restricted the entry of any new wholesalers into the field; and that these activities had limited competition, to the detriment of the public.
My hon. friend alleges tortuousness and deliberate inaction by the government in these matters

I take it he is referring to my predecessors in office as well as to myself, since I hope he is not picking on me personally. His allegation is quite contrary to the facts. In the dental supplies case the facts were that the report was turned in, and then, on the instructions of the then Attorney General of Canada, a charge was laid in Toronto under section 498(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada for conspiring to lessen competition-that is, a charge of conspiracy. Mr. D. L. McCarthy, K.C., one of the outstanding counsel of Canada, was retained as senior crown counsel. He was assisted by two other gentlemen, both extremely competent counsel: Mr. Peter Wright and Mr. D. A. Keith, both of Toronto.
The trial was held in February and March of 1948, before Mr. Justice Barlow, with a jury. It took quite a long time. I understand that on previous occasions it had not been the practice of corporate defendants to call for a jury, but in this case they asked for a jury trial. That immediately presented difficulties in the prosecution of the case, because in a jury trial it is necessary to read all the exhibits verbatim. In a case of this kind, where the evidence for the crown consisted almost exclusively of over 1,800 separate documents seized under search warrant from
the files and premises of the accused companies, it meant that the physical business of reading the exhibits to the jury took a great deal of time, protracted the trial and made for a complexity and confusion which by no means facilitated the proving of the crown's case.
The evidence was tendered merely on proof of seizure. That is, the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had gone in and made these seizures, and the documents were tendered as evidence on the basis of having been seized, under the conspiracy principle that documents found in the possession of an accused, which are of an incriminating nature, are evidence against him. This evidence was accepted by the judge on this basis at an early stage in the trial. Upon completion of the crown's case, however, the trial judge accepted the defence argument that these documents were insufficiently authenticated, and directed the jury to render a verdict of not guilty.
In giving this direction he indicated that he was not satisfied with the proof in relation to these documents, on some or all of the following points. First, that the persons purporting to write the letters and so on, as evidenced by these paper writings seized, had in fact written the letters which the paper writings purported to indicate that they had written; second, that such persons were in fact officers of the accused companies; third, that the accused companies had authorized such persons to perform the acts complained of; and fourth, that the companies themselves in fact existed. That is, the corporate existence of the company, as the judge held, had not been established satisfactorily.
The crown in that case contended that all of these points had been abundantly established by the interlocking circumstantial evidence of possession which had been tendered in these 1,800 documents which had been filed. Therefore, in the face of this judgment- and again I bring this forward as an example not of any neglect of duty or tortuousness, but of the diligent performance of duty-crown counsel was instructed to enter an appeal against that judgment. Argument was heard by the Ontario court of appeal in September, 1948. Judgment was reserved, and was delivered on February 28, 1949.
In upholding the ruling of the trial judge Chief Justice Robertson of Ontario said that the criminal acts charged must be brought home to the companies and that the proof required in the case of a company differs somewhat from that required in the case of an individual conspirator. In explaining this statement, he held that the mere possession of documents by a company to the extent that the documents were upon the

premises or even in its files might not, without additional proof, afford grounds for an inference that their contents had come to the knowledge of someone in the company having authority to deal with the matters to which the documents related. The chief justice went on to say that one objection common to all the letters was the absence of evidence that the writing of them had been authorized by any of the accused companies or that anyone having authority to bind the company had any knowledge of the sending of any of these letters, or of their receipt, or of their contents.
The point that I want to emphasize here that there was no lack of any diligence on the part of the Department of Justice, in connection with the Combines Investigation Act, or on the part of Mr. McGregor and his officials in that department, or on the part of crown counsel. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that if this judgment is permitted to stand and if in cases of this sort it is necessary as part of the crown's case that we should prove that the acts which are referred to in documents seized in that way have been authorized by the board of directors in a formal manner, we think it will be almost impossible to administer the Combines Investigation Act. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) referred to the dilapidation in the legislation. If dilapidation exists in any respect at all, it exists more by virtue of this one decision than by any other circumstance.
I cannot anticipate my own legislation but I think it is not improper for me to say that within a matter of days now we shall be bringing down a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act, by one of the sections of which -we hope to cure the situation in which this matter has been left by the decision of the Ontario court of appeal. As to the dental supplies case, I do not see how the most carping critic of this government, or of the Department of Justice or of myself as its minister, could indicate that we could have done any more than we have done or could have been any more diligent in any way than we have been.
The next point my hon. friend refers to is the optical goods case. He says that there have been poor results there, with which he is dissatisfied. May I outline for a moment or two, as briefly as I can, what was done by the department with regard to the matter of optical goods. In that case the report of the commissioner to the Minister of Justice was published in April, 1948, and it alleged that a combine existed throughout Canada in the manufacture and sale of optical goods. The report stated, first, that a Canadian company, with branches across Canada, and its
The Budget-Mr. Garson parent company in the United States had substantially controlled the optical goods trade as a "merger, trust or monopoly"-those are the technical terms used in the report-to the detriment of the public; and second, that the same two companies, together with a related patent-holding company and some twenty-five optical goods wholesalers throughout Canada, had combined to lessen competition to the detriment of the public. The agreements were based upon licences granted under eleven patents on spectacle frames. These patents covered more than seventy-five per cent of all optical goods. Licences were issued under the patents to wholesalers and retailers: optometrists, opticians and doctors. The licences specified the persons to whom sales could be made, the types of products to be sold, the types of lenses to be used with the patented frames and the prices at which frames and lenses could be sold at wholesale and at retail. The report also dealt with the subsidiary price-fixing arrangements between manufacturers and wholesalers of lenses.
Prior to the investigation the Attorney General of Canada, on the advice of the commissioner, took action in the Exchequer Court of Canada under the Patent Act to have seven of the patents declared invalid. They were in large part the basis of this arrangement and that was an alternative mode of attack. Counsel had advised that the patented features were not sufficiently novel and ingenious to be patented. Since these proceedings began in 1943, two of the seven patents have been declared invalid; two have been dedicated to the public, the patentees having abandoned their defence, and entry of judgment will be made shortly; one patent has expired; and the other two are still before the exchequer court, Mr. Justice Thorson having reserved judgment following the trials which were held in October, 1947, and May, 1948. If all these patents are declared invalid, the main support, foundation and basis of these arrangements complained of will disappear. Similar action is also pending to expunge from the register two key trademarks on optical goods.
During the investigation the parties involved cancelled all the retail patent licences and most of the wholesale patent licences, thus further reducing the basis of control. Since the report was published, the patent-holding company cancelled its remaining wholesale licences and apparently abandoned entirely its operations in Canada.
Now, sir, apart from these patent attacking cases, the Minister of Justice submitted the optical goods report of the commissioner to an eminent counsel in the city of Ottawa,
1378	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Garson Mr. J. D. Watt, K.C., for an opinion, as to whether we could likely succeed on a prosecution based upon the optical goods report. Counsel advised us that in his opinion, on the various points involved, the matter should be deferred until after the court of appeal had given judgment in this dental case. The matter had been referred to him before the court of appeal had given judgment, but after the first trial had been held in the dental case. He said, in effect "that he was not prepared to give an opinion until after the court of appeal has pronounced upon these points that have been raised in the trial court judgment in the dental case."
Since appeal court judgment has come down the counsel has recommended that no charge be laid in this optical goods matter. His principal reasons were the difficulty of proving continuity of possession of many of the documents obtained during the preliminary inquiries in the war years, the death and incapacity of certain key witnesses, and the difficulty of proof of corporate authority for making the agreements and the arrangements involved, since the dominant companies are United States companies and it is not possible to secure reliable witnesses in Canada to testify in this respect, and also the fact that there had been a fairly complete abandonment of the arrangements which constituted the basis of that case. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, hon. members would understand that if, we will say, in this optical goods case it is necessary, in respect of matters which were claimed to be conspiratorial in nature and contrary to the law, to prove that the board of directors of the various conspiring companies formally sat down together and authorized these things to be done, we would have a very difficult time ever acquiring evidence to prove facts of that sort.
It appears then that while we admit there are strong reasons of public policy, such as those my hon. friend mentioned this afternoon, against the practice of abandoning a prosecution of this sort merely because all of the restrictive arrangements in the face of these activities have been withdrawn; and particularly, as in this case, where they had operated for some time; yet these evidentiary difficulties, in the face of this court of appeal judgment in the dental supplies case are so formidable that we considered in this case we should follow the opinion expressed by a highly competent counsel.
Now may I turn for a moment to the matter of the increase in the price of oil products and the letter which was written to me by the attorney general of Saskatchewan, complaining about that increase and asking that we institute an inquiry under


the Combines Investigation Act to determine whether or not that increase had been the result of an agreement to fix prices, which is what we have to prove in order to secure a conviction. The first point that I would make in that connection is that Mr. Corman's own letter quoted a press dispatch which indicated that the increase in price of petroleum products was the result of devaluation of the Canadian dollar. It would seem that this point, which is made in Mr. Corman's letter-I do not know whether he was expressing agreement with it or not; I think the general tone of his letter rather implied that he disagreed with this news dispatch- but what he quoted, whether he agreed or disagreed, is not without some pretty substantial foundation. The fact is that in Canada today 87 per cent of all our crude oil requirements are still imported and for the most part from dollar countries. The Canadian price at parity of exchange, apart from the question of transportation and the like, is equal to the United States price when the United States dollar is equal to the Canadian dollar. If you take a typical imported barrel of crude-I am speaking from memory now; I do not vouch for this figure- I think you will find that the price was $2.53 a barrel. When you devalue the Canadian dollar by 10 per cent it means that that price of $2.53 in United States dollars becomes approximately $2.80 in the new devaluated Canadian dollar. When the price of imported crude, which constitutes 87 per cent of the total amount of crude consumed in Canada, goes up about 25 cents a barrel it establishes a market price for Canadian oil; and unless we are going to ask our friends in Alberta to be kind enough to take less than the market price for their oil, which I am informed they have strongly signified their unwillingness to do, then the price of crude generally in Canada rises as a result of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar in precisely-I should not use that word; it is too strong a word-in much the same way, shall I say, that the price of Canadian wheat rose by 18 cents. I did not hear the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) or the attorney general of Saskatchewan complain about that rise in the price of wheat, any more than I have complained, because we all represent agricultural communities, and we are glad to see our producers get as favourable a price as possible, but devaluation has much the same effect in relation to the price of petroleum and of wheat.
It is quite true that the situation on the prairies-and the hon. member for Saskatoon dealt with this in greater detail than I shall be able to do because he had a prepared speech

-is technically different perhaps in a sense because the crude oil is not imported. Yet the domestic crude oil has a market price just the same as imported crude oil, and recent legislation of the Alberta government authorized the conservation board of that province to restrict the production of oil to the amount for which there is a demand so as to make certain that such oil as is produced shall have the market price. This leaves the price of domestic crude greatly affected if not established by the price of imported crude from dollar countries.
My hon. friend asked what knowledge I had about this matter that I referred to in my reply to Mr. Corman. Well, sir, it obviously was not any knowledge that I personally have, because I am sure that my hon. friend would be the first to agree that with the other duties I have to perform I cannot keep a personal eye upon the fluctuations in crude oil prices or the operations of the combines investigation administration in relation to the petroleum industry.
The first step I took in relation to Mr. Corman's letter-and a very obvious one- was to call in consultation Mr. McGregor and discuss with him the letter of the attorney general of Saskatchewan to see if our combines investigation office, which tries to keep itself fairly well posted in respect of these developments in all industries as well as it can, had any information which would indicate that the increase in price bore any earmarks which, coupled with the information we had, would indicate that it was the result of an agreement to fix prices. I was informed we did not have any such information, and moreover that it was thought, not only by the combines branch but by marketing experts in the Department of Trade and Commerce, that the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, in itself, could very well account for the change in the price of petroleum products in much the same manner that it had accounted for the change in the price of wheat.
Therefore in the face of those facts, and especially when the letter of the attorney general of Saskatchewan bore on its own face an explanation as to why the price of petroleum products had gone up-and why they would have gone up, whether there had or had not been a combine-it did not seem wise to incur the large expenditure involved in an inquiry of this sort to investigate a matter which seemed perfectly explicable in the terms of the very letter demanding the inquiry-and especially when the facts which we had here confirmed that impression.
I have taken somewhat longer than I had intended. I am sorry to have trespassed upon the time of the house, but I thought it was desirable to place upon the record some
[Mr. Black (Cumberland) .1
The Budget-Mr. Garson factual answer to the rather strong and yet somewhat vague charges made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). Because, had I not done so, it would not have been fair to Mr. McGregor and the others in his department for whom my hon. friend seems to be so solicitous, and whom he appears to admire so much.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Would the minister permit a question before taking his seat?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: He has made no reference to the report on the flour-milling industry.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. I said before that I would not make a statement until I had checked the matter.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Is it not correct that optical appliances used in the optical industry increased very definitely in price after the report of the combines branch was brought down? Prices increased in the hands of wholesalers, or those who exported the articles to Canada. This has been represented to me by certain dealers in Nova Scotia as a matter of actual fact. They have pointed out that there were very definite increases in the prices of these articles after the report of the combines branch was brought down.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should not like offhand to admit that my hon. friend is correct in his statement, but certainly offhand I would not contradict him. If he be right-as he may very well be-I would make this suggestion, that not all high prices are necessarily the result of price-fixing agreements. Such price-fixing agreements could be stamped out at the manufacturing or wholesale level, and if under conditions of relative prosperity such as we have at the present time retailers who have been in the habit of receiving certain prices for their products think they can get those prices, or perhaps a little more, then even on a competitive basis if the demand is sufficiently great they may be disposed to raise their prices-and this not necessarily as the result of any agreement or monopoly, but rather due to the fact that the competing firms do not have to cut prices in order to get all the business they want.
The Combines Investigation Act does not purport to do anything more than attack efforts to prevent competition operating. But if unrestricted competition be present, and prices still rise, it is beyond the purview of the combines branch.


Percy Chapman Black: This increase, it is represented to me, was in defiance of the report brought down by the combines branch.

The Budget-Mr. G. S. White


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I do not like to contradict my hon. friend, but I think he is quite wrong in that. As regards any of the matters in this optical goods case which came within the purview of the report, my impression is that all alleged illegal activities have ceased, and that if there have been any increases in prices since that time it has not been due to any of the restrictive practices condemned in the report. I am quite sure of that.


Mr. G. S. White (Hasiings-Pelerborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity in the budget debate to speak briefly concerning the present condition of the textile industry in Canada. Last night I listened with keen interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), who pointed out that his county is most seriously affected by any change in relation to this industry.
Like the hon. member for Lanark, I have no interest or stock in any industry of this type, nor have I ever acted nor do I act now as solicitor or in any other capacity for any textile industry or company. I am speaking about the condition of the textile industry because of a full-page paid advertisement which appeared in the Belleville Ontario-Intelligencer, the issue of Saturday, October 8, 1949. The city of Belleville is located in the constituency of Hastings South, which immediately adjoins my own riding. In large type at the bottom of this full-page advertisement appears the words-
This is a paid advertisement published by Malcolm Robb, 15 Campbell Street, Belleville, Ontario.
Mr. Robb is a barrister practising in the city of Belleville; and while I do not know his political affiliations I do know from sessional paper 144-G of April 26, 1949, that he has drawn very large legal fees from various departments of the dominion government. I note for instance that in 1947 his fees from the Department of Agriculture amounted to $1,839, and in 1948 from the same department they amounted to $2,176. In addition he received fees from various other governmental departments. In the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 he received from the Department of National Revenue $5,561. So I take it from these fairly reasonable fees that Mr. Robb at least is not unfriendly to the present government. I do not know whether he is carrying on a one-man fight to destroy the Canadian textile industry, or whether he is simply a front for other interests.
This paid advertisement is addressed to farmers, housewives, merchants, workmen and manufacturers, and in large type at the top of the page appear these words:
The high tariff boys in the textile industry are at it again.

I have carefully looked through the budget speech of the Minister of Finance and have failed to find any tariff changes affecting the textile industry. To date I have received no petitions or letters in regard to the tariff on textiles. This paid advertisement contains a report which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail but the date is not given. This is an interview with Leslie Biggin, president of the Canadian Wool Company Limited, and I quote:
The devaluation of the British pound (sterling) by 30 per cent, followed by the devaluation of the Canadian dollar by 10 per cent, he says, has as net result put Britain "in a 24 per cent better position to dump British textiles into Canada than she was last week." The difference between the previous rate of $4.04 and the present rate of $3.08 is 96 cents which represents a reduction of 24 per cent.
And again:
The whole industry is now on a free trade basis with Britain. Already for the first seven months of 1949 British exports of wool fabrics to Canada averaged 54 per cent above the monthly rate during 1938. Worsted fabrics have been exported to Canada at a rate of 74 per cent above the 1933 monthly rate. In the month of July 1,729,000 square yards of wool fabrics were sent to Canada from Britain.
And further down:
Here is an item published in the London Times recently and dated Canberra, Australia, September 12:
"The government has asked the tariff board to investigate the effect on Australian industries of imports of knitted and woven piece goods, hosiery and underwear. Australian manufacturers have been protesting against the volume of these and other textile imports chiefly from United Kingdom.
We cannot depend upon our government asking our tariff board to conduct any investigation; therefore, we should immediately jump to our own defence by demanding an investigation if the industry is to survive.
Field Marshal Sir Stafford Cripps, with his able assistant, General Harold Wilson, who have so ably conducted the attack on Canadian industry, can now with the ammunition which they have provided themselves, plus the additional ammunition furnished by Ottawa, really turn on the heavy artillery. Unless something is done and done immediately the imports of British textiles will increase by leaps and bounds in the coming months."
The plan advocated by Mr. Robb in his paid advertisement is simply that Canada should not be engaged in the manufacture of textiles. Apparently Mr. Robb-this is borne out by his advertisement-is of the belief that Canada should be interested only in tho primary industries of mining, fishing, agriculture and lumbering, and that no industry has a legitimate place in the economy of the country if it cannot survive without tariff protection. I am sure that this theory will be of particular interest to the industrial city of Belleville, the large town of Trenton and other manufacturing and industrial towns and villages in the county of Hastings.

If it is correct that in principle tariffs are set up to protect the standard of living of a country, then such tariffs should be regulated to a higher or lower degree as the standard of living increases or decreases. Mr. Robb goes on to state in his advertisement that the textile industry complains that it is on a free-trade basis with Britain, and he goes on to ask if that is such a terrible fate if the industry has any legitimate place in the economy of this country.
lit is quite apparent that Mr. Robb is not interested in whether textile or other mills and industries close because they cannot survive the competition from abroad, nor is he interested in the unemployment that would naturally follow the closing of such mills or industries which cannot survive competition from abroad. The advertisement goes on to state:
Here's your chance for democratic action. Stop the textile high pressure group. Clip out-sign and mail the proper coupon to Frank Follwell, M.P., Ottawa-no postage required.
That is the hon. member for Hastings South. The advertisement then sets out five printed letters, all addressed to:
Frank Follwell, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
One is from a housewife, one is from a farmer, one is from a merchant, one is from a workman and one is from a textile worker. The letters are both interesting and amusing. For instance, the draft letter from the merchant to the hon. member for Hastings South reads in part as follows:
I am dependent for my livelihood on the prosperity of the people in my community.
I would rather have as customers farmers making $5,000 to $6,000 a year than textile workers making $22 a week. I would rather have as customers a railway man making roughly $300 a month moving the goods of this country to the export market than a textile worker making $22 a week. I would rather have as a customer a lumberman or worker in the newsprint trade who are highly paid, than the textile worker who is poorly paid.
I am sure it will be welcome news to the farmers of the county of Hastings, in which I reside, to be told that they are making $5,000 to $6,000 per year. I am sure that when the inspector of income tax at Belleville read that statement he must have nearly fainted. The reference to the weekly wage of $22 paid to textile workers is far from correct. I am advised by persons who are thoroughly familiar with this industry that textile workers receive, not only high wages but wages that are higher than those paid in other industries of a similar nature. The average wage is from $36 to $42 per week for a five-day week. The letter from the textile worker reads as follows:
Please don't think I am a textile worker because I want to be. I can't get a better paying job.
The Budget-Mr. G. S. White
The textile industry, notwithstanding its tariff protection, does not pay high wages. It can't pay high wages because Canada is not a sensible place to be in the textile business. There is too little population spread over too large an area and none of the raw products are produced in any quantity here. The textile makers of Canada, even with high tariffs, can't compete with British textiles even after the British have paid the cost of transport across the Atlantic and trans-shipment across Canada. At least they say so, and it is probably true.
Now the reason why I can't get a decent paying job is because of the high tariffs on textiles. I should be in a high paid job in a natural Canadian industry shipping to the export market. But since by our tariffs on textiles we keep England and other countries from earning hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars, they can't buy hundreds of millions of dollars of the natural products of this country and I can't work in making such products at good rates of pay. It is just that simple.
Mention is made in that letter that Canada is not a sensible place to be in the textile industry. That sounds rather strange to me when I remember that last night the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) placed figures on Hansard to show that the textile industry in Canada employs no less than 180,000 workers. No doubt the majority of those workers have dependents, and a fair estimate would be that at least 500,000 Canadian citizens are dependent on the textile industry for their living. In the riding of the hon. member for Lanark there are eleven textile mills employing a large number of both men and women. Those mills are located at Perth, Smiths Falls, Lanark, Almonte, Carleton Place and Appleton.
1 doubt if you will find another county in Ontario that has more prosperous towns and villages than the county of Lanark. Its prosperity is reflected in the good stores, well kept homes, schools, churches, community centres, good roads and everything else that helps to make a community prosperous. There can be no question that the textile industry in the county of Lanark is of great value to the economic life not only of that county but of all eastern Ontario, and in fact all of the Dominion of Canada. 1 submit that such prosperity could not exist on wages of $22 a week as suggested in this paid advertisement.
The five letters to which I have referred all urge the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Follwell) to resist tariffs on textiles. I wish to make it plain that I am not suggesting in any way that there is a tie-up with the hon. member for Hastings South in this so-called one-man war by Mr. Robb. That will be for the hon. member for Hastings South to explain. No doubt he has received many of these sample letters as printed in the Belleville paper. I for one am interested to learn just what the hon. member for Hastings South, who is a supporter of the government, is going to recommend to the government in

The Budget-Mr. G. S. White response to the letters he has received. Is he going to suggest or recommend to the government that the whole Canadian textile industry, with some 180,000 workers and at least 500,000 Canadians dependent on it for their livelihood, be wiped out? I ask further whether it is the policy of Mr. Robb and the hon. member for Hastings South to advocate the removal of all tariffs, including presently existing tariffs that benefit many industries both in the city of Belleville and in the county of Hastings?
The present member for Hastings South is a former mayor of the city of Belleville. During his term as mayor he and his colleagues were quite successful in persuading several large new industries to locate in Belleville or immediately adjoining the city. Belleville is fortunate in having main lines of the two main railroads running through it. It has good water and highway transportation, cheap hydro, and other facilities that made it attractive to large industries looking for a new location. In addition, the city of Belleville is ideally situated for the distribution of manufactured products to large centres east and west of the city. These new industries have brought added prosperity not only to the city of Belleville but also to the county of Hastings, and to all of eastern Ontario. The hon. member for Hastings South deserves full credit for his share of the work and effort in obtaining these new industries for his home city, but would they have located in Belleville, or anywhere else in Canada, if they were not protected by adequate tariffs from competition from abroad? These new industries naturally spread large sums of money throughout the city and the surrounding district. Every citizen has benefited in some way, a condition that has done much to add to the general prosperity of Belleville, the county and the whole region. The textile mills in the county of Perth have created exactly the same condition. Even Mr. Robb, who inserted this advertisement, has received benefits from these new industries.
I should like to ask how Mr. Robb or the hon. member for Hastings South would feel if a lawyer in another city started a campaign advocating a policy whereby the old and the new industries in Belleville and vicinity would be deprived of their tariff protection, and suggested that as far as Belleville and the county of Hastings were concerned they could revert to the primary industries of farming and lumbering. In my opinion you are never going to build a strong nation in this manner. Surely the whole problem must be looked at from a national viewpoint. For instance, in my
[Mr. White (Hastings-Peterborough) .1
riding there are various types of mines producing minerals for industry. If it were not for tariff protection these mines would not be operating.
I have had the opportunity of examining the yearly statements issued by some of them, and I was amazed to see the total amount of wages paid, the amount paid to the two national railways and to other carriers, the amounts paid in royalties, for trucking, maintenance, repairs and all the other hundreds of expenditures that enter into a modern industrial concern. These mines have benefited the whole county of Hastings, including the city of Belleville. I wonder whether either Mr. Robb or the hon. member for Hastings South would be in favour of abolishing the tariff protection enjoyed by these mining concerns, and thus have the mineral products now produced in Canada imported from the United States, thereby using more United States dollars.
In my opinion, if Canada is to develop into a great nation she must have other great industries in addition to the primary industries. No doubt all Canadians would like to purchase motor cars, electrical equipment and many other commodities at the prices paid for these articles in the United States, but would there be many Canadians who would be satisfied to see the huge motor car factories and the large electrical industries closed? Surely it is just as logical to advocate the closing of the automobile factories and the factories producing electrical products as it is to advocate the closing of the textile industries.
You have all seen and read the slogan, "Buy made in Canada goods to keep Canadians busy". It always struck me as a very good slogan. The British government has recently urged the textile industries in Great Britain to sell more goods to Canada. Their goods are produced under conditions of much lower wages than our own. In addition to food subsidies, which also reduce the production cost of Great Britain's textiles, the government offers to provide dollars for sales propaganda in an effort to increase the volume of exports to Canada. Naturally, as these imports increase, the market for our made-in-Canada merchandise decreases. There is a growing feeling on the part of Canadian business that it is time we in Canada called a halt to subsidization of the British socialist experiment. I agree in every way with the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Lanark, and I repeat his closing words that it is not in the national interest for the textile industry to be forced to close its doors, and to

force the thousands of workers in this industry out on the street to look for work wherever they can find it.
Before I finish I should like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General, and I regret he is not in his seat, the urgent need for a post office building in the village of Madoc. The present post office is in exactly the same condition as it was before I was born. The building is far too small. There is a long list of persons waiting for boxes, but they cannot be installed because there is not sufficient room to instal any more. There is only one wicket at which you buy stamps, mail letters, receive mail, and so on. The space in the office for the use of the public is not sufficient. As for the space for the use of the staff and the four mail carriers who operate routes from the village, it is simply impossible for them to properly carry on their duties. The amount of business transacted through this office warrants a proper building.
During the election the Liberal candidate assured the voters that if he were elected Madoc would not only have a new post office but the federal government would also build a new hospital and provide us with an airfield.


Mr. Rowe:: Hear, hear.


James Joseph McCann: What for?,


George Stanley White: The
Liberal candidate was the only man in the riding who had an aeroplane.
I wish also to mention to the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) the matter of rural mail delivery in the township of Chandos, in the county of Peterborough. Several post offices in this township receive and send out mail only once a week. In a township which today has hydro, good roads and school buses it is hard to understand why delivery of the mail should still be in the horse and buggy stage. I have had considerable correspondence with the department in reference to this matter, but for some unknown reason the department still believes that delivery of mail once a week is sufficient. I wonder how the Postmaster General would like to receive his daily papers and all his mail once a week, or to receive a letter on Saturday and mail a reply, and not have that reply leave the post office until the following Saturday. The location of the various post offices in this township is quite suitable for rural delivery; and if mail could be delivered to these post offices at least three times a week it would remedy a situation which is totally 45781-88
The Budget-Mr. LaCroix unnecessary and becoming absolutely intolerable. Again I might say that during the election campaign the Liberal candidate promised that if he was elected he would soon see that the township received proper mail service. I quite realize that these were only election promises, but I would not like to think that, because a riding elected a member opposed to the government, any part of that riding would be penalized in such a vital matter as the delivery of mail. I can assure the Postmaster General that many people are watching and waiting to see just what attitude his department will take and what if anything will be done to improve the mail service in that township. I would urge him to look into the matter and make the necessary adjustments so that the people of this township may have mail service at least three times a week.
(Translation):


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimor-ency):: I should like to take this opportunity to offer the government a few suggestions which I consider necessary to remedy a practice most detrimental to our farmers and to agriculture in general and which is being kept up by the income tax division. If, because he is no longer able to cultivate his land, or because he wishes to increase production, an old farmer decides to give it to his son, when the value of his land exceeds $4,000, the farmer is assessed 10 per cent on the first thousand, and from 12 to 14 per cent thereafter up to about 25 per cent.
On the other hand if the farm is handed over as wages the son has to pay the same taxes as if he had received the full amount during that same year. That is what I am told in a letter which was written to me by an experienced agricultural engineer, Mr. Ludger Masse, of Charlesbourg, in my constituency. I quote:
We in Quebec have, what unfortunately does not exist elsewhere, a family-type of agriculture in which the son and daughter from the age of ten on take an active part. On the farm there is work for the very young child as also for the old man who though he has retired, can still make himself very useful.
It is clear that when the son settles on a farm he does so in poor circumstances and has to get by on a small income during the first years of his married life. Later on when his children are old enough to help, he expands his activities, he raises more cows, hogs and chickens, and raises vegetables. In short he does farming on a larger scale. That is the time when he can manage to pay his debts and give his children some degree of

The Budget-Mr. LaCroix education. Later when his children marry and leave the farm he will have to help them. If only one of the children wishes to settle on the farm, the father will have to mortgage his property to help him. And when he wishes to leave his farm to his youngest son, if he gives it to him, he will have to pay the income tax, otherwise the son's income will be taxable because of this bequest, not as a right to his father's estate but as salaries accrued for ten, fifteen or twenty years, all subject to taxation within that one year.
You know that a great many farms, though owned by the same family for generations, are still debt-ridden. It seems to me that a farm bequeathed by a father to his son should not be taxed, for it is not an income, but simply the continuation of ancestral ownership, and to my mind the annual income from the farm should merely be considered as applying to one man instead of another.
You know as well as I do that farming is not a commercial venture like others. It is not a get-rich-quick undertaking. It is rather a lifework which entails much labour, and self-denial, and deprives a man of much of the leisure which the humblest worker can enjoy without hindrance. Workers demand high salaries and a limited number of working hours; the farmer milks his cows every morning and evening, does his chores as he did years ago, and yelt the capital invested in his farm is always subject to the vagaries of weather, disease and insects and therefore never free from risk.
A tax such as this, in the case of a farmer who, in the autumn of life, bequeaths a possession representing endless privations and small savings rather than real profits, has nothing in common with taxes on annual yearly incomes among other categories of citizens. For in the case of the farmer it represents a capital built up over the years, through hard work and the unpaid labour of family members. To my mind, that is utterly unfair.
As for wages allowed a farmer's children when they work free of charge on their father's land, the Quebec office allows a certain amount to be deducted from annual income. The calculation is easy when revenue is established according to "net assets", that is money received and money paid, but the income tax division does not readily accept that system and prefers by far the balance-sheet system, including inventories and assets accumulated during all the business years, plus an arbitrary charge for cost of living. It is on that basis that farmers' tax is com-
LMr. LaCroix.]
puted. This balance-sheet system results in flagrant and inadmissible cases of injustice.
I could mention the case of a resident of St. Laurent d'Orleans, Mr. Odilon Gosselin, who, in his lifetime-more precisely during the 28 years he was the owner of a farm- was not able to do more than bring up his family of 5 children and put aside from $5,000 to $7,000. However, upon receipt of a notice of assessment, Mr. Gosselin went directly to the Quebec office and had his tax assessed by an assessor at the amount of $1,169 for the years 1940 to 1946. Mr. Gosselin thereupon came to see me. We managed to have the assessment changed so that the last statement received showed an amount of approximately $450. Nevertheless, in order to check the two methods, I used the very same figures as did the gentlemen from the taxation division. I based my computation on the net asset for each year, allowing Mr. Gosselin all deductions he was entitled to for each year and we reached the conclusion that he owed approximately $149. This shows that there are certain difficulties in the preparation of tax returns. Actually, in the case of Mr. Gosselin, they will not accept the returns on the net asset basis.
During the summer, I went over an income tax return compiled by a notary who showed that his client owed the treasury, as at December 23, 1948, a sum of $127.68, including interest and penalty. The return had been approved and the Ottawa office of the income tax division had long since sent out its receipt when the farmer concerned, acting on the recommendation of various people who had availed themselves of my services, submitted me copies of his return. After checking them, I noticed that he had not been allowed the statutory exemptions. I therefore filed an amended return and, as a result, towards the end of July, the treasury department refunded this gentleman the full amount he had paid in December 1948 towards his 1946 assessment. How many returns have not been reviewed? How many returns are not reviewed after having been compiled arbitrarily or without sufficient knowledge? People are thus paying income tax unfairly.
Finally, it is obvious that, in general, income tax assessors are really unaware of the farmers' situation, of agricultural bookkeeping and of various factors of rural life that must be taken into consideration. It should also be pointed out that many assessors do not do their work as thoroughly as they might; by that, I mean that they do not take the time

required to compute the tax properly, from the point of view of the taxpayer rather than the tax collector. After all, the taxpayer is mainly concerned, since he must pay. The tax collector could not live without him. Therefore, if anyone is to benefit from something, it should be the taxpayer.
Great pains are being taken to organize a "basic herd" which will be used by only 3 per cent of our farmers, because most of our livestock is used for the production of either milk or beef.
Moreover some accountants are of the opinion that farmers are opposed to income tax and refuse to pay it. I can assure you that this impression is false and that the great majority of farmers are willing to pay whatever they owe. However, they never had and still do not have sufficient information and explanations to understand this complicated matter. In addition, several farmers have been rudely requested to file their returns. The forms used were rather curt- and a large number of people were vexed by them. I have some 300 flies in my office. I could read certain letters which are sent out to taxpayers, letters which are nothing but scarecrows.
The farmers of this country did not receive the preliminary information that was required, with the result that most of them were caught offguard and declined to give any answers rather than give the wrong ones. Besides, I can state that in Quebec, the accountants will have nothing to do with farmers' returns. We are therefore justified in asking the income tax department to appoint qualified technicians in this particular field.
In addition, we might ask that these same employees be given full discretion to carry out their duties according to their judgment and their knowledge of the case. Their work should not be hampered by bureaucrats who know less than their subordinates.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, allow me to suggest to the government that the Income Tax Act be amended by,
(a)	abolishing taxation when a farmer makes a donation of his land, or parts of his land, to a member of his family, with a view to intensifying farm production;
(b)	allowing income tax deduction, for children of farmers working on their parents' land without remuneration, an amount corresponding to wages paid to farm labourers in western Canada;
2. 1949
The Budget-Mr. LaCroix
(c)	appointing agricultural scientists or other persons acquainted with farm problems as income tax assessors for farmers.
I emphasize this last point because everyone in the province of Quebec, especially among the farming community, knows that the assessors sent by the Department of National Revenue have absolutely no knowledge about or experience in agriculture.
In most cases those people, who are sincere -I do not question their personal merit- come to rural districts, call on farmers and make an assessment. If we insisted that assessors be people with at least some knowledge of the problems which the farmers have to face, I think the situation would certainly improve and we would do justice to our farming community.
Our farmers are not more reluctant than others to pay their income tax. However, they want to deal with men who, being acquainted with their needs and their situation, can draw up a statement based on the farmer's real profits, when, under certain circumstances, there are any profits.
(Text):


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I feel almost at a loss, Mr. Speaker, to find something to talk about this afternoon in view of the fact that so many subjects have been discussed up to the present time. Being one of the 262 members of the house, however, I feel that I must have my little say also.
Before going on to my main subject I should like to associate myself with the impassioned plea made some days ago by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) when he asked the government to fulfil their promises with regard to the building of a railroad line to fill the gap between Heinsburg and Frenchman s Butte, and also the Bonnyville line. While neither of those branches is in my constituency, Heinsburg is just across the north Saskatchewan river and many of the people in my constituency are obliged to go there in order to market their products. With the support of the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Decore), the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison), and the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), I am sure that we should finally get some action in having those gaps completed. The government made promises years ago and many elections have gone by since that time; those

The Budget-Mr. Fair
promises have been reiterated time and again. Let us hope that they will soon be made good.
While speaking of railroad lines I should also like to mention, for the benefit of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), another railroad in the southern end of my constituency and in the northern part of the constituency of Acadia; that is the Bulwark northeasterly railroad. On many occasions the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and I have visited the minister in connection with this line and so far we have not found any rails laid. I may say that some years ago the grade of that particular branch was built, but so far no rails have been laid and no trains are running. I hope that in this case also some action will soon be taken.
Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) made a speech on a subject that I believe is of interest to everybody in Canada today; I refer to oil. Some people might say that I am actually soaked in oil, but that is not quite correct, although I have oil over practically all of my constituency. One of the places mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary West yesterday, Lloydminster, is of particular interest to me because I landed there on January 10, 1914; and in getting out of town to go out on a farm I almost froze to death. Since that time we have developed quite a thriving oil industry there instead of being dependent on farming as the sole industry. We have several wells producing there, but I am sorry to say, because of conditions over which the companies operating there have no control, they are not able to take all of the available supply of oil out of those wells. Some relief was given to those companies recently by the removal of the eight per cent sales tax on oil for heating purposes. The Lloydminster people and I greatly appreciate the action of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the government in removing that eight per cent sales tax. But there is one other item that we should like to see removed also; that is the exorbitant freight rates that those people are obliged to pay on the output of those wells. If something is done to meet their requests-and I believe the government feels that it should be done and I hope in the near future it will be done-then the Lloydminster field will be in a much better position to contribute something really worth while to Canada. If this problem is taken care of- that is, if the discriminatory freight rates is removed-then in the Lloydminster district we shall be able to supply quite a good deal of the oil that is now being supplied by importations from the United States. I hope [Mr. Fair.)
therefore that in the near future-perhaps in this budget or soon after it is adopted-something will be done.
Another item of interest in my part of the country is that rumour that the C.B.C. are going to have the receiving licence fees increased. I understand that they have made representations to have the fee doubled. Already I have received dozens of letters as well as resolutions from boards of trade all over my constituency vigorously protesting against any such increase. At the present time many people feel that they are not getting value for their money. In some cases the complaints are over programs presented and in others they are not getting good reception. Therefore, we feel that the licence fees are already too high and there is no need to have them increased any further. Not so long ago the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) suggested that the fees be cut out altogether and that money for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation purposes be taken out of the federal treasury. Perhaps that would be a much better way to finance the organization. Perhaps some paring down of expenses would also help out in that regard.
The question of aid to education has also been discussed. For many years on different occasions I have brought this matter to the attention of the house, but up to the present time little action has been taken along that line. I am quite satisfied that the people in general do not appreciate the importance of education and of the teaching profession in formulating constructive rather than destructive ideas in the human mind. I am quite satisfied that the schools of today could do much more to bring about peace in the world in the future than any of the big world-wide organizations that are operating at the present time. If we train our young people properly -when I say "properly" I mean teaching them to be true to their country, true to real Christian ideals and to many other ideals along that line-we shall not have the trouble in the future that we have had in the past of trying to avoid wars.
The destinies of the nations of the world are being determined in the classrooms of this and other countries to a far greater extent than they are being formulated in our parliaments or in other world organizations. It is our duty to see first of all that proper schools are provided and then proper equipment in the schools, and last of all that we have teachers who are a credit to our democratic system. In some of our schools and universities we find that the teaching given there is not all in the interest of our democratic way of life. Every care should be taken to see to it that the proper kind of teachers and

professors are placed in charge of those schools. I am well aware that the supply of money has a lot to do with providing these things. I am also well aware that the present method of taxation is not sufficient to take care of all the needs of education. As I, and this group, have advocated on many occasions, federal aid should be forthcoming to the provinces for the purpose of education. By that I do not mean that the federal government should take over the control of the running of the schools or anything of that kind. That is a provincial responsibility. The grants provided to the provinces should be given without strings attached so that they can be administered in the best interest of education in the provinces.
Let me turn to the matter of old age pensions. I feel that we are not doing our job properly in this regard. The matter of old age pensions comes under the heading of welfare. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is not in his seat today. I understand he is looking after other duties. He seems to be proud of the system we have. In the Ottawa Citizen of October 26, 1949, there appears a Canadian Press dispatch from New York as follows:
Canada's Health Minister, Paul Martin, said last night, healthy nations like Canada and the United States should give help and ideas to countries less advanced in their health plans.
Canada, he said, in an address prepared for delivery to the American public health association, is determined not to permit "lack of money to lead to neglect of health."
I would call special attention to this lack of money.
I was very glad to read that statement of the minister because in the administration of the department we find that the lack of money has a lot to do with citizens being denied services to which they are properly entitled.
Further on he said:
We are determined to keep abreast of the advances of medical science and to be impatient and intolerant of anything that debars our people from the best of health care.
A federal survey near the end of the war showed that Canadians were "one of the healthiest peoples in the world . . . But we also found some health statistics that gave us little cause for pride."
I might call the minister's attention to figures that were presented to the house by the then minister of national war services, Mr. LaFleche, which showed that out of 93,000 men who were examined for service in the air force and air crew only 15,000 were able to qualify. In my opinion, that is not the kind of health standard that we should have in a country like Canada.
The Budget-Mr. Fair
I am very sorry that up to the present time the government has not seen fit to increase the old age pension to at least $50 a month. That can be done. The old age pensioners of today are the senior citizens. They are the ones who have been most active in building up Canada. It is quite true that an amendment was passed last year which improved things a little; but because the government neglected, possibly deliberately, to increase the income ceiling many of the old age pensioners of today are unable to take advantage of that legislation. Many of them have been sadly disappointed when they found that the increase in the pension was absolutely of no use to them.
There is another matter to which attention should be given before this session closes. I refer to people who are unable to provide proof of age. Some other method, perhaps an examination by medical doctors or some other system, might be used so that these people are not denied their pension, as many of them are at the present time. During my years in the house I have found that several people, mainly European by birth or extraction, who came to Canada some years ago, were unable to find any record whatever of their age. Apparently births were not registered in those countries in those days. When we tried to search the records of the shipping companies or the bureau of statistics census records and so forth we were unable to find any trace of these people. Perhaps the spelling of those names, or something of that kind, may be responsible. There is no earthly reason why some method should not be devised so that these people can get the pension to which they are properly entitled. They are Canadians now. They came to Canada and did their share to build up this country, and something should be done before this session closes to see that a method is found to deal with them.
I now come to the recipients of war veterans' allowances. I think we should see to it that these men and their wives get the treatment that was recommended for them by the veterans committee and others last year. That is also denied to these people. As suggested in the case of the old age pensioners, the ceiling on income should also be increased. At the present time the amount is $1,100 a year. If any of us here were to place ourselves in the position of these burnt-out veterans we would very soon take the proper means to make available the full amount of the pension. In my opinion the amount provided is certainly not sufficient.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) who is a great humanitarian and

The Budget-Mr. Fair
always trying to do his best-even though he sometimes supports a government program which is not in the best interests of the people of Canada-made a plea to have the sales tax removed from hearing aids, and other equipment of that type. I support the hon. member in his request. I feel, too, that every support should be given to the plea made today to break up all monopolies and cartels existing in this country-because many people are denied the right to purchase many of the dentures and optical goods and other things required by them, simply because prices are too high.
There is one other class of people I shall not forget, namely those who are crippled with arthritis, infantile paralysis or any of the other dreaded ailments. Many of us who have full use of our limbs and our faculties find it difficult, under conditions over which we have no control, to make a living. When we think of these other people who in many instances are crippled and unable to help themselves, we must realize it is the duty of all Canadians to be their brothers' keeper. Canada can provide that help, and before the session closes I trust that something along this line may be done.
I come now to the subject of agriculture, and do so because it is the subject about which most people seem to have forgotten. I do not believe the consumers in Canada appreciate the work done by our farmers in this and every other country. The work of a farmer is a seven-day job, and with long hours during certain seasons of the year. He works for poorer pay than those in any other occupational group in the country.
Many farmers have less accommodation, poorer homes, less bathtubs, less telephones and less of the many other comforts of life than many other people making a good living out of the products of the farmers' labour. During the election campaign we heard of the good things the government was doing for the farmers of Canada. Perhaps we should have been told of some of the things the government was not doing for the people, in which event a different view might have been taken with respect to the government's agricultural policy.
Agriculture has been discussed in the house on many occasions, and it is my intention today to continue that discussion, because I believe that until Canada has a healthy agricultural industry we shall not have the prosperity throughout the country to which we are entitled. Many observations might be made about agriculture, but before proceeding further may I state that the farmers have on their side the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
In the Ottawa Journal of February 10 we find a report headed "War Sacrifices of Farmers Entitle them to Fair Prices", and stating-
Canadian farmers were "entitled now" to prices which would justify their wartime sacrifices, agricultural minister Gardiner said last night. He was speaking to the annual meeting of the Ontario concentrated milk producers association at the Chateau Laurier. More than one hundred and fifty delegates are attending the two-day session, the largest in several years.
Because there have been declines in the United States, people here are suggesting that food prices should drop to that level, forgetting that prices there rose during the war to a peak never experienced here. The whole idea in preventing high food prices in Canada during wartime was to allow a "levelling out" afterwards, Mr. Gardiner remarked. He was "inclined to agree" with the popular statement that consumers did not appreciate what farmers did during the war in keeping the cost of food down.
Mr. Gardiner said he was "surprised that farmers had not been able to sell that idea fully."
I would suggest to the many new members from both rural and urban constituencies that they do their best to bring about better conditions for agriculture in Canada in the future. Agriculture has never enjoyed that prosperity to which it is properly entitled. Let us get busy, even at this late date, to improve that situation. The article continues:
People are inclined to forget that farmers, and dairy farmers in particular, were asked to hold their hand on prices during the war-at a time when they might have charged almost what they wanted.
That is the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture; and I am satisfied that if he did not have so many opponents around the cabinet council table we would have much better conditions for agriculture in Canada. Indirectly, we would have better conditions for Canadians as a whole.
The question of wheat has not been discussed in the house for some time. While some may get tired of listening to discussions concerning wheat, and the losses borne by farmers in this connection, I have not yet noticed any of those people refusing to eat either white or brown bread. It must be remembered that all of that comes from wheat, and that the farmers are required to grow that wheat.
In this connection I feel that the farmers in the prairie provinces-because they are the only ones affected-have taken a trimming which the people of Canada do not realize. For a few moments I shall deal with the British wheat agreement. I do not want anyone now or at any other time to suggest that Social Crediters are opposed to that agreement. We favoured it right from the start. It was our belief that we owed a moral obligation to Britain, and we were not slow in making our stand known. At the same time however we did make it clear that because this was a gift of the people of

Canada to the people of Britain, through the government, then the people of Canada as a whole should stand any losses suffered by the farmers in delivering wheat under this contract.
Many people feel that farmers have received much more than that to which they are entitled. Both last session and this one I have made inquiries, and through the order paper of the House of Commons I have secured certain information which I shall now place on record, in order that there shall not be any attempt to contradict or misrepresent the figures I am giving. I am satisfied these figures are authentic, and anyone wishing to check them may do so by looking up the records of the house. That should be sufficient proof.
These figures deal with losses suffered by farmers under the British wheat agreement during the first three years of operation. During the year 1946-47 the Canadian wheat board on behalf of the government delivered to Britain 169 million bushels at a price of $1.55. At the same time the wheat board sold what is known as class II wheat at an average price during that year of $2.41 a bushel. This means that up to the present time the Canadian farmer has taken a loss of 86 cents a bushel on the wheat delivered to Britain in that crop year. Let me make it clear that the $2.41, and other prices which I shall quote on class II wheat, are average prices for the average grade, while the price I am quoting for Britain will be that of No. 1 northern. That should be understood because I am making a conservative estimate of the losses. The loss on wheat delivered to Great Britain that first year amounted to $145,340,000.
During the second year of 1947-48 a total of 170-6 million bushels were delivered at a price of $1.55. The price of class II wheat for that year was $2.77. Just figuring on the basis of the 170 million bushels and leaving off the 600 thousand, at $1.22 per bushel we find that the farmers took a trimming to the extent of $207,400,000. For the third year of 1948-49 we delivered 146,142,802 bushels at a price of $2. During that year class II wheat sold at $2.22, so we have another actual loss of 22 cents per bushel amounting to $32,195,416. During the first three years of the wheat agreement the total losses amounted to $384,935,460.
We are not complaining about that, but we shall complain plenty unless those losses are made up from the federal treasury. There was no other occupational group in Canada which had their production confiscated at a price set by the government. Other operations were paid for on the basis of cost-plus or
The Budget-Mr. Fair
something of that kind, and their production was sold in most cases at prices that were not set by the government.
I intend to discuss now the wheat delivered to Canadian millers for consumption within Canada, which went on for many years prior to the period I intend to deal with. During the crop year 1946-47, 29,041,927 bushels of wheat were delivered to millers in Canada at $1.25. The price of class II wheat at that time was $2.41 per bushel. Our farmers lost $1.16 per bushel on those deliveries or a total of $33,688,635. In the latter part of that year there was an increase in the initial payment to the farmers, and in that period there was delivered to the millers for consumption in Canada a total of 24,573,939 bushels at a price of $1.55. The price of class II wheat during that period was $2.41 so that we suffered a loss of 86 cents per bushel or a total of $21,133,587.
In the crop year 1947-48 we delivered to millers in Canada 49,342,532 bushels at a price of $1.55. Class II wheat was selling at $2.77 per bushel so we accepted a loss of $1.22 or a total of $60,197,889. In the 1948-49 crop year we delivered to millers for consumption in Canada 39,281,098 bushels at a price of $2. Class II price during that period was $2.22 so therefore we lost 22 cents per bushel or a total of $8,641,841.
The total losses on wheat delivered to Canadian millers for consumption within Canada amounted to $123,661,952. When this amount is added to the amount of losses suffered under the British wheat agreement we have a total loss of $508,597,368 up to the end of the 1948-49 crop year. If anyone wishes to check these figures he will find that they have been furnished in a return made in this house.
We have been told that the farmers suffered practically no losses, but I think half a billion dollars is quite an amount for the farmers of the prairie provinces to take as a loss. That is not a very happy story for the farmers of Canada and I am one of those who delivered several thousand bushels to the pool. I know my costs of production and I know of the losses that I suffered on those deliveries.
In addition to these losses it must be remembered that ceiling prices were placed on our coarse grains at a lower figure than could have been obtained outside the country. It must also be remembered that the hogs and cattle that were fed those coarse grains were delivered on the basis of the prices fixed for wheat under the British agreement. I shall not attempt to estimate the losses suffered by our farmers in that connection, because I do not know how they could be arrived at. But if we could make an estimate I am sure it would make the farmers still more unhappy.

The Budget-Mr. Fair
On many occasions I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)- on the last day of last session I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)-whether the government was going to make these losses good, but up to the present I have not received a reply. Before this session ends I hope we shall have some indication from the government as to what they intend to do about these direct losses suffered by the farmers.
Our farmers suffered further losses because they were not permitted to ship their cattle to the United States market until a few months ago. There again I am not going to try to estimate their losses because I do not know just how they could be arrived at. We have heard a lot about the loss of markets and many people deny that such a thing exists. The Minister of Agriculture was in London last December when he had quite a bit to say about the products that we could sell except for their inability to find the dollars with which to buy them. I have a rather long quotation here which I had intended to use but time will not permit. However, I think I should quote at least a portion of it. Canada's Weekly of December 24, 1948, reports a speech made to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London by the Minister of Agriculture as follows:
They are taking 140 million bushels of wheat and 50 million pounds of cheese from us because they must have them and we appear willing to provide them for fewer dollars than any other will supply them.
All this is bringing me to wonder if an unknown economist, or was it an Abraham Lincoln or some such individual as Churchill, was not right when he said that he would rather have the money in his pocket tied to the unthinking inanimate substance called gold which cannot change its mind than to the manipulations of some small group of crackpots who fancy themselves as economists or statesmen.
I am glad to note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is in the house. I am quite sure that when the Minister of Agriculture was referring to crackpots he was referring to the experts and advisers in the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada. Those crackpots were advised away back in December, 1945, what the results of their iniquitous legislation would be, but that went through with the support of practically everybody in the house except Social Crediters. Today they are wallowing in the mire that they created themselves. Therefore it is no wonder that conditions are as they are when there is so much manipulation for the gain of those who

control the monetary system of our country. A little further on the minister had this to
say:
X am not convinced that this latter statement is correct-
He is dealing with a statement made by one of the members of the British parliament in connection with the Marshall plan creating more communists in Europe.
-but I am convinced that the world is not in any state of mind where it can be expected to agree that the manipulation of any system or systems of currency is going to be allowed to interfere with the will of those who have empty stomachs when it is preventing surpluses of food to get to them. It might be a good thing for everybody if they would close down the United Nations meetings long enough to permit of the United Kingdom and United States experts getting together and settling some basis upon which dollars and sterling can be converted to allow nations like Canada to produce food to feed the starving millions and distribute it.
In that regard I would recommend to any who are interested in this subject the wonderful speech delivered last night by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). There is more food for thought in it than all the great world conferences provide in a whole day's proceedings. I see that my time is passing by, and I shall not be able to say everything I wanted to say. Before going further I want to point out that Canada has been a rather faithful follower of the United States in many ways. In yesterday's Ottawa Citizen there is an Associated Press dispatch from Washington. The heading is:
Truman Signs Long-Range Farm Measure
The article reads:
President Truman yesterday signed long-range farm legislation which permits the United States government to support prices of most products at or near wartime levels. The measure, passed by the present democratic congress, replaces most major provisions of the so-called Aiken law enacted by the Republican 80th congress. The Aiken law permitted somewhat lower supports for major crops.
The new law gives the secretary of agriculture authority to support virtually every farm product at 90 per cent of parity if he thinks that is advisable. Truman and agriculture secretary Brannan have indicated they favour 90 per cent supports, as a general rule, to keep agriculture prosperous.
That is what the United States intends to do for its farmers. Will Canada follow the lead taken by the United States? What are we doing here for the future? Even though the farmers of Canada have paid a very expensive premium for crop and price insurance in the future, what has the present government provided? I find that we have provided the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which will expire at the end of March, 1950, unless the legislation is renewed. There is the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which does not operate yet to the satisfaction of many

of our farmers. I do not think it even operates to the satisfaction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). There is also the international wheat agreement. In my opinion, the government will have to go much farther than any of those measures. During the past ten years, as I said before, we have been contributing to an insurance fund for the preservation of our industry. During the next ten years we should at least get the benefits we have paid for in full in the past, by way of assured markets and guaranteed prices.
If people are of the opinion that the farmers of Canada are more prosperous than they should be, I ask them to investigate present conditions on many of our farms. They will find that, while the farmers have paid off quite a percentage of their debt in the form of mortgages and so forth, the farms are in a run-down condition, and also in many cases the machinery and other equipment. You cannot tell exactly what a farmer's financial standing is by looking at his mortgage debt because there are many other factors that should be taken into consideration. I feel it is the duty of the government to keep our basic industry prosperous. They may say again that they cannot find the money, but if that difficulty should present itself then social credit will provide the answer. Social credit has provided a reply to any argument that has been put forward in the house by any of the former ministers of finance.


An hon. Member:: And the present one, too.


Robert Fair: If they want a solution I am sure there are men in the Social Credit group who are familiar with the money question, and who can give them an answer, thereby contributing to the creation of a more prosperous Canada.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the same privilege as most other hon. members have taken, under the latitude allowed members speaking on the budget, of bringing conditions in my own constituency to the attention of the house, hoping thereby that remedies will be provided in the near future. First of all I should like to register my approval and support of the amendment to the amendment which is to the effect that immediate consideration should be given to a reduction of tariffs sufficient to encourage an increase in imports from the United Kingdom and other sterling countries.
You will notice that the amendment to the amendment does not mention any given commodity, and I am glad of that for reasons that I shall explain later. It is quite possible that a wholesale indiscriminate reduction of tariffs would upset our economy. I understand that the trade unions have already
The Budget-Mr. Jones brought to the attention of the government the dangers involved in an indiscriminate removal of tariffs in that it could quite well upset our domestic economy with the result that there would be unemployment and chaos, and it might be followed by bankrupt factories. That is why we emphasize in our approach to tariffs and controls the need for the government to establish an import and export board whose purpose would be to encourage imports from the United Kingdom and other sterling countries, and at the same time keep a protective eye on our own domestic production so that the chaos anticipated by some of the trade unions would not take place.
Among other duties, the board would advise the government which goods could be imported, and naturally which could not be imported. They would advise as to the amount of tariff necessary to maintain the rigid control that would protect our own industries. They would advise as to the amount of the tariff, and also on what commodity it should be levied. At the same time they would keep a careful check to see that no hardship would be suffered by workers or industries in Canada. In other words, their duty would be to maintain a balance between imports and exports, plus a balance between the countries that benefit by our import and export trade. For instance, unfortunately as far as England is concerned, there is a variation between ourselves and the United States. We are taking far more from the United States than they are taking from us, and we have the reverse position in our trade with Great Britain.
It will be the duty of the board to try to balance that situation, and in that balancing to try to bring about better relations between Canada and the countries in the sterling area. It would also call for a great deal of switching of trade relations that have been carried on for many centuries. Some people will object to that, but in the last two or three years we have broken such relations with some of the English firms that have been dealing with Canada for a long time. I particularly mention those firms in Lancashire making shirtings, who shipped for many years to the shirt factories of Ontario. Last year I was talking to one manufacturer in Manchester who informed me they had not shipped a single yard of shirting to Canada-not, as one hon. member said yesterday, because the shirting trade in Canada is having its own difficulties, but because of the unfair competition of shirtings imported from the United States at prices lower than either Canada or the United Kingdom can produce this material.
1392

The Budget-Mr. Jones


Mr. Harris (Danforih):: Now that the pound has been devalued has not that condition corrected itself?


Owen Lewis Jones: Unfortunately not; we still have not re-established that trade. Devaluation should make it easier, but so far Canadian importers have not taken advantage of that situation, according to a recent letter I had from that firm.


Joseph Henry Harris: But it is on its way.


Owen Lewis Jones: It may come; but I am satisfied that the setting up of an import-export board would prevent that situation from again becoming top-heavy. Now with devaluation of the pound we may go to the other extreme and upset the balance of trade which would control the situation. From my personal knowledge the United Kingdom needs our exports. They need our wheat, just as they need almost everything we can produce. Contrary to the opinion held by many people, the plight in which Great Britain finds herself today is not due to the Labour government but entirely to conditions following the war. I tried to discover any way in which any other government could have improved the present position in England, and from all sides I was given the same answer, that this could not be helped, that it was inevitable and they had to suffer as a result.


Mr. Fraser:: You must have been speaking to your socialist friends.


Owen Lewis Jones: No, I did not stay with the socialists all the time I was there. Looking at it from that point of view, we must realize that the war was not Britain's war. She was truly in the centre of it, but it was a war for civilization, and a war with a tremendous price. I sometimes wonder if payment of that price has been fairly divided among the nations who took part in the war. In other words, I believe we all have a moral responsibility, for the collapse of Britain would not only bring about the collapse of the main part of Europe but seriously upset the United States and particularly Canada.

It was stated in this house recently that someone in the United Kingdom had said she was looking to other sources to purchase wheat, particularly in the sterling areas. In the Ottawa Citizen of November 2, which is today, I read this dispatch:
The Daily Telegraph says today that Britain will discontinue purchases of Canadian newsprint next year and may cut imports of Canadian bacon and eggs by 25 per cent.
The newspaper reports that two Canadian representatives were "shocked at the severity of the cuts proposed" when they conferred with British officials last week. The Canadians were J. G. Taggart, deputy agriculture minister, and Max Mackenzie deputy trade and commerce minister.
The Telegraph says that timber imports from Canada also may be pruned.
"The decision to allocate no money for newsprint was influenced by the fact that alternative supplies are available within the sterling area," the Telegraph says. The chief alternative source is Scandinavia.
I mention that not as a warning but to show the need for immediate improvement in our trade relations with the United Kingdom before they establish themselves in other world markets and we lose that trade for good.
On motion of Mr. Jones the debate was adj ourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the provisions of standing order 28, respecting the committee of ways and means, be suspended until the debate on the motion made by Mr. Abbott on Thursday, October 20, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of ways and means, and any amendments thereto, be disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall continue with the debate on the budget.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 3, 1949