Mr. ROLAND BEAUDRY (St. James):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention page 788 of yesterday's Hansard which contains a quotation given to the house by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) which reads as follows: '
Wisdom for the Wise
The game of committees for finding out facts Is the latest pursuit that our leaders attract; But as games have a habit of turning about There's a very big risk lest the facts find them out.
So this I would say, though it's not very nice To give one's political betters advice,
Their plans would work smoother and cause less derision
If they found the facts first, and then made their decision.
May I respectfully suggest to Your Honour that I have found another version of the quotation which may have escaped the attention of the hon. member for Broadview.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Roland Beaudry: I believe that this other version should be drawn to your attention.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk has laid on the table the fifteenth report of the clerk of petitions.


Roland Beaudry: I submit, Mr. Speaker-Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Roland Beaudry: I submit most respectfully that this is a matter of privilege which should be heard.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat while the clerk assistant is reading the report of the clerk of petitions.
Mr. MaeINNIS: How many persons can be speaking at once in this house?



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Last Friday the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedonnell) addressed the following question to me:
The daily press carries a report that Albert Edward De Palma has forfeited bail totalling $50,000 in the United States courts, which I presume was paid in United States funds. Can the minister tell us whether this money was obtained through the foreign exchange control board?
I have made inquiries and I find that the circumstances in this case, so far as the foreign exchange control board was concerned, are as follows:
Following De Palma's arrest in the United States, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Toronto, which is a branch of an American company of the same name, advised us that De Palma had applied to the American company in the United States for a bail bond for $50,000. As collateral security for the bail bond, the American company was prepared to accept $62,500 in Canadian funds to be deposited with its Canadian branch. The board agreed to this arrangement on condition that in the event of a claim against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company under the bail bond, there would be no commitment on the part of the board to approve a transfer of the collateral security which might be forfeited by the Canadian branch to the head office of the company in the United States.
As De Palma has now evidently forfeited his bail, the position would appear to be that United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company will forfeit the Canadian dollar collateral which will become part of the assets of the Canadian branch. The amount may not be transferred to the parent company in the United States in United States dollars or otherwise without the board's permission and in accordance with the condition notified to the company, it is not intended to authorize any such transfer.
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. FLEMING:: May I ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of this statement? Do the two figures he quoted, the $50,000 in United States funds and $62,500 in Canadian funds, represent the view of the foreign exchange control board as to the respective values of the United States and Canadian dollars? If so the premium is 25 per cent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The foreign exchange control board have no control over the amount of collateral which the United States company was prepared to take.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 8, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Rinfret.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of which I sent him notice. Yesterday's issue of the Evening Citizen stated that the Hyde Park agreement had never been published in detail. Will the minister inform the house whether there are any details unknown to parliament, and if so will he table a copy of the agreement in full?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I received notice of my hon. friend's question just a few moments ago. My information is that there are no details unknown to parliament, and that there was no document signed at the time; but after the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister on April 20, 1941, a statement was issued to the press, of which a copy was printed in the treaty series 1941, No. 14, of the Department of External Affairs, which was tabled in parliament at that time. I have not had time to ascertain the date when it was tabled, but it was at the time the declaration appeared in the press. There is nothing else to evidence the Hyde Park agreement but this joint statement which was issued to the press at that time.


Mr. HACKETT:: Is it in Votes and Proceedings?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. My understanding is that a copy of this publication of the Department of External Affairs was tabled in parliament at the time.
[Hr. Abbott.]



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, notice of which I sent him earlier today. The question is based on newspaper reports which it seems to me should be cleared up. Have any arrangements been made to start paying immediately the increased widows' allowances, burnt-out pensions and disability pensions recently announced? If not, can the minister indicate when the legislation giving effect to these increases will be brought before parliament?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I ask this question because there have been statements in the press which I believe should be cleared up. It really should be answered.


Mr. GRAYDON:: So many of us have been asked questions similar to that which has been directed to the minister by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I think the house would want some information, and I am quite sure the minister would wish to answer it.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Press reports indicated that these payments would be made in January. Now we read that they will be made in February. Can the minister clear this up?


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Surely this is a fair question dealing with matters that are before the public.
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for notice of his question. which I received just before coming into the house. The answer to the first part of the question is that no payments have been made yet or can be made until the proposed measures have received the approval of parliament. The answer to the second part is that I can assure the hon. member there will be no avoidable delay in bringing down this legislation. I hope this may be done at a very early day. The increase will be retroactive to October 1, 1947, as announced by the Prime Minister; and once the legislation has received the approval of parliament, immediate steps will be taken to see that the cheques go forward as soon as may be humanly possible thereafter.

________________Inquiries oj the Ministry


Gordon Graydon: In view of the minister's statement that these payments will be held up until the legislation is passed by this house, will the government give consideration to putting aside some of the other legislation and some of the other business that is before us in order to get on with this legislation, so that the veterans will not be held up longer waiting for these payments?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!


Gordon Graydon: I should like an answer to that, if I may have one. I think it is most important.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The answer is that the government is always prepared to give consideration to any matter to which my hon. friend directs its attention.


Gordon Graydon: I may say I expected that answer.



DIFFICULTIES OF STUDENT VETERANS BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE FINANCES

Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: On Monday. January 26, I addressed a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, at which time he stated that he would like to defer his reply until a later time. My question dealt with the difficulties of student veterans because of inadequate finances. Would the minister care to indicate when I may expect an answer, or is he in a position to give the answer now?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I should like to delay the answer for a few more days.



CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Did the federal government make a grant of money to the Canadian association of consumers? If so, how much money and for what purpose?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. While the categorical answer to the question is that no such grant has been made, I should like to reply fully to the intent of the question by adding that an expenditure on behalf of that organization was approved from funds of the wartime prices and trade board which had been appropriated for the consumer branch.
Since the consumer branch was being discontinued, the government approved an expenditure by the wartime prices and trade board of a portion of this fund, up to the
amount of 815,000, to help meet some of the initial organization expenses of the proposed Canadian association of consumers, which the federated groups of national women's organizations were forming with membership open to all Canadian women.
I need not emphasize the value of the educational work which the many thousands of volunteer workers did through their own organizations and in their own communities, during the war and immediately following. It contributed in very large measure to the success of emergency programs conducted during this period.
It is these groups, desirous of carrying on work similar in nature to that which they found to be effective in the years of war emergency, who are now forming the representative body known as the Canadian association of consumers. The expenditure approved on their behalf was to assist in meeting initial expenses of organization only; they will conduct the affairs of the association on an entirely independent basis, through an annual membership fee.
It should be noted that as no sum was provided in the form of a grant, expenditures on behalf of the association have been made through the comptroller of the treasury, on the saftie basis as any other government expenditure.	[DOT]
BUSINESS OF THE HQUSE [DOT]



QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[u"I do not like to make personal references; but since the minister speaks of mutineers. I must say Canada has been mutin-eered for the last two or three years. This debate has revolved around profiteering, and I say to the minister and to the Prime Minister, whom we all admire for his sense of _ direction, that if they believe that profiteering is running rampant in this country, that people are taking advantage of unfortunate situations to build up fortunes for themselves, there already exists the machinery of government for bringing these people to the bar of justice and examining them.\nThe Prime Minister in his closing words said that by our votes we shall be known. But once this committee is set up, no longer can we charge the government of Canada with direct responsibility for the increasing cost of living and for the profiteering that is taking place in this country. It is because of that\nI am particularly concerned. At this critical moment when the cost of living is oppressing the country the Minister of Finance is collecting hundreds of millions of dollars more than is required to run the affairs of Canada, something which would not be allowed in a minor level of government. We find that determination now to seek out the individuals who are, by the greatest stretch of their imagination, seeking to have confidence in the future of Canadia, determined to produce the goods which will rectify this thing.\nThere is only one way, Mr. Speaker, to hedge against inflation; that is, to give the green light to those individuals who, during the dark days of war, were prepared to put their shoulders to the wheel to guarantee the future freedom of Canada, and to guarantee the necessary production to supply our armies in the field. Within that group I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) we have a latent power capable of stepping up the production of Canada, capable of supplying these things that are today in short supply, and capable of guaranteeing that there shall be no profiteering in the old' school of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand is a guarantee of efficiency.\nWhile hon. members opposite may argue that there are those who are taking advantage of the present situation, I feel that we on this side of the house should at least speak up for those who are known not to be taking advantage of the present situation, but who are primarily concerned with securing the raw material and the semi-processed' material to guarantee their full productive capacity.\nLast night I was very much interested when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) admitted to the house that the prosperity we have heard about on the hustings-and I have taken part in the odd by-election-which exists at the present time in Canada has been bought and dearly bought with the taxpayers' money because they feared a depression the like of which was never contemplated before. Therefore, our task tonight is to determine the best possible approach to this problem. My leader has already intimated to the house and indicated that there already exists the machinery to bring to the bar of justice those who have been guilty or presumed guilty of profiteering, of taking advantage of a situation which the government has created and which the people of Canada are finding it hard to condone. Therefore I should like to know, when I speak on the speech from the throne or on the budget address, whether I shall be precluded from discussing this unfortunate situation in the Dominion of Canada because\n\xab40\nPrices Committee", "the Speaker may be required to rule that it is already before a committee of the House of Commons. I feel certain that this committee will sit and sit indefinitely. It may bring in certain reports to the house, but it is not required to do so by the terms of reference. It is not privileged to make recommendations. The net results is that we shall be no further ahead three or four months from now or even when prorogation takes place.\nIt is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to talk about the prosperity of Canada; but ask the people who have the exchange in their pockets what it is costing them to live today compared with just a few weeks ago when the Prime Minister made his stirring address from overseas with respect to the Geneva trade agreements which we all thought was a move in the right direction to bring about greater world-wide trade, only to be followed by the address of the Minister of Finance which nullified the whole thing.\nIf the ministry are honestly seeking reasons for the increased cost of living today let them look in their own offices; let them look at their own employees and they will see the over-all cost of government and the tremendous taxation levied upon the Canadian people in relation to that which existed a few years ago. You want greater prosperity; you want greater production. Then I ask the government to give consideration to a tremendous cut in taxation, to stir up the enthusiasm, the enterprise and the ambition of the Canadian people, and you will not long have to worry about the costs of living in the Dominion of Canada, this land of great ' promise, this land of plenty if we only had the proper leadership to show us the way.\nI move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.\nMotion agreed to and debate adjourned."]
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to the desirability of having the questions on the order paper answered from time to time rather than carried along?
Right Hon. IV. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): \res. I think we might set apart Wednesdays for obtaining answers to questions, if that would suit hon. gentlemen.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 2, consideration ' of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King that a select committee be appointed to examine and report on the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living and matters pertaining thereto, and -the amendment of Mr. Bracken.
Prices Committee
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre)'. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house to consider the problem now before us not so much in terms of parliamentary procedure or in terms of unreal percentages, but rather as it actually confronts the vast majority of our Canadian people. I am sure those of us who have been brought into contact with people over the last number of years will realize the truth of my statement when I say that seldom have the Canadian people been so much upset, so much disturbed, so fearful of the future as they are at the present time. There is, indeed, almost a state of panic among many of our Canadian people as they find themselves face to face with the impossibility of making both ends meet. In addition to the fears of world insecurity that are round about us, and all the rest of it, this problem of high prices is really bearing heavily upon our people.
There is no point in hon. members opposite rising and saying a statement like this is running down Canada. Our concern here is not to compare conditions in Canada with the conditions that may exist in some less fortunate part of the world. Our concern is to face frankly the problems that confront our own people.
There may be a few people who are not greatly disturbed by the increase in the cost of living. Those whose incomes are S3,000, $4,000, or $5,000 a year or more can make adjustments' in their budgets to meet the increased costs of necessities. These higher prices mean for people in those brackets simply that they have to do without a few luxuries or save a little bit less; but they are not under any compulsion to do without necessities. The number of people who can make those adjustments is very limited. The great masses of our people, faced with rising prices, have to cut down on their consumption of milk, bread, butter and meat. In many cases they have discontinued altogether the use of orange juice and fresh fruits and vegetables; and in many instances it means denying their children cod liver oil and those other vitamin products which are necessary for the building of good health.
As one of the veterans organizations has put it, the problem has become one of actually keeping alive on the incomes people now have, in the light of today's high prices. I have mentioned veterans organizations, and that leads me to call attention in particular to the plight of veterans under present disability benefits, and to the plight that will still be theirs when those benefits have been increased by the amount announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). There

is also the serious plight of burnt-out pensioners and widows of non-pensioned veterans. There is the extreme difficulty many superannuated civil servants are facing, as well as the difficulties facing our old age pensioners and Canadians generally in the simple attempt to keep alive and to observe health and decent living standards, in the face of the wide gap existing today between the incomes of our people and the cost of living at a reasonable level.
I would urge upon members of the house the realization that the wide gap between the incomes of our people and the cost of living is not a matter of imagination in the minds of our people. If is borne out by government statistics. I shall have something to say in a few minutes about what I shall term the uselessness of the cost of living index still being used. However, before I come to those remarks about the cost of living index I am going to use that index, because poor criterion that it is, it tells at least part of the story.
The cost of living index, may I point out, merely gives us unreal percentages. It begins with a selected group of families, back in the years 1935 to 1939. As a matter of fact it deals with only some 1,400 or 1,500 Canadian families. It took families with incomes varying from $600 up to about $2,800, and struck an average. The bureau of statistics found at that time what a family with $1,453.80 was doing with its money. In other words, it found what that one family with that much income was spending its money on, and accepted that expenditure as normal, in other words. 100.
It was not normal for two reasons. On the one hand the amount of $1,453.80 was higher than the average wage level in that period, and also it was a mistaken figure, because even that amount was not sufficient to buy the necessities of life at that time.
The cost of living index, I repeat, is based on what an average family with $1,453.80 spent its money on in the period 1935-39. When we are told today that the cost of living index is 145 or 150 all it means is that it would cost today 145 per cent or 150 per cent of what it cost in 1935-39 to buy those particular commodities.
The commodities which were bought at that figure in 1939 included the following:
Food	 $ 443.00
Shelter	 260.50
Fuel and light	 90.50
Clothing	 165.80
Home furnishings	 125.70
Miscellaneous (health, personal care, transportation, recreation, life insurance)	 310.40
Other items	 39.90
[Stage Direction]
Prices Committee
That amount of $1,453.80, which was the arbitrary base for the cost of living index in 1935-39, meant that that average person had to have an average weekly wage of $27.95 in order to buy the goods and services I have indicated. That, however, was not the average weekly wage in that period; according to the Labour Gazette it was about S2 a week less than that. But even taking that figure of $27.95 a week in the period 1935-39, I ask hon. members to consider what has happened. I now take the cost of living index on October 1, 1947, because that is the latest date for which there was a comparable figure in wage rates. The index for that date was placed at 142-2. This means that as at- October 1, 1947, in order to buy the selected list of necessities which were bought in 1935-39 for SI.453.80 it was necessary to have $2,067.30. In- other words what the cost of living index tells us is merely this, that in order to purchase the same quantity of goods and services that was chosen for that arbitrary family in 1935-39 it is now necessary to have $39.75 per week. But, according to the December 1947 issue of the Labour Gazette, page 1827, the average weekly earnings of wage earners in Canada today is only $37.37. or $2.38 a week short.
John Thomas Hackett: Does that include family allowances?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not include family allowances, but I shall come to that in a minute. May I point out that to agree to $2.38 a week as the actual shortage, one would have to assume that S2.057.30 is enough to maintain a decent standard of living today. Well, I have taken- the breakdown the dominion bureau of statistics took when- it built up this cost of living index. I have taken that breakdown- and increased the amount spent in 1935-39 on these various items by the percentage which each of those items have increased in price. That means that with $2,067.30, a family, in order to keep within the terms of the cost of living index, has to get along with food to a value of $758.86 a year or $14.59 a week. I submit that not a housewife in the country would admit that you can feed a Canadian family today on $14.59 a week. Those who have to do it simply have to get along without some of the important protective foods which are necessary in this country. That basis implies that one can get along today, so far as rent, is concerned, on $323.13, or $26.92 a month. That, too, everyone knows to be hopelessly inadequate even with the controls which have been maintained on residential rents. Fuel and light today would cost only SI 10.43 a year; the cost of these items is much higher. Clothing would work
out at $255.60 a year or $21.30 a month-again a figure that is altogether too low. Home furnishings would be S1SS.42 a year. How far can a family go today in- purchasing home furnishings with $188.42 to spend in a year? Then miscellaneous and other items add up to about $400 a year. I submit that that is inadequate when you realize that it has to cover health, personal care, transportation, life insurance and anything else which has not been named in the items I have given already.
Let us not put these things in percentages or unreal terms, let us look at them in dollars and cents and realize what the Canadian family really needs today. On my own responsibility I suggest these figures as a minimum of what a Canadian family should have. First, SIS per week for food. I base that upon the report made by the Toronto welfare council which was included in a book on nutrition and the production and distribution of food put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare and which I have adjusted according to the increases in the cost of food which have taken place since that budget was published in 1944.
Rent should be at least $8 per week or about $35 per month. Fuel and -light would have to be $4 per week and clothing, $6 per week. For an average family $6 per week would be just a gesture toward home furnishing. Then S10 per week would be needed for other things, health, transportation, recreation, and so on. Those minimum figures add up to $52 per week which would be required to provide a decent living at the present time. However, according to the Labour Gazette of December, 1947, page 1827, the average income of wage earners in Canada is $37.37 per week, which is $14.63 short of a minimum budget for a decent living at the present time.
A moment ago the hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Hackett) asked if -the figures I gave included family allowances. They did not; they were just the wages earned by those in that group. I would point out two things to him and to hon. members opposite. First of all, the purpose of family allowances was not to take up the slack.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the motion which we have before us and I would ask him to keep his remarks relevant to the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall do my best to
abide by any ruling that y-ou make, Mr. Speaker, but I submit that last night the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) discussed mutual aid, and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church)
Prices Committee

read us some interesting poetry. Hon. members have been all over the map and I submit that I am keeping much closer to the subject than some others have done. I am talking about the cost of living and the utter impossibility of a Canadian family meeting that cost of living today. I am answering an interjection made by the hon. member for Stanstead who inquired whether the figures I gave included family allowances. I am replying to him by saying that when the family allowances legislation was brought in it was not intended to take the place of wages, it was intended to supplement them and to bring the average family up to the point where they would have the amount required for a decent living. I reply also that the gap between wages and the cost of living has been widening at a greater rate since 1945 when family allowances came into effect than it did from 1939 to 1945.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Would the hon. member still agree that family allowances supplement
wages?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, they certainly do supplement wages. My point is that they were intended to supplement wages, not to take the place of wages.


Humphrey Mitchell: No one suggested that except the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe no one suggested it, but that is what has happened. Wages have gone down and some people are suggesting-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No


Stanley Howard Knowles: The value of wages has gone down. There is no doubt but that the gap between the cost of living and wages is much higher today than it was in 1939 and that the widening of that gap has been greater since family allowances came into effect than was the case before.
I should like to say something about the cost of living index which is so important to any discussion about high prices, which is the subject before us. I believe that this matter comes under the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I submit that it is high time that the government revised the basis of the cost of living index. I have already indicated the basis upon which it was established, namely, a selected group of families in the period 1935-39 and I pointed out that the amounts that were chosen were above the average wage at that time and below the level required for a decent standard of living. When vou talk in terms of rises in percentages and

points you are dealing with something unreal, with something that does not serve our purpose at all.
What the dominion bureau of statistics should do is to go to the Department of National Health and Welfare and get from them a clear statement as to what it costs to purchase the things necessary for a decent standard of living and then give that as a cost of living index rather than setting it out in points or percentages. If we had that in dollars and cents we would know just where we stood.
Statistics should also be given as to how many families are in receipt of income sufficient to provide a decent standard of living; how many families are in receipt of income above that and how many are in receipt of income below that, and then separate those both above and below into various brackets.
Comparisons have been made from time to time between this country and other countries but I submit that it is difficult to arrive at anything definite because different bases are taken in different countries for their cost of living indices. If we are going to quit fooling the people of Canada we must have a cost of living index in terms of dollars and cents so that we know where we stand. I have suggested already that the cost of living index does not mean a thing as any housewife knows when she compares that cost of living index with the money she needs to buy food and clothing at the present time.


Humphrey Mitchell: Do the cost of living indices in New Zealand, Great Britain and the United States mean anything?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those figures were given yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in reply to a challenge by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he said-[DOT]


Humphrey Mitchell: That is what I am asking.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The minister will have an opportunity to speak.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will take advantage of that opportunity; don't worry about that. My hon. friend is quarreling with the indices, but is he quarreling with the one in New Zealand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I quarrel with any index that is based on percentages.


Humphrey Mitchell: In New Zealand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before anyone interjects that to put that much money into circulation would be inflationary, may I say, yes it would, and in order to prevent such inflationary effects price control must be put into effect as well, which is the policy we are advocating. It might even require a certain amount of rationing. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is no time for fooling around with useless committees of inquiry. This is no time for saying we cannot take this step because it does not fall in line with the policy of the party in power. We are facing a crisis in Canadian home life, in Canadian health, and in Canadian living standards, and it is time something was done about it by the government of the day.
One argument it is certainly no longer necessary to answer, and that is the point about the constitutionality of price controls and subsidies. Although the government was advancing that argument last year it is actually bringing in a bill now to extend controls for another year. So the power is to be there if the house grants it. But what the people of Canada are concerned about is whether those powers are to be used. The Prime Ministei made a great play yesterday on his opinion that the people of Canada want this committee. The people of Canada do not want another time-wasting committee, any more than the Prime Minister did in the days when he was objecting to committees. They want price controls and subsidies. They want the cost of living brought down or their incomes brought up. They want the government to make it possible for both ends to meet. I submit that if the Prime Minister has any doubt about it he should respond _ to the challenge given by the leader of this group yesterday and, if he is not prepared to go to the country, at least he should call by-elections in the three federal ridings that are now vacant.
Lest my time be exhausted before I do something I wish to attend to while on my feet, may I refer briefly to the amendment moved yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). There is much in that amendment that is acceptable to us, particularly in the sense that it seeks to broaden the terms of reference. We like in particular the provision to give the power to the committee to make recommendations. But there are two points in the amendment that we simply could not accept in the form in which they were presented to the house. I refer to the clause having to do with the restoration of subsidies. So far as that clause is concerned we feel that it should be more specific, that it should ask for the restoration of both price controls and

subsidies, and direct the committee to examine this question immediately and make an early report to the house.
We also feel that the clause in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition regarding the situation in which our farmers find themselves is ambiguous and should be made clear. Therefore I propose to move an amendment which accepts the general structure of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition but changes the two clauses to which I have referred.
I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), that the amendment be amended by deleting paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 1 thereof and substituting the following therefor-the clauses I shall now read will take the place of (e) and (f) in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, and it will come under the general heading asking the committee to examine and report on the following:
(e)	measures to stem the rising cost of living, such as the restoration of price controls and subsidies, the examination of these matters to be the committee's first order of business and a report thereon to be presented to this house not later than three weeks from the day of the committee's first meeting;
(f)	measures to control the prices of commodities entering into the farmers' costs of production in view of the fact that controls are maintained on the prices of farm products.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that (e) and (f) in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition need to be altered along the lines I have proposed and in particular that my clause (e) represents the feeling of the people of Canada at the present time. They do not want a committee at all. They want price controls and subsidies. But if the government is going to insist on the committee being set up, the people of Canada want that committee to consider first of all ways and means of stemming the rising cost of living, by such methods as price controls and subsidies, and not to take six months or a year to deal with the matter-the Stevens committee and commission took a full year-but to report immediately so that something may be done to avoid further suffering on the part of the Canadian people.


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but
I was not able to be in the house yesterday afternoon to listen to the speech delivered by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken) or the speeches delivered by the leaders of the other groups. As a matter of fact I was elsewhere in the building dealing

Prices Committee
with some matters which were at the same time under discussion in the house. And, of course, since the committee which I was meeting with was not a committee of the house the discussions with regard to similar matters were going on here at the time we were attempting to deal with some of them elsewhere. I have, however, had the privilege of reading the addresses which were delivered yesterday afternoon, and it is my intention to spend most of the time available to me this afternoon in dealing with the address of the leader of the opposition. I do that because about three-quarters of his speech was taken up with agricultural matters, and in a manner in which they have been covered before, not only by the leader of the opposition but by other speakers in the house.
I shall not attempt therefore to follow too closely the statements made, or to answer them in particular, but will deal rather with the criticisms as related to the proposal now before the house.
It is suggested that a committee of this house composed of sixteen members be set up to act as a fact-finding body to 'place not only before this house but before the country all the facts available with regard to the present situation in Canada in relation to the cost of living. It is taken 'for granted by the government and by this side of the house that after we have that full information, either the house or the government, or the house and the government acting in cooperation, will be able to take such action as may be necessary, based upon that information.
In one part of his speech the leader of the opposition took the position that the government should take responsibility for policy. But in most of what he said and in what is contained in the latter part of the amendment which he moved he suggested that the government should place that responsibility upon the committee. The government has stated through different speakers from this side that we are prepared to take responsibility not only for what has been done by the government, or what is being done now, but for the necessary policy to be applied in the future in order to deal with this particular question.
In dealing with this matter, however, the leader of the opposition covered quite fully the subjects which he has discussed on many occasions since becoming leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I hold in my hand an advertisement which appeared in the Family Herald and Weekly Star of May 5849-51
9, 1945, the 'heading of which is, "A Farmer Fights for Farmers' Rights." It goes on to
state:
"I may say quite frankly that if it had not been for that part of your platform which provides for a square deal being given to agriculture, I would not have been here." (John Bracken . . .)
These are the words of the present leader of the official opposition. Then he goes on to outline what the platform is and what the intentions of the government would be if he were at the head of the government. The advertisement reads:
At last a farmer-fighting champion of the rights of farmers-strides into the political arena of this great dominion and demands as their God-given right, fair play for Canadian farmers, here and now.
And in order to obtain that fair play for Canadian farmers the advertisement goes on to say:
(1)	The farmers shall be guaranteed a proportionate share of the nation's income.
(2)	A permanent policy of forward contract prices shall be guaranteed to farmers by law.
(3)	The prices guaranteed will be calculated by a non-political council, and will be based on the farmers' proportionate share of the national income. These prices will be announced before the production seasons begin.
(4)	This policy would increase present average farm income by not less than twenty per cent.
We are setting out to remove the fear of a post-war collapse of agricultural income, such as occurred two years after the last war-
And may I pause to say, under a Conservative government.
-and such as manifested itself so disastrously in the ten years preceding this war.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the policy laid down on May 9, 1945, in an advertisement placed in one of the great farm periodicals of this country, and spread broadcast among the farmers of Canada. I should just like to say at this point that the speech delivered yesterday was largely an attempt to condemn the principles stated in that declaration of policy. Immediately following the appearance of that advertisement in the press, I as Minister of Agriculture stated to the people of Canada that everything essential to their welfare which was contained in the platform was already contained ini the policies being put into effect by the present government. Let me recall one or two of the sections I have just read in order to bring that back to mind: "A permanent policy of forward contract prices shall be guaranteed to farmers." Now, of course, he puts in, in big black letters, "by law". Well, there is no difference between the proposal made there and the policy which
Prices Committee

the leader of the opposition spent most of his speech yesterday condemning. He began by setting forth to the house that there is something wrong with the position of agriculture in Canada, and in order to emphasize that he was attempting to state to the house that the rising cost of living was largely due to increased costs of food. He said food products have most to do with the cause of criticism of the rising costs of living in Canada, and stated that whereas the cost of living had increased by only 46 points as compared with 1936-39, taking 1936-39 as 100, the cost of food products had increased by 78-7 per cent. That is in accordance with the statistics which were quoted to the house. From that time on, 'Mr. Speaker, he divided his time between trying to show that the cost of food is too high and trying to show that the cost of producing food is too high. When he found himself in difficulties with the farmers through trying to talk down their price level, he then spent a few paragraphs ini trying to convince his hearers that he should be saying something in criticism of the other members of the citizenship of this country, by criticizing the fact that their costs had gone up. But after he had spent considerable time in trying to prove to the house those two different propositions, he stated that the real cause of all this difficulty is the British contracts, which have attempted to freeze prices, and the embargo against the exportation of food products from Canada to the United States.
In the platform as laid down in 1945 there were to be contracts and those contracts were to establish prices for farmers. I should like to ask the leader of the opposition or any other member of this house the following question. With whom would those contracts be made if not with the one country in the world where there is a market for the surplus farm products of Canada 7 How' could they have been different, in principle at least, from the contracts which we now have with the British? Even if that had not been in the platform of the leader of the opposition, I would be inclined to ask this question, Mr. Speaker. If those contracts are bad, and if they have had the effect stated for them by the leader of the opposition, why is it that every farm organization in Canada, with one possible exception, is continually passing resolutions saying that they want the contracts and that they want them continued; that they want the stability, which is the basis of these contracts, continued; and in season and out are asking us to carry on under these contracts?
I have here on my desk statements coming recently from some of the organizations which
[Mr. Gardiner.!
deal with that particular matter. Something is said in criticism of the price which we have been receiving for poultry products, and I have here a letter from the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian poultry council, dated January 18, 1948, addressed to Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario, and reading as follows:
Dear Sir:
During the recent conference of the directors of the National (now Canadian) Poultry Council held in Ottawa, January 13, 14, and 15, 1948, the matter of the recently negotiated contract for eggs with the British Ministry of Food was discussed at length.
It was the unanimous opinion of the directors of the council (representing each province) that the ultimate announcement made by you on January 2, 1948, was very satisfactory to the poultry industry of Canada at this time, as it helped to regain the confidence of the producers at the beginning of the crop year.
I was instructed, sir, to convey to you their appreciation on behalf of the industry they represent, realizing in small part the great difficult^ which you undoubtedly encountered.
That is -the opinion of some of the producer-who are presumed to be so greatly dissatisfied with the activities of the government in relation to these matters.


Mr. HARKNESS:: What did the beef producers say?


James Garfield Gardiner: In a moment I will give that to my hon. friend, and he will be surprised at what they said.
I have before me resolutions passed at Brockville the other day-that is, the ones passed for immediate consideration. Those covering long-term policies have not yet been presented to the government, but those requiring action immediately with regard to certain matters have been placed before us. One of them reads in this way:
Whereas the acceptance by the farmers of western Canada of ceilings on the price of their products was promised on the condition that similar controls w'ould be maintained on the price of things which they, the farmers have to buy;
Be it resolved that we urgently request the government of Canada, in fairness to the wheat producers, to instruct the Canadian wheat board to maintain the price of wheat sold for domestic consumption at not less than the level prevailing for wheat sold to the United Kingdom.
That is exactly what we 9re doing, Mr. Speaker. It is exactly what we have been doing for some considerable time, and it is exactly what the government intends to do. So I take that to be a justification of the policy that we have been following.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was that intended?


James Garfield Gardiner: These men know pretty well what they intend. I heard an hon. member of this house state that he had been down

Prices Committee
to Brockville addressing these men during the last week and that he had never met a more intelligent group of men than those who were gathered there, or had never met a group of men who were more capable of getting up on their feet and saying what they meant. There is no doubt that these men said exactly what they meant.
Then on price controls and livestock production there is the following resolution:
Whereas during the past year there has been a serious decline in hog production and in cattle slaughterings, which if not checked, may result in an actual shortage of supplies of meat on the domestic market;
And whereas the embargo against the shipment of livestock to the United States has acted as a most effective price control on livestock and livestock products;
Resolved that this meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture strongly protest the reimposition of further price controls on livestock and livestock products, unless these are accompanied by a policy of over-all control of prices of those goods and services which constitute the farmers' production costs.
May I call attention to the central sentence of that resolution, namely, "Whereas the embargo against the shipment of livestock to the United States has acted as a most effective price control on livestock and livestock products." I say that for the benefit of the leader of the opposition, who yesterday was suggesting to us that there are some difficulties experienced by farmers at the present time with regard to that matter. Then for the benefit of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Hark-ness) I should like to read a telegram which was sent from the national council of the Canadian beef producers meeting at Winnipeg; following, I might say, the historic meeting we had in Lethbridge; and all those' present at the first meeting were represented at the second one. The telegram reads as follows:
Winnipeg, Man., January 29, 1948.
Hon. James G. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
This council fully endorses the following resolution and states it as an objective for government policy.
Those words are most important.
Resolved that this council go on record as approving the restoration of the right to private export of cattle and to all the benefits accruing therefrom.
May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to this house, that that is exactly the position which I took at the Lethbridge meeting. I was asked this direct question: Does the government of Canada believe that the natural long-time market for Canadian beef is in the United States, or does it believe it is in Britain? The answer I made was that 5849-514
the natural long-time market for Canadian beef or Canadian cattle is in the United States and not in Britain.


James Arthur Ross: How far off is the
objective?


James Garfield Gardiner: I went on to say that throughout the period of the war, and particularly during the last three or four years of the war, we in Canada had been intent on putting into effect in this country a policy which would stop the sort of rise in the cost of living that was discussed at great length yesterday by the leader of the opposition; that in order to halt this rising spiral of prices of the necessities of life we put controls on the prices of products and more particularly on the prices of foods, and that those price levels were held during the whole war. I went on to say that price levels are still higher in the United States than in Canada. To substantiate that statement I have the remarks made yesterday by the leader of the opposition, who said that industrial wages in Canada are only 70-3 per cent of those in the United States, and then went on to say that the cost of living in Canada is 77-7 per cent of the cost of living in the United States. In other words we have a lower cost of living in Canada as a result of our activities during and since the war.
Then I went on to say that our objective in that policy was the same both during the war and since. During the war the objective was to keep down the cost of production of those things needed for war and for carrying on activities in our own country, as far as it was possible to keep them down under the circumstances. Since the war we have had the same objective in mind, namely to keep down the cost of production in this country. And I say to farmers and industry alike that whether we like it or not, the Conservative policy of high costs, which has been associated with all their programs throughout the periods they have formed a government in Canada, has always proved detrimental to the development of industry and agriculture in this country. It does not make any difference whether or not you call it Conservative; throughout the ages that policy has been detrimental to the best interests of any country which attempted to build up industry within its bounds. Great Britain, which set an example to the world during the last half of the nineteenth century in the matter of industrial development, built that industry upon low costs of production. Their own people enjoyed a higher standard of living than the people of any other industrial country in the world, but low costs of production made it
Prices Committee

possible for them to sell their products to every nation in the world. As far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we will only get back into the markets of the world and maintain our position there, when the nations come back to normal, by having our costs at reasonably low levels. Only thus may we sell our products to advantage in every part of the world.
So what I said to the people in Lethbridge was that for the time being it would take away most of the benefits we have obtained from the policies followed during the war if we were to immediately jump up to the United States price level. Someone said, "We are not asking you to do that." I replied: Well, you are asking the opportunity to sell our beef in the United States; and they said that was right. I went on to say that our experience up to the present has been that none of our high priced beef goes outside Canada; that with the purchasing power we have in this country today the Canadian people are going to eat their own. high quality beef. And I went on to point out that if the Canadian people should bid the United States price or more in order to keep that beef in this country, that would not bring United States dollars into Canada but would bring about a higher price level in this country, because if you had it for beef you would require to have it for every other agricultural product. So this resolution was passed at that conference the next day and sent down to Winnipeg. There the national organization passed it with the provision I read to the house, namely that it should be an objective of government policy. And that is the objective of government policy, to put our beef back on the United States market, at a time when the price levels of the two countries make this possible without upsetting the whole program which was put into effect by the government during the war.
So much for what farm organizations think of the British contracts and what the people generally, and more particularly the cattle producers, think of the cattle embargo. The same question was discussed at Brockville, and I have read the resolution which was passed for immediate consideration., and another which will be considered further in what they have to say to us later. This whole policy, which yesterday was condemned as one of inflation-and we admit there has been a certain degree of inflation-is a policy which has been holding down the increase in the cost of living to the level indicated by the figures mentioned here yesterday, showing that our cost of living is only 77-7 per cent of the cost of living in the United States.

Now I would ask what effect the policy of selling our products to the British under contract throughout the war and since has had upon agriculture in this country. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition says it has resulted in a lessening of production. I presume that argument can be sound only if he thinks the prices of farm products have not been sufficiently high. But throughout his whole speech he argued that the cost of living is too high, and also that food is the most important element in the cost of living. Therefore he tries to ride both horses at the same time, and in the end does not prove anything as far as the public are concerned. There are a great many facts to be considered in connection with the matter. One is the fact that farmers are getting the highest prices they have ever received on practically all farm products other than grain, which I think is a reasonable answer.


James Arthur Ross: It is not a statement of fact.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a statement of fact. Perhaps in order to put the matter straight I should state what the facts are. In 1918, a year in which prices for most of these commodities were among the highest we have ever had, oats were 82 cents a bushel; barley was $1.37; wheat was $2.22; cattle were $13.29 a hundred on the Toronto market; hogs were $18; butter was 46 cents a pound; cheese was 23 cents a pound and eggs were 59 cents a dozen. Last year, 1947, oats were 87-7 cents; barley was 93 cents; wheat was $1.58.


John Thomas Hackett: It was over $3 in Chicago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Cattle were $13.51; hogs were $17; butter was 60 cents; cheese was 25-9 cents and eggs were 59 cents. At present -that is in January of 1948 when these figures were compiled, feed oats were 86 cents; barley $1.30; wheat, $2 for the latter part of the year and $1.55 for the first part of the year; cattle $16.50 as against $13.29 in one of the highest years in the past, hogs $21.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dressed?


James Garfield Gardiner: No not dressed; worked down to live weight value with $36 per hundred for bacon; butter 70 cents; cheese 30 cents; eggs, 55 cents. Eggs is the only product in the list lower than the 59 cents price of 1918. And it is lower only because it is affected by the lowering of the price in that month of the year in order that it may be raised in the fall of the year to induce a greater production of eggs.


Mr. ROWE:: Why 1918?

Prices Cormnitlee


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe it was the highest year, taking it all the way through.


John Thomas Hackett: Has the minister the statistics for 1920?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will give statistics which will perhaps convince the hon. member of something.


John Thomas Hackett: What about 1920?


James Garfield Gardiner: The average prices for
1926-29 which has been accepted as the basis for parity in Canada by farm organizations, were: oats, 59 cents; barley, 73'6 cents; wheat $1.42; cattle $9.04; hogs $11.61; butter 38-2 cents; cheese 18-9 cents; eggs 48-2 cents.
What is the result of these figures? Our present prices on oats are 70 per cent higher than they were in that basic period; our present price on barley is 70 per cent higher than in the basic period; our present price on wheat is 30 per cent higher than in the basic period; our price on cattle is 80 per cent higher; our price on hogs is 90 per cent higher; our price on cheese is 55 per cent higher and our price on eggs is 124 per cent higher.


William Earl Rowe: What about the 1920 prices, two years after that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will cover that if you will give me time. I cannot do it all at once.


John Thomas Hackett: Don't forget 1920.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question has been asked, what about farm implements? What about the prices of other things?


William Earl Rowe: And farm wages.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose my hon. friends immediately opposite do not realize that that question is answered in the statement made by the leader of the opposition that the cost of living in Canada is 77-7 per cent of that in the United States.


William Earl Rowe: No relationship at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes; there is a relationship.


William Earl Rowe: Not for the Canadian farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: Someone asks about farm implements. When one starts to talk about the cost of production, everything must be considered-. When everything is taken into consideration, the cost of production in Canada is 77-7 per cent of what it is in the United States.
My hon. friends would perhaps like to have some further statistics with regard to that matter. What do they show? They show that last year the farmers of Canada had a very high return from the sale of their farm
products-a high return which was very help- . ful to them. Someone has said they had a heavy crop; that is the very opposite of the fact. Last year there was one of the poorest crops the farmers right across Canada have had. They were poor in the east because they could not get their crop ini in the spring of the year; they were poor in the west because a month before harvest we had hot, scorching weather which reduced the yield from the farms of that area. Nevertheless we had a very high gross return last year from the sale of our farm products in Canada-$1,760 million. What is of far greater importance, we had the highest net return on our farm products in 1946 that we have ever had in Canada. And after all, the net return is the important thing-that is, the difference between the cost of production and the sales value of the commodities produced.
When one examines the statistics with regard to last year, he finds we had the highest net return from the sale of farm products across Canada that we have ever had in the history of the country. In other words, in relation to our cost of production our returns were higher than they ever were before. Well, with our gross return higher than ever before, with the exception of the year 1944, aud1 with our net return higher than ever before, $1,267,400,000, no one can come to this House of Commons and prove to us that the government has not seen to it that the returns to farmers should rise at least as much as the cost to farmers, taking all factors into consideration which could be effective in both respects.
So I say there is no reason why we should accept a resolution such as that moved in amendment by either one party or the other as condemning the position of our farm policy in Canada. But I would say this, that the letters and the resolutions and the telegrams I have read to the house indicate that the only people in Canada who are concerned about getting the Progressive Conservative party back into power in Canada on this question are the members of that party. The members of all other parties in the house are not anxious to have them back-and that includes all of us. Members on this side of the house certainly are not anxious to have them back.


James Arthur Ross: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the only worry the farmers have is that they might get back into office. If they did, farmers would return to those conditions which the leader of the opposition so eloquently described in a speech delivered on another occasion in the early
Prices Committee

.part of this session-and to which, under the rules, I cannot refer. That was a speech in which he indicated that we had a development in this country under previous Liberal governments which did result in great prosperity. People of Canada believe-certainly the farmers do-that they have a government today which has got for them the highest returns they have ever had; that they have a government today which has drawn a wider margin between their costs and their returns than has ever existed before, and thereby put them in a more favourable position than they had ever occupied previously. Realizing those things, their chief concern is that this government remain in power, to keep them in that favourable position. How do they expect the government to do it? They expect it to do it by keeping down the cost of production, for the time being at least. They expect the government to do it by stabilizing returns on farm products at reasonable levels, as long as possible-through contracts, if we can get them, and through providing the farmers by one means or another with greater purchasing power than they ever had before. They realize they have that now. And then, by guaranteeing floors, if prices should slip in the United States or other markets, they would expect that help through subsidies.
My hon. friend says that he does not know whether he is in favour of subsidies or not. I do not know why he put it into an amendment and asked this house to vote for it if he does not know whether he is in favour of it. However, the suggestion is there that we have subsidies. I ask him to read the policy of the Liberal party, to read it as expressed in the bill which was discussed fully in this house at a time prior to his being in it, a measure which is still on the statute book. The only resolution passed at Brockville the other day by the farm organizations in relation to that legislation was that we make it permanent. They said, ' This is one of the best things we have ever had; this is what we want but it covers only the transitional period; make it permanent." Any organization which asks this government to make permanent a policy which has been placed upon the statute books is not criticizing this government; it is criticizing every critic of this government.
I suggest that that act is a protection which we have under Liberal policy for the stabilization which is indicated in the contracts up to the present time and which, immediately we are not able to make contracts, will be taken care of by the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Two hundred million dollars are 
provided for products other than grain in order to make sure that the prices of those products will not fall to undue levels.
My hon. friend says, in supporting this policy which is stated here, that the price he thinks the farmers ought to have is the price they were getting in 1945. We have said in our contracts with Great Britain that the price we want as a floor price shall not be lower than the one which obtained for beef and pork in 1946, when prices were more than twenty per cent higher than they were in 1945. We went further and we placed upon the statute books of this country an act which makes it possible for us to subsidize in the interests of the basic agricultural industry of this country the production of products should prices in the United States market or elsewhere where we would naturally market our products find a lower level than should prevail.
Why did we do that? We did that because in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944 and, following the act, in 1944, 1945, and 1946, we asked the farmers to be satisfied with a lower price than- they otherwise could have got. My hon. friends say, "Why do you put a ceiling price on butter? Why do you put a ceiling price on meat?" That is not the question they should be asking this house. The leader of the C.C.F. party stated the position in a manner which should confront the mind of every hon. member in this house. He said, 'Why did you put the price of butter so high?"
There is only one reason why the price of butter was put so high. It was done in order to make it impossible for our critics anywhere in Canada to say that after the farmer had delivered butter at from 48 to 55 cents a pound throughout the whole summer and provided1 it to the consumer at those price levels throughout the whole summer when he was producing twice as much butter as could be consumed in this country, when he was producing only half of what could be consumed or one-quarter of what 'had been produced in the summer he was forced back to a lower price level for a product which was being marketed in this country under the adverse weather conditions we have in winter from one end to the other. Instead of allowing a few people of the type described by the Prime Minister the other day, who are always prepared to take advantage of any condition, to make inordinate profits, a price would be set sufficiently high to give the farmer a reasonable return upon his product in winter when related to the fact that he had marketed at a low price during the summer months.

Prices Committee
I want to say that if the same principle is applied to meat or anything else, it is not going to hurt the farmer. That principle protects the consumer against unduly high retail prices, but it does not take a single nickel out of the pockets of the farmers of this country. A policy which protects the consumer is sound because we have said in the prices support legislation that if the time ever comes when the bottom falls out of prices we will ask every taxpayer in this country to help to the extent provided in the Agricultural Prices Support Act, that is, $200 million, to maintain the price levels. If we are going to ask the taxpayers of Canada to do that, then this government must suggest to the producers that they should not expect to take full advantage of higher price levels which may obtain in the United States. We should keep control of our own position in Canada and see to it that the farmers are reasonably well paid for their production. At the same time we should see to it that the great mass of our people are kept in a frame of mind where they will maintain that legislation on the statute book.
I am not at all afraid that on the policies advocated a Conservative government may be here some day; I am not even afraid that a C.C.F. government may be here some day, but we should talk about this sufficiently often and long enough to convince the people of this country that no matter what government i3 here this is something the farmers want to continue at least until through maintenance of a reasonable relationship between costs and returns they have had back some of what they have contributed toward the maintenance of reasonable price levels in Canada during the last five or six years. If we do that there will be no necessity for the criticisms that were made yesterday by the leader of the opposition.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has just delivered a speech which I can describe only as being a combination of political bombast and gross inaccuracy. The first part of that characterization speaks for itself, but I intend to prove the second part in the brief time at my disposal.
The first inaccuracy of which the Minister of Agriculture permitted himself to be guilty in an effort to discredit the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken) was contained in the statement made toward the end of his speech when he said that the agricultural policy of the leader of the opposition was to give farmers prices no higher than those which prevailed in 1945. That is refuted by
a reference to the very platform statement which the minister read at the opening of his speech. He has it there on his desk in front of him, and he will see by reference to it that the leader of the opposition said in his platform that the policies he advocated would result in agriculturists receiving an income at least twenty per cent above the levels they were receiving in 1945. That was his policy; it certainly was not to give them only the income they received in 1945.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will get the hon. member the speech in which he made that statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Agriculture is now referring to two different things. He has referred to this as the agricultural policy of the leader of the opposition. If he is going to criticize that agricultural policy on the basis of that advertisement, he must stick to that advertisement. That advertisement shows that he has been guilty of inaccuracy.
The next inaccuracy-there is quite a long list-is that the Minister of Agriculture tried to leave the impression that the present policy advocated by the leader of the opposition would be opposed to firm contract prices -a permanent policy of forward contract prices were the words used in 1945. That, of course, is not an accurate statement of the facts. It is true that the leader of the opposition has repeatedly criticized the actual contracts made with the British government; but he has criticized them, not on the basis of their attempting to give stability to agricultural prices, but on the basis that the prices set fasten upon the Canadian farmer the burden of the national policy of providing food for Great Britain and Europe at less than world prices. That is the present policy of this government. It is not the policy of the official opposition, which feels that the nation as a whole should bear the cost of the national policy.
The Minister of Agriculture went on to say that the farmers support the present government. He implied that they are satisfied with everything the government has done, and he read a lot of resolutions and letters, being careful to pick out only those favourable to the government. But it so happens that I received this morning a copy of resolutions adopted at the fourteenth annual convention of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, which is the parent agricultural body in British Columbia embracing the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers' Association, the British Columbia Livestock Pro-
Prices Committee

ducers' Co-operative Association, and so on. This series of resolutions contains a number which are very critical of government policy respecting agriculture on some of the very points on which .the minister said he was so proud to have the support of agricultural associations behind him.
The first one deals with the poultry situation. The house will recall that the minister read a letter or resolution, I forget which, praising his action, which letter or resolution had come from the Poultry Industry Council. That is important because the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, refers to that organization in the following terms- this is resolution No. 7, which was adopted at the meeting of the British Columbia federation:
Whereas in the past, certain government departments at Ottawa have dealt with conditions affecting poultry producers through the Poultry Industry Council;
Therefore the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture recommends that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture urges that departments at Ottawa, when dealing with producer affairs, deal through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its .affiliated groups.
I am not surprised at the British Columbia federation questioning the wisdom of dealing with any agricultural organization which praises the minister in the extravagant terms which the Poultry Industry Council used. They recommend quite sensibly that another organization be used.
The minister's next inaccuracy was when he attempted1 to prove that the farmers of Canada were quite satisfied with livestock prices and with the embargo on exports to the United States. Here is what the British Columbia federation has to say on that question:
That the following telegram received November 25, from President Roy C. Marler, of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, be endorsed by this 1947 annual convention of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, and mat appropriate action be taken to implement the demands contained therein;
"That the federation of agriculture stage an all-out protest with regard to the livestock and poultry situation, and that all farm organizations and farmers as individuals be requested to wire and write Prime Minister King, the members of his cabinet and members of parliament demanding that immediate steps be taken to adjust livestock and poultry prices, with the federation recommending measures based on the following courses to alleviate the situation:
"I. British contract prices to be re-nego-ti ated;
"2. Open the American market for the shipment of livestock and poultry;
[DOT]'3. Increase the present prices by a subsidy to producers.

Further, that these protests appeal to .the federal government to accept responsibility for the loss to farmers selling coarse grains before the ceilings were removed."
That was the very policy advocated by the leader of the opposition. It certainly does not indicate satisfaction with government policy when the federation urge their members to protest to the Prime Minister, the cabinet and all members of parliament.


James Garfield Gardiner: What was the date of that last one, might I ask?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The convention was held on November 26 and 27.


James Garfield Gardiner: These resolutions were passed before prices were adjusted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The adjustment of prices was subsequent to that resolution but it has not yet met the demands made by the producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: The adjustment they asked for is what they got. They cover the increased cost of grain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Their costs of production are still more than the price at which they are allowed to sell their produce, and the federation still want to enter the United States market.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend criticized me for misrepresenting. He should not do any misrepresenting himself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am presenting the facts as set forth by an agricultural body, and they speak for themselves. I say that the basic situation has not changed, particularly with respect to the United States market.
The last inaccuracy of the minister was when he represented that all farmers are satisfied with the government, particularly with its agricultural policy, and want to see the present government continue in office. Here is a resolution which goes to the whole crux of the matter, and it shows that the farmers support the Conservative policy with respect to a marketing act, which the Liberal government has for years refused to give to the farmers. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the organized farmers of Canada, through the provincial and Canadian federations of agriculture, have on many occasions since the court decision that the 1934 Marketing Act was ultra vires, requested the dominion government to enact comprehensive marketing legislation that would enable farmers to market their products in an orderly manner, and
Whereas the government has not seen fit to pass such legislation and has not as yet given any logical reason why this request of the farmers should not be granted, an I

Prices Committee
Whereas eight of the nine provinces of Canada have shown by their actions in passing provincial marketing legislation that, in their opinion, such legislation is necessary and in the public interest;
Therefore be it resolved:
(1)	That this 1947 convention of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture again puts on record its belief that dominion marketing legislation, to supplement the provincial acts, is urgently necessary if the farmers of Canada are to be placed in a position equal to that of other elements in the community;
(2)	That, once more the British Columbia Federation, through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, requests the dominion government to introduce at the next session of parliament comprehensive marketing legislation that will make it possible for groups of farmers to control the marketing of their own products rather than be at the mercy of speculative interests.
Then, follows (3), and. no one will say that this indicates satisfaction with the present government and its policies:
(3)	That, failing assurances that such legislation will be introduced, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture demands to know the reasons why the government of Canada, by its lack of action in this important matter, is apparently of the opinion that the farmers of Canada should be kept permanently in an inferior position as compared with other elements of society, and that such reasons be published for the information of all Canadian farmers.
That resolution can mean only one thing, that without a marketing act this agricultural organization, a provincial member body of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, feel that at the moment Canadian farmers are in an inferior position in relation to other elements of society. That is the very opposite of satisfaction with the government's policy. I point out that it was a Conservative government which introduced and passed marketing legislation in this house, and it was a Liberal government which by a circuitous action had that act declared ultra vires by the courts and has refused since to put such an act on the statute books of this country.
The rest of the minister's speech was an indigestible mass of statements, some of which are open to question, but, of course, without having immediately available statistics to disprove their accuracy, I cannot refute them fully.


James Garfield Gardiner: You should not make such strong statements without having the facts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister said, for instance, that production costs in Canada were lower than in the United States, but prices of all industrial equipment in the United States would seem to challenge the accuracy of that statement.
However, not having the figures available just now to go further into that question I should like to revert to the main subject before the house at the moment, namely, the motion for the setting up of this committee to inquire into the increased cost of living. There is hardly any need to say that I share the belief expressed by other hon. members, that this step is not a forward step but only a side step; because, Mr. Speaker, surely no committee is needed at the moment to reveal the true facts of the situation, which are obvious to the Canadian people. These facts are that the rise in the cost of living is due, first, to the existence of shortages, and second, to government policies which increase inflation and make shortages more drastic.
With respect to the first cause of the increase in the cost of living, namely, shortages, of course our problem there is to increase production, because we have set ourselves the task of feeding not only Canada but the people of the United Kingdom and of Europe as well. Government policies, as has been shown by the leader of the opposition, have had the direct effect of discouraging production by maintaining controls on the price of one commodity, namely food, while allowing the cost of all items entering into the production of food to increase, with the result that production did not increase. In many fields it went down and the shortage of food has increased.
I think the people of Canada are prepared to recognize that, to a large extent, they have been living in the past off the depressed standard of one section of the community, namely the farmers. If the people of Canada are convinced that the farmer is now receiving a more adequate return for his work I do not believe that they will be inclined to question too much the justice of that situation. They do question it if they do not believe that the farmer is receiving a fair return, and I want to deal with that point shortly insofar as profiteering is concerned. (But in approaching this problem we should bear clearly in mind that the fact that production went down instead of going up because of the maintenance of controls on one group of commodities alone, is another illustration of a basic truth, namely, that controls to be effective must be 100 per cent. What we are seeing here, Mr. Speaker, is not so much a breakdown of the free enterprise system as a breakdown of the control system. It is not free enterprise which is having its last trial; it is control and managed economies, government planning, dictatorship, which have had their trial and have been found to be wanting.
I have not heard any member seriously question the statement of fact that controls
Prices Committee

to be effective must be 100 per cent. There are two methods by which one can increase production, and' control is certainly one of them. One hundred per cent control would work if you wanted it; hut we of the official opposition at least, do not want it. We have opposed it. Unlike the government, we have never advocated it. We realize, for instance, that control to be workable must be 100 per cent, and that means wage control. Wage control,	besides	being undesirable,	is
impossible; and even the members of the C C.F. party are not prepared' to fight on this ground, although they do ask for the reimposition of price control. The government also does not believe that price control is possible; but what a conversion we see there, a complete about-face. The government is now trying to climb on the band-wagon of free enterprise, and making a complete about-face, which should also be borne in mind when considering the true facts of the situation.
I should like at this point to mention some of the remedies that were indicated by the leader of the opposition. We say control will not work; but we do not say that there is no remedy, no steps which can be taken to deal positively with the increase in the cost of living. Amongst the remedies were, first, to take off the indirect and hidden taxes which directly increased the cost of living; instead of which the government, through the austerity program, the embargo program and excise taxes introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has added at least 25 per cent to the cost of living. The second step is to prosecute speculation where it is found to exist. The third step is to encourage production, especially on the farm; and the fourth step is to give free enterprise a chance, to have the will to see it work, to encourage it and allow it to work as it will to give us the highest standard of living in the whole world.
Let us see how the government treats these positive steps which can be taken to deal with the increase in the cost of living. Many government spokesmen have discussed the matter, but I want to refer to a speech which we heard last night, a speech which, with deference, I do not think offered any constructive approach to the problem. It seemed to me, as the heir apparent to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke, that we saw a new Paul with a new message to the Gentiles. The message was that now he is a believer in free democracy and free enterprise, and especially in free enterprise. This new Paul made reference to a gibe which had been used about the leader 
of the opposition. He spoke of shifting to another political foot. I thought-what a strange knowledge of this "feat" is revealed by the minister in his present attitude; how very different the speech which he made last night was in its effect and in its purport from the speeches which he made when he was Minister of Justice in 1945. At that time he defended the very opposite point of view, and he jeered at and laughed at hon. members, especially of the official opposition, when we asked for the restoration of democracy, and freedom from undemocratic controls, freedom from regulation by order-in-council. We asked for the restoration of the rule of law and for the freedom of the ordinary businessman from the threat of arbitrary and dictatorial authority. Did the minister agree then? He certainly did not, as hon. members will see, if they read his speech delivered at the time. '
Speaking on this question on December 5, 1945, as reported at page 3000 of Hansard, referring to charges of dictatorial control, the minister said:
There _ seems to me something very unreal about this challenge as to there having been such dictatorial autocracy pushing people around in this country. If there was dictatorial autocracy m pushing people around, then we in the government are responsible for what was done, and we took that responsibility before the Canadian people.
_ Is there any attitude of belief in business integrity, belief in freedom of enterprise, in these remarks of the right hon. gentleman? What a change of political feet is there 1 It reminds us that the present Liberal government in this respect is something like a centipede; it has about a hundred political feet, and the heir apparent to the Prime 'Minister provides a good proportion of them.
Another about-face by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in the matter of controls. Speaking in Quebec, as reported in the Quebec Chronicle Telegraph of January 12 of this year the minister said as follows:
Mr. St. Laurent went on record as being of the opinion that ceilings and controls on prices, wages and salaries were "neither possible, nor desirable in peacetime."
What a conversion! We find the minister saying the same thing in the house. He said in the house last night, as reported at page 773 of Hansard:
I still believe .that the institutions worked by reasonable-minded people can be worked in a reasonable way and that there are more men in business and in enterprise in Canada who want free enterprise 'to be worked in a reasonable way to the benefit of the whole community rather than of .the few who attempt to take advantage of any possible circumstances to extract inordinate prices.

Prices Committee
If he believes that, why then at Quebec a few days earlier does he speak as follows, and I am reading from a report of his speech appearing in the Montreal Gazette of January 12:
"But this provides the greedy'-and unfortunately they exist everywhere and always-the opportunity to find exorbitant profit cuts. There are greedy in all spheres ... .it is necesary to find means to bring them to reason."
"This is pressing," said Mr. St. Laurent, "and we know it is pressing. It becomes more urgent from day to day, almost from hour to hour. We know it and we are working on it."
What position does the right hon. gentleman really take? If the situation is so pressing; if there are in Quebec so many greedy and unscrupulous businessmen as he states, why then in the house some two weeks later does he say that he believes that there are far more right-minded and public-spirited businessmen than there are the opposite kind, and that free enterprise, if at last given a chance, will work? That is another change of political feet. Remember this, Mr. Speaker; if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) believes as he says he does-and it is difficult to know what he does believe- that there is this degree of speculation, then why does he say only that they are working on it? Why does he not do something about it? Because in the house here he does not say it is urgent; that they are working on it, and are trying to find a way to deal with it, as he did in Quebec. On the contrary, in the house on February 2, as reported at page 772 of Hansard, he said:
It remained the law of this land that no one was entitled to charge for a commodity a price which was higher than that which was fair and reasonable.
So here we find the Secretary of State for External Affairs saying that we have power to deal with the matter, that we have the law now, which is quite a different thing from saying that we have to find a way to deal with it.
And remember further, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as speculation exists and is one of the causes of the increase in the cost of living, the government made it possible for speculation to exist. The first responsibility for speculation must be attached to the present government as a result of their saying that they would give an increase in prices and then waiting for two or three weeks to say what the increases were to be. thus encouraging speculators to hoard; and by producing uncertainty on the market inducing producers to hold back their marketing, thereby artificially increasing shortages and further aggravating inflation. I suggest, further, that all this talk of speculation and 5849-52J
profiteers, and prosecuting speculators and profiteers, is just a smoke screen, because there has not been a prosecution started although the law has been on the statute books of this country ever since 1939 and before that.
But I believe it is quite probable that there is some speculation. I think the people of the country believe that to be so. Some of the inquiries which have been made in the past, and some of the actions which we see at present, lead one to believe that there is speculation and that there may be profiteering, and so I should like to make a suggestion as to a method of dealing with that situation. I make it because I strongly believe that the free enterprise system is the best system and that it must be made to work. My suggestion would be that an amendment should be made to the criminal code of Canada which would provide that it shall be a criminal offence to make a mark-up or charge a profit of more than is just and reasonable under the circumstances; that the question of what is just and reasonable should be a question of fact for determination by a jury; and that amongst the considerations which the jury should bear in mind in- determining what is just and reasonable are, first, the costs of production or distribution and, second, the existence or otherwise of a national shortage of an essential commodity. I say that those are amongst the considerations, not that those are the only considerations.
In elaboration of this view I suggest that the problem once more is to reconcile liberty and security, to preserve freedom of action and freedom of opportunity on the one hand, and freedom from want and freedom from fear on the other. Surely it is possible for us to realize that all those who take part in these discussions are equally sincere and equally intent on achieving the good of their country. The position one takes depends upon which of the two aspects of freedom one happens to hold to be more essential-the preservation of initiative, opportunity and independence, or security and safety from economic dominance.
It is because we in the official opposition hold liberty so dear that stress has been laid on the importance of maintaining independence and of allowing private judgment, private initiative and private discretion to function freely in place of government regulation. Liberty is a delicate flower of glorious proportions and strong colouring, but reaching its most perfect development when allowed to bloom freely in the open sunshine; too easily is it choked, especially in its early growth, by the clinging vines of regulation and restriction. Furthermore, while the plant of regulation
Prices Committee

and restriction, in its early stages, may provide a readier and more comfortable staff of support than the more delicate and rarer bloom of liberty, still, if unchecked, the former will be found to develop into a choking parasite, sapping the parent body of all strength and vigour, and eventually choking out all true life; while liberty will be found only to provide a constantly increasing source of strength and inspiration, of alternate light and shade, in the midst of which life can develop to its fullest and most vigorous realization.
If this then be the picture, or an approximation of it, it is liberty that, above all, must be cultivated and protected. There are many who hold this view; and the socialists in particular are, of course, guilty of gross misrepresentation when they say we resist government control in order to enable our friends to make a profit. However, not all Canadians are so deliberately blind in one eye as are the hon. members of the C.C.F. party. Those who see out of both eyes realize that, in the preservation of liberty, there are other dangers to be faced than that of government control. One of them is, undoubtedly, economic greed, the greed which carries freedom of action to the point where it becomes not liberty but license, because it constitutes a trespass upon someone else's freedom.
Believing that the preservation of liberty is essential to the public good and recognizing that liberty is as much in danger from excessive private control as from excessive public control, I suggest that the truly democratic solution, the solution most acceptable to a free people, is in letting the people themselves determine the limitations to be imposed on their own freedom. I do nob believe any expert, controller or board can or should tell us what is the limit of freedom.
If a jury of twelve men is asked to decide in any case whether a profit or mark-up is reasonable, you will get people who may themselves later be affected by their own decision by being in the same circumstances. That is the fairest kind of decision. Here it should be remembered that if we entrust to a jury the determination of w'hether or not a man has been guilty of murder-a decision which carries with it life or death-if we are willing to leave that question of fact to be determined by a jury, then surely, having confidence in our system -of justice and the fairness of our Canadian people, we can safely leave to their determination the question of whether or not a profit is just and reasonable. Furthermore, by this means the great principle of responsibility is maintained. The individual must decide for himself whether his price is fair and just, and all that is imposed upon
rMr. Fulton.]
him is the additional responsibility of bearing in mind the public good as well as his own private interest. Actually this responsibility is always present and rests upon us all in our capacity as citizens. By this means, however, by this amendment of the criminal code we give to each individual the opportunity to enforce his rights instead of leaving everything to the state, and we also lay on the entrepreneur, the man in business, the man who controls an industrial machine the duty to exercise his responsibility.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, believe that by some such device private enterprise can be made responsible. If it is made responsible, it is so manifestly superior to any other system that its survival and the survival of liberty are ensured. If it is not made responsible, not only will the people as a whole continue to suffer, but I believe irresponsibility will inevitably lead to the overthrow of the system, and with it true freedom and independence will perish from the earth.
Another method advocated by the official opposition of checking the increase in the cost of living is the removal of indirect taxes. This matter also was referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last evening, and again he showed- a remarkable facility in shifting from one political foot to the other. Not only in matters of policy did he depart from the traditional line of the Liberal party, but he attempted to ridicule the suggestion put forward by the leader of the opposition by what I would term an unworthy reference to some particular indirect taxes, namely those on spirits and tobacco, and to imply that the leader of the opposition had those taxes in mind when he demanded the removal of indirect taxes. That suggestion is so unworthy and so far-fetched that I am not going to deal with it in particular, but I want to refer to the minister's view as it must be gathered from his approach to this question of indirect taxes in general. Certainly from what he said it can be inferred that he felt that indirect taxes are not a burden on the people; that all one has to do to avoid paying them is not to buy, and therefore they should remain. Well, that is in direct opposition to the view held and expressed by his present leader, and I suggest that perhaps the right hon. gentleman would be better advised to wait until he is actually the leader before he tries to substitute his own views for the expressed policy of his party. However, that is a matter for my hon. friends opposite to determine.
In this respect I wish to quote from a statement made by the Prime Minister, what I take to be the official view of that party.

Prices Committee
Here, of course, one has to bear in mind that there are two different outlooks with respect to quotations from the Prime Minister. One view is that he is the ultimate authority on any problem. That view is, of course, held largely and vigorously by those who sit around and behind him. But we must bear in mind that the Prime Minister is a many-sided man, and there are others who hold the view that the authority which otherwise would be inherent in quotations of his words is somewhat lessened by the fact that generally he can be quoted on the other side as well. Be that as it may, however, I want to quote from his remarks when he was definitely and unequivocally in favour of a reduction of indirect taxes. He was speaking in this house in 1920, during a somewhat similar period, and was criticizing the government for failing to deal with the rising cost of living. As reported at page 2977 of Hansard for June 1, 1920, the present Prime Minister said:
Sir, I wish also to say that another reason for our exception to the budget is that it reveals the outstanding fact that the government has no policy for dealing with the high cost of living . . . We could not expect hon. gentlemen opposite to solve that question. Certainly not; hut we at least had a right to expect that they would take some step towards a solution of the problems which the high cost of living involves, and that they would have had some suggestion to offer which would, if adopted, have helped to relieve the burdens which men, women and children in this country are bearing today.
I might pause here to observe that the appointment of a parliamentary committee can hardly be held up as a constructive step which will result in relieving the burden the people have to bear today. Then the Prime Minister went on:
But what have they done? Instead of alleviating the high cost of living as it affects the great mass of consumers, they have added to it. They have increased the cost of living and made it more difficult for the people of Canada to live than it has been heretofore. To an invisible tariff they have added a visible tariff on a great multitude of commodities, .thereby *increasing the cost of living to the vast body of consumers. From one end of Canada to_ the other, in every home, there has .been considerable difficulty in coping with the situation . . . As I say, Mr. Speaker, instead of meeting the high cost of living as it was obviously the duty of the government to have met it, by reducing the tariff on the necessaries of life, they have added this visible tariff in the nature of an excise to the invisible .tariff .which already exacts its toll from the people in regard to commodities in general use.
Could there be a more perfect parallel? The present government, headed by the right hon. gentleman whom I have quoted here in 1920, adds to the already burdensome cost of living in 1948 a further increase of twenty-five per cent in excise taxes on many basic commodities.
In the same speech the Prime Minister said, in reference to indirect taxes in general, as reported at page 2980 of Hansard for the same date:
It is turn-over that counts-and the greater the number of transactions the better it will be for the man who is fortunate enough to be carrying on a particular business. Now what is the effect of the taxation which the government is proposing? It is for the most part in the nature of a restriction upon trade; it is making it more difficult for those engaged in trade and commerce to carry on . . .
Then the final quotation is as follows, at page 2898:
Now, sir, let me speak more particularly in reference to the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) which is before the house. Unless I have altogether failed in making apparent what I believe to be most necessary in this country at the present time, not only because of Canadian needs but because of the .world situation today, it will be evident that above all else we should have a policy which will help reduce the high cost of living and increase production.
And he went on to say:
... its whole aim .and purpose is to call upon the government to take immediate steps here and now to relieve the problem of the high cost of living by reducing the duties on the necessities of life *. . .
That was the view of the Prime Minister in 1920, and I do not understand why the leader apparent, the leader elect, should hold an opposite view in 1948 and should say, in regard to the reduction of indirect taxes, that this is a light matter, not to be seriously considered.
In conclusion I would recommend to the consideration of the house and of the country that the cost of living would be better dean with by adopting the policies put forward by the leader of the opposition yesterday than by having this parliamentary committee.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words about the speeches of the two members who have preceded me in the debate. I listened with pleasure to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). May I say I always listen with pleasure to his speeches even when I do not agree with them. But I listened with more pleasure today because he made an able speech in support of controls, as did the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) when he spoke last night.
I am sorry-but I cannot help it-that I cannot say I got the same pleasure from listening to the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I do not think it is altogether his fault; it is his misfortune. It is always difficult for a young man to become enthusiastic over a program that is old and
Prices Committee

supported only by old men-old in thinking perhaps more than in years. That is why there was no life and no enthusiasm in the whole of his speech.


Gordon Graydon: It must be nice to be a young fellow like you, Angus.


Angus MacInnis: Definitely. It is not a matter of one's years; it is a matter of the terms in which one thinks. I did, however, listen with interest to the plea he made for free enterprise. He believes in free enterprise; he believes in it even if he has to maintain it by amendments to the criminal code. That was the first thing he proposed, to make free enterprise work.
They have been trying to make it work for ages. Free enterprise, when, it is absolutely free, is tyranny of the very worst kind. A large part of the work of democratic assemblies since the beginning of the industrial revolution has been attempts to humanize free enterprise. I would ask anyone who does not believe that to read the industrial history of England, to read the fight that was made in that country; and then I would ask him to read of the efforts to that end in this country.
I have before me the report of a-committee of which the majority were members of the Conservative party. I admit that the report was made before the Conservative party became Progressive. However, I would not put that forward as a reason .for my hon. friend's not giving some thought or some study to it. I refer, of course, to the report of the price spreads and mass buying committee and commission of 1934, and I would draw the hon. members attention to page 264, at which the conclusions are set out. They are:
1.	That in certain industries, such as public utilities, monopoly control requires complete regulation or government ownership.
2.	That in certain other industries competition can be satisfactorily restored by state action.
3.	That in some imperfectly competitive industries the attempts to restore competition must be supplemented at least by some sort of maximum price control, profit restriction, or other method of regulation.
i. That in other industries where simple competition is operative, such competition may continue to be relied upon as the best method of control.
That is, where competition is operative. It continued:
5. And that, finally, there may be a few industries in which competition has become so cutthroat that some modification of it may be attempted, or permitted.

And if we turn to the end of the report, we find this:
We recommend, that is to say, not only the most complete maintenance or restoration of competition, where that is possible, but also gradual, progressive and effective regulation in that growing field of business enterprise wrhere monopoly or imperfect competition will continue inevitably to develop, and, if unregulated, will continue to exploit the primary producer, the wage earner and the consumer in the shameful ways so often disclosed by the evidence before us. We propose the first steps to the goal that has been well described as "'the socialization of monopoly and the civilization of competition." Unless we can achieve this goal in the reasonably near future, there well may be forced upon us changes in our economic, social, and political organization beside which our proposals, important as we believe them to be, will pale into insignificance.
Let me tell my hon. friend that those changes have not come about in the fourteen years since that report was submitted to the House of Commons. It is because you cannot at the same time control free enterprise and leave it free. We must organize the social and industrial institutions of the country so that their purpose will be to contribute to the welfare of the people of the country.
I have another reference on free enterprise which I should like to read to my hon. friends to my right. When the Labour party came into office in Great Britain in 1945, Mr. Churchill referred to it as a temporary aberration on the part of the people. Lord Woolton, who was food controller in the coalition government during the war, and is now, I believe, chairman of the Conservative party in Great Britain, thinks differently-and he is very candid about it.
An article quoting him in the Daily Herald of London, December 18, 1947, says this:
Socialism-
And my hon. friend referred to socialists.
Socialism is the alternative to the form of industrial life we have practised in this country in the past, and has arisen as a protest against the conduct rather than the principles of free enterprise. It has gained its early supporters from men who either themselves have been the victims, or have seen their families the victims, of a system that placed human values behind material gain. We have indeed reaped a whirlwind.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: You ought to give us Conservatives credit for being very honest.


Angus MacInnis: Even though there happens to be an honest one among them, that is no reason why I should include them all. But I will include my hon. friend.


Gordon Graydon: I am afraid that is the kiss of death for him.

Prices Committee


Angus MacInnis: No, it will not do him any harm, anywhere.


Gordon Graydon: Or any good, either.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to deal now with the resolution. I believe there can be no doubt of the importance of the resolution before us. The mere fact that it was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and that, although it was introduced only yesterday, already two of the most important members of his cabinet have taken the trouble to speak to the house with respect to it, indicates its importance. Even if there was not that, the mood in which the Prime Minister introduced the resolution indicated to the house its importance. It is not only the high cost of living that is uppermost in the minds of the Canadian people at the present time; it is the ever-increasing cost of living.
During the time between the adjournment of the session in December and the opening in January I travelled a bit through my province. I can say that not since the depression years have I found the people of British Columbia so worried, so fearful and so depressed as they are at the present time. Not only do they feel the pinch of the high cost of living and a lowering of living standards among the lower income groups, but they are fearful that if corrective measures are not soon applied the ever-mounting inflation will end in economic deflation and depression. The resolution before us provides for the setting up of a committee to investigate certain aspects of the high cost of living, such as:
(a)	the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living;
(b)	prices which have been raised above levels justified by increased costs;
(c)	rises in prices due to the acquiring, accumulating or withholding from sale by any persons, firms or corporations of any goods beyond amounts reasonably required for the ordinary purposes of itheir businesses.
As to the basic cause of high prices there need be no investigation and there need be no doubt in anybody's mind. Anyone with any intelligence knows what the basic cause is. Even members of the cabinet know it. The basic cause for rising prices is the world shortage of goods coupled with high effective demand. All the things mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) are merely contributory factors that are taken advantage of by people who make their living by exploiting the community.


Mr. HARTT:: Such as rent, interest and profit.


Angus MacInnis: As I say, those are merely contributory factors which have become possible because of the basic factor of shortages combined with effective demand. These inflationary factors became apparent very early in the war. The government felt that under the then existing conditions uncontrolled prices would endanger the war effort and prompt and effective steps were taken to control prices. Those regulations remained effective so long as they were maintained; but with the end of hostilities a clamour arose for the removal of controls, for the end of government by bureaucracy. That clamour started among the business people of the country and it was echoed on the hustings and in this house by the Progressive Conservatives.
Let me say that the inflation and the high prices we have today did not come upon us by stealth in the night. We could see them coming because, as each control was removed, the prices of the goods in the sector covered by that particular control shot upwards. As each subsidy was discontinued the same thing happened. To ask this House of Commons to set up a committee to find out what is the cause of the high cost of living is a reflection on the intelligence of the members of this house. Everybody knows it, and the only reason we are asked to investigate it now is to provide some means by which the government can be saved from the embarrassment of having to answer the letters and resolutions they are receiving in regard to the matter.
As I say, this did not come upon the government by stealth. They were made aware of what was happening even if they could not see it themselves. It was right under their eyes. This group at least warned the government time and time again. I could cite numerous instances, but I shall satisfy myself with citing one which occurred in this house on April 14, 1947, not quite a year ago. At that time a speech was made by the leader of this group, I think on a motion to go into supply, in which he said:
We have all come back fresh from the country. Some hon. members have been to their constituencies, and others have moved around in different parts of Canada. What we have found over the last several weeks should cause this house a good deal of concern. The people of Canada are worried as perhaps they have not been worried for a very long time.
Let me say that if they were worried in April of last year, they are doubly worried in February of this year.
I met a good many who were worried about how they are going to make ends meet during the next few months or the next year. I am not dealing specifically with the question of controls; I am dealing with the cost of living. The sharp increases in the cost of living to the
Prices Committee

people of Canada are causing misgivings in the minds of those who are responsible for the family budgets.
That was ten months ago, almost a year. That worry, that fear, that inability to provide for the family is much greater today than it was in April, 1947.
At the end of his speech my leader moved the following resolution, seconded by myself, and it will be found at page 2008 of Hansard:
This house desires to record its opinion that the government should give consideration to the immediate restoration of price control on and lower prices for the necessaries of life, particularly articles of food and clothing, shelter, household appliances, and supplies and machinery needed by the farmers in connection with their work;
Further, this house is of the opinion that the harmful and dangerous effects of the rising cost of living demand immediate and effective action."
That was on April 14, 1947, and on February 2, 1948, the Prime Minister became so seized of the situation caused by rising prices that he moved for a committee to be set up to investigate it.
I said that the C.C.F. alone of all parties in this house kept drawing attention to the dangers inherent in rising prices and the removal of controls. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), as reported at page 768 of Hansard made a statement yesterday which I cannot allow to pass without some reply. He said:
I wish to make it abundantly clear once and for all, Mr. Speaker, that this group believes controls are necessary to a reduction in the cost of living. We have always taken that position; and anyone who goes out on the 'hustings and says we have taken any other position is definitely lying.
I happen to be one, Mr. Speaker, who has said differently. I do not knowingly lie, and if I lied in this matter I am going to leave it to the house to say whether I had justification or not. I am going to quote from what my hon. friend the member for Peace River said in this house on March 21, 1947. At page 1606 of Hansard he said:
It must be increasingly evident to all thinking Canadians that we have to get away from our present methods of doing some things. We all must admit that. Surely every straightthinking Canadian can see that it is the harsh taxation, the centralized state controls, the state imposed restrictions and the bureaucratic regimentations introduced under war conditions that have landed Great 'Britain, _ the United States and Canada into the mess in which we are floundering today.
Surely my hon. friend, after making that diagnosis of the condition of Canada, would not support controls.


Mr. LOW:: Do you believe in the type of things that I suggested were the cause of our mess?


Angus MacInnis: No, I do not.


Solon Earl Low: Neither do I, and that is all I was saying.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think the controls caused the mess. The controls were made necessary because of the mess we had got into.


Solon Earl Low: I do not think the hon. member got my question. If he will permit me, does he believe in the kind of controls that I suggested there?


Angus MacInnis: I am' dealing with the controls that the government of Canada imposed. I am not dealing with the kind of controls that my hon. friend' may have in his mind because they are not here before me, and they do not affect me.
Mr. KUHI.: It is a matter of definition of terms. What do you mean by controls?


Angus MacInnis: We know what is meant by the controls which this government exercised during the war. It is those controls I am dealing with and no other. If my hon. friend has other controls he is dtealing with, I do not know about them. He went on:
I do not think there can be any question about that at all. If we continue to adopt that policy-
That is the policy of control.


Solon Earl Low: No.


Angus MacInnis: He went on:
-surely it can lead us only to disaster and dictatorship.


Solon Earl Low: Read what else I said. Do not just take pieces out of it.


Angus MacInnis: I am going to read it, paragraph by paragraph. He went on:
I should like for a moment to review the position which this Social Credit group took in November 1945 when bill 15 of that session was before the house. The government at that time took the position that if remaining controls were to be removed, chaotic conditions would result, prices would rise, and labour unrest would follow. In answer to that we pointed out that though the government had been warned repeatedly^ about these very dangers, they had persisted in remaining within the confines of a debt-creating system of finance which created for themselves the very problems which they were then seeking power to continue to control.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Do you agree with that?


Angus MacInnis: No. He went on:
We further pointed out at that time that under a sound democratic and scientific system

Prices Committee
of finance, neither inflation nor deflation could threaten our economy. At the same time we admitted that it is a fact that under our present debt-ridden and restrictive money system both inflation and deflation, with all their disastrous consequences, did threaten our economy. But we said these dangers cannot be dealt with satisfactorily through controls-
That is why they wanted1 them removed.
[DOT]-that place in the hands of individuals great power over their fellow men, because, as the war has so definitely proved, when one control is introduced to cure human problems it inevitably creates other and more serious problems and leads from one control to another until you have nothing but a great network of controls.
Mr. JjGW : I will1 stand by that.


Angus MacInnis: He went on:
The only effective controls are those which are inherent in a justly scientific economic structure which by its very fairness and justice induces -mind you, Mr. Speaker, I say induces-the full support of all classes of the community and will be freely sustained without compulsion of any kind.


Charles Edward Johnston: They are better than the ones you advocate.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend and his friends were forever saying they were opposed to the controls imposed by this government, and when I said they were I was absolutely correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not true. We
are averse to any form of state socialism.


Angus MacInnis: You cannot wiggle out of it. Your words are on record and I go by them.
Coming back, Mr. Speaker, to the basic cause of the high cost of living, I say that it was apparent to everyone, and if it was not apparent to the government it should at least have been apparent to its officials, and if these officials are not saying what is correct the proper thing I should think would be to change them and engage officials who can more correctly interpret the trend of events.
At page 3 of the Monthly Review of Business Statistics, for December, 1947, I find this:
The rise in prices was made possible by a successive series of decontrol measures under which .price controls and subsidies had been almost entirely abandoned by the year's end.
While the Prime Minister is introducing a resolution in the house to appoint a committee to find out what is the cause of the high cost of living, the officials of the bureau of statistics are issuing a document in which they state quite clearly what the cause is. I suggest that the Prime Minister read it.
I noted in the Rural Co-Operator a report of a speech that was made at the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture convention at Broek-ville on January 22 by Professor David L. Macfarlane, now of Macdonald college, who was, I believe, at one time one of the economists of the wartime prices and trade board. The report reads as follows:
He deplored the fact that price controls had been scrapped so hastily while the economy was still greatly affected by wartime influences.
The mistake-and I mentioned it in the house before-we made at the end of hostilities was that when the fighting was at an end we thought the effects of the war were also at an end, and that all we had to do was to rush back and start where we had been before, each one trying to get as much as possible for himself without any regard for the other fellow. That is free enterprise, and it has got us in the jam in which we now are.
In concluding his speech, the Prime Minister said he was satisfied that what the people of Canada wanted at the present time was the appointment of an investigating committee. Well, I have received dozens of letters from organizations and individuals. I brought into the chamber with me a file containing thirty-five or forty letters and resolutions, and there is not a single one which asks for the setting up of a committee. I have several letters and resolutions from branches of the Canadian Legion dealing with the high cost of living and its effect on members of the legion. Nearly all of them are afraid that as far as they are concerned the question will be referred to a committee and that they will not get any redress of their difficulties until after the committee reports, as they say, in June or July.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend is going to use letters in the course of his discussion he knows, of course, that he is expected to table them.


Angus MacInnis: If my hon. friend would
like to have these letters tabled it is quite all right with me, but I do not think I have to table any letter that I read here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will find that that is the rule.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think that is
the rule and I have heard it discussed here many a time. If my right hon. friend wants any of these letters tabled, or all of them- they have all been replied to-I shall be glad to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could give my hon. friend hundreds of letters to his tens, all stating the very opposite.
Prices Committee


Angus MacInnis: I should like my hon. friend to table those letters that are asking for a committee; then we would have everything on the record.
What the people want who write me is for the government to do something that will help them out of their present difficulty. They do not want an investigation. They know what is wrong as far as they are concerned; they know they just cannot buy the things that they need. They also have the feeling that since the government could and did maintain prices at a proper level so that they could buy these things during the war, the government can do so now.
My right hon. friend- said that this was a fact-finding committee, and he spoke of the importance of finding facts. In reply to that I should like to give him the answer he made to the leader of the government of the day when the resolution setting up the price spreads committee was adopted. It will be found on page 191 of Hansard, 1934, and reads as follows:
There is one other aspect which I think is perhaps even more important. It is that the government has already legislation available to deal with matters of this kind, if it will view -the whole question sympathetically. Legislation is one thing, but the administration of existing law is quite another.
I submit the government has all the power necessary to deal with this situation and, as the Prime Minister said in 1934, the government can use the staff of combines investigation branch to investigate. If that was good advice in 1934 it is ten times better advice today because the combines investigation branch has been greatly improved and enlarged and the law under which it operates has been strengthened since 1934. But in addition to the combines investigation branch staff, we now have the staff of the wartime prices and trade board, and if both of these were working together they could quickly ascertain the facts in the situation, because they know where to look for the facts much better than a parliamentary committee does.
I suggest again that what the people of this country want is an easing of their difficulties. The people on small, fixed incomes, the unorganized workers, who are feeling the brunt of high prices, want an easing of their difficulties. The people in the middle and higher income brackets do not feel the pinch of the high cost of living to the same extent. Its effect on them is that it causes them to do less luxury buying or less saving; consequently it does not affect their standard of living. The standard of living of the people I mentioned a moment ago, those in the low-income groups,

is seriously and adversely affected, and I suggest that what is required is not a parliamentary committee but action by the government.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. MAYBANK:: I was not here at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker; if the hon. gentleman is about to commence a speech, then I would request the opportunity of intervening upon a point of order. If, on the other hand, the hon. gentleman is proceeding with a speech which was begun before six o'clock, it would be appropriate for me to wait until he has concluded it. I would ask your direction in the matter. It is upon a point of order that I wish to address you, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: I understand that the hon. member wishes to rise to a point of order.


Ralph Maybank: That is right.


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman may state his point of order.


Ralph Maybank: I have been thinking about the amendment which was introduced by the leader of the opposition, and it occurred to me that there was perhaps some confusion in the minds of the mover and the seconder of that amendment with regard to the meaning of the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Then, when I found the amendment to the amendment put in, it seemed to me that there was reason for believing that both the amendment and the subamendment were out of order; and I shall submit to you that such is the case, on several grounds. I cannot in just a word express the objection I have to make to you, Mr. Speaker; but in effect it is, that in the first place-but not solely on this ground-this amendment which is moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) changes the whole nature of the resolution of the Prime Minister. I cannot better lay before you and the house the general idea than by drawing your attention to a ruling which will be found at page 696 of Beauchesne's third edition. I would ask leave to read part of that, because a considerable part of what I shall say from then on will be more or less a commentary upon a set of facts similar to those which were involved in that ruling. That ruling was given upon a quite similar motion to set up a committee to deal with redistribution, which I am sure Your

Prices Committee
Honour will recall. On March 13, 1939, it had been moved by Mr. Power that a special committee consisting of So-and-so and So-and-so should be set up to study and report upon the following subjects:
(a) Methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries and to make suggestions to the house in conneotion therewith.
The committee was to report upon the redistribution. Then, on the question being proposed, Mr. Pelletier moved and Mr. Fair seconded an amendment which read as follows:
In order to facilitate the carrying out of instructions contained in paragraph "B" of the resolution, have power to investigate 'the amounts of contributions held at various times by various federal political parties, or party assistants on behalf of such parties . . .
And so on. From as much as I have read, you will see that the amendment then offered was changing the whole nature of the motion, and that was the ruling of the Speaker:
Mr. Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it raised a new question not contemplated by the notice of motion as the said amendment proposed to extend the powers of the committee far beyond those set down in the notice, and that the necessity of giving notice will be superseded if such notice is not used as a guidance for the decision of the house.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the situation here. If one might shortly describe the motion of the Prime Minister, it might be said to be a motion to set up a committee by means of which light can be thrown into dark places. It is not any more than just the turning of light on this problem of high prices. It is a fact-gathering committee that it is the desire to have set up. I am not speaking as to the merits or demerits of the motion itself, but am only shortly describing it in that fashion.
Then we come to the amendment of the leader of the opposition, and in addition .to the (a), (b) and (c), the pants of the motion of the Prime Minister which direct that this shall be a fact-gathering committee, we find that the leader of the opposition is introducing (d), (e) and (f) to change the nature of the committee entirely from a fact-finding committee 'to a committee that will express opinions, possibly its own. What is much more serious than that, this committee would in effect be the cabinet rather than a committee of this house, because now, under .the proposals of the leader of the opposition, its duties are to advise on government policy. If this were accepted, we would have changed the whole constitutional basis of government by substituting for the cabinet form of government, government by committee, a form of government with which wTe in Canada are
quite familiar in view of the fact that we see it in operation day by day south of the international boundary. Apparently it is a usual method in the United States to set up a committee, have it make recommendations upon any subject whatever, and then have those recommendations considered by congress. But I submit that that procedure is quite foreign to the parliamentary system of this country. Government policy is to be designed by that committee which we commonly call the cabinet, which has that responsibility and which must at all times have the confidence of the House of Commons. That in itself seems to me sufficient to require that a ruling should be given denying .the validity of the amendment of the leader of the opposition.
But if we go a little farther than that we might say that, in addition to changing the whole nature of .the committee, there are parts of the resolution of the leader of the opposition which are quite unnecessary by reason of the terms of the original motion to set up the committee. For example, if you will disregard for a moment the fact that paragraph
(d)	of the amendment makes a statement of fact respecting effective government policy on rising prices, and just consider that the paragraph directs the committee to study facts with .particular relevance to agricultural production, you would find that this is adequately taken care of already by paragraph (a) of the original resolution of the Prime Minister.
Then again the proposals for subsidies, and the suggestion in both the amendment and1 the subamendment that there should1 be examination into the results of the discontinuance of subsidies-all	that is comprehended by paragraph (a) of the Prime Minister's resolution, which states that inquiry should be made into the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living. By reason of these points being already covered, I submit that the amendment is out of order on that ground also.
Then., when you come to look at paragraph (d) and some of the others you find that they make definite statements of fact. They are affirmations first and only incidentally directions to a committee which is to be charged with certain inquiries. For example, paragraph (d) deals with "the effect of present government policies in lessening Canadian agricultural production". If that were not a statement of fact it would be worded somewhat differently. Perhaps it would be worded like this: "the effect of government policies, and whether or not they have hadl some influence in1 lessening Canadian agricultural production". As it is, this paragraph states a fact. If this house sends that particular
Prices Committee

clause to a committee, then this house will be saying to the committee, "It is a fact that government policies have had1 such and such effect, and you are directed to inquire"-into what? The committee will not inquire into that fact, because it will have been predetermined by the house. What will the committee look into? Apparently the only answer there would be the extent to which these policies have had that effect which the judgement of the house has already determined to be a fact. There, I submit, is reason enough for ruling this entire amendment out of order. I think everyone will realize that the proper way to introduce any such statement is as a direct motion of want of confidence, and have it debated on the issue of whether or not the agricultural policies of the government have had that effect. That would be the proper way to approach it, instead of seeking an indirect vote of want of confidence which would be something like the periscope of a submarine coming up from below and never seen until it was too late.
There is something further in reference to both the amendment and the subamendment which I submit to Your Honour is very serious indeed. In addition to the fact that these amendments would direct the committee to be a policy-making body, thereby usurping the functions of the cabinet, they seek to put the committee in the position of recommending expenditures of public money. That will be seen in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, where it states that the committee is to report upon and recommend as to the advisability of continuing the present controls-and we cannot have the present controls without the expenditure of public money-and the advisability of reverting to the payment of subsidies, which, of course would also mean the payment of public money. A committee making a recommendation of that kind would be a body, not charged with the responsibilities of government, taking on the functions of government even to the extent of dipping into the public purse and directing expenditures therefrom.
The objections I am now expressing in reference to the amendment itself apply even more strongly to the subamendment which, in addition to speaking of measures to stem the rising cost of living, asks that recommendations should be made with respect to the restoration of price controls and subsidies. All this, I submit, shows that these amendments are not designed only to give direction to a fact-finding body, but are designed to change the fact-

finding body completely, making it a body which would have power to bring in recommendations on all manner of things, many of which could be relatively distant from the actual question of prices themselves, and very far afield from the original motion.
My reason for emphasizing this point is that this was the precise objection raised to the amendment offered by Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Fair to the motion moved by Mr. Power respecting redistribution. The ruling might be expressed in this way: the Speaker said something which had been proposed by Mr. Power, while left in the motion as before, had been so greatly changed as to be almost unrecognizable. In effect that is what we have here; a motion to set up a committee is so changed in the instance we are considering at the moment that this fact alone, I submit, would be reason for the amendments to be declared out of order. When you add the fact that under these amendments the committee would be made almost a cabinet, or at least a policy-making body, and in addition a body which would have power to recommend large expenditures of public money without the responsibility of administering those expenditures, then I submit there can be no question that both amendments are out of order.
I have no doubt there are other grounds upon which these amendments should be ruled out of order, but it would seem to me that "what I have said is sufficient to justify such a ruling. I do not know whether Your Honour would desire to deal with my point of order at the moment, but before the debate goes farther I should think the validity of these two amendments should be considered, whenever Your Honour is prepared to do so.


Mr. CHURCH:: You have now hanged the reference on the sour apple tree.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank), I should like to submit to Your Honour that the amendment is in order. The hon. gentleman has taken twenty minutes to elaborate his argument in an endeavour to show the Speaker of the house why the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) should be ruled out of order. Your Honour will bear in mind at the outset that you are being asked to rule out of order an amendment which was introduced yesterday afternoon, and which has already been debated for the past twenty-four hours. An amendment has been offered to that amendment; and it is only now that objection is taken to the validity of the original amendment.

Prices Committee
In the first place, citation 112 as it appears at page 55 of Beauchesne's third edition, reads thus:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly .and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection *would be out of place.
In my submission, the stage at which the objection, should have been taken, if indeed objection could properly be taken, certainly was before the amendment to the amendment was submitted. But objection, was not taken promptly and, in my submission, it is now too late. That, in itself, it seems to me is sufficient to dispose of the point raised by the hon. member.
But, dealing with the merits of his objection, I should like to submit to Your Honour that the hon. member does not bring the present case within the scope of the ruling made by 'Mr. Speaker Casgrain in 1939, as it is set forth at page 696 of Beauchesne's, third edition. I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that Mr. Speaker Casgrain ruled the amendment at that time out of order on the ground that it introduced an entirely new question. That is the essence of the ground upon which his ruling proceeded. But that is not the case in connection with the present question before Your Honour.
The effect of the original motion then before Mr. Speaker Casgrain was to appoint a committee to study and to report upon two classes of subjects. The first was the-
. . . methods used to effeot a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries and to make suggestions to the house in connection therewith.
May I interject here that it is simply the question of redistribution.
The second subject was the-
. . . methods whereby (i) the source and disposition of sums received and expended in promoting the return of members of the House of Commons may be readily traceable; (ii) publicity may be given to all receipts and expenditures in connection therewith; (iii) the cost of elections to candidates may be reduced; (iv) the amount that may be spent by or on behalf of a candidate in his election campaign may be limited.
It will be observed there that the second class of subjects related to money received by candidates and expended by candidates in the course of an election campaign.
The amendment which was introduced to that motion to refer these questions to a committee chosen for the purpose was in these terms:
That the motion be amended by inserting the following words immediately after the words "special committee" in the first line of the last paragraph of the motion.
Then these are the words which it was proposed should be inserted:
In order to facilitate the carrying out of instructions contained in paragraph ".B" of the resolution, have power .to investigate the amounts of contributions held at various times by various federal political parties, or party assistants on behalf of such parties, in Canada, for the past ten years, the sources from which such contributions came and the dispositions from such contributions of all sums of $100 or over.
Let me draw attention to the fact that the subject matter of the amendment was contributions made to political parties, not to candidates, which was the subject matter of the original motion. On the contrary, it had to do with payments made to political parties. Whereas the subject matter of the original motion was payments to political candidates in the course of the election campaign, the subject matter of the amendment was contributions made to various political parties in Canada over a period of ten years.
It does not require any elaboration in order to see at once how utterly distinct the subject matter of the amendment was from that of the original motion. Therefore it was only to be expected that Mr. Speaker Casgrain would rule as he did, that the amendment was out of order on the ground that-
. . . it raised a new question not contemplated by the notice of motion as the said amendment proposed to extend the powers of the committee far beyond those set down in the notice.
That is not a case comparable with the one now before us. What Your Honour has here is, in my submission, an original motion which, if it means what it has been represented to the house to mean, would set up a committee to conduct a thorough and searching examination into the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living, prices which have been raised above justifiable levels, and increases in prices due to the acquisition by persons or the holding by persons of supplies.
The amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition bases itself firmly upon that foundation. It does not subtract anything from the original motion, and proceeds to indicate certain definite matters into which the committee ought to examine and concerning which it should report. It follows the same language-"examine and report upon".
I submit to Your Honour that the matters enumerated in the succeeding paragraphs (d),
(e), (f) and (g) of the amendment of the leader of the opposition are completely germane to the subject matter of the original motion to set up the committee.
(d) "The effect of present government policies in lessening Canadian agricultural production"-that has been put before Your

Prices Committee

Honour-and, I submit, rightly so-as one of the causes of the rising cost of living. That is the subject matter of paragraph (a) of the original motion. Then, in the amendment we find the following as paragraph (e) :
the advisability of continuing the present controls on prices of farm products. . .
And so on. Obviously this ties in with (d). And if (d) is in order, as I submit it is, then (e) is also in order. Then paragraph (f):
the -advisability of reverting to payment of subsidies on essential commodities of consumption.
Obviously that is tied in directly wjth the subject matter of (e). Then, (g):
spreads between -prices received by producers and prices paid by consumers.
That has a most direct bearing on the subject matter of paragraph (c) of the original motion.
In a word, the amendment of the leader of the opposition is completely germane to the subject matter of the original motion. The leader of the opposition has not introduced what was called by Mr. Speaker Casgrain in 1939 a new question; it is not a new question at all. It is the same question, but with several facets which have not been properly set forth in the original motion, and which are clearly brought forth in the amendment in order that the committee may not fail to perform the duties it must perform, if it is to have any significance whatsoever.
The final point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is that the committee may conceivably make recommendations which will relate to the expenditure of public money. It is quite conceivable that the original motion might lead to reports on the part of the committee which would relate to the expenditure of public money. I submit that the hon. member has overlooked that in the argument he addressed to Your Honour. In any event, the fact that the report of the committee may relate to the expenditure of public money does not, of itself, make it out of order, or put it beyond the powers of the committee to report. The house can, I submit, instruct the committee to bring in a report on those matters if it wishes.
In any event, whether it does or does not, the hon. member has no right to ask that Your Honour rule the amendment out of order on the ground that he is prepared1 now to anticipate that the committee may make recommendations which, when they are submitted to the house, may then be found to be out of order. That is no ground, in my submission, for ruling out of order at this stage an amendment which is not of itself, and on its face, necessarily out of order on that ground. That would be a ground for a ruling

in the committee by the chairman or, if the chairman failed in his duty, for a ruling by the Speaker when the committee had submitted its report to the house. The hon. member has no right to ask you to anticipate now that the committee will make recommendations beyond the proper powers given to it. I submit that the amendment introduced by my leader is entirely in order.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to say a word before you give your ruling, and I assure you that I shall not be as long as the other two speakers who have spoken. As I understand it, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) has raised two -points of order. One is that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) raises matters not related to the subject matter of the main motion. In regard to that I am in absolute agreement with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who contends that the proposals made by the leader of the opposition are absolutely germane to the subject matter of the main motion. Beauchesne's, second edition, citation 394, reads:
A motion may be amended: (a) -by -leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
That is exactly what the leader of the opposition did in his amendment. He added words which expanded to some extent the purpose of the motion moved by the- Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).
The -other objection is that in the latter part of the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition it is stated that the committee may make recommendations to the House of Commons, and so on. It is said that would make the committee a policymaking committee. It does not do anything of the kind. The committee reports to the house; I suppose the government would not take cognizance of such a report until the house had dealt with it, and even then the government might not deal with it. It is nothing new for a committee to make recommendations. If I remember correctly, the committee on public accounts recommended last year that a royal commission be appointed to look into certain activities of the custodian of enemy alien property. That commission was set up and it is carrying on today. If I had a moment or two to look up the sessional papers I know I could give dozens of examples where committees -have made recommendations. Surely, if a committee has no power to make recommendations it has no power at all.

Prices Committee
In my opinion, there is nothing, either in the amendment or in the amendment to the amendment, that is contrary to the subject matter of the motion.
In closing, may I say that it is indicative of the freedom that is to be given to this committee that a member of the committee rises at this time to attempt to curtail the scope of the committee.


Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two with respect to this point of order and, since I am not a lawyer it will not be possible for me to take as much time as that taken by the first two speakers. Also I do not intend to open Beauehesne's. I have been sitting in the house for a number of years and I have listened to a good deal of argument in respect to what is in order and what is out of order. I must confess that, as I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg Soulh Centre (Mr. Maybank), I could not avoid thinking that he had laboured tremendously in trying to prove these amendments out of order. Of course I am reminded of the mountain that groaned, but I have not yet been able to detect what it brought forth.
I do not think the argument that the amendment to the amendment should be ruled out of order because it involves the expenditure of money can be taken seriously. No committee has ever been set up by parliament which did not carry with it an expenditure of money, because under the original motion committees are able to send for persons and papers and engage counsel. That all involves the expenditure of money. Surely my hon. friend had to labour that point.
He suggested also that this was merely a fact-finding committee, that it was a committee set up to let the light shine in dark places. But then the hon. member attempted to turn off the light and pull down the blinds. All the amendments attempt to do is to clarify the work of the committee, to give it instructions as to where t>he dark places are and where we want the light to shine in.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is serious with respect to this committee he will want all light to shine in that it is possible to have shine. Surely arguments of this kind and an attempt to circumscribe and cramp the style of the committee are not what the Prime Minister told us the other day was the intent of the original motion. I maintain that, with the application of a little horse sense you will come to the right decision and rule the amendments in order.


Mr. McMASTER:: Mr. Speaker, if the amendment raised new questions not contemplated by the notice of motion, perhaps
it would not be in order, but I suggest that this amendment does not raise anything new at all. It is merely giving instructions to the committee that it shall carry out in a certain way what the notice of motion desires. I submit that this amendment in no way interferes with the powers of the committee. I would call your attention to the fourteenth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, page 516, where it is said:
Any amendment moved to an instruction must he strictly relevant thereto and must be drawn in such a way that, if accepted, the question as amended would retain the form and effect of an instruction.
The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition simply gives instructions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the two Progressive Conservative members who have spoken agree that the decision given by Mr. Speaker Casgrain in the case referred to was a sound one, namely, that if a proposed amendment raised a new question not contemplated by the notice of motion that would make the amendment out of order. I would emphasize the importance of that word "contemplated"-a new question not contemplated in the motion. I ask Your Honour to consider how this house is to decide what was contemplated in the motion. There are two ways of deciding that. One is by the wording of the motion itself, which is very clear. It gives powers for the purpose of fact finding in regard to the matters mentioned therein. The other is by the statement of the government itself as to what was contemplated by the motion when the motion was brought forward. I thought I made it very clear to the house that the government wished to avoid this committee becoming one that would enter into endless discussions of various matters, waste its time by trying to make policies, and that, for this reason, we had purposely left out at this stage any reference to the committee's powers to make recommendations. In speaking on the motion, I added that if, later on, the committee thought it advisable to have, in addition, powers to make recommendations, the government would be prepared to consider that recommendation and that I for one would be prepared to consider it favourably. I drew attention particularly to the fact that what the government wanted in this matter was action, not discussion; that what we wanted were the facts, not generalities and suggestions and theories and policies; that for that reason this particular motion had been shorn on the one side of any directions to the committee to bring in recommendations at this stage, and on the other side it was specifically limited to
Prices Committee

finding or gathering facts in regard to the rise in prices and the increased cost of living. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the purport, the intention, the nature of the motion would be changed were all the additional obligations set forth in the amendments allowed to be thrown upon the committee. That would just help to defeat what the government had in mind in proposing the committee in the terms it did, and what it believes the people of Canada want today, namely, to know whether some of the allegations being made are true or are not true, and, if they are true, that prompt action is taken in order to remedy the condition thereby presented.
My whole argument was based on the fact that when references have been made to the Combines Investigation Act and the Wartime Prices and Trade Board Act the government was accused of leaving these problems to bureaucrats. I wished it understood that the matter was now being left to the people's representatives in the House of Commons by way of fact finding so as to make immediate action possible without obstacles being presented by difficulties in procedure under the Combines Investigation Act or the other act.
I think it is clear, if hon. gentlemen opposite agree with a decision given by a previous Speaker to the effect that an amendment is out of order if it raises a new question not contemplated in the notice of that motion, then, Mr. Speaker, you will have to decide what was contemplated in the motion. If Your Honour decides that a new question is raised by the amendment that was not contemplated by the wording of the motion itself or by what specifically was said by the government in introducing the motion as to what was thereby contemplated, the amendment, I submit, should be ruled out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I submit with all deference that if there is doubt as to what was involved in the wording of the original motion, in other words as to what was contemplated, Your Honour must make your decision on the basis of the written word. I submit that the government has no right to contend that its statement adds to or detracts from the words of the original motion, and that Your Honour must make your decision on the basis of the motion and the amendments which are now before you.
It seems to me that this boils down to a matter of interpretation. In other words, Your Honour has to decide whether the subject matter of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and of the amendment which I moved this afternoon introduces new material. Is the material

germane to the original motion, or is it foreign to it? Opinions expressed on the two sides of the house differ on that point. All of us on this side seem to agree that both amendments are germane to the question.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, and with this I conclude, that if there is a doubt in your mind you should turn to May's Parliamentary Practice, 13th edition, where at page 278 I read these words:
The forms of the house can ultimately assist neither party: but, so far as they offer any intermediate advantage, the minority have the greatest protection in forms.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, according to May, if there is a clear doubt the benefit of the doubt should go to the minority because the only advantage they have otherwise is that of debate. It seems quite clear, from the discussion which has taken place thus far, that it is a matter of doubt whether the subject matter of the amendment and the subamendment introduces new material, and I strongly urge Your Honour to make your decision on the basis of the text of the amendments and not on the basis of what the Prime Minister has said the government contemplated.


James Horace King: I have listened and noted very carefully the remarks that have been made on both sides of the house, and I should like to defer my ruling until a little later this evening after having studied carefully the arguments which have been made. I would, therefore, now ask the house to proceed with the business that was before it at six o'clock.


George Stanley White: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) had just concluded his remarks on this motion. I listened very carefully to what he said. Unfortunately, like all members of his socialist party, he feels that in each speech he must attack free enterprise. He ridiculed the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on behalf of freedom and free enterprise, and referred to free enterprise as a system of tyranny and as the acts of some few in exploiting the community, and as usual he made his plea for state control and absolute regimentation. These socialist C.C.F.-ers always forget that Canada has reached the position she occupies today, not under C.C.F. policies, but under free enterprise and private initiative.
I would also remind the hon. member for Vancouver East and other members of the socialist party that all their members were elected to this free parliament under our system of democratic government. How many members do they think they would ever elect

Prices Committee
to any parliament if we followed the system of Soviet Russia? The socialists would clearly love to regiment and control the whole economic life of this nation. In short, they seek to enslave the Canadian population with their fantastic Karl Marx theories. Their system of complete regimentation would take away from the youth of our country all initiative and ambition. No one needs to tell me that the youth of Canada have not great opportunities under free enterprise in this country. What opportunity would they have under a government which believed in practising complete state regimentation? Those of us who served in the army and came under its discipline would think our army days were a de luxe vacation compared with life under a socialist program of complete state regimentation. I submit that the youth of Canada have the opportunity of education and advancement by their own merit. How can you ever replace this advantage by having some half-baked government theorist tell the youth of Canada what occupation or profession they are to follow, or what work is to be allotted to them?
I know in my own family I have watched my four children approach the age when the time came to choose for themselves the profession or the occupation they intended to follow. When that time came, the choice was not made by their mother; the choice was not made by myself; the choice was not made by any official of any of the various schools they attended; the choice was not made by any socialist government official; it was made by each individual for himself or herself. To me that is one of the greatest rights we have in Canada. One of the greatest rights is that the youth of Canada shall have the opportunity of deciding and choosing for himself or herself what occupation or profession he or she intends to follow in this country. It seems to me that the ambitions and the desires that are inbred in all the youth of Canada can be fulfilled only by their remaining free and uncontrolled by any socialist state.
I often wonder, Mr. Speaker, as you sit in this house day after day and are forced to listen, as you are, to the socialist doctrines expounded by the C.C.F., how you must shudder when you contemplate this Canada of ours ever being under the heel of a socialist C.C.F. party.
Coming to the motion before the house, may I say that if there has been any doubt in the mind of any hon. member as to the utter farce of the setting up of this committee it has all been dispelled by the proceedings which took place in this chamber tonight from eight o'clock until a quarter to nine. It has
been clearly demonstrated that the government as usual sets out to whitewash and to hide the real facts.
You may read the motion as carefully as you wish or in any legal way, or add to it or detract from it, but the fact remains that the simple words of paragraph (a) cover the whole thing, "(a) the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living." I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as a learned counsel of the law, how can you ever approach any case without having all the facts before you? A court of law insists that all the facts be presented to it before any decision can be made. If this committee is set up along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) -by that I mean that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the subamendment thereto are defeated- then I for one am firmly convinced that this committee will simply result in a fishing expedition, and at the end of a long, long course it will finish up with no fish and will not have a little aside enjoyment that usually goes with fishing expeditions.
Despite the memorandum read by the Prime Minister as reported at page 750 of Hansard, which is a memorandum submitted to him by the Clerk of the House, I fear that when this committee is set up hon. members in the future will be denied the right to speak on any of the matters mentioned in the terms of reference of this committee; because I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that on various other occasions when committees have been set up, time and time again an appeal has been made to Your Honour and Your Honour has ruled out of order attempts that are made to discuss certain matters on the ground that they were before a committee of the house.
I would emphasize the remarks made by my leader yesterday when he so ably pointed out that at the present time the wartime prices and trade board has all the powers, all the authority, all the staff and all the machinery necessary to investigate the very subject matter that it is to be sent to this committee.
Personally I have never had any use for the wartime prices and trade board. I have often described it as an octopus and said in this house that it was an octopus strangling business in this country, but perhaps now it could be put to some use. If there has been profiteering there is provision for the prosecution of profiteers. I have noticed over the years that the wartime prices and trade board were always very eager to prosecute. Now they have a glorious opportunity, but I would
Prices Committee

suggest that they take advantage of it and get at the facts, and, if it is necessary to prosecute, let them prosecute.
During the war years and after, I often heard members of the Liberal party in this house compare the cost of living after the first great war with the cost of living during and after the war just concluded. These Liberal members have always placed the blame on the Tory government which was in power during the first great war. How they assured us time and time again that there would not be such repetition at the end of the war just ended; that under the wise planning of the Prime Minister and his advisers everything was planned and everything would be taken care of. Yet today we find in Canada that prices are practically as high as they were after the end of the first great war. Some hon. members may disagree with that, but if they do I would point out first that they have forgotten to mention the income tax. Those of us who are old enough to remember the income tax after the first great war know that the amount of income tax which the ordinary individual paid was a mere trifle compared with the tax today.
The income tax today imposes a most crushing burden on the small wage earner, especially the white-collar class, the married man with a small family and the unmarried woman who works in an office, factory or store. The cost of living of these people, the cost of their clothes and everything else has practically doubled. Regardless of this, the income tax is the first item that has to be paid, irrespective of whether or not the individual has sufficient money left to provide a decent standard of living for himself and his dependents.
Take the case of the newly established veteran who is trying to re-establish himself in civilian life with his re-establishment credits, and who is trying to make up in some way for what he lost during the years that he served in the armed forces of Canada. He finds that all the cream is skimmed off in taxes and income tax. Not only has he this excessive income tax to pay, but he is saddled with numerous other taxes.
I should like to refer to page 775 of Hansard of yesterday when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), in a manner which he does not often use, referred to certain remarks made by the leader of the opposition in an attempt to answer the leader of the opposition in his reference to certain hidden taxes. He referred only to the taxes on spirits and tobacco. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State for External Affairs

knew very well that the leader of the opposition was not referring to the taxes on spirits and tobacco.
While the minister spoke on cigarettes and tobacco, I would say to him that he might well consider the possibility of reducing the tax on tobacco. He says that we can do without them. Certainly we can do without them. We can also do without tea and coffee, ice-cream, shoes, boots; we could go bare-headed; we could wear no gloves and other things as we saw fit; but, after all, these are things that enter into our way of life.
If the minister had wished to be fair, he might also have referred to the twenty-five per cent tax on luxury goods, or on what I say are wrongly called luxury goods, Which applies to such things as leather products, travelling bags, watches, clocks, pens, glassware, silver plate, electrical goods and many other articles. I should like to ask the minister if he considers that a fair tax or one that might be abolished. What does the minister think of the position of the veteran who is setting up a home or of the young couple who are starting their first home and are met with this heavy tax which is called a luxury tax, but which is a tax imposed on the necessities of life?
The minister might well have mentioned the eight per cent sales tax which is imposed on practically everything that we buy. I wonder if the minister ever considered whether some reduction in the sales tax and in this so-called luxury tax might have something to do with reducing the cost of living? And the same thing applies to the taxes imposed last November by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Does the minister think the restrictions on the importation of green vegetables helped to lower the cost of living when, in fact, those restrictions put the price of Canadian vegetables up to an unheard of level at a time when it was impossible for the Canadian producer to produce vegetables? Does the minister consider it is necessary or wise to add another heavy tax on motorcars produced and manufactured in this country? Perhaps he wants us to return to the horse-and-buggy days. There are many other taxes which I might mention to the minister, but I would point out again that he confined his remarks to taxes on liquor and tobacco.
The Prime Minister, in his remarks on moving this resolution, stated that high prices prevailed not only in Canada but in other countries. How different that statement was

Prices Committee
from many other statements made by followers of the Prime Minister in this house. For years I have heard talk about the depression days of 1930 to 1935, and the heaping of the blame for that on the Bennett government. But today when we find1 a somewhat similar condition existing, the government is attempting at this late date to load its responsibility on the shoulders of a committee. Some of us can remember what the government promised to the veterans in the way of homes. Yet we have only to read1 the press to learn of the sorry mess in which the veterans find themselves in the Windsor area with regard to the homes they bought there. In the last session we were told by the former minister of veterans affairs that it would cost the taxpayers of this country somewhere between $500,000 and $750,000 to make the necessary repairs to new veterans' homes, which repairs should have been made in full by the contractors.
In the matter of pensions we find that there has been no increase for well over twenty years. At this late day, after months and years of prodding, the government have announced that the basic rate will be increased by the magnificent amount of ten per cent. All I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that I cannot understand1 how any veteran member of this House of Commons could rise in his place and praise this small increase in the basic pension rate, having in mind the terrific increase in the cost of living. I submit that if the Prime Minister is really sincere in his attempt to find out the true facts in connection with the recent increase in the cost of living, he and his followers will accept the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition:	because there can be little
exception taken to the various amendments set out in paragraphs (d), '(e), (f) and (g) or to the addition of paragraph 2. But I fear that it has already been indicated that the Prime Minister is not willing to accept the amendment. If the amendment is defeated I can only repeat that when the committee is set up it will turn out to be another whitewash committee, on a useless fishing trip.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to speak to the house for only a few moments on the motion before us. May I say that I was much interested in the remarks made by my good friend, the hon. member for Peterborough West.


George Stanley White: Oh, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White), I mean. That is even worse.


Mr. FRASER:: Oh, no. Peterborough West is the best riding in Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: We shall talk about nails later on. As I say, I was much interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough when he said that the government seeks to be whitewashed-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does it not?


Humphrey Mitchell: -and when he said that the prices board were strangling business. Now he wants to completely reverse himself and say that the prices board should look into conditions of today. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that somebody was trying to ride two horses.


James Arthur Ross: While he was riding three.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: My suggestion is that my hon. friend is not only trying to ride two horses, but trying to ride them in opposite directions-with the only physical and political result possible.
In a brief review of the situation I think it can be truthfully said that, during the war years, some of the controls advocated by some of the hon. members of this house were set up. They were set in motion by this government. Right across the board we had controls on industry and agriculture. We had controls, of course, on wages. I know something about the difficulties and complexities of the administration of those controls. I know something, as do my hon. friends, of the criticism that was levelled at Mr. Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board; and I of course know something of the criticisms that were levelled at myself as chairman of the national war labour board. It is a strange thing that today we see members of all parties opposite wanting some of the controls established on one phase of the economy and no controls on the other. The contribution made by controls to the well-being of the Canadian people during that war period was the equal at least of that made in any other country. That was generally recognized with the conclusion of the war. Let me say that I appreciate, as I think do all hon. members in this house, that over and above the law of the land there is a more powerful motivating force, and that is a desire for the survival of the way of life which, in my judgment, was the real driving spirit of those controls. I think that was

Prices Committee

generally conceded at the time by all elements in Canada, whether or not they have changed their minds since. My hon. friends opposite advocated the abolition of all controls; I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) took that position.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


Humphrey Mitchell: He took it on many occasions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Give us an example.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course he did1, and my hon. friends know it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Give us the facts; never mind making a general statement.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have stated the fact, and if my hon. friend wishes to contradict it he may do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is just a wild assertion. Give us the reference.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to quote from the past; I will let my hon. friends do that at their leisure. What they are trying to do is to forget their own past. I think it can be truthfully said also that the trade union organizations of this country wanted the abolition of wage controls. Their point of view was that we should get back to a position where the wage structure in any industry in the country would be based on economics and also on justice to the industry.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And the cost of living.


John Thomas Hackett: Oh, no; he will not concede that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I said, based on justice, and you can call that the cost of living if you like, and the economics of the industry. I know the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) took a very strong stand for the abolition of controls-


John Thomas Hackett: He did.


Humphrey Mitchell: -or at least most of them.


John Thomas Hackett: All of them.


Humphrey Mitchell: 1 believe during the discussion of the report of the industrial relations committee I mentioned that the leader of the opposition took the position, wdbch was sound from his point of view, no doubt, that controls should be abolished.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What controls are you talking about?


Humphrey Mitchell: I know what I am talking about. If my young and hon. friend would just keep quiet-


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you would just stick to the facts it would not be necessary to put you back on the rails again.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. There are too many interruptions.


Humphrey Mitchell: What was the expression a couple of days ago? It was that we should have a measure of control and also the reimposition of subsidies to deal with the rising cost of living. Then the leader of the opposition said we should abolish indirect taxation. Let us be frank and honest about the matter. In its very essence a subsidy is indirect taxation, just as much as the taxation on whisky and cigarettes and the other things that were mentioned last evening.


Mr. MANROSS:: But those were all that
were mentioned.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right; but
there was not the frank admission that you cannot get something for nothing, that if you have a subsidy, by the very nature of the thing it is an indirect tax. Now the official opposition argue for lower prices, some controls, and lower taxes. In my judgment, in this debate they present a good example of confused finance and basic economics. Let me say to the hon. member for Stanstead that, whether we like it or not, old age pensions, children's allowances, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, veterans' allowances and all these great social forces in the life of this or any other nation by the very nature of things are a charge on the living standards of the people.
I want to say further that I have advocated these great social policies all my life. I believe in them because I believe it is absolutely necessary, if a nation is to prevent disorder and revolution, that it should continually redistribute its wealth. In our way of life a government must exist to protect the weak against the strong; but I think it should be clearly understood, in all these measures of taxation, that by the very nature of things they are the redistribution of the wealth of a nation.
I am wholly in support of the establishment of this committee because I think the public of Canada generally want it. It is necessary for several reasons. One is to determine where and in what commodities there have been exorbitant price rises beyond all necessity except a desire to cash in at the expense

Prices Committee
of our citizens. The main responsibility of this parliament is to protect the people we represent. That has always been the policy of the Liberal party, and that is what we are setting out to do through this committee.
I should like to point out that there is also another very good reason for the pending inquiry. Throughout Canada, thanks to the calculated suggestions of opponents of our way of life, the feeling has grown that profiteers are rampant in the country. I think that is very unfair to our businessmen.


Mr. JACKMAN:: That is not what you
said the other night.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is generally believed
that there are some profiteers in business, however, and no one hopes more than I do that they will be shown up by this inquiry. It is not extraordinary that there should be black sheep in the business family, as there are in all families. All the angels are not on one side of the fence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: The trouble with my
hon. friends, the protectors of wealth, is that they do not understand the language of the working people.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Don't start that. You have been pretty free from it so far.


Humphrey Mitchell: When I said all the black sheep were not on. one side of the fence I was not looking at my hon. friends. On the labour side I believe we have our black sheep also, just as they have on the business side. I think the great majority of the business interests of this country, whether they be large or small, and the great majority of the trade union organizations and labour organizations, whether they be large or small, are led by good, solid, decent Canadians.


John Thomas Hackett: Who ever denied it?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not asking you to deny it; you would not understand it, anyway. I think we can go along with the free enterprise system; but as I stated in Quebec last week to the convention of the Canadian Construction Association, the greedy men in the business community must be wiped out; otherwise they remain a threat to the system which has made us great and will make us greater in future. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe the committee to be set up under this resolution is a sound method of procedure. Some people believe that any offence, moral or civil, can be cured by merely putting people in jail;
but they are always very careful to suggest that it is the other fellow who should be behind bars, not themselves. Since I have been Minister of Labour I have had people on both sides, both employers and leaders of organized labour, suggest that this should be the procedure in industrial disputes. But, as I said to one good friend of mine who made the suggestion that we should put teeth into the legislation, for proper mastication you must have upper and lower sets of teeth, and you cannot have teeth for one party to a dispute without having teeth for the other party. My Tory friends would not understand that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Who is your dentist?


Humphrey Mitchell: Any nation or any government that passes one law for the rich and another law for the poor, dealing with the same subject, is bound to get into trouble which will probably lead to revolution.
I am not one who takes the position that investigations such as this cannot do any good. In my opinion, persons have greater fear of publicity than they have of prosecutions. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is a classic example of that very simple fact. Let me say, in passing, that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is, in my opinion, the most advanced and most sensible form of industrial relations machinery ever devised by any government. And it has been predicated on the belief and the very simple fact that where you get public opinion on an industrial dispute, justice will prevail.
I cannot understand why there should be any objection to the establishment of this committee. What is the House of Commons? It is not an instrument of political .propaganda; or at least it should not be. It is the high court of parliament for the people of this country. Members do not come here to represent themselves; they come here to represent the people of the dominion. I do not know of any 'better agency than the representatives of the people of Canada to sit on this inquiry, irrespective of their political beliefs or ideologies. It is a responsibility that we as a parliament-not we as a government, or my hon. friends of the official opposition as an opposition, or my hon. friends of the C.C.F. or the Social Credit group as members of an opposition-it is a responsibility that we as a parliament owe to the people of Canada; and' I am positive we will measure up to our responsibilities.
A great many figures have been quoted1 in the debate. My personal opinion is that the debate should have been predicated upon a discussion of the subject of whether or not
Prices Committee

the committee should be established'. Facts couldi be drawn out in the evidence given by those appearing before the committee, facts about the cost of living index concerning which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke this afternoon.
I have been through that argument for a good many years. I was active in the labour movement when the cost of living index in the dominion was established. What were the arguments in its favour? Arguments were made by trade union organizations to the effect that all we had was a bread and butter budget. We argued1 that it should be broader. So, with that in mind, the government of that day, established the present index.
This afternoon my hon. friend would1 not take even the index of the Canadian government; he would not take the index of the New Zealand government; he did not want the index of the British government, or of the United States government. He wanted1 merely an index of has own.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister
permit a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister accept the cost of living index put out by the bureau of statistics as an accurate indication of the cost of living in Canada today?


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say without equivocation, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, the housewives of Canada do not.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, that is all right; my hon. friend is playing fast and loose, as usual.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MITOHE'LL: I was going to say, off the record: "Blessed are the pure in heart".


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is that said in a kindly
way?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, in a kindly way.
But what I mean is this: you cannot in one debate and to suit your own purposes quote an index respecting these other countries, and then in another debate develop an index of your own. In my judgment, one must accept the honesty and integrity of the people of New Zealand who have developed an index; you have to accept the index of the British, the Australians and our own people. These may not be perfect documents, or a perfect method of procedure. But our index is the best we have been able to devise in this country, with conditions as we understand them.

I hold in my hand some simple figures which, with the permission of the house, I should like to have placed on Hansard. The following is the index of employment, taking the year 1926 as 100:
Index of Employment 1926 = 100
Year
1937
1939 1910 1941 1912
1944
1946
103-7
111-8
124-2
173-7
184-	1 183-0 175-1 173-2
185-	7
I would call attention particularly to the index figure of 113-9 for 1939 as compared with 185-7 for 1947. Those are the highest employment figures in the history of the dominion.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: The same condition everywhere in the world.


Humphrey Mitchell: The following are the figures showing an index for the cost of living with the period 1935-39 as 100:
Index of Cost of Living 1935-39=100
Year
1936		 98-1
1937		 101-2
1938		 102-2
1939		 101-5
1940		 105-6
1941		 111-7
1942		 117-0
1943		 118-4
1944		 118-9
1945		 119-5
1946		 123-6
1947, average for 12 months	 135-5
December, 1947	 146-0
I draw attention to the index figure of 101-5 for 1939 as compared with 146 for the month of December, 1947.
The following is an index of wage rates, taking 1939 as 100:
Index of Wage Rates 1939 = 100
Year
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
90-0
99-6
103-9
122-5
137-9
155-2
It will be noted that, while the figure for 1939 is 100, that for 1946 is 155-2, and it is estimated-and I am being conservative now-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They can have you.

Prices Committee


John Ritchie MacNicol: Stick to that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not mean that in a political sense-heaven forbid. In 1939 the figure was 100, whereas in 1946 it was 155-2, and it is estimated that there will be an additional 15 points for this year making it roughly 170.


William Alexander McMaster: What was it for 1920?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will get those figures; there is no secret about them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While the minister is tabling those figures, would he table the figures showing dollars and cents, as well.


Humphrey Mitchell: A great many things have been said by the opposition about hon. members on the government side, and many things have been said by hon. members on the government side about the opposition. To listen to my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre, who thrives on misery, one would think this was a land of destitution. Let me say this to him, that he has been around this world, and I would ask him to tell me of any country he has visited where conditions are better than they are in Canada today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not the point, and you know it.


Humphrey Mitchell: And I will say including Moscow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been asked a direct question, and the answer is that I know of no country where I would rather live than in Canada, no country I have visited where conditions were better; but our problem is to deal with the problems facing our people and to make conditions as good as they can be in our country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say to my hon. friend that I would ask him not to be too selfrighteous; he has not a first mortgage on the love of his fellowmen in Canada.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: And he has never said he had.


Humphrey Mitchell: He has acted as though he had.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He has not.


Humphrey Mitchell: Irrespective of our political beliefs in this chamber, I do not think any man takes second place to any other man in his endeavours to raise the social status of the great masses of the Canadian people. It may be that our approaches are different, but I think all of us should take credit for the contribution we made toward the destruction of the greatest menace that has confronted
mankind since the dawn of history, for the manner in which we maintained full production, for the contribution we have made toward the rebuilding of the devastated countries of Europe and the contribution we hope to make in the future.
There is another set of figures I should like to place on the record. These are from the monthly bulletin of statistics of the united nations of November, 1947. It states:
Cost of living figures show that while Australia's general cost of living (1937 = 100) was 136 for July, August, September (no October figure), and New Zealand, 126 (September), Canada was lower than any other of the united nations in October, 1947.
Canada-141 (in September-138)
South Africa-146 (September)
Switzerland-163
United States-160 (September)
United Kingdom-133 (September) with subsidies
Ireland-188 (August) without subsidies The true United Kingdom figure can be guessed at from the Ireland figure.
Wholesale prices (1937 = 100)
Australia-151 (September)
New Zealand-157 (July)
Canada-158 (September)
Ireland-211 (July)
United Kingdom-180 (September)
United States-182 (September)
Sweden-207
South Africa-173 (September)
Switzerland-202 (September)
France-1096 (September)
The figure for China is so far up that it cannot be quoted. While we have had these discussions backward and forward, let us have a look at ourselves as others see us. I do not think any one will call the Atlantic Monthly a reactionary publication. It has had a long and honoured career in the United States and is read by any hon. members of this House of Commons who have the leisure. This is what is said in the January, 1948, issue:
_ The various pieces of the very complex national policy which Canada is fashioning fit together into a long-range program which shows solid and consistent thought and is a credit to what is perhaps the best managed democracy on earth.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I feel a little out of place taking part in the debate at this time because so many of the government big guns have been brought into action. W hen we came here on December 5 we were given to understand that we were to open an emergency session of parliament, but before we left we were given to understand that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) wanted to call a caucus and we were thus given a chance to have a trip
Prices Committee

to Ottawa. After listening to this debate on the setting up of a committee to investigate the high cost of living, a debate which has lasted almost two days, one begins to wonder whether the Prime Minister is not using this occasion to have the potential leaders of the Liberal party strut their stuff before the house and the country.
I can remember 'back in 1934 just before I came to the house the Stevens inquiry was held, during which a lot of useful information was brought out. However, in the 1935 election the present government was victorious at the polls and Mr. Stevens' party lost out, although he got one seat. The present government does not seem to have taken very much advantage of the information which was brought out by that royal commission.
A little later, in 1937 and 1938, the agriculture committee of the House of Commons investigated the prices of farm implements. Before that committee turned in its report, the machine companies made two increases in the prices of implements. Yesterday, February 2, the Prime Minister introduced a resolution to set up a committee to investigate the high cost of living. In today's Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Journal there is a small article tucked away in the corner under a Montreal date line of February 2, which reads:
A railway spokesman said tonight that effective today meals on railway dining cars in Canada will be subject to a ten per cent increase.
I believe that the government railroad is included in that announcement. The subamendment, which I believe will be dealt with first, reads:
And in particular to examine and report upon:
(e) measures to stem the rising cost of living, such as the restoration of price controls and subsidies, the examination of these matters to be the committee's first order of business and a report thereon 'to be presented to this house not later than three weeks from the day of the committee's first meeting.
I do not see very much the matter with that. Judging from the speed at which we are moving tonight, three weeks will not be sufficient to enable the committee to bring in that portion of its report. Starting at eight o'clock this evening, a discussion lasting forty-five minutes took place as to whether the amendment and the subamendment were in order. That was not precipitated by any opposition member; it was precipitated by one of the government's parliamentary assistants, and we seem to be still in the dark as far as that matter is concerned.
I shall not be surprised if the amendments are ruled out of order or in order. At the

present time we have five books of rules. Three were made up by the present Clerk of the House, and we have Bourinot's rules and May's rules. If a section cannot be found in one of those books to suit the occasion, it can be found in another. The second part of the subamendment reads:
And in particular to examine and report upon:
(f)	measures to control the prices of commodities entering into the farmers' costs of production in view of the fact that controls are maintained on the prices of farm products.
It seems strange that every time controls are to be exercised, agriculture is the first industry to bear the brunt. Listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon and looking back to December 19 when he made another speech, those who do not know any better might feel that everything on the farm was fine and rosy. Many people here are perhaps ready to believe that everything the minister tells them is just as he tells it. However, many of us who have had experience in farming know that the pictures are not all just as they are painted.
Just a few days after that memorable stock growers' meeting in Lethbridge which the minister attended, I heard some delegates to that meeting discuss the meeting in Edmonton as well as the minister. They gave me the same opinion as I have had of him at different times. Somebody says, "Tell us what he is." I am going to do that right away. This is not my opinion; it is the opinion of some of the delegates to that stock growers' convention. They said, "The little devil is hard to catch up with, but when you do catch him he is so slippery you cannot hold on to him." Those are not my words. I must admit, as I have on other occasions, that the minister is entitled to credit for doing a lot of fighting on behalf of the farmers of Canada, and I am not limiting that to the farmers of the prairie provinces. I know that while the minister is a small man, fighting practically alone, though possibly he has one or two helpers, there are many other bigger and heavier men whom he has to fight against and he cannot hope to win the battle every time, but I hope that he will continue to fight for the farmers as well as he has done in the past.
Many people today feel that the farmers are living in a land of milk and honey. I admit frankly that the farmers are in a better financial position today than they have been in for quite a while, but let us take a look back over some of the other years. Let us look back to the period from 1930 to 1940.

Prices Committee
At that time we were living in a depression period brought about by men who are still exercising some of their wickedness today and who have been given the power by legislation passed here from time to time to continue that wickedness and persecute our Canadian people.
Today people are complaining about the price of roast beef, roast lamb, roast pork, butter, eggs and many other things; but if we go back to the depression period from 1930 to 1940, and particularly 1935, I can well remember selling the best milch cows and the best steers for ten and twelve dollars a head. People forget those times. I remember selling the best wheat that could be grown in the world for 19Y>
cents a bushel, and it cost us fourteen cents a bushel to thresh it. Again I remember seeing people sell the best oats that could be grown in Canada at eight cents a bushel, the best grade A eggs at three cents a dozen, butter at eight cents a pound, and live hogs at 214 cents a pound. So, when people are discussing the high cost of living today, I would ask them to look back to those days and ask them whether any assistance was given to the farmers at that time, by government or private individuals, to help them through that period of difficulty.
It must not be forgotten that during the early years of the war we were still receiving, not because we wanted to, depression prices for our agricultural products. We were told that we must be patriotic and do our bit to feed our own people and the people overseas, and the farmers of Canada certainly did a worthwhile job. They produced enough food for everybody in Canada and produced millions and millions of dollars worth of food to send overseas.
Then, in return for these sacrifices we were told that when the war was over we would get the advantages of higher prices to compensate for the low prices we had been accepting up to that time. The minister has told us that on different occasions, just as he did again today. He told us of the legislation that was passed, providing for a $200 million fund to stabilize prices. But, as I have often stated before, the basis on which those prices are established is false and should be rectified before any further prices are set. The prices are, I understand, based on prices existing betwen 1926 and 1929; but at that time the farmers of Canada, representing approximately one-third of our total population, received only 16-6 per cent of the national income. We remember that during the years 1930 to 1940 the farmers of Canada received only 9-4 per cent of the national income, and in 1932, 5 per cent, which represented $198 per farm all across the country.
Again we were told that we would have stabilization when the war was over. We have a certain degree of stabilization until our contracts with Britain expire, but after that time there is no guarantee of stabilization for the agricultural industry and no legislation providing for that. In Canada not many months ago we were wondering whether our wheat agreement with Britain would still hold good. Since then, certain agreements have been completed with Britain and it looks as though we shall have a fair price for a short time at least.
Again I would remind the house of the sacrifices that have been borne by our Canadian farmers. I am doing that at this time because people feel that the farmers are living in a land of milk and honey. I would ask the consumers of Canada to remember that during the war we subsidized the people who eat bread, and you all remember the howl which went up on August 1 last when a little increase in the price of wheat for making into flour became effective. In addition we subsidized the brewers and distillers of Canada, so that people could' buy drinks cheaper and the government get still more taxes from that source.
Again do not forget that we subsidized the markets of the world, commencing September, 1943, when the ceiling price of $1.55 was established on all our export wheat, regardless of the fact that wheat in the United States and other countries was selling at a much higher price. The farmers were compelled by government policy to stand the whole cost of this subsidy. Under the British wheat agreement, do not forget again that the farmers of Canada are subsidizing the people of Britain on the purchase of 600,000,000 bushels of wheat. May I ask the government-the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is now in his seat and I ask him-why the farmers Qf Canada have been compelled to pay all during these years the whole cost of that subsidy. Perhaps before the end of this debate or the end of the session, when he has had time to consider the matter, he will tell us why.
Again we have provided cheap coarse grains, so that the people of Canada could produce and get more foodstuffs. That cost was borne entirely by the farmers of the prairie provinces.
As I have asked on several occasions before, I ask again tonight that provision be made to transfer from the general revenue fund of this country to the wheat board fund an amount representing the difference between what was received by our farmers and the world market price of wheat, so that it can be distributed to its proper owners, the farmers who grew and delivered the grain.

Prices Committee

Now that the cost of living is high, we find that the farmers are again being attacked. But we have not heard very much about-placing ceilings on the cost of farm tractors and other farm machinery and other items entering into farm- production costs. But we see ceilings placed on butter, and on- meat in the very near future, and we do not know where all this is going to stop.
May I suggest to the government that in order to bring down the cost of living they remove many of the hidden taxes, reduce the income tax levy, increase the exemption before any taxes are levied and remove all the obstacles that stand in the way of increased production; because, as has been said on many occasions in this house, the best way to bring down the cost of living is to increase our production to the point where consumers will have sufficient goods to meet their demands.
Another way in which it can be done is to increase the amount of the family allowance. We know that can be done. Increase the old age pension; increase the war veterans allowance; increase the war pensions; increase the allowance to veteran students. I am not going to stop there. I say we should increase the income of all those people in any occupation whatever who have not sufficient to provide themselves and their families with a decent standard of living. This country can provide it. We have provided over $20 billion to fight a war planned by man, and we have gone into debt to a very great extent for that amount of money and not necessarily so. Let us see if we cannot, for the benefit of our Canadian people, increase the standard of living of our people and do something constructive rather than destructive.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not as one just wishing to express a-formal opposition to this resolution as sponsored by the government, but .as one who considers it his duty to express the opinion of the great majority of the people he has the honour to represent, an opinion which has been expressed in no uncertain terms.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that since December 3 last I have received from various organizations and individuals living within the constituency which I have the honour to represent, just something over fourteen hundred communications dealing with the cost of living and urging price control, subsidies and necessary adjustments.
In view of the fact that the government has recognized the present rise in the cost of living it is inconceivable to me that the people of this country have to wait, and in some cases continue to suffer, while this matter is dealt

with by a parliamentary committee which is supposed to get the basic facts which are already known to everyone in this house.
The basic fact is simply this, that the rapidly rising prices in recent months have increased the cost of living so that many people in this country do not enjoy a satisfactory standard of living. In my opinion, that is the basic fact, and we all know that. Today I received a copy of a paper published in my constituency, the Nelson Daily News. The headline says: "Kootenay output for 1947, 150 millions". That represents the output of one of the richest districts in Canada, an output composed of minerals, forestry products and the products of the farm. If it were redistributed that total output would mean an income of something over $2,500 to every person residing within that district. At the same time I have received something over fourteen hundred communications from people expressing their opinions regarding the cost of living, how they are affected by the cost of living and urging price control and subsidies. Does one require any more evidence of the need for some further redistribution of wealth through price control and subsidies?
During the Christmas recess I took the opportunity to visit a good many of my constituents. I .am not going to deal with a lot of figures this evening; in fact I am going to be quite brief, but I like to find out what the people are thinking. I visited the homes of industrial workers in the cities of Trail, Rossland and Nelson, and questioned the wives of these men concerning the cost of living and so on. There I found a definite concern with the difficulties they are having in making their pay cheques meet the cost of living. That was not discontent stirred up by a so-called agitator. That was the honest concern of many of what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) referred to this evening as good solid Canadian citizens.
I visited a number of the farmers. I found the livestock producers, the pork and beef producers-there is some beef produced in my riding-very much concerned about the increased cost of feed, but even more concerned about the uncertainty of the future. I find the same condition existing in the poultry industry. We have quite a large and growing poultry industry in my constituency. I visited a number of poultry farms and found that in many cases the poultrymen did not know what to do for the coming year. They had placed orders a month or so previously for a large number of baby chicks which have to arrive early in the spring. Because of the increased cost of food, and more particularly because of the uncertainty as to the future, many of them were cancelling their chick orders.

Prices Committee
I visited the homes of veterans, particularly those on disability pension and war veterans' allowance. Some of these people are suffering severely. I visited the home of one man who received a war veterans' allowance. He lives in a little log home and pays no rent. I asked him how he was managing to get along on his $30 a month. He said, "Well, I could just get by till recently; now, during the last six months, I find it impossible, owing to the increased cost of living, to make ends meet". I found the same condition amongst those receiving widows' allowance; I found the very same condition in the case of those receiving old age pensions and also with a small number of people who have to live on small fixed incomes from small investments and annuities.
In addition to the insecurity created by conditions among these groups of people, I found numbers of young people, veterans and others, who are desiring to build and furnish homes, very much concerned about the future and hesitating to take any action in that direction because of the uncertainty as to the price structure in the months ahead. The same thing applies to the development of farms. I found a number of people who have purchased raw land, who are delaying the construction of buildings, delaying investment in and development of the land because they are not certain of the future with respect to prices. I found generally a sense of insecurity, a sense of instability regarding the future. That is why, not only in my constituency but all across Canada, we find this very strong and unified demand for price control and subsidies on certain essential articles.
Now, Mr. Speaker, no one has disputed that the government has all the legislation necessary to effect controls. That legislation is on the statute books. Government speakers in this debate have admitted they have the power to do that. According to a press report of the Ottawa Evening Journal of January 31, 1946, even officials of the government have threatened that the government will take action if prices are increased unnecessarily. I want to quote this from the Ottawa Evening Journal of January 31, 1946:
If costs climb out of line with the general fabric of the price structure both Mr. Ilsley and prices board chairman Donald Gordon promised that the ceilings again would be imposed.
In a letter to hundreds of Canadian manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, Mr. Gordon emphasized that the ceilings were being suspended not cancelled.
Mr. Ilsley added the admonition that any abuse of this new price freedom would result in reimposition of the ceilings.
Regardless of the fact that a minister of the crown and government officials have threatened 5849-53J
the imposition of price ceilings, we find government speakers and leading members of the government now speaking in the opposite direction so far as general policy is concerned. No one disputes the financial capacity of this country to pay whatever subsidies may be necessary to keep prices down. I think that is a fact, particularly in view of the information we have of a possible large surplus this fiscal year. No one disputes the demand of the Canadian people for the reimposition of certain controls and subsidies. I think public opinion is very well expressed in that direction, and we find it coming from many different groups in the community.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, no one disputes the success of price controls and subsidies during the war, or objects to giving the government credit for the good work done at that time. In my opinion, and without doubt in- the opinion of the majority of the Canadian people at this time, there is only one satisfactory method of restoring stability to our price structure, a stability which is necessary to restore a feeling of security and confidence in our people. That is, first, to restore price controls on all basic necessities; second, to restore subsidies on essential foods and also on coarse grains, and, third, to restore the 100 per cent excess profits tax.
In introducing this motion, I think the Prime Minister pointed out that one of the purposes of the committee was to shed light on certain questions. In that connection I wish to say that in the past we have had . a good many investigations which were supposed to shed light on certain questions and bring about certain results. I remember some years ago an investigation into the control of the sale of fruit on the prairies by certain, interests; it was a lengthy investigation to-shed some light on the question. I think those interests were fined a mere pittance, so. far as their large organization was concerned, and then on they go as usual. We have had other investigations with similar results. In my opinion and, I think, in the opinion of a good many other people in this country, persons of this type will understand only one thing, and that is the will of the people as expressed in law through parliament, giving effect to price controls.
Why does the government propose a committee of this type rather than accept the undeniably expressed will of the Canadian people through many channels? It does so, I think because it recognizes the state of public opinion and the necessity of doing something; but that something must be as little as possible. I am not blaming the members of the
Prices Committee


James Horace King: I should like to give a
ruling on the amendment which is before the house. The Prime Minister moved that a select committee be appointed to examine
(a)	the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living; (b) prices which have been raised above levels justified by increased costs; and
(c)	rises in prices due to the acquiring, accumulating and withholding from sale of any goods beyond amounts reasonably required for the ordinary purposes of business.
The leader of the opposition moved in amendment that the committee be also empowered to examine "the effect of present government policies in lessening Canadian agricultural production."
I cannot overlook the fact that this is too important a question to be moved as corollary to the appointment of such a committee as the one now being proposed. It is against all parliamentary usage to refer questions of policy to fact-finding committees. I find that the great Speaker Denison decided in 1877-see decisions of Speaker Denison, published by Edwin Gordon Blackmore, page 210-and his decision still holds good, that:
It is not competent, without notice, to add a distinct question to a motion, or to combine in one two distinct propositions.
Of course I must add that, when an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of order.
This is sound practice and, for that reason, I declare the amendment out of order. It follows that the subamendment cannot be moved. I must add, however, for the information of the house, that the amendment to the amendment will be barred for the same reason.


John Bracken: With all deference to you, sir, I disagree with your judgment and appeal against your ruling.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's decision. The Prime Minister moved:
That a select committee of this house be appointed to examine and to report from time to time as to:
(a) the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living;

Prices Committee
(b)	prices which have been raised above levels justified by increased costs;
(c)	rises in prices due to the acquiring, accumulating or withholding from sale by any persons, firms or corporations of any goods beyond amounts reasonably required for the ordinary purposes of their businesses.
The leader of the opposition moved in amendment that the committee be also empowered to examine the effect of present government policies in lessening Canadian agricultural production. I declared that amendment out of order, because according to Mr. Speaker Denison, it is not competent without notice to add a distinct question to a motion, or to combine in one two distinct propositions.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Rcsthern (Mr. Tucker). Had I	
voted, I would	have voted against Your
Honour's ruling. Mr. QUELCH:	I was paired with the hon.
member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon). Had I voted, I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.
Sinclair
Sinnott
Smith (York North)
Stuart (Charlotte)
Tremblay
Yiau
Warren
Weir
Whitman

Prices Committee


Mr. HEALY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted, I would hare voted for Your Honour's ruling.
(Translation):


Mr. HAMEL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). Had I voted I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.
( Text):


Mr. W. GARFIELD CASE (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I did not know that pairs applied to a division on a Speaker's ruling. However, I was not paired on this occasion. I am going to address myself to the main motion, and the only reason that I rise1-


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I shall say something to my hon. friend who says "louder". If he will listen attentively to me he will hear the remarks I have to make. The only reason I rise-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members to abide by the rule which says that a member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his permission.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you absolutely. The reason I am interjecting some remarks into this debate is a good one. If we approve the setting up of this committee the government will have denied to the opposition and to all others in this house who think otherwise the right to rise in their places and criticize what we believe is the real reason for prices having fluctuated and the cost of living having reached heights unprecedented in the history of Canada.
This afternoon we were privileged to hear a dissertation from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He dwelt at considerable length upon how increased costs of production affected the Canadian producer. No one can find fault with his eloquence or oratory; but I think we should come down from the heights of oratory and deal with one cold fact, namely, that one of the things which has increased the post of living in this country is the -tremendous cost of government. If you take -the per capita tax at -the present time and compare it with what it was a few years ago you will find that, the increase in the cost of living is still below the increase in the cost of government of this country.
May I reply directly to the Minister of Agriculture? I represent a rural constituency, two-thirds of my constituents being rural and about one-third being urban dwellers. I think they know the answer now, certainly the far-mere do. When the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin)

addressed a public meeting a short time ago he indicated that the government had a solution of their problems which would be given out in the matter of two or three days, and then the Minister of Agriculture stated he was prepared to offer something to sustain agriculture in its economic relation to the rest of the Dominion of Canada. However, the fact remains that the only thing the government is offering to us is a committee to investigate those who are profiteering.
We cannot be unmindful of the fact that during the last session of the house the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) budgeted for subsidies. Those subsidies are not being paid. When those subsidies were discontinued the farmers of Canada did not know where to turn.
I want to give the house the most realistic picture I could possibly bring before it. On the livestock market in the city of Toronto, at the union stockyards, the farmers were offering for sale their brood sows. Those sows were having little pigs right there on the market, and they were being devoured by the other pigs. I know whereof I speak. I agree with my hon. friend the member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) that the time is not far distant when those who are responsible for this state of confusion in the over-all economy of Canada will be crying out for bacon not only to fill our British contracts but to satisfy the demands of the home market.
The subsidy on feed grain was discontinued. It is true that a promise was made at that time; but no one knew the extent of that promise, and the farmers of Canada were left in a vacuum and, lacking any sense of direction, marketed their breeding stock. The farmers of Canada were promised something they knew not what. Then the British contracts were negotiated, and that was followed by the most disastrous event that one could contemplate. Breeding stock was sold on the market, and it will take some time to repair that loss and the disruption that it caused in our agricultural production program. I have always taken the view that you should not let go of one thing until you have something else to take its place. I say to the government that after it had collected from the Canadian taxpayer to maintain subsidies, those subsidies should have been maintained until there was something else to take their place, and the people of Canada, particularly the farmers, should have been told what the government was seeking to do. But our farmers are resourceful. They proved that constantly during the war, and they are prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel at the present time. But everyone wants to know in what direction we are going.

Prices Committee
After listening to the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon-


Mr. GRANT:: He made a good speech.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Indeed it was a good speech and I enjoyed listening to him. One might think sometimes that this country was run by supermen, but after analysing the minister's speech 1 was reminded of those who try to sell you something when the substance is really not there. He overlooked one basic fact, and that was the multiplication of costs which have been built up by this government in relation to our individual problems. There is the parity of exchange, the gold situation, bureaucracy. I know he does not like that word and I do not like it either, but I know that we are governed today by influences and sources outside this house. The government has become so imbued with its wartime mentality and the right to do almost as it pleases, passing 90,000 orders in council, that it no longer considers that the voice of parliament counts for anything. If you want to get the greatest possible benefits of the productive capacity of this nation there is a clear and open road to that end, and that is to apply sound business judgment in the Department of Finance, and not to over-budget. The budget of the Minister of Finance indicated a lack of faith in Canada. The government have indeed become the first profiteers in Canada. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), interrupting a speaker in this debate the other night, said that he believed the profiteers were our greatest menace. I say to him that if he knows of any profiteers in Canada he should be the first witness to come before this committee, because we want to know right now who are the profiteers.


Humphrey Mitchell: Did my hon. friend say mutineers of profiteers?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: the Speaker may be required to rule that it is already before a committee of the House of Commons. I feel certain that this committee will sit and sit indefinitely. It may bring in certain reports to the house, but it is not required to do so by the terms of reference. It is not privileged to make recommendations. The net results is that we shall be no further ahead three or four months from now or even when prorogation takes place.
It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to talk about the prosperity of Canada; but ask the people who have the exchange in their pockets what it is costing them to live today compared with just a few weeks ago when the Prime Minister made his stirring address from overseas with respect to the Geneva trade agreements which we all thought was a move in the right direction to bring about greater world-wide trade, only to be followed by the address of the Minister of Finance which nullified the whole thing.
If the ministry are honestly seeking reasons for the increased cost of living today let them look in their own offices; let them look at their own employees and they will see the over-all cost of government and the tremendous taxation levied upon the Canadian people in relation to that which existed a few years ago. You want greater prosperity; you want greater production. Then I ask the government to give consideration to a tremendous cut in taxation, to stir up the enthusiasm, the enterprise and the ambition of the Canadian people, and you will not long have to worry about the costs of living in the Dominion of Canada, this land of great ' promise, this land of plenty if we only had the proper leadership to show us the way.
I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to tomorrow's proceedings, I should think it would be advisable that we continue this debate rather than take up the time on the address. Hon. members will recall that when the house reassembled I mentioned that for the opening weeks we would devote three days a week to the emergency measures and two days a week to the debate on the address. Then it was suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite that we should give precedence or immediate attention to setting up a committee on prices and the cost of living, and the house consented to have this debate take precedence on Monday over the debate on the exchange conservation. I think for the same reasons it should have precedence over the debate on the address. I have spoken to the respective leaders of the different parties and I gathered that the general consensus is that this would be the best course to adopt.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, in view of the proposed change by the Prime Minister, I should like to ask if, in view of the fact that the debate on the speech from the throne will not go on tomorrow, therefore, under the original plan only one day this week will be allowed for that debate. If we proceed now as he suggests, will he be willing to continue the debate on the speech from the throne on Friday as well as on Thursday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would see no objection to that. I hope very much that we can get a division tomorrow; then we may have Thursday and Friday to continue with the debate on the address.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 4, 1948