January 29, 1948

CCF

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ZAPLITNY:

My hon. f-riend wants

to know what kind of police force. I mean an economic police force which will prevent private enterprise from running hog-wild. I do not mean putting anyone up against a stone wall or anything of that sort. But this is not radical. My hon. friend would be surprised to know that fourteen years ago the price spreads commission made some recommendations as to how to prevent price spreads such as they had investigated at that time, and one of their recommendations was public ownership and operation. They gave the reasons for it:

Public ownership, for a variety of reasons- to provide a competitive check on private enterprise, to supplement ineffective regulations over a monopoly, to control consumption, to provide revenue . . .

And so on.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
CCF
CCF

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ZAPLITNY:

Of course the majority

of those who made the recommendations were Conservatives-not Progressive Conservatives. They were more progressive than, the Progressive Conservatives. That is what we suggest, and I have to put it briefly because time will not permit me tQ enlarge upon it. In contrast with that, we have what the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, would propose as their solution, and it is contained in a statement made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who, I am glad to see, is here. Speaking at Carberry, Manitoba, at a nominating convention he said:

On every hand I hear the question, what does the party stand for,-

A good question.

*-and in w-hat direction does it tend?

Then he goes on:

But recent events have shown that while we are a party with great principles, we have not succeeded in acquainting the people with the fact.

Then, as if finding a reason for that he says:

Salesmanship cannot be successful unless you have something to sell.

Then he went on to strike the first blow in acquainting the public with the great principles of his party, and one of the cardinal .principles he sets out is this:

Private enterprise would be at a maximum, and public enterprise restricted to a minimum under Conservative policies, the speaker declared.

There is the cardinal principle of the Progressive Conservative party.

Mr. MaeINNIS: No wonder they are not selling.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
CCF

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ZAPLITNY:

Private enterprise at a maximum and public enterprise at a minimum.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Page the province of

Saskatchewan.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
CCF

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ZAPLITNY:

One of the finest examples of public enterprise in this country is Saskatchewan, and perhaps the brightest spot in that respect is our co-operative movement. As a matter of fact, it was not started by any government but by the people themselves.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

It was started by Gardiner.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

It was done in spite of many people.

The Address-Mr. Michaud

Topic:   194S
Permalink
PC
CCF

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. ZAPLITNY:

I knew I had some members in the box but I did not think they would admit it.

Let me continue what I was saying. The co-operative movement is the finest example of public enterprise we have in the country because it is prepared at the same time to look after its economic future and give the members of that institution or other people a lead in a new way of life, to point the way toward a new philosophy of production and distribution, a new social philosophy, pointing to a way in which people can live together in harmony and produce and distribute for their mutual benefit rather than snatch the bread from each others hands, which is the present tendency. Yet my friend, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was nurtured in Saskatchewan and ought to know better, says that under his government public enterprise would be restricted to a minimum. Perhaps it is not by coincidence that the drive we witnessed two years ago across Canada by the so-called taxpayers' association to tax the co-operatives out of existence, was led by a member of the Progressive Conservative party in the Manitoba legislature, Mr. Thorvaldson. He is giving us a foretaste of what the cooperative movement could expect if the party of that stripe were to get into power. I believe that, regardless of where we sit in this house, it is becoming quite evident that this is a modern civilization we are living in and that things have speeded up to a point where we can no longer depend upon prices to find their own level as long as the fixing of prices is in the hands of private firms or individuals, because the tendency will be to raise the profit as high as the traffic will bear. The solution that we propose, as I said a moment ago, is for the people of this country, through cooperatives and, if necessary, through government initiative, through public enterprise, to go into the fields of production and distribution which are most suitable for that type of enterprise, and in that way act as a stabilizing and equalizing force in our economic system.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
LIB

Benoît Michaud

Liberal

Mr. BENOIT MICHAUD (Restigouche-Madawaska):

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak in this debate, at least at this stage; but after listening to so many speakers from different groups voicing their grievances and making demands on the government for public works of various sorts and, in addition, giving all kinds of valuable advice to the government, I thought perhaps I should endeavour to do something along that line.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
LIB

Benoît Michaud

Liberal

Mr. MICHAUD:

I take notice of the "hear, hears" from the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party. I think the house will take notice that they do not come up to mine as far as volume and timing are concerned; but it is a noble effort and I appreciate it.

First, taking up the matter of grievances,

I think it is only fair to say that at the present time throughout Canada the main grievance is the increased cost of living. Without a doubt, this is the problem of the hour. Is it to be wondered at that prices have gone up?

I know of no prolonged war which was not followed by an acute period of inflation. Considering the great increase in currency which took place since 1939, one can easily understand why there should be rising prices and inflation. In 1939, according to figures which I secured from the Department of Finance, there was roughly $200 million of legal tender in circulation in Canada. In 1917 it had grown to SI,200 million, an increase to six times the pre-war figure. If we look at the amount of the legal tender in the hands of the public, we find that there was approximately $144 million before the war compared with over a billion dollars in 1947, or an increase to seven and a half times pre-war figures. If we consider the amount of the bonded debt, government bonds in circulation, they are approximately $13 billion as compared with two and a half billion before the war, or roughly five times the pre-war figure.

If there is the slightest degree of truth in the so-called infallible dogma of so-called orthodox economists, namely, that the price of commodities bears a fairly constant ratio to the amount of currency in circulation, then present prices should be at least three times what they were before the war because the total amount of legal tender increased by six times, whereas Canada's production just about doubled. I do not think anybody will dispute the statement that, without controls, prices would have increased threefold and more since 1939. Nothing but ceilings and controls kept them down, and everybody should have known that. I think we are all in agreement as to the evils of inflation and deflation. During both operations it is the little fellows, the man in the street, the farmer and the labourer who get it in the neck.

Inflation is not good for the man whose main assets consist in bonds, mortgages and bank savings. These assets gradually dwindle in value during a period of inflation. The same is true of all persons in receipt of pensions or what is generally known in banking terms as "government transfers to persons," and of

The Address-Mr. Michaud

which there are seventeen items according to the recent report of the Royal Bank of Canada.

It appears quite obvious to me that, in the absence of some extrinsic means of regulating prices, the enormous amount of currency now in circulation, if let loose, is bound to cause some considerable measure of inflation. Again it is these extrinsic regulations which kept prices down during the war and the immediate post-war period.

To any sane thinking person it was quite obvious that a premature removal of ceilings and controls would bring about inflation. Why then, in the face of that, did the present government, when attempting to pass these temporary emergency bills, meet such a stiff opposition on the part of the Progressive Conservatives and the Social Crediters in the course of the three previous sessions of this parliament. AVould it be, perchance, that the big interests, for which the Progressive Conservative party stands, find a fertile field for high profits during periods of inflation and during periods of deflation as well? Apparently big interests are all for these kinds of fleecing operations.

Personally, I am inclined to think the government decontrolled somewhat too quickly with respect to certain commodities. I realize that it was impossible to bring in every decontrol measure exactly at the right time. On the whole the government did a remarkably good job, but it was only a human and not a divine job, and for this reason a few errors might have been made. We must consider ourselves fortunate, however, that the loyal opposition were not in power during the postwar years. They would have done away with all controls a long time ago, and we would have suffered considerably more from inflation.

It was perhaps necessary to decontrol sooner in certain fields in order to teach some fools who did not understand the necessary implications of what some agitators induced them to do; that is, clamour for the removal of controls. I had an instance of this in my own riding just about a year ago, when a group of blind followers of unscrupulous and fascist-minded leaders requested the immediate removal of all controls. I feel confident that very few of those eight hundred odd people would sign the same petition today. In any event I would challenge them to do so. As I said a moment ago, perhaps it was necessary for the government to decontrol a little too quickly in order to teach a lesson to such fools.

At this stage I wish to congratulate the government on the partial reimposition of controls, ceilings and mark-up limitations with respect to certain commodities. I hope such

controls will be maintained as long as may be necessary to fully protect Canadian consumers. As yet I do not know what the effect of this mark-up control will be on the price of chemical fertilizers, in which a great many people in my province are very much interested. I have not seen any figures, but we were told something would be done along that line. The province of New Brunswick is the second largest per capita user of chemical fertilizer. I am not prepared to discuss this subject at length this evening, but I wish to call certain facts to the attention of the house and to voice the great concern felt by our farmers in the maritime provinces. On December 1, a news item appeared in the press of my province, and perhaps throughout the country, apparently emanating from some government department, reading as follows:

Ottawa, December 1. A 20 per cent jump in fertilizer prices in the maritime provinces next spring was predicted today by the dominion Department of Agriculture in a report placed before the opening meeting of the the dominion-provincial agricultural conference.

"As the maritime provinces are at the end of the longest and most expensive freight haul from sources of supply of most of the chemicals in Canada, or have to obtain supply in the United States, where prices are now much higher than in Canada, prices of mixed fertilizers in the maritime provinces next spring may be substantially higher than in Ottawa and Quebec." the report said.

"In the circumstances, it is possible that price increases in the spring of 1948 will approximate eight per cent in Ontario, twelve per cent in Quebec and twenty per cent in the maritimes. Prices tend to rise to the world price level which is still much higher than Canadian prices. It is possible that the phosphates and potash which Canada must import from the United States and other countries will increase again in price if supplies continue to be purchased in the United States for the needy countries of Europe and Asia at prices which would seem to have no ceiling."

Following this press report or news item, the president of the maritime federation of agriculture sent an open letter to the editor of the Saint John Telegraph-Journal. I am not going to read it all, but I wish to bring out some points contained in that letter. After referring to the news item, Mr. J. E. Walsh, president of the federation, went on to question the justification for an advance, and to say that it would need some explaining to show why the maritimes should pay more than other areas. He then went on to point out where the different ingredients come from. As the news item indicated, the phosphates and superphosphates are imported from the United States. It is by far the bulkiest of the ingredients going into mixed fertilizer. These are processed at Baltimore, Maryland, and at Belceil, Quebec, some thirty miles east

The Address-Mr. Michaud

of Montreal. The second item in importance, from point of view of size, is the potash; the ingredient generally employed is muriate of potash. The source is principally New Mexico and Europe. Finally, the third element of the nitrogen group is composed principally of sulphate of ammonia and ammonium nitrate. The sulphate of ammonia is a by-product of coking coal, and is produced at the various steel plants throughout Canada. The ammonium nitrate is produced principally in Upper Canada, most of it at the Welland plant which was sold to North American Cyanamid Limited.

The biggest price jump was in connection with this latter ingredient, where the increase was a little more than fifty per cent, On this point I wish to read from the letter of Mr. Walsh, who, in referring to ammonium nitrate, said:

This represents the most violent price advance and in the farmer's eye the least justified. The three Canadian plants were built by Britain to supply nitrate during the war if her own plants were bombed. Britain did not lose her plants, so the ones in Canada manufactured the material for fertilizer. Costs that were known during the war showed the plant at Calgary making the fertilizer formulae at considerably less than $20 per ton and writing off a good portion of plant cost in so doing and the plant at Port Robinson, Ontario, reported costs of less than $40 per ton. Farmers do not believe that the $91 price is justified.

That is the present price; it jumped from S60 to S91. In his letter Mr. Walsh goes on to remark that as far as the maritimes are concerned the imported ingredients can be brought by ship, so that the argument of the long haul should not apply and should not make these fertilizers more expensive for the farmers of the maritime provinces.

In a letter to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacKinnon), which I wrote to him shortly after I noticed this letter in the Telegraph-Journal, I got some valuable information. I had asked a number of questions, among which was one as to the possibility of finding supplies of phosphates, superphosphates and potash in Canada. On this point I should like to quote an important paragraph from his letter:

This production could be developed provided there is a sufficient demand to warrant the capital expenditure involved. If the potash deposits in Saskatchewan were developed it would also relieve the demand from foreign sources of supply for this material, and the same would apply if phosphate rock deposits in Quebec were similarly developed.

I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the department concerned to inquire as to what the prospects are of

developing those sources of deposits to which reference is made in the letter of the Minister of Fisheries.

The people of this country have the impression that when we deal with fertilizer manufactures we are dealing with one .of the most powerful monopolies in this country. I have no figures here which would be of any assistance to hon. members on this point. Perhaps the committee which will be set up might look into the matter; and I suggest that it ought to look into it, because there is a definite feeling among the farmers of the country that we are paying much too much for our chemical fertilizers.

On this point I would call the attention of the house to the fact that, during a period of years, 'the fertilizer companies have discouraged farmers from buying chemicals instead of mixed fertilizers. They have kept the price of chemicals so high that they have discouraged the farmers from buying their own ingredients and mixing it themselves.

For those who may not be familiar with this problem, I may add that a ton of fertilizer does not contain 2,000 pounds of fertilizing ingredients; some contain as low as 1,400 pounds, the rest being filler. In years gone by, farmers used to buy their own ingredients and mix them, thus saving as much as perhaps twenty-five per cent or more of the price, and with little extra work. However, it seems that this practice has been discouraged by the fertilizer companies, and a pamphlet issued by the Department of Agriculture bears me out on that point.

In this connection I should like to quote a few figures. In 1927 the percentage of unmixed ingredients sold was 62 per cent, while the percentage of mixed fertilizers was 37 per cent. In 1946 the unmixed ingredients constituted only 15 per cent of the sales, as compared with 62 per cent in 1927, whereas the mixtures accounted for 84 per cent of the total sales. I suggest that these facts would bear some investigation.

Reverting to the matter of prices and price stability generally, one must admit at once that it is a most difficult problem for any government. I believe every sensible person will admit the necessity for the greatest possible degree of stability in the prices of goods and services, but no one seems prepared to offer an effective suggestion to bring that about. In order to make the present prices of goods correspond with wages, I believe prices should be rolled back to about the point they were a year ago. This would indeed' be a difficult problem. The very least that could be expected would be to have

The Address-Mr. Michaud

prices rolled back to what they were in September last, and to hold them there tightly.

As all hon. members know, control of prices in normal times comes within provincial jurisdiction. Unless we are prepared to rely indefinitely upon the emergency doctrine, I fail to see how the federal government can hang on to controls for any great length of time. It is a matter of determining when the emergency ceases. That is a big constitutional question, and one on which those great constitutional lawyers on the other side of the house have not, to my knowledge, offered any very constructive suggestions.

Perhaps we could look at the problem from the angle of trade and commerce, which comes within federal jurisdiction. If it thus became a matter falling within federal jurisdiction it might be possible to see that no exorbitant profits were made by the numerous and sometimes unnecessary intermediaries between producers and consumers.

Under the wartime prices and trade board regulations, reasonable mark-ups or profits for most commodities were established. I am wondering whether the federal government has not the jurisdiction to legislate in that field at any time, and I suggest that it be tried until it is held ultra vires by the courts of the country. I realize I am now skating on the rather thin ice of provincial harmony. If I lived in Quebec or Ontario I might not dare to speak in such a vein; but in New Brunswick we are not quite so touchy on the question of autonomy. At least most of the people are not, because most of those with whom I come in contact call for price ceilings. Considering that the government fixed prices during the war, they now blame that same government for the increase in the prices which followed the removal of ceilings. It would appear to me that if the government were to keep on controlling mark-ups or profits at all the different levels of trade it might help to solve some of the problems of rising prices.

I wish now to touch upon a few other matters. Many hon. members in this debate have referred to the income tax, and those who have mentioned it have called for higher exemptions in the income tax schedules. Some have suggested $3,000 and $1,500. This afternoon my good friend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis) suggested $2,500 and $1,250. I am not prepared to suggest any figure, more than to express the view that these exemptions should be increased considerably. At least they should be raised to $2,500 for married people. I anticipate some of our

good friends who have been clamouring for this exemption for two or three years will say that they were right and we were wrong in not advocating it three years ago. But conditions three years ago were somewhat different. Then we were in the red, and deep in the red. In 1945 we had a deficit and in 1946 we budgeted for a deficit. But now, with a huge surplus in prospect, I think the government could well afford to raise the exemption as suggested by most of those who have spoken on this subject in this debate.

I also wish to make mine the representations that have been made by various speakers with reference to invalids. I would go so far as again to mention elderly people who are not now eligible for old age pensions. There are quite a few over sixty-five years of age who are not in a position to earn a decent livelihood. I hope that at some future time, whether in co-operation with provincial governments or not, some social legislation will be put on the statute book whereby these underprivileged people will be better looked after than they have been up to now.

I could not resume my seat without making reference to some of the needs of my constituency. I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries is not in his seat at the moment because I wished to call to his attention the urgent requests from the people of the county of Madawaska who for years made representations to the government with a view to obtaining a fish hatchery in that county or at least rearing ponds. Year after year they have made these representations, and just before the outbreak of world war II the hatchery had been promised to them, but the war broke out and nothing could be done.

The county of Restigouche, which has a coastline of some forty miles, needs in the worst way additional wharf facilities, particularly Campbellton and Dalhousie. Dredging is also needed in the worst way. Some slight work was done along this line during the past year, but not sufficient to meet the demands of our fishermen and shippers. The result is that our ports do not enjoy the reputation they would have if they were provided with these necessary facilities. Moreover, they do not get the business which would normally go there.

Finally, we need public buildings in many places. At this point I wish to express my appreciation for whatever public works have been undertaken to this date. I would refer to the new customs and immigration building which will be opened shortly at Edmundston. Another one is needed at St. Leonard, and I understand that steps are being taken to press that project. I urge the government to do its

The Address-Mr. Moore

utmost to see that these much needed buildings are erected as soon as possible. A post office building is also needed in the beautiful and rapidly-growing village of St. Quentin.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
CCF
LIB
CCF
LIB

Benoît Michaud

Liberal

Mr. MICHAUD:

I could not say offhand, but the population is doubling about every five years. Land was purchased for the purpose before the war and I understand that moneys were voted for the erection of the building. I realize that it is not the policy of the government to put up many public buildings at this time, but there are cases where it is absolutely necessary to do so, where revenue would be lost to the government because of lack of proper building facilities. I feel that St. Quentin is a deserving case and I hope that something will be done about this building in the near future.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. KNOWLES:

Nothing about potatoes?

Topic:   194S
Permalink
LIB

Benoît Michaud

Liberal

Mr. MICHAUD:

I shall have further representations to make on the estimates, but for the time being I bring these projects up because they are most urgently needed.

Topic:   194S
Permalink
CCF

Ronald Stewart Moore

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):

Mr. Speaker, we have been assured that ample opportunity will be afforded in this debate to discuss the problem which is uppermost in the minds of the Canadian people, namely, the high cost of living in Canada at the present time. As one travels from one part of Canada to another one must realize that the cost of living is the main issue before the people of this country today. As the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) said when he spoke a short time ago, labour unions, farm organizations and other bodies have communicated with members of the House of Commons asking them to bring the question of the high cost of living before the house at the earliest possible moment. I would not like to see this question become a political issue because it is of too much importance to the people of Canada at this time.

Before the war ended, this government had provided the country with a pretty good system of price control. Generally speaking, our economic system was on a fairly even keel and good relationships existed between the farmers, labour, and company organizations with respect, not only to the cost of living, but to the general income level of the Canadian 5849-45

people. This happy situation could have been continued had the government of this country retained price control for a time longer.

The statement is being made generally throughout the country that one of the reasons for the great increase in the cost of living is that labour is demanding more and more in wages. I remember a number of years ago when that used to be one of the trump cards brought out by those who supported leaving conditions as they were. It seemed to be an answer to say that the increases in the cost of living were due to labour going on strike and demanding higher wages. But if we go carefully into the question I think we can prove that that is not the case, and most certainly it is not the case now.

I do not want to give any figures whidh have already been quoted in the house, but I should like to refer for a moment to the profits which have been made by twelve leading textile plants in Canada, comparing 1946 with 1945. According to my information, confirmation of which may 'be found in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and also in the survey of financial corporations, one of the leading textile plants in 1946 made a profit of 521 per cent over 1945; another one made 309 per cent; then at least three were well over 200 per cent; another two plants made well over 100 per cent. The average increase in profits in the thirteen plants between 1945 and 1946 was 137 per cent. What was the increase in the wages of the people who worked in those textile plants? According to the bureau of statistics, in January, 1946, the weekly wage in the textile plants in Canada was $24.23. In 1947 it was $25.61, an increase of $1.48 a week, or approximately six per cent from 1945 to 1946. Obviously the increase in the selling price of textiles in Canada was not due to an increase in wages which went to the workers; in the main it was due to the greatly increased profits which went to the owners of the industry.

Because the increases in the cost of living are bearing so heavily upon our people, we ought to be in a pretty fair position to call on this government to do something about the matter. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe artd Mail on March 7, 1947, dealing with price control. This was at the time the omnibus bill was being discussed in this House of Commons. The article was written by the staff correspondent of the paper, Mr. Baldwin. It says:

Liberal party members are pressing on cabinet the necessity of braking the prices board's decontrol program and continuing present subsidies for a longer period than is now contem-

The Address-Mr. Moore

plated. Some of those who six months ago were chafing at the government bit and urging more rapid removal of controls are now getting worried at rising costs of living and suggesting that the line be held even if subsidies have to be increased rather than curtailed.

Listen to this:

Yesterday's Liberal caucus gave some attention to Justice Minister Usley's omnibus bill which, among other things, continues power to enforce price and rent control. First definite indication of the extent of proposed subsidy withdrawals during the year has been given by the estimates tabled this week. Butter subsidy is one of those rumoured for early withdrawal with a consequent jump of at least eight cents a pound to the consumer.

The article goes on to show that in the month of January of last year the price index jumped from 127 bo 127-8, and due to the decontrol the prices board expected a further increase in living costs in February and March. The article then goes on:

In the light of these facts and fears, the rank and file of the party is said to have urged a slowing up of the program. Western farm members who, with a few exceptions, have been ready to support Agriculture Minister Gardiner's farm stabilization plans point out ominously that these plans cannot be carried out if prices across the board are going to be allowed to skyrocket. While a large factor in increasing prices would be the rise in the price of agricultural products, it is realized that if subsidies here are removed it will set off the spiral of a price rise which would inevitably boomerang with double impetus on the farmer.

According to this report, that was the opinion of many backbenchers of the Liberal party last session. Where are these members today? Where do they stand on price control? One of them has already spoken thus far. I was glad to see that he supported price control, but I should like to see the others rise in their places and urge this government to reimpose these controls. They ought to be reimposed for one very good reason, namely, that there will be no end to price increases without controls. In effect we have the same situation today that existed during the war years. There is just as great a demand for Canadian commodities today as there was when our armies were in the field. I insist that this government and this House of Commons should see to it that something is done to protect the Canadian people against the ever-increasing cost of living. The only way it can be done is by the reimposition of price controls.

I know there are widely divided views in this house between the government, the Progressive Conservatives, the Social Credit group and ourselves. This is a matter of vital concern to every consumer in Canada, and it is one issue on which we ought to drop these

differences and re-institute controls which have proven themselves to be to the benefit of every person in Canada.

Speaking to the United States congress, the President referred last year, at about the time that we were discussing the omnibus bill, to the fact that they had lifted controls in the United States, but at the same time he implored United States manufacturers not to take everything the market would stand; otherwise they would wreck the United States economy. The same thing applies to Canada and we are going to find it out. If we allow our manufacturers, our industrialists and our free private enterprises to take everything the market will stand we shall wreck the Canadian economy just as surely as the people of the United States are going to wreck theirs.

The reason we have a huge demand for commodities today is that Europe was destroyed. So long as we have to supply commodities and capital goods to rebuild Europe, there will be an unlimited demand for everything that can be produced in Canada. Because of that fact, the government ought again to take hold of the situation as they did in the war and re-institute these controls which worked so well to the benefit of everyone.

I w-ould not want to impute motives to any individual, particularly to those who have not an opportunity to reply to me, but for the consideration particularly of the Progressive Conservative group I should like to quote from one of the directors of the Bank of Nova Scotia. I insist that he expressed the point of view which in some degree was along the lines that this group have suggested, particularly with respect to controls. This is what Mr. H. L. Enman, vice-president and general manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, had to say in his annual address:

But if there ever was a time when selfrestraint was necessary, that time is the present. If sellers were to take full advantage of their bargaining position we should simply accelerate the inflationary spiral of rising prices and costs, and build up a high-cost structure which would, involve a difficult and painful readjustment when the price trend turns in a downward direction, as some day it most surely will. Many prices are already at levels which appear to be high not only in relation to past experience but in relation to the general price level.

That is a pretty fair statement of the situation. I believe it calls for action on the part of this government. The only action that they can put into effect which will meet the situation is to reimpose the controls which they have already taken off.

Topic:   194S
Permalink

January 29, 1948