Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence of which I have given him notice. Since he is not in his seat I shall appreciate it if an answer is given tomorrow. Has the government given further consideration to establishing a coast guard on the west coast of Canada, especially in the light of the recent wreck of the Clarksdale Victory on the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands?

Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport.):

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

Mr. ARCHIBALD:

None was there when this boat went down.

Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday night when this debate adjourned I had said a good deal, and I am not going to repeat anything that I said at that time. To pick up the discussion where I left off, I suggest to the house that the government was not smart when it refused to accept the amendments proposed by the official opposition and by the C.C.F. group. All that the amendments suggested was to broaden the scope of the committee, to give it latitude with regard to bringing in some recommendation.

If the committee is restricted so that it cannot do anything, then it serves very little purpose and the investigation will not mean very much. I have in mind the industrial relations committee which was handling a serious and urgent problem. I know how it functioned; I know of the restrictions which were placed on it. It had no legal status, no right to recommend, no right to file a minority report. It was merely a matter of getting something backstage and out of the mind of the public.

Had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government accepted the amendments proposed, in effect they would have been tying every group in the house to the committee, but by refusing to permit any latitude whatsoever, as suggested by the opposition, the several groups in the house are placed in the position of having to consider whether they are being logical or not in accepting membership on the committee if and when it is set up. I consider that the last amendment of the C.C.F. group was a proper one and that the house should have been permitted to vote on it. Believing that, I am going to read it again to refresh the memory of some hon. members who were home on Thursday and Friday. The amendment reads as follows:

That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:

this house is of the opinion that the present crisis demands and the people of Canada want not a parliamentary committee but action by the government to restore price controls and subsidies.

Prices Committee

The reason I say this is the motion that the house should be voting on is that this is the issue in the country, whether the government likes it or not-not the matter of setting up a committee. Every hon. member, irrespective of the side of the house on which he sits, if he is honest with himself will tell the house that from all sections of the public in his own constituency-farmers, church organizations, Canadian legion, non-political organizations- all of them have been submitting resolution after resolution to hon. members demanding the reimposition of price controls and the reenactment of the subsidy arrangement to halt the trend in the inflationary spiral that is now on. That matter should have been voted on in this house, because that is the issue. But' it was not done, and the government will have to take the responsibility for it.

In my opinion the setting up of a committee would be all right provided action were taken first to try to hold the line where it is at the present time; then the committee could investigate and ascertain the reason for the present inflation and the matter of profiteering, so called. But that was not done, and the responsibility for the delay in getting something done will have to rest with those who voted against our proposal to have action taken immediately.

In the matter of increase of price-and the increases have been drastic in the last four or five months-in my opinion it is not an accident. The Minister of Finance told the country, not in this house but through the press and over the air, that the present trend in prices was going according to plan and that they would strike a certain level and then level off. If the inflation we have today is planned inflation, then we should cease wasting time in the house discussing the matter. Personally I believe it is.

My conception of the present situation is that there is such a tight integration between the economies of Canada and the United States that price levels in this country are going to reach the levels prevailing south of the line. In my opinion that is the trend. But I would suggest to members of this house that they also take note of what is happening in the United States according to today's press. The stock market is getting shaky and prices are beginning to fall. That is the initial step towards unemployment and depression. It is not a good sign, and the time is not far distant when that trend will put the "not wanted" signs up on plant and factory gates.

What is the reason? The reason in my opinion is that the Marshall plan in the United States has not got under way as soon as it

should, with the result that purchasing power in Europe is nil, goods are beginning to pile up in the United States, the market is getting shaky, prices are beginning to fall, and the next thing in the United States will be depression and unemployment.

I urge the people in charge of the economy of this country, that is to say the government, to watch things in the United States, not to follow events blindly, because in my opinion the thing will tailspin over there unless Truman gets the support of his government and the reimposition of controls and subsidies towards which he has been working for some considerable time now.

I do not think a committee investigating this matter in Canada at this time is the proper kind of action. It is too serious. Something must be done about it quickly. What will they investigate in the matter of profiteering? In my opinion there is no such thing as profiteering in Canada. Under the present system anyone in Canada who has something to sell is legitimately entitled to charge what the traffic will bear, and in the present trend that is indicated clearly. Butter for example was selling at 70 cents a pound. The government undertook to put a ceiling on it, but it did not put a ceiling on it. It put a sky on it. It was jumped from 70 cents, and a ceiling of 73 cents was put on.

That is not true.

Mr. GILLIS:

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

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Is the farmer making an exorbitant profit?

Mr. GILLIS:

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

Prices Committee

that in the form of excess profits. But you have nothing to investigate anywhere, and you cannot bring into this house anything that [DOT]will condemn anyone in this country for any price he 13 charging.

In the hands of the government just now there is all the necessary machinery. There is the Combines Investigation Act. This matter has all been gone over before and there is no necessity for me to go over it again, but I strongly urge that if you set up a committee it should go into the matter thoroughly. It is not a bad idea to have a committee that will go thoroughly into the whole economy, overhaul it, and bring some evidence into the house on the necessity for legislation to control and regulate things in this country in the interests of all the people. But in the meantime, with the present upward trend of things in this country, action should be taken by the government, even if it be a temporary action, to reimpose controls and subsidies in order to hold the line where it is at the present time.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Will the hon. member permit a question?

Mr. GILLIS:

Certainly.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

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

Mrs. STRUM:

You are a farmer. Is he?

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I am asking the present speaker. I will attend to you a little later.

Mr. GILLIS:

Your question was?

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Is the farmer making an excessive or exorbitant profit at the present price of butter?

Mr. GILLIS:

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

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

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