Mr. Quelch:

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) points out that the price of food has gone up to 220. That is especially hferd on low income groups. Many people without thinking blame the farmers for that situation. They say that the prices of farm produce have gone up considerably and that the farmers are profiteering. I believe all hon. members received a copy of a pamphlet entitled, "Labour Research," containing a good article which I think all hon. members should note, headed, "Is it the farmer's fault?" This reads:

Some might rashly assume that these figures are evidence of the irreconcilability of workers' and farmers' interests. But they aren't. In September last, the dominion Department of Agriculture published a report on Marketing Margins for Selected Canadian Agricultural Products, 1935-1949. The products are potatoes, eggs, fluid milk, creamery butter, cheese, beef (commercial quality), wheat flour, white bread and canned tomatoes.

The results are very carefully qualified and hedged about with warnings that they must be used only with the greatest care, and with full allowance for all the qualifications. But one fact does stand out, unmistakably: That the farmers''

share of the retail price in 1949 was not, in most cases, substantially different from what it was in 1946. The only notable exception is potatoes, where the farmers' share fell off 20-8 per cent. In five of the other eight cases, also, it fell off, but only by much smaller percentages:

That shows that any increase that has taken place since 1949 in the price level is not due to any increase in the prices paid to the farmer but is the result of increases in the price spreads. Of course that is something that should definitely be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. In his speech in

The Address-Mr. Quelch 1941 the minister referred to the fact that at that time they had heavy taxation, but in spite of that heavy taxation they were not able to keep prices from rising. Taxation may have been heavy in the minds of the people in 1941, but taxation is also quite heavy today. I notice that in 1941 the total revenue from taxation was $771,540,000 or a per capita tax of $67. In 1942, the year in which really heavy taxation was introduced, the revenue had increased to $1,360,913,000 or a per capita tax of $120. In 1949 the revenue had gone up to $2,436,142,000 or a per capita tax of $180.

Some will say that we should not forget that the national income has also gone up. That is quite true, but the value of the dollar today is only fifty per cent what it was in those days. I simply want to point out that the arguments used by the Minister of Finance at that time to justify the introduction of price controls are equally applicable to the present situation. I would like hon. members to note the similarity in the other inflationary pressures that were referred to. The minister stressed the fact that we had full employment at that time. This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) told us that we have full employment in the country at the present time. He pointed out that we were havirfg to divert goods from the channels of consumption to wartime needs. The Minister of Trade and Commerce also stressed the fact that a greater percentage would have to be diverted in the future.

Then there is another psychological effect that exists today as it existed then. It is true that we were at war in those days, but today the government is continually stressing the seriousness of the international situation. If the situation is as serious as it is said to be, then no doubt we are going to have to make great sacrifices in the future, sacrifices that will greatly increase the inflationary pressure. Therefore, if the argument of the Minister of Finance in 1941 was sound and justified the introduction of price controls, then I would say that there is even greater justification today for the introduction of price controls.

Some people seem to fail to realize that great changes have taken place in the general economic picture since 1945 and more especially since June of 1950. Let me review briefly those changes. It will be recalled that at the end of the second war there was a strong inflationary pressure in this country, due mainly to three things. The first was the accumulation of war savings which then became a demand against goods. The second was the fact that we were reconverting war industries to peacetime production and the

The Address-Mr. Quelch and as a result of subsidizing the consumers in this country, should be made up out of the general revenues of the government. The Alberta wheat pool has suggested that this payment should be 25 cents a bushel. Let us not forget that even if a payment of 25 cents a bushel is made, the farmers will still be standing approximately 50 per cent of those losses. That is all a 25 cents per bushel payment would represent. It has been stated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and others that the interim payment of 20 cents a bushel on the 1950 crop is helping to alleviate any difficulties the farmers may be having in meeting their present obligations. That is only partly true. Unquestionably it helps the farmer who threshed a crop, and who was able to sell that crop. We must not forget, however, that many farmers who raised crops in 1950 still have those crops under the snow. In the constituency which I represent I should say, as a conservative estimate, that at least 50 per cent of the crops east of Hanna are still under the snow. You are not helping those farmers a bit by making an interim payment of 20 cents a bushel on a crop which has still to be threshed. Then again there are those in the more fortunate position of having threshed their crops, but who have been unable to sell them owing to the congestion at the elevators. I was told by certain officials in Alberta that generally speaking the wheat has been pretty well cleared away along the Canadian National lines, but that there is still a tremendous amount of congestion on the main C.P.R. line in Alberta. Those farmers face a very serious situation. Not only have they not been able to sell their wheat, but unless those crops, which in many cases are very damp, are moved at a very early date, there is great danger of spoilage. So I believe that as rapidly as possible the government should increase drying facilities, because we are continually running into this difficulty of handling our grain in a tough or damp condition.

I think it is high time the five-year pool was cleaned up. I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) speak to the farmers' union of Alberta in Calgary last December, and he left the very definite impression that the final payment would be made in January. He did not give very much encouragement to the farmers as to what the amount might be, but certainly they got the impression that the payment would be made in the very beginning of the year. Then in January the Minister of Agriculture spoke to the convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and he made the whole picture very cloudy indeed. He said the Prime [Mr. Quelch.J

Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was conversing with Mr. Attlee in an attempt to get more money under the "have regard" clause of the British wheat agreement and that now the whole question was up to Mr. Attlee. The minister did not know when Mr. Attlee would come through, and until such time as he did there could be no final payment under the five-year pool. So the matter was left in a very unsatisfactory position. However, today I was glad to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce say he would do everything in his power to see that the payment was made before the beginning of spring seeding.

Another question I want to touch upon today is the price of wheat. Hon. members will recall that we signed an international wheat agreement, which received the support of the house. At that time I warned of the danger of trying to guess what the price of wheat or any other commodity would be in the future. I stressed the fact then that it was quite easy to establish a fair price for the current year, but that when you tried to say what that price should be, one, two, three or four years hence, you were guessing and the government might very well guess wrong, as they did under the British wheat agreement. Therefore at that time I urged that instead of adopting the policy outlined in the international wheat agreement we should first of all set the price for the current year at what we considered a fair level, and then tie the price of wheat to the general price level, so that if in future the price level of the importing country went up 10 per cent the price of wheat to it would also go up 10 per cent. If on the other hand the price level went down 10 per cent the price of wheat would go down by the same amount. In other words you would be establishing a parity price on an international basis. Apparently the government did not consider that proposal worth while, so today we are faced with the fact that there is a ceiling of $1.89 on wheat. No matter what happens to the general price level, even if it goes up another 50 per cent, the price of wheat is tied down.

Does anyone suggest that the farmers should have a ceiling on wheat when everything else is allowed to go free? Then in addition we arbitrarily reduced the floor under wheat by 10 cents a bushel a year. Why? Would anyone suggest any reason why the floor price under wheat should be reduced by 10 cents next year, 10 cents the year after and 10 cents the year after that, when the prices of everything else are going up? That is why I argued at that time that the basis for payment under the international wheat agreement was not fair, and that we

The Address-Mr. Thatcher

would never get a fair base until we tied the prices of farm commodities to the general price level on both a national and an international basis. In other words I was asking for parity prices both nationally and internationally.

In conclusion I would say it is high time the government brought in a long-range policy for agriculture based on parity. Only in that way can we assure the most efficient operation of agriculture in order to help provide the supplies of food so urgently required in many parts of the world today. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) stressed the fact that we cannot hope to defeat communism by the force of arms alone, that we will also have to provide economic aid to the backward countries. The sort of aid most urgently needed in the world today is food. Therefore it is up to us to maintain our agriculture at the highest possible state of efficiency, so that we may make our greatest contribution to good will and contentment in the world.

Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to deal briefly with two specific matters. The first has to do with a recent announcement of the Liberal government, which I desire to criticize and protest against. I refer to the decision to apply dumping duties to automobile imports from certain European countries including Britain and France. Surely that decision can only be described as a short-sighted, narrowminded policy, which is sacrificing the interests of the Canadian people as a whole to certain pressure or protectionist groups.

I should like to remind this house, and particularly members on the government side including the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), of the traditional, or perhaps I should say the professed, trade policy of the Liberal party during the past few decades. In public utterances, in parliament and elsewhere, not once but a hundred times, speakers of the Liberal party have stated that their government is working towards freer trade and fewer trade restrictions. I believe most members of the house would agree that the former prime minister, Mr. King, was an authority on this subject. He stated that Liberal trade policy in 1945 was as follows, and I am quoting from Maclean's magazine dated February 1: The Liberal party stands for the removal of barriers to trade, and is opposed to the principle of protection which is really a levy on consumers in Canada for the benefit of the protected industries.

On numerous occasions I have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) speak along similar lines. I have one quotation from a speech he made in Toronto a little more

80709-1*

than a year ago. According to the Globe and Mail of October 29, 1949, the Minister of Finance was thus reported:

But the solution of Canada's problem, he said, would depend on expanded trade, the lowering of trade barriers and the elimination of arbitrary restrictions and discriminatory practices.

I have one other quotation which I should like to put before the house. It is one which was made a short time ago by the leader of the Liberal party in my own province" of Saskatchewan. According to the Regina Leader-Post of December 12, 1949:

Walter Tucker, Saskatchewan Liberal leader, Friday night called upon the federal government to abolish all tariff and other restrictions on imports of British goods.

How can any member of the government reconcile words such as those, how can he reconcile the past professed trade policy of the Liberal party, with this action to apply dumping duties against British and French cars? It would seem that there has been so much talk of Korea, so much talk of national defence and the major issues, that the protectionist forces of this country thought they might get this act passed without anybody noticing it. I say that this dumping duty is completely undesirable.

Ever since the end of the war I have heard government speakers urging British industry to get its prices down to competitive Canadian levels, and to produce goods which Canadians wanted. According to the Prime Minister, according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and according to the Minister of Finance, it was by such means that Britain would be able to earn the Canadian dollars with which to buy our farm products, our timber products, and our ocean products. After all, if Britain is to buy from us, I suppose it is natural that she wishes to sell us goods to earn Canadian dollars. The British automobile industry accepted the admonition of our government. It got its prices down; it produced goods which Canadians wanted; it earned Canadian dollars. What is its reward? Apparently its reward is to be this so-called dumping duty.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we are to continue trading with the British we shall have to give them an opportunity of earning Canadian dollars. It would seem to me also that a government which has always stated its desire for freer trade would be more interested in securing markets for farm products in Britain than in giving a specific industry special protection.

Today the price of Canadian automobiles is almost beyond the reach of the average Canadian consumer. British cars are supplying a need in the Canadian market for cheaper

The Address-Mr. Thatcher transportation. If this duty is proceeded with it can only help to send the already skyrocketing cost of living up even further.

I say that this proposed dumping duty is all the more inopportune when we realize that at Torquay, at this very moment, many of the free nations of the world including Canada are discussing ways and means of eliminating this sort of restriction. There are few things which could so darken the prospects of success at Torquay as this new protectionist measure of our own government. I say that to raise these barriers in the midst of an international effort to lower them is an act of economic folly.

Why has the government decided to proceed with these dumping duties? We must assume that the action has come as a result of representations from the automobile industry. Were those representations justified? I should like to remind the house, Mr. Speaker, of two factors in connection with those representations. First of all, Canadian cars have roughly doubled in price since 1939. Today Canadian automobiles are so high in price that many Canadians, indeed I would say the majority of Canadians, cannot afford to buy them. Second, I would remind the house that the Canadian automobile industry already has ironclad protection from United States competition, because of tariff and control regulations. Having no fear from United States competition, the Canadian industry instantly protests as soon as the British competition becomes a little too serious.

I have always heard Mr. Sale, the president of the Ford Company of Canada, and other Canadian industrialists, pay great tribute to this free enterprise system, as they like to call it, and competition. Why now does Mr. Sale, as well as the others, protest competition as soon as it appears?

Is Canadian industry suffering because of this British competition? Has the industry been forced to curtail production in any way? Every member of this house knows that today the Canadian automobile industry cannot supply enough cars. If anyone wishes to buy a Ford, a Chevrolet, a Plymouth, or any other model he has to wait some months to secure delivery.

Is there any unemployment in the automobile field? There is not. On the contrary, today there is a shortage of skilled workers. There was an article in the Saturday Night this week which says, and I quote from page 42:

Canada's preparedness program now faces a threat no less serious than a steel shortage-skilled labour. All the emergency legislation, all the controls that our government or any other government could dream up might alleviate a skilled labour

shortage in the defence industries, but they could not increase the supply of highly-skilled labour in anything less than years.

In view of the war in Korea there is every indication that in the next year or so Canadian industry will be able to supply even fewer cars than it does now. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that British imports are a threat to the Canadian automobile industry. I say that the request of this industry is a short-sighted, narrowminded request made on the basis of selfinterest. If the Canadian automobile industry wants to sell more cars in Canada, let it produce them more cheaply. I shall tell the government, although they will not listen to me, that this proposal is causing considerable concern in Canada, particularly in western Canada where the farmers are wondering why the government is taking such a step. I hope they will immediately withdraw these ill-advised dumping duties which they plan to impose on May 31.

Mr. Speaker, the second matter with which I should like to deal briefly-I think I can finish before six o'clock-has to do with the announcement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) last Monday evening. He said that during the year $1-6 billion will be spent on national defence. It is of course virtually impossible for opposition members who have not taken part in the many conferences under the Atlantic pact, who have not attended the military talks, to know whether this $1-6 billion is too much or too little. As opposition members, we have little choice but to accept the words of the minister that this spending is vital and essential.

Having done that, I think that the citizens of Canada do expect us to diligently and carefully scrutinize the details of these expenditures and the estimates, in order to make sure the taxpayer is getting value for his dollar. I remember that last year the Minister of Finance said at page 1992 of Hansard:

I believe that the public of Canada have the right to expect parliament itself, the members of parliament itself, to exercise a constant and vigilant scrutiny over the conduct of administration, to search for waste and duplication.

Last Monday evening the Minister of National Defence said that 80,000 contracts had already been let.

It is going to be a terrific task to go over 80,000 contracts. Nevertheless, I believe it is our duty at least to make an endeavour. I personally believe, with other members who have spoken this session, that the only proper way to do that is by means of a special defence committee. I would like to see a specific committee set up for that purpose. I

think most members of this group feel likewise. However, if that is not going to be done, we must have some other vehicle for the purpose. I personally doubt if the government has much to hide; yet their great reluctance to set up a special defence committee has caused many people in the country to wonder if they have. If we are not going to have a special committee, probably the next best vehicle is the public accounts committee.

I was indeed pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day state-at least I took him so to state-that opposition members would be given the opportunity in the public accounts committee to examine defence expenditures. As reported at page 111 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:

There will be an opportunity for hon. members, including the members of the opposition, to examine in the public accounts committee all the expenditures that have been made.

I hope that the Prime Minister will tell his chairman and the other Liberal members on that committee about that statement; because last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made a similar statement. As reported at page 1991 of Hansard it was as follows:

Let me point out to the house that the public accounts committee is a standing committee of this house . . . and there is opportunity in the public accounts committee for any hon. member, and in particular for hon. members of the opposition, to ask that any deputy minister, or any official of any department, be brought before that committee, and to examine him to their heart's content as to the details of the particular services of the department.

The minister last year said that. But when we got into the committee, although the members asked for a good deal of information, they were not able to get it. Opposition members asked for witnesses, they asked for figures, and they asked for the public accounts. They asked for many things, but they did not get much satisfaction. We were repeatedly overruled when we sought information, and we were consistently refused the public accounts themselves. I think that committee sat for three months before it even got to the public accounts.

I would remind the house of one thing further. Last year the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) asked that that committee be called for the specific purpose of inquiring into national defence expenditures. Yet all during those three months, despite many requests, we were not able to get the national defence expenditures brought before us. I hope the minister will give some assurance that the same thing will not happen again. Let me say that Canadians want defence expenditures scrutinized. If the government is sincere in also wanting them

80709-14J

The Address-Mr. Thatcher scrutinized, I hope they will call the public accounts committee together, if that is to be the committee, and that they will call it together early. Perhaps it would be wise not to spend so much time as is customary with Mr. Sellar. Let us get down to the national defence expenditures at once and stay there.

The other evening the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) stated his opposition to calling the chiefs of staff before a parliamentary committee. I admit that I know little about military matters; but nevertheless I presume to disagree with the hon. member for Quebec South in this connection. These chiefs of staff, these men who are high up in military affairs, are the experts and they are the ones who should be able to inform parliament about defence matters. They should be the ones to tell us what is being done, how it is being done, why it is being done, and whether or not we are getting value for our defence dollar. Surely an explanation by a parliamentary committee could be conducted with some dignity and with a proper regard for security. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) should not be the only one who knows the reasons which require the spending of this $1.6 billion. I serve notice that this group will, as soon as the debate on the speech from the throne is finished, seek to have the public accounts committee called in order to deal with national defence expenditures. If or when it is called, this group will seek to call before it the defence minister himself, the chief of the general staff, Air Marshal Curtis and many other officials whom we may feel could give information which the people of Canada would like to have. I think one more thing should be done; if the government really wants to make this an effective committee, let them do as is done in England. Let them make the chairman a member of the opposition. Then I think we might get a proper scrutiny of defence expenditures.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):

Mr. Speaker, more than ever I wish we had amplifiers and recorders in the house.

Mr. Gibson:

You do not need them.

Mr. Cruickshank:

I should like to have a recording of that splendid applause-for which I arranged, myself. I am glad to see that the opposition benches are beginning to fill up, and particularly with those members who are interested in external affairs.

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

Mr. Graydon:

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cruickshank:

A naughty word!

Mr. Cruickshank:

Yes, a naughty word. I had a clipping before me the other day-

and, by the way, I am getting like some of the others in that I have so many clippings that I get lost in them. However I did have one here about the bridge-and I will have to be more careful with them, because I seem to have mislaid it. I will find it after a while. That clipping said-I am sure it was correct: If you are flirting around with Quebec for votes, be careful never to mention conscription. That apparently is the policy of the opposition.

My stand on conscription, when speaking before the Legion, as it is tonight, is that I think it neither desirable nor practicable nor necessary at this time. But if the day should come when there is a vote on conscription I will vote exactly as I did before, and make exactly the same speech as one colleague from British Columbia made with me in 1944. Incidentally, through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the people of my riding that I believe that if the time ever comes-and members in all parts of the house hope it may never come- but if the time ever comes when conscription is necessary to protect our very existence and to maintain the forms of government and liberty in which we believe, Quebec will be in the forefront and serving with all the rest of Canada.

I am willing to concede that in military knowledge some members of the official opposition far exceed me. We remember that it was only a few years ago that they appreciated the fact that the Bren gun was not necessary! Then, again, they were able to foretell that we had not trained our troops for a sufficient length of time before they went to Hong Kong! Now I understand there is a great rush among them to send troops to Korea with only a couple of weeks of training. I should like to refer to what a colleague on the other side of the house, one of the finest soldiers Canada ever had, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), had to say. If you can understand just exactly where he stands in connection with this horrible word "conscription" or in connection with compulsory service in the reserve army, you are very good. What he said reminds me of my Uncle Horace. My Uncle Horace killed a pig but he said afterward, "It didn't weigh as much as I thought it would; I didn't think it would." I should like to quote what the hon. member for Nanaimo said, as reported on page 99 of Hansard of February 5, as follows:

-and even though I might hold different views as to the methods by which these forces should be raised, X think it would be detrimental at this time to advocate strongly methods which the government is not prepared to follow, because I believe it is of paramount importance that the government raise the men that it requires, and the government alone will say by what method it will raise those men.

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

A little further along on the same page: -or in any way put any hindrance in the way of the national effort carried out by the methods recommended by the government to meet what X consider to be a grave situation.

I should like to ask hon. members of the house if the hon. member has answered the Canadian Legion's demand for 250,000 strength. It may be that the reserve army will have to be kept up to strength by compulsory means. If the time comes when we must have conscription I will be ready to say in my riding, even though it costs me every vote in the riding-probably I will not get the few votes that they will get if they do not fall off a bridge like that one down in Quebec-that I am ready to support it.

I pass now to another military expert from my province, the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra. First I am going to deal with his remarks on manpower and then I shall turn to external affairs. I do not know whether he is the assistant leader of his party in that particular branch. It is quite easy for the hon. member to make speeches in Vancouver about the necessity of raising forces, but it is a different matter when you come down here. I want to assure everybody in my riding that at no time since 1940 have I been approached by the whip or by any member of the government to tell me what to say when I came before the house.

Mr. Sinclair:

Fat chance.

Mr. Cruickshank:

The hon. member for

Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) has interjected a remark. I do not know whether he is trying to give me the benefit of his mature judgment or whether an attempt is being made to see that I carry on along the right lines in support of the government because I seem to be surrounded by parliamentary assistants of all sorts.

That is why you are doing so well.

Mr. Cruickshank:

For the benefit of the

hon. member who says that that is why I am doing so well may I say that two years before he was moved over here behind me I was two rows closer to the Prime Minister's desk than he is today. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is reported as follows on page 165 of Hansard of February 7:

This house would be well advised to listen to the pleas for action by these bodies of Canadian, veterans.

I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that he should state where-he stands in so far as the supplying of manpower for the armed services is concerned, and this should include the reserve army as well. As I said before, if it ever becomes necessary to have all-out conscription, L

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank shall vote for it. However, I have complete confidence in the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I believe that he appreciates the situation. My confidence in the Prime Minister is such that I believe that if and when the time comes that action is required nothing will stand in the way of his directing whatever is necessary to preserve the freedom we now have.

I do not want to keep the house too long because I recently read an article by the Canadian Manufacturers Association about speechmaking. I do not own a lumber company or a packing plant so it is not very often that I agree with them. However, they said that a speech should never last more than twenty minutes and they said one more thing with which I definitely agree, something which is not followed by 85 per cent of the members of this house, that a speech should not be read. If at any time I do read a speech I shall be different from even some of my colleagues on this side of the house and will admit that I am simply reading what some member in the press gallery has written for me.

Perhaps I should not be too hard on the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra because he comes from my province. Perhaps instead of pointing out the mistakes of the hon. member I should point out the mistakes of hon. members from Ontario or the maritimes, although I do not know that there are any members in the opposition from the maritimes.

They do not make mistakes.

Mr. Cruickshank:

I am going to get over to Saskatchewan and cartels in a minute. A remark was made by the hon. member about our external affairs. I want to say with all respect that from the time this department has borne the distinguished name it has Canada has never had the privilege of having at the head of this department a gentleman with the capabilities of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) or anyone who has enjoyed such respect throughout the world. I should like to quote a further remark by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, as reported on page 163 of Hansard, as follows:

The handling by the government of Canada's activities in the Korean crisis has been one of the most disgraceful episodes in Canada's history.

That remark should never have been placed on Hansard as it brings no credit to the party the hon. member represents and it definitely brings no credit to the province from which we both come. I have nothing at all to be ashamed of as the member for Fraser Valley

of the part Canada has played in the Korean or any other war that involved the freedom of the peoples of the world. It is a most peculiar thing that the representative of one riding should say that there has been a disgraceful handling of affairs by a man possessing the capabilities of our present minister. The status of our minister is borne out by a question asked on Tuesday by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) when he inquired if our minister had accepted the invitation extended to him by the president of the general assembly to serve on the good offices committee with respect to oriental problems. If that is not a compliment to the Canadian minister of external affairs, I should like to know what it is. I think it is one of the finest compliments that could be paid to him or that could be paid to Canada for the part she is playing in the Korean and other crises.

In case it may be thought that I am altogether too favourably inclined in my remarks, I should like to move on to the question of controls. Perhaps I cannot speak on controls with the authority with which certain Saskatchewan members speak. It must be realized that we farmers in British Columbia do not go in for chain farming. We operate just one farm, not five or more. Of course I can speak only for myself, but I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will permit me to say that we are both free traders. If we are able to convince the rest of the people to be free traders, we shall have free trade in this country.

Mr. Sinclair:

What about margarine?

Mr. Cruickshank:

What about margarine? I left one of the finest clippings I ever saw on this matter up in my office, but I think I can remember enough of it to be able to get down to margarine in a minute. In the meantime let me say that if anybody gets the benefit of our economic way of life in Canada it is the retailers of hardware products. I do not know anybody who gets more benefit than the retailer of hardware products. I know because I bought a Mix-master wholesale through a certain friend, and I still paid 20 per cent profit to him. I believe controls are inevitable. That is my opinion. I have a little bit more hopeful view than might be taken after listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I presume he still has the same title. He comes from the head of the great lakes, and they change their titles and portfolios so often, but I will call him Minister of Trade and Commerce.

I am very hopeful yet, but if controls are put into effect in so far as I am concerned they must not be put into effect as they were

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

in the last war, starting at the farmers' level. If the people of Canada try to kid themselves that throughout the war period they got bread at a reasonable price through Donald Gordon, they are all wrong. The reason they got bread at a low price was that it was at the expense of the wheat growers of western Canada. If controls are to be instituted let us not start at the level of the farmer. Do not forget that the farmer is not only a producer but also a consumer. I do not want to say too much about controls, but the government has a measure before the house- and I presume it will be voted on-involving when controls should be introduced and what shall be put under control. My own opinion is that controls must be across the board. If controls are imposed they must be on wages and everything else.

In the meantime, however, I believe that controls should be exercised by taxation through the Department of Finance. Even some of our lumber friends know that. I do not want to point directly so I will point to both of them over there.

Mr. Ross (Souris):

Leave those independents out.

Mr. Cruickshank:

They come from the

Kootenays, that glorious part of British Columbia. I believe the way to have controls now is by taxation through the finance department. Here I want to say that I believe no government, be it Liberal, Conservative or, God help us, C.C.F., has any alternative but to do something about the cost of living so far as pensioners and others on low incomes are concerned. I know of the case of a widow of a veteran of two wars, in one of which he won an honour that I should like to have, the military medal. She is suffering from arthritis and is unable to do anything. She is receiving from a grateful government $40 a month. It is not good enough. I believe the people of Canada do not want that sort of condition to exist. I believe the people of Canada do not care what taxes are imposed upon them as long as no veteran's widow suffering from arthritis has to live on $40 a month.

We are spending billions on war; we can find billions to build jet planes and so on because we have to build them to protect our free institutions; but any government that can find ways and means through taxation or otherwise to pay $400,000 or $500,000 for an aeroplane surely is admitting weakness if it cannot find the money to provide a decent living to burnt-out veterans and other recipients of pensions. So far as I am concerned I will do my utmost throughout this session to see that the government rectifies the error of its ways in the past in that regard.

I should like to endorse something that the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) said the other day with respect to a check on defence expenditures. I do not see why the government should object to that. I know we have a public accounts committee. I nave been a member of it ever since I have been here. Last year we sat and spent our time on a one-man fishing expedition trying to find out about the Bren gun and the North Star aeroplane. We do not want that sort of stuff as I see it when it comes to checking war expenditures. What we do want to see is that the money is spent to the best advantage in defence of our country. I believe that such a committee should be set up.

I disagree with my friend, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), in the suggestion he made. Speaking with a little bit of military knowledge, I think it would be ridiculous to bring the heads of the army, navy and air force before a committee. It would undermine the whole idea of military discipline. It would be detrimental to our war effort in every way, shape and form. I think if the hon. member will consult any of the military members of his own group he will find that they will agree with me that it is not practical and, pardon the word, it is senseless to expect to bring military men before such a committee to use them for a political football, for purposes of political gain at the expense of our national defence effort.

I mentioned pensions a moment ago, and I include old age pensions. I understand that legislation is to be introduced to permit the levying of a three per cent provincial tax. I am not quite sure of the legal situation because in the province of British Columbia they put such a tax on, but it was not a hidden one. Of course in our province they can do almost anything. When you buy your driver's licence they make you pay five years in advance. If you live in British Columbia under the present government you might have to forgive anything because any government that can levy a tax five years in advance is a pretty good one. I expect that the income tax is going up this year. I am very thankful that you cannot levy income tax five years in advance, knowing the disposition of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. I want to tell the government that I am going to oppose the three per cent tax so far as possible.

I should like to turn for a minute to margarine because the subject has been introduced by one of my colleagues.