Mr. Knowles:

It is over $1 in the west.

Mr. St. Laurent:

Perhaps my hon. friend will drink more while he is here and pays 94 cents for it. Taking orange pekoe tea, the Washington price is 66 cents per half pound, and at the A & P store, Ottawa, tea is 89 cents per pound.

Mr. Coldwell:

Is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) comparing the same things when he compares tea and orange pekoe tea?

Mr. St. Laurent:

It is orange pekoe in both instances, and the price in Ottawa is 89 cents. These were the prices on the 12th October at the A & P supermarket store in Ottawa. As to sugar, our price is a little higher for granulated sugar. Five pounds of granulated sugar cost 50 cents in Washington, and granulated sugar, white, is 11-2 cents per pound in Ottawa instead of 10. However, brown sugar, in packages only, is 13 cents a pound in Washington, and at the A & P store in Ottawa it is 12 cents per pound.

Mr. Green:

What about horse meat?

Mr. St. Laurent:

I have not priced horse meat. I have not yet become interested in horse meat.

These are actual facts, which have their importance in determining whether or not we should expect to do better than has been done in the United States with respect to such controls. I have a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of October 3 in which it is pointed out that these ceilings are such that they are bringing about a reduction in supplies. The editorial continues as follows:

The result is that with an all-time record number of cattle on United States ranges, the volume of slaughterings has shrunk by 10 per cent below this time last year. Cattlemen are holding out for the high prices they can obtain from "black market packers" who resell to hotels, restaurants, night clubs and others willing to pay above-ceiling prices for under-the-counter supplies. Packers have refused to bid on large scale orders which the United States army sought to place to supply meat rations for soldiers both at home and overseas.

Mr. Brooks:

Might I ask the Prime Minister what is the date of that article?

Mr. St. Laurent:

October 3, 1951. The editorial is entitled "Price control with a catch in it", and is to be found in the Montreal Gazette of that date. The hon. member may have some misgivings about the correct appreciation of the facts by this writer in the Montreal Gazette. I would not blame him because I frequently have misgivings about some of their appraisals of other subjects; nevertheless it demonstrates that there are serious difficulties involved. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said in this house that he was not advocating the overall ceilings that were administered during

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent the war. I do not want to be unfair to him, and as I have his exact language here I will quote it. He said, as recorded at page 1734 of Hansard of April 9, 1951:

I have sought to make it clear on earlier occasions in this house that much more moderate controls, much more flexible controls would be sufficient to deal with the situation which has arisen...

We see what kind of controls they have endeavoured to enforce, and which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) says are more effective and harsher than those they used during most of the period of the last war, and we see what the result is. I do not think the Canadian public would be satisfied to have us fix ceilings at the prices I find in the ceilings published in the United States on the 28th of September. I do not think the consuming people of Canada would want their government to be stating that the price it was fair to ask the consumers to pay for porterhouse steak was $1.34, for tenderloin, or anything of that kind.

Mr. Coldwell:

Have you comparable figures as to the prices paid to the farmers for the primary products and to labour for wages?

Mr. St. Laurent:

No.

Mr. Coldwell:

That makes a difference.

Mr. St. Laurent:

I am merely comparing what the situation is. I do knoto that a lot of our producers of beef are selling to the United States market because of the prices they can get there, and that has had the effect of making it necessary for our Canadian slaughterers to pay similar prices or see the animals move across the line. Perhaps I should read a little more of the editorial in the Gazette to which I have referred. It has this to say:

Major packers are finding that they cannot make even their established average profit of one per cent or less on turnover, and are beginning to operate at a loss, if they buy live animals at advancing present prices, slaughter and process them, and attempt to sell them within retail price ceilings. One company. Armour, showed a loss of $1-6 million in its latest quarterly report, a Cleveland firm has shut down rather than go on losing money, and the big Wilson company has cut back its slaughtering plant operations to three weeks a month.

These are things which I am not defending, but which I am merely stating are happening in the face of this situation where a lot of people-I will not say everybody-have quite a lot of money and rather than keep their money are willing to spend a portion of it for certain supplies. That being the situation I do not feel that I can agree with the leader of the opposition when he says that inflation in Canada has outrun inflation in the United States. That does not appear to be so by the actual prices at which commodities are being sold. I have another comparison of prices but I do not want to burden

the house with unnecessary figures, as I think I have said enough to indicate that if one investigates that is what he will find.

There is no doubt that prices are high. There is no doubt that certain sectors of our population are feeling some hardship, but not all sectors. In spite of high prices the average wage paid in our manufacturing industries will buy more today than it did before the war. The prices that our farmers are getting for their produce, in spite of the fact that they are paying higher prices for things they have to buy, is giving them a larger share of the national income at this time than ever before. I am not saying that is not as it should be. I notice an hon. member shaking his head but let me say that he is not the only one who knows the farmers in this country. I know farmers in various parts of Canada and I know for a fact that at the present time they are getting a larger share of the national income than they ever got before. I am not saying that they should not. I am not saying that they are getting too much. I know that they work hard for what they get and I feel that the prices they are getting under present price levels are not too high and that it would not be fair to try to roll them back.

Mr. Wright:

How about that portion of

the national income-

Sit down.

Mr. Si. Laurent:

The hon. member will

have an opportunity of putting his information before the house. I have had many opportunities to observe what is going on and I am simply stating what has come to my knowledge. I am most happy to testify to the fact that the larger portion of the national income which the farmers are receiving is being used to improve farm lands throughout the country. I know that for a fact. I have seen evidence of it with my own eyes. They are increasing their productivity through the use of the larger portion of the national income they are getting. I think that is all to the good. Ultimately we will be most happy that that has been done. We have an increasing population that will have to be provided for largely by areas already under cultivation. Those areas must be made to produce more or we in this country will not be producing our share of the food requirements of an increasing mankind.

I stated that A & P in Ottawa were selling Chase and Sanborn coffee at 94 cents but I understand it was their own brand that was being sold at that price while Loblaws were selling Chase and Sanborn at $1.06.

I have said that the average rate paid to labour in our manufacturing industries provides a greater purchasing power today than it did before the war. I must confess that I was led into this by a tabulation which had been made in the United States to show what an hour's wage down there purchased in terms of certain foodstuffs. I asked to have a similar tabulation prepared for Canada and I have here figures showing the estimates of food quantities which one hour's work of a manufacturing employee at average wages would buy in certain periods. While the first item is not disappointing, it does show that in October 1939 an hour's work would purchase more sirloin beef than it does at the present time. The figures follow:

October October June1939 1950 1951Sirloin beef lbs. 1-6 1-2 11Bacon .... lbs. 1-3 1-5 1-7Eggs .dozen 1-2 1-5 1-6Potatoes ... .lbs. 22-8 36-5 39-1Bread ... .lbs. 7-3 9-5 9-9Milk .quarts 41 5-6 5-9Tea lbs. [DOT]7 1-0 1-1Coffee ... .lbs. 1-1 1-1 1-1Sugar, granulated .. .lbs. 6-8 8-5 9-0Butter ... .lbs. 1-4 1-5 1-7

On September 20, 1951, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was discussing high prices and I have here certain excerpts from what he said:

Food prices are not high in relation to other prices or in relation to wage rates or to the profits being made by industry. Most food, in terms of the hours of work required to purchase it, is cheaper than it has ever been. When we compare average hourly earnings in manufacturing industries with average prices of staple food products, this fact is borne out.

He goes on to give other examples.

Others who can control their production and who do set or help establish their price or wage levels, have been more responsible for the high price structure of today than has the farmer.

Labour uses the strike to force wages up, and maintain them. Industry uses resale price maintenance, not only to establish their own prices to consumers, but also to fix the margin for the distributor in between.

Resale price maintenance is a form of price fixing. If businessmen want free enterprise and want farmers and others to compete in a competitive market, why don't they do so themselves? Resale price maintenance ought to be made illegal and prosecuted as a restraint of trade.

In my opinion, there are just as many low income farm families as there are low income urban families.

And today, because of a high price structure, many farm families have to do without lots of things that are considered ordinary necessities in the average urban home.

If some food prices are high for the low income large families-as they undoubtedly are-aren't we all helping them out by paying taxes for family allowances? Canada paid around $300 million infamily allowances last year.

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent

So the situation is that there are large sectors of the population of this country whose incomes have not only kept up with but a little ahead of the increasing cost of living, contrary to what has happened in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom the index of wages has been a little slower in its rises than the index in the official -cost of living since the war. In this country it has been a little in advance of the index of the cost of living. That does not mean that there are not large numbers of people who are finding it difficult to pay these high prices. This has not passed unnoticed.

The leader of the opposition says that a pension of $40 per month is not much better than- $20 per month used to be. It was $20 per mon-th before the war; the pension has been doubled, but the cost of living index has not quite doubled. I believe there is going to be substantial relief through the payment of this "no means test" pension to all persons over 70 years of age. There are many persons whom we know and meet socially who are on retiring allowances, not very large, for whom an additional $40 per month, or if both members of the family are over 70 an additional $80 per month, is going to be of substantial help in meeting this higher cost of living.

Mr. Knowles:

Will the Prime Minister

permit a question before he leaves that table dealing with the purchasing power of an hour's labour in Canada? Has he a similar table for the United States?

Mr. St. Laurent:

I have not it here, but I have it in my office. It was because I saw a table prepared for the United States that I asked to have the Canadian table prepared. I shall get it and let the hon. member see it.

Mr. Knowles:

Perhaps the Prime Minister would let me have it when I speak.

Mr. St. Laurent:

I have no objection. I believe it is not only permissible but it is our duty to bring before the house and the public all the pertinent facts that can help to form a sound conclusion, not only about what is desirable but what is practicable under present conditions.

The leader of the opposition spoke of what he described as the unnecessary expenditure that was being made in government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) described in his budget speech what was being done in that regard. Before passing to that, might I suggest that those who are filled with admiration for what is taking place elsewhere may perhaps be in the position to which the poet referred:

'Tis distance lends enchantment to the view, And robes the mountain in its azure hue.

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent

Perhaps that explains why I have heard laudatory remarks from many people in the United States about how we have been doing in Canada. I have heard also the same kind of remarks from some Englishmen. It may be that there, too, "distance lends enchantment to the view".

From the Financial Post I clipped an article, not because of what was written by the Financial Post but because of what was cited from the New York Times. One of the New York Times writers, Mr. Edward Collins, refers to the drastic dissimilarity between Canada and the United States. He says:

In this country (United States) we are talking about balancing the budget and putting the defence effort on a pay as you go basis. But Canada has been consistently budgeting for surpluses for several years, one of the consequences being that she has reduced her debt by 15 per cent since 1946. While our own treasury, with the undisguised encouragement and support of the White House itself, has resorted to every artifice to defeat the efforts of the federal reserve to tighten money rates, Canada has carried out a vigorous and concerted program in this area. While both the administration and congress here flinch at proposals for increasing consumer taxes, the dominion is raising almost half its revenues through this, the most antiinflationary of all forms of emergency taxation. And while Washington has found even the modest restrictions imposed by the reserve board on instalment credit politically unendurable, a Canadian who wants to buy a car today must be prepared to put up half the purchase price in advance and pay the rest within 12 months.

The leader of the opposition said it was a mistake to restrict credit on cars and like articles.

Mr. Drew:

To that extent.