Mr. Studer:

Hon. members who have never had anything to do with sheep may laugh at that, but there are authoritative sources that will agree with that statement. It puts a coating around the inside lining of the stomach and prevents disease and many of the ills that afflict people in these days.

You never heard of ulcers in the old days when people were accustomed to eating that which nature provided. Therefore I think we can be assured that we are doing >a service to our country when we eat the products that the country produces, and doing a much greater service to ourselves in eliminating illness and preventing it by eating the right type of food, as we should always do.

We have rail grading of hogs, which has made a great contribution to all of the people

of Canada. Rail grading of hogs and the premium paid on them have made a great contribution to this country. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) should give some consideration to the rail grading of lamb and mutton, because I am sure the premiums that should be paid will encourage the production of the type of lamb and mutton that the people of Canada will eat. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to give some consideration to this matter. Our country could carry ten million sheep. I hope the day is not too far distant when the sheep industry will be recognized for what it is worth and the contribution it makes to us in this country in keeping us all warm.

The people of Maple Creek need, as everyone else does, the cost of production. We have often felt that we have not received the cost of production. We know that under the production methods we have out there, with a limited rainfall, we cannot compete with those areas that raise 30, 40 or more bushels of wheat to the acre year after year. We need 12 bushels to the acre on an average to meet our cost of production. When you receive 5 bushels, 6 bushels and 12 bushels to the acre it is impossible to compete with those who have a higher production. We would need $10 a bushel to compete with them. But that condition will not always exist, because we are doing things out in that country to place ourselves in a position where we will dissociate ourselves from the liability that many people in Canada think we are. We need your help. You have been giving it to us but we are going to ask for more, and eventually we will ask for none.

We need that cost of production. We have railway lines out there, and we hear much about them. We are complaining about the non-competition of those railway lines. We want more of them. Comparatively speaking we are farther from the markets than anyone else in western Canada. We are on the dividing line between the three railway outlets out there. We are the same distance from Churchill, Vancouver and the head of the lakes. We are at the extreme end of those three places, and as a consequence our overhead is higher both for what we ship out and what comes in to us. Then there are the freight rates and the railways situation, which has been somewhat overemphasized although the cost to us is prohibitive. Sometimes we are asked by our friends across the way to rise in our places and make statements on these various matters that affect western Canada. It is an easy thing to ask someone to make a statement, but the responsibility of keeping the wheels of this

The Address-Mr. Studer country running so that transportation will not come to a standstill and the people will not suffer as the result of any action that we take, rests on the government. We carry that responsibility. I might remind some hon. members that if the Liberal members had not spoken on many of these things that are before the House of Commons and the country today they would not be talking about them either, because they would not be before us. We want our railway branch lines. Certainly we want equalization of freight rates. That is what we must have. We want lower machinery costs, and we need them. I would remind some of my friends who have made a considerable number of suggestions in the House of Commons about the high cost of machinery that there is nothing in the world to prevent Saskatchewan or any other province from going into the machinery business. I do not know why they have not gone into that business long ago-they went into everything else over which they lost money, so they might as well lose money on this. Since there is a co-operative implement company or association in our country I suggest that the Saskatchewan government put $10 million into the Saskatchewan Cooperative Implement Association and give them the boost of their lives. I hope that as a result of that contribution cheaper machinery will be made available so that we can produce at lower costs.

Of course we need lower taxation. Who does not? But try to get it. We have not got it out in Saskatchewan. I can assure this house that we need lower taxation. A different situation exists out in that country than exists anywhere else, on account of the instability of production, the instability of the country. That will last until stability takes place as a result of the efforts that we are putting forth out there to obtain it. We want lower prices of course. We are living along the Montana border for a distance of 180 miles. We are in close association with the people to the south of us. It is pretty hard to tell our people out there that things are cheaper in Canada than they are in Montana, across the line. I just cannot get that one across no matter how hard I try, because I know it is not true. Incidentally I have a little knowledge of it because I have seven brothers in the United States and they talk faster than I do. They are all Republicans, and I am a Democrat, if there is such a thing in Canada. As a result I am lucky to be still here. However, that price situation is serious and a continued aggravation, I believe, to any constituency anywhere near the United States boundary. I often wonder what the politicians along the Mexican-United States boundary

The Address-Mr. Studer talk about. However, talking that way provides no solution. I know the way our people feel about this. They know that fourteen million people cannot compete with one hundred and fifty million people. Our people know that production costs are lower with volume. Everyone knows that. That is axiomatic. But what they want to know is this. They want to know that no one is making exorbitant profits in Canada on what they have to sell. That is what they want to know, but I do not know how to go about telling them. Something should be done about it. If nothing can be done other than to assure our people that no one is making profits over and above what they are entitled to, and making it exorbitantly at the expense of those people who do not work eight hours a day or forty hours a week but work sixteen hours a day and over one hundred hours a week to supply the necessities to the people of Canada, it will help.

Maple Creek needs continued rehabilitation. We are living in a dry country, and we do not let any water disappear if we can help it. It is our hope that hon. members will see to it that we get the help we need because they will be recompensed 100 per cent. We need increased assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It is a strange thing, but many stand in their place in this house and say: The cost of living has risen 100 per cent. The dollar is worth only fifty cents. We should increase wages accordingly. But the people out in that dry area are living on the present fifty cents that was established as a dollar in 1939, under P.F.A.A. and they have just as much right to have an increase in prairie farm assistance payments as anyone else in Canada has. What they receive today does not begin to carry the burdens that are in existence. I can tell you that we are not going to have to talk about it forever.

We are of the first generation farming in western Canada and we are trying to establish a country. Is there any district anywhere in Canada that has produced the results in the first generation that we are producing out west? I ask you that question. I do not think there is. It takes from two to three generations, and sometimes longer, to make a farming area which is of real help to the Dominion of Canada and to the people, so we are still in that primary stage in which we were when we came into this country. Do not worry about farmers ever becoming too rich. There was never a danger to a country so long as the farmers were prosperous, but the danger immediately becomes evident when the farming population becomes poor. They should never become poor. They provide the essentials the people have to have to live. We can

[Mr. Studer.l

get along without you, but you cannot get along without us. We would, therefore, ask for scientific research to continue these things.

We have to have special consideration in all things, in connection with the collection of debts and in connection with the V.L.A. men who are established there. They cannot meet the ordinary requirements where there is instability in agriculture. I am glad to say that I believe our various government organizations realize this. If they do not, they should. These men have decided that is where they want to live. Sometimes they decide to live in the wrong place, unfortunately, but after they have decided to live there then we should establish them, no matter what the cost may be, in order to enable them to eventually help make their contribution to the welfare of Canada.

Out west we have an organization known as Ducks Unlimited, and ducks unlimited it is. It came into existence about ten years ago, financed by our gpod friends the sportsmen in the United States. Its purpose is to augment the duck population. This has been a good thing because the Eskimos and Indians, who are dependents of Canada, have had their food supply increased. Ducks Unlimited has, therefore, eliminated a cost that would otherwise fall upon Canada. The organization has built over 309 projects in western Canada and set up breeding grounds for the ducks. However, even a good thing can be overdone. When nature is out of balance, inevitably there are going to be dire results. We have farmers in that area who have lost their entire crop because hundreds of thousands of ducks devoured it.

Too much quack.

Mr. Studer:

Too much quack is right. At the same time, I would not want the organization to discontinue its efforts. I would say that the sportsmen, ammunition organizations, railways and tourist agencies, all those who benefit as the result of this increased duck population, should contribute to a fund which would offer insurance to the average farmer against his crop being devoured by ducks. For a nominal fee a farmer could then take out duck insurance, and when his crops were destroyed he would be recompensed. Either that, or they had better hurry along with their supersonic noises to scare these ducks out of the country, because the farmers out there cannot tolerate the condition any longer.

We want this South Saskatchewan river dam. This country is losing millions of dollars every year that dam is not built. What are we afraid of? We are a young country that has a place in the esteem of all the

countries of the world. We seem to be hesitant about going ahead with something that just has to be done. In certain areas in Saskatchewan you do not let water run away. You hold it, and put it on the land in order to produce things. Anything else seems like waste, so this is one of the musts out in Saskatchewan. I hope this committee soon makes up its mind favourably about that project.

Much has been said about the situation in Saskatchewan and what governments can do. I have tried to point out a few things that the dominion government could do. I should like to say a few words now about what the Saskatchewan provincial government could do. Here, we have a situation where all the granaries are filled to the bursting point with feed grain. We have no sheep policy, no hog policy, no cattle policy, no nothing. The grain is there, and that is all there is. What is the most natural thing to do? It is to put the feed grain in its proper place, in an animal, and everyone will make more money. What are we going to do without a policy? I suggest that the dominion government formulate a policy for those people out in Saskatchewan. They, the Saskatchewan government, spend all their time on the Korean policy or on the United States policy, but no policy for the people at home. Will the dominion government please come to the rescue and tell the provincial minister of agriculture and the people of Saskatchewan how to raise pigs? Apparently the minister never learned the facts of life. He has not learned anything about the birds and bees.

In any event, that is the logical outcome of socialism. Socialism never produces anything. All it can do is to distribute poverty, ration it amongst the people. Every country that has been under socialism suffers, and eventually passes out of existence. I suggest to the leader of the socialists in this House of Commons that he take another trip around the world. A few years ago he was telling us about New Zealand being a fine country; the New Zealand government went out. He started to tell us about Australia, and what happened there? He started to tell us about Britain, and what happened there? He has just started to tell us about Egypt, and I am feeling sorry for the Egyptians. I hope he never starts talking about us in Canada, because we will go out too.

We have an organization in Saskatchewan calledi the Ag-Reps, one of the finest organizations that ever came into existence. It was started originally by the Liberals and) added1 to by the socialists-I have to give them some credit. These Ag-Reps are working under

The Address-Mr. Studer most difficult conditions, night and day, trying to formulate some agricultural policy which the government in Saskatchewan has never given. I think a tribute should be paid to these wonderful men who have spent so much time trying to do the impossible out in Saskatchewan.

There were some other things I wished to say, Mr. Speaker, but -perhaps I shall have another opportunity. We have heard so much about price controls and inflation. I know all about that, because when I have some money to spend I am inflated and when I have none I am deflated. Out in Saskatchewan the situation is not that there is too much money running after too few goods. It is a situation in which everyone is running after some money trying to get some purchasing power. The proof of that is the fact that over 90 per cent of our farms have no water system and about 90 per cent of them have no electric lights. I have been on my farm for 35 years, but it has no water system and no electric lights. Nature pays back everything that a man earns, but nature is the tightest reckoner I ever saw. We still believe that nature is a little late in some of her payments to us.

I do not know how we are going to correct our economic situation in a country such as ours. We have 14 million people, but our imports amount to over $3 billion a year. I think there has to be an international effort, just as there is in regard to NATO, that international organization for the preservation of peace. That organization determines what can be done in order to preserve peace, and there should be one set up to preserve our national economy if we are going to continue to import over $3 billion worth of goods. We are agreed also that, among other things, Canada needs the St. Lawrence deep waterways. It would help us out in western Canada. We need most, if not all, the things the government has done-except the things they have not done. However, we can agree that that is the situation or we would be agreeing possibly with some of the things that other opposition friends have been saying.

We are glad that some provision is being made for our soldiers to augment their pensions and for our aged people. There is no one more deserving. As time goes on and as the national economy increases-and we in the constituency of Maple Creek are doing our share to increase the national economy- we shall always be agreeable to making provision for the needs of those people.

A minute ago we were talking about defence. I also am not too sure that the steps we are taking are sufficient for our needs today in Canada. I think it is the

576 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Studer primary duty of any government, regardless of anything else, to defend this country. Without defence, everything else is of no value. The matter of defence is so imperative that, no matter what system of social services you have or what economy is practised, if that defence is not sufficient in the interests of the people of Canada, everything else will disappear. All I know is that when you live near bear country, in order to protect yourself it is prudent to carry a gun. I therefore say that Canada should consider seriously whether it is making sufficient progress in connection with defence.

One word more, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that I am getting close to the end of my remarks. We have farm organizations out in Saskatchewan, as you know. In the world today everyone has an organization, and now there is not only competition between the people of the world but there is competition between organizations. In other words, we have got to the jloint of having to decide which organization is the strongest to forward its aims and objectives and which will obtain the greatest benefits. We had farm organizations that have been lamentably in a position-as farm organizations possibly always will be-of being inadequate to meet the needs of the industry which they serve. Why should there have to be any farm organization, when all the people in the world are dependent upon what the farmer produces? Everyone should be protecting the farmer. His job is to produce, not to study economics, not to study politics, not to spend his life in trying to determine what should be done. His life is spent in producing the things that you need. That is his occupation, his vocation. Therefore all organizations throughout Canada should come to the assistance of the farmers in order to protect their industry and to see that they get a cost of production sufficient to live so that their time does not have to be spent in unproductive efforts to make it possible to remain in existence in Canada. I ask the people of Canada and all their organizations to make sure that their primary industry is protected in this country.

But we have farm organizations. The finest men and women in Canada belong to them. May more success attend their efforts. I hope they become great; if you do not take the attitude and protect them, I hope they become great enough to protect themselves. Unfortunately the history of western Canada is replete with instances of what has happened to farm organizations. They are subject to political interference. The people that belong to these organizations have not time to study in order to determine what course they should follow, so they are subject to what people tell

them. If there are people in this world who do not have sufficient honour to tell these people the truth, then these people adopt policies and ways and means that lead to their destruction, as witness what happened in Saskatchewan in the past. There was the wonderful organization of the united farmers that was built up. The C.C.F. are the result of what happened to that organization called' the United Farmers. So I am asking all of the people of this country to join all the farm organizations so that they can be strong. I do not like the word "demand". I never did like it. But they will have to demand that they have consideration. That course is forced upon them by other organizations demanding possibly more than is their rightful share of the national economy. Why should the farmers always take what is left? The farmer refuses to do that. That is the result; when all other people are organized and the farmers are not, the farmer takes what is left. Farm organizations are therefore necessary, Mr. Speaker, but they also should be prevented from having political influence that will destroy them.

We have a wonderful farm organization in Saskatchewan at the present time. We had in July a meeting of the western farm organizations of the three provinces, in Regina. The meeting was held in a church. One would never imagine that anything would happen in a meeting of that kind and in such a place that should not happen in a place of that kind. The government members met this farm organization in the forenoon. We were up in the place where the choir sat and the presentation of the farmers union members was made to us. Mr. Gardiner, who replied for us, replied to the presentation and it was received with good grace, I think, by most of the farmers of western Canada. They were, of course, critical of some of the government's regulations or some of the government's actions. The wheat payment at that time was very much in prominence. So the president of the Manitoba farmers' union reports in the Union Farmer on page 7 on the meeting in Regina, and he mentions among other things that the following morning we met with the government members including a number of cabinet ministers, and after Mr. Phelps, who is the president of the farmers, ably presented our brief, we listened with mixed emotions to the nonchalant reply of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). In the afternoon we met with a group of M.P.'s representing all opposition parties. They spoke feelingly and stated that they were with us and that the farm organizations were not born a moment too soon.

That is what I want to talk about; I refer to the presentations. Everyone will remember

the procedure in this House of Commons in that week when we were considering this wheat situation, when the vote was taken in regard to the wheat situation; everyone will remember when there was a resolution or a subamendment presented to this house asking for the government to consider a payment of twenty-five cents on the wheat under the British contract. All hon. members will remember that subamendment asking that the government give consideration to the payment of twenty-five cents on the wheat. The government had already given consideration to the payment at least a dozen times. The die was cast as to what the people of Canada would agree to allow the western farmer for his wheat. It was not enough. The farmer throughout the years has earned more consideration from the rest of the people of Canada. Yet that was the way the die was cast.

So in the afternoon at that farm meeting in Regina our opposition members were presented also with a brief by the farmers' union. They were allowed a short period of time, up to the limit of twenty minutes, in which to speak. What would you expect? They all made a crackerjack of a political speech and they all told the farmers' union something like this: they said they were behind them, that they were the farm bloc, that if it were not for them, the farmers would not have anything. They told them that they supported the twenty-five cent wheat payment. They told them that they voted for the twenty-five cent wheat payment. But they never voted for the twenty-five cent wheat payment. They voted for consideration of the twenty-five cent wheat payment by the government. So after all these political speeches, Mr. Speaker, I stood in the back of the hall. I did not like it, I can assure you, so I sent a little question up to the chairman. I had it presented to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and the question said: Why did not the western C.C.F. members vote for the $65 million that the farmers received on this wheat payment? The reply by the hon. member was: I did vote for the $65 million wheat payment to the western farmers. Every member in this House of Commons knows that that hon. member was not in this chamber when that $65 million vote was taken. Neither was the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Neither was the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher).

Mr. Argue:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Sluder:

Neither was the member who belongs to that great race in Scotland, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). He was not in the honourable chamber.

The Address-Mr. Studer

Mr. Argue:

Mr. Speaker, if I remember that evening correctly, it was a vote in committee, and I was here to vote for the $65 million.

Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):

On a point

of order, Mr. Speaker, I was in the chamber and the hon. member was not there. The remarks made by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) were absolutely correct.

Mr. Studer:

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members knew that it was a vote in committee and that it would not be recorded and that it would not be recorded on Hansard. So after this vote, this 25-cent wheat vote, those members were in a position where they were on their way, or preparing to go on their way to tell the western farmers that all the Liberals voted against the 25-cent wheat payment-and they were not in the House of Commons when that $65 million was voted in committee.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I told the hon. member for Maple Creek that he could continue, but he has exceeded his time.

Go on.

Mr. Studer:

So I am saying that if that is the situation-and that is the situation; I stood here; I counted them when the vote was taken. There were seven C.C.F. members in the House of Commons, and those four were not here. What do you call people who make statements such as the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) made?

That is why I say western farmers are subject to disillusionment and subject to all the unprincipled politicians-and it is becoming more evident throughout Canada and other countries today. We know about the political procedure unprincipled politicians have followed to gain their ends. They go about in the world seeking the ruin of souls.

We are in a bacteriological war now. We had a cold war and a hot war. Now we are in a bacteriological war, because these socialistic bacteria are being spread all over the country in an effort to have people associate themselves with an untruth, the same untruth that destroyed Germany, the same untruth that lies behind the iron curtain, the same untruth that will destroy any civilization. Do not worry about the communists particularly when we know the political untruths that are rampant in this country today, that have destroyed every civilization that has not eliminated this untruth from its political life.

I wish to thank all hon. members for their kind attention. Along with the rest of the people in Canada, we hope to continue to make our contribution to the welfare of the people of this country. I would close by

The Address-Mr. Laing saying that, as the saying goes, Canada has hitched her wagon to a star. That star is the north star, because we are living in the north. It is the same star that guided the early mariner, the same star followed by the farmer at night who lives some distance from the town. He sees the big dipper make a complete revolution around that north star during the course of twelve hours, so that he can tell the time at night by the north star and the big dipper just as readily as he can by the sun when it is shining.

That is the time in working the farmer goes by. They go by the day, not by the hours. And so we make our effort in the hope that the people of our country will continue to receive favourable consideration from all members of the House of Commons, all the people of Canada. We, in turn, hope to contribute to their added happiness and welfare.

Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):

Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to offer a word of congratulation to the hon. member who has just spoken. I will have to tell him, however, that I shall not be able, at least in one particular, to emulate either him or any of his seven American brothers.

First may I join with other hon. members in congratulating the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply. I must confess that I had to go to the English translations to realize what a splendid presentation was made by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon). I know the background of the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons), and I know more of the country from which he comes. In my view he made an excellent presentation of the case for northern Canada. I think he indicated that those young people for whom the future admonition will probably be, "Go north, young man", would do well if they were to go west before going north.

When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke in the debate he had something to say about what has been described as our most serious and, indeed, our only serious domestic problem, namely the cost of living and the results of inflation. He extended an invitation to all members of all parties to participate in the debate, so that out of it we would arrive at some judgment as to the best course to pursue. I would be bold indeed if I attempted to add very much to what I thought was an exceedingly able and striking speech on the subject delivered on October 18 by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). There may have been in his young and expanding family some rejoicing

that night, but I want to tell him that there was rejoicing also in other British Columbia families who have known him and who have watched with keen appreciation his progress in the public service in recent years.

I do not want to deal with the subject from the standpoint of an economist. For a moment however I should like to discuss the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the subamendment by the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The leader of the opposition apparently has now abandoned all call for controls. There was a time when he was going about the country asking for controls which were to be innocuous but effective, nebulous but full of light, designed to do harm to no one but good to everyone.

Now, apparently, probably as a result of the fact that a responsible section of the press which supports him has advised him that it was not his responsibility to tell the government how to improve things, he merely points out that things are bad, but has abandoned his advocacy of controls.

I think the leader of the C.C.F., and his group, probably caused the leader of the opposition some embarrassment when, in their subamendment, they elected to complete his sentence. They have gone so far as to suggest provisions for price controls and the payment of subsidies. I would like the C.C.F. group now to admit that, if we are going into the realm of subsidies, we are going into the realm of rationing. I would like them to admit that, implicit in any consideration of subsidies, is the introduction of rationing. Of course it is. And I hope that in this debate they will admit they are in favour of rationing-because we have had that in the past in this country.

Mr. Maclnnis:

We still have it. I say we still have it-rationing by the purse. Are you in favour of that?

Mr. Laing:

My hon. friend from Vancouver East will not say we have rationing after I have finished reading some of these articles which indicate the type of rationing we had in 1942. Not all people have kept a record of the operations of the wartime prices and trade board, and what people were subjected to in those days; and I do not think the people would want it today.

Mr. Maclnnis:

Were you opposed to that?

Mr. Laing:

I will deal with that when I get further along in my speech.

Mr. Maclnnis:

It will be easier then.

Mr. Laing:

Yes, it will. I would like an admission from the C.C.F. that rationing is

implicit in any consideration of the payment of subsidies. If you subsidize an article you provide that article to the people at a cheaper cost than would otherwise be the case. If you put a subsidized article on the market without rationing you are going to make it available to a greater degree to those with the most money. That is inevitable.

Many of us have short memories. The hon. member who just spoke reminded us of the difficulties the farmers of Canada have had in recent years, but I think the farmers of this country have done exceptionally well. There is some envy in some parts of the country over how well the farmers have been doing in recent years. My riding is made up of people who are consumers of farm products, but I tell the people there that I do not envy the farmers at all. I think it is one of the happiest circumstances we could have in Canada that the farmers are doing so well in recent years.

I can remember in 1941 when eggs were about eighteen cents a dozen and we were debating whether we could achieve a price of $1.25 per bushel for wheat. Am I not right? It would appear therefore that the farmers have had only eight or nine relatively good years in the recent history of Canada. I think we must admit that there are two things that keep the internal economy of this country together. One is the high rate of wages and the other is the annual farm income. If we maintain a proper balance between those two sections of the economy we will do very well in maintaining this country.

I spoke of short memories. I have dug up some of the old wartime prices and trade board orders of 1941 and 1942 and in these days they make extremely strange reading. Order 97 dealt with the frosting, icing and sugar-dusting of bakery products. It was illegal to frost and dust bakery products. Here is one that had to do with the cost of living bonus. We had a cost of living bonus by order of the board which limited the bonus to be paid at that time, August 6, 1942, to an increase of 60 cents per week. That was an invasion of the rights and responsibilities ordinarily assumed by the people. The government went as far as to say how much bonus could be paid weekly. If we invade such-rights and push in the economy in one place, as is proposed by the C.C.F., you have to expand that control over the entire economy. It is a fixed economy that they are asking for.

In those days we had manpower control and it was illegal for an employer to hire or release a technician without informing the director, and technicians were required to notify the director if they made a move.

The Address-Mr. Laing Contracts of employment for technicians required the approval of the minister. Then there were penalties provided for the breach of the regulations and the final word was that the regulation was then in effect. You had there an invasion of what under normal circumstances we would consider private rights.

Then there was a wartime salaries order dated March 4, 1942. There were various administrative orders. Order 142 dealt with the maximum prices of dressed horsehair. Order 146 dealt with the variation of and maximum rentals for hotel accommodation and so on.

Mr. Maclnnis:

Was horsehair rationed?

Mr. Laing:

I do not know. This had to do with the maximum price of horsehair. Order 204 concerned the maximum jobber's prices for feathers. Order 208 referred to the labelling of mirrors and so on, probably that we might better see ourselves as others see us. Order 230 dealt with the restriction of the manufacture and sale of new paper dress patterns. Another had to do with the delivery of ice, but there are no comments on the personal conduct of the iceman although that may have been in the original order. Another has to do with birch and maple flooring, and another has to do with the maximum price for bicycles.

At that time there was a tremendous invasion of many of the things which, thank goodness, we are still privileged to carry on by private action. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is about to ask me: Do you not say that the controls instituted by the Liberal government of that day were effective and successful, that they were the finest in the world?