1933-02-08

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I desire to lay on the table of the house certain orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. GOTT:: On what date, or dates, did the late administration, that of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, assume and relinquish office?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: If the government is unable to answer this question, I can tell my hon. friend where he can find the information. I think he can get the information in the Parliamentary Guide, the Canada Gazette, or the Canadian Almanac.


Eccles James Gott: I have asked the government for the answer. The right hon. gentleman forgets that he is now in the opposition.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the objection is well taken. The question should not be on the order paper. It will be struck off.
Question dropped.
53719-121 i


RADIO COMMISSION
Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Since the coming into force of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, how many licences for broadcasting stations have been issued, to what persons or corporations were they issued, and where are those stations located?
2.	Were any of such licences issued for new stations, and if so, to what persons or companies and on what dates?
3.	When were the members of the radio board appointed and when were they sworn in as commissioners?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	One; issued to La Pa trie Publishing Company, Ltd., of Montreal; station situated at 180 St. Catherine street east, Montreal.
2.	Yes: licence issued to the La Patrie Publishing Company, Ltd., on the 28th October, 1932.
3.	They were appointed October 5, 1932; the chairman and the vice-chairman were sworn in on October 31, 1932; the third member of commission sworn in on January 18, 1933.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many employees are under the direction of the Radio Broadcasting Commission at the present time?
2.	What are their family and Christian. names?
3.	What positions do they occupy?
4.	What is their nationality?
5.	By whom were they recommended and' appointed to the various positions they occupy?
G. Which of them speak the French language?
7. Are the communications of the Ottawa office of the radio commission drafted in F rench ?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following information has been furnished by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission:
1.	Four.
2 and 3. Mis3 Isabel Kirby-Stenographer; Miss Eglantine Plouffe-Stenographer; Miss Frances McAuley-Stenographer; Mr. Percy Paleff-Office boy.
4.	British.
5.	Civil Service Commission.
6.	Miss Plouffe.
7.	All communications received which are in the French language are answered in that language.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What appointments have been made to the radio commission?
2.	By whom have these appointments been made?
3.	Which persons, if any, have not been appointed through the Civil Service Commission?
Questions


Alfred Duranleau: The following information has been furnished by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission:
1.	One stenographer and one office boy.
2.	Civil Service Commission.
3.	None.


BUREAU OF STATISTICS-DAILY BULLETIN
Mr. MARCIL:: Is the Daily Bulletin, issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Department of Trade and Commerce, issued on the same day in French, and, generally, how is it distributed?


Mr. STEVENS:: Not hitherto, but instructions have now been issued to do so. This bulletin is distributed daily for press purposes.


DOMINION NOTES-GOLD COVERAGE
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What is the amount of Dominion notes issued by the Dominion government with a gold coverage and what is the amount of the gold coverage for this total issue?
2.	What is the total issue made by the Dominion government under the Finance Act up to the present, giving dates; and what is the amount of notes now outstanding with no gold coverage?


Mr. RHODES:: Nos. 1 and 2. As of January 31, 1933, total amount of Dominion Notes in circulation was $180,473,727.19.	These notes were issued
under authority of the following statutes:
Cap. 4, 1915	 $ 26,000,000 00
Finance Act, cap. 70, RS.
1927	 46,744,000 00
Dominion Notes Act, cap.
41, R.S. 1927	 107,729,727 19

Total gold held against Dominion note issue was $70,936,056.24, including $12,500,000 against the first $50,000,000 of Dominion notes issued, $57,729,727.19 representing full coverage against notes issued in excess of $50,000,000 under cap. 41, RjS. 1927, and $706,329.05 representing gold held in excess of statutory requirements. Gold held represent a coverage of 39-3 per cent against total amount of Dominion notes outstanding.
(As to dates of advances under the Finance Act, it should be noted that the amount outstanding at any time is the net issue after many different advances and repayments.)


IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LUCHKO V1CH:
1.	How many immigrants entered Canada during 1932?
2.	What was their racial origin?
3.	What provinces absorbed them, and in what numbers?
Mr. GORDON:: 1.	20,591.
2.
Statement of immigration to Canada, by
origins
Calendar year 1932
British-
English	 2,101
Irish	 350
Scotch	   800
Welsh	 76
Totals	 3,327
United States,	13,709
Northern European races-
Belgian	 40
Danish	 49
Dutch	 30
Finnish	 32
French	 90
German	 562
Icelandic	  1
Norwegian	 54
Swedish	 34
Swiss	 17
Totals	 909
Other races-
Arabian	 2
Armenian	 1
Bohemian	 7
Bulgarian	 12
Chinese	 1
Croatian	 93
Czech	 69
East Indian	 61
Esthonian	
Greek	 34
Hebrew	 313
Italian	 280
Japanese	 119
Jugo-Slav	 48
Lettish	 3
Lithuanian	 43
Magyar	 311
Maltese	 2
Moravian	 3
Negro	 9
Persian	 1

Motions for Payers
Other races

Polish	 379
Portuguese	   2
Roumanian	  31
Russian	    74
Ruthenian	 438
Serbian		30
Slovak	   253
Spanish	 6
Spanish American	  1
Syrian	 20
Totals	 2,646
Grand Totals	 20,591
3.
Statement of immigration to Canada, showing destination, for the calendar year 1932
Nova-Scotia	 916
New Brunswick	 646
Prince Edward Island	 200
Quebec	  4,134
Ontario	 9,312
Manitoba	  757
Saskatchewan	 971
Alberta	**	1,692
British Columbia	 1,950
Yukon Territory	 10
Northwest Territories	 3
Total	 20,591


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C.OBEIL:
1.	Who is responsible for the administration and collection of annual payments on loans made to farmers by the Canadian Farm Loan Board, in the province of Quebec?
2.	Has the Canadian Farm Loan Board given instructions to the board of the .province of Quebec to take legal proceedings against the farmers who were unable to meet their payments when due?
3.	If not, who issues such instructions?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: (Submitted by the Canadian Farm Loan Board).
1.	The Provincial Board as agent for the Canadian Farm Loan Board in the province.
2.	Legal proceedings, when unavoidable, are authorized by the Canadian Farm Loan Board after consultation with and on the recommendation of the provincial board.
3.	See answer, No. 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many land surveyors, chainmen and assistants have been employed on topographical survey work in the province of Quebec since January 1, 1930, to date?
2.	What are their family and Christian names?
3.	By whom were they recommended and appointed?
4.	In what areas in the province of Quebec were the said topographical surveys effected during the aforesaid period?


PUBLIC WATERWAYS AND CANALS
Mr. HEAPS:: 1.	What are the waterways and canals owned, controlled and operated by the Dominion of Canada?
2.	What was the date of construction of such canals and waterways?
3.	What was the capital cost of all such works and annual interest charges on same?
4.	What were the annual maintenance and operating charges on same during past ten years ?
5.	What is the annual revenue derived from all sources from each undertaking during the past ten years?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
RESTIGOUCHE, QUE., INDLtN AGENT
Charles Marcil: For- a copy of the evidence given at the iijvestigation and report of the commissioner appointed to investigate the charges of political partisanship made against Dr. Richard, Indian agent at Restigouche, Quebec.



NORTH EAST HARBOUR N.S. POST OFFICE

Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of all orders in council, reports, letters, telegrams, correspondence or other documents, relating to the change of location of the post office formerly at North East Harbour and with regard to the qualifications, recommendations and appointment of the postmaster in charge of such post office at this new location and the dispensing with the services of the previous incumbent, including all representations made in respect of any of these matters.



BAILEY'S BROOK, N.S., BREAKWATER

James Layton Ralston: For a copy of the payrolls in connection with the work done on the breakwater at Bailey's Brook, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, during the summers of 1931 and 1932.
1918	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Pickel



NORTH SYDNEY, N.S., BREAKWATER

James Layton Ralston: For a copy of all bills, accounts, cheques and correspondence, respecting logs purchased for use on the North Sydney breakwater extension done under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931.



MISSANABIE, ONT., POST OFFICE

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions, reports, plans and other documents, in the possession of the government, respecting the post office at Missanabie, Ontario, since the month of August, 1930.



COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE


Mr. F. H. PICKEL (Brome-Missisquoi) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the agricultural committee would give much better satisfaction if it were divided into two sections: (a) agricultural section; (b) wheat section.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in offering a few
words in support of this resolution, I intend no discourtesy towards the grain growers. I move this resolution simply with the object of getting a committee that will function better, at least as regards eastern agriculture. At the present time and for some years past it has been impossible in the committee on agriculture to discuss agricultural problems relating to eastern Canada, and I should like to have that committee divided in such a manner that these questions may be discussed in a sane way. At the present time and for many years past the committee on agriculture has consisted of an overwhelming number of grain growers who have just swamped the eastern section of that committee and it has been impossible, as I say, to discuss properly matters connected with eastern agriculture. The committee is composed of sixty members, twenty-seven of whom are grain growers, nine or ten genuine farmers from the east and the twenty-four or twenty-three who make up the remaining number, representing medicine, law, dentistry and almost every other calling that we have in this country. Under such circumstances it is hard to imagine how eastern agriculture can be discussed with any clearness in that committee.
I want to pay my respects to the grain, grower; I admit he is a number one good fellow and good citizen, but he is just as loquacious and aggressive as you can find. Tie never misses an opportunity of telling you all about any subject you may want to [DOT]bring up; he imagines he knows it all. This i[Mr. Ralston.)
is a superiority complex which has been developed in the past, when between the year 1921 and 1930 the wheat growers were directing the destiny of this country.
I should like to call to the attention of the house some of the grievances facing eastern farmers. Especially since 1925 the east has been in a bad condition. The late government apparently did everything in its power to put it out of business. Further, I am forced to admit that the present administration is not exerting itself to the extent I had wished. It is with some reluctance I take upon myself the task of bringing this to the attention of the house. The importance and urgency of the matter demands that something be done at once, if we are to save eastern agriculture. This should not be made a matter of political controversy. Both of the major parties in this house for a great many years have been negligent of the interests of the eastern farmers. There are a few genuine farmers in this house, some of whom have been here for many years. Even they do not seem to be willing to accept the task of speaking for eastern agriculture. Perhaps their unwillingness may be the result of their longer and greater political experience. However that may be, Mr. Speaker, I am going to do my best to fulfil my promise to help my farmer friends. I trust that the house will charitably accept my observations in the spirit in which they are given. It is my intention to make some constructive suggestions with the sole object of aiding the government in some small measure, so that it may come to the rescue of the biggest and best class of citizens in our dominion.
In 1925, 1926 and 1930 I was told from every platform in my counties that it would be impossible to do anything in this house to help the farmers. I do not believe that such is the case. The great trouble in this chamber has been that hon. members did not know how to help eastern farmers. I purpose to tell of the grievances under which those farmers are labouring, and I am presumptuous enough to believe that I can suggest ways and means of relieving their difficulties.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: How about changing the government?


Follin Horace Pickel: I have been engaged in mixed farming all my life. Without boasting idly, I flatter myself that I know the game from A to Z. I want to add that it has been an expensive experience, and anybody who has been engaged in agriculture the last few years will not doubt my words. I have the honour to represent a double constituency,

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Picket
composed of those two fine counties Brome and Missisquoi, situated in the eastern section of the province of Quebec. I was elected by my farmer friends on the distinct promise that I would do what I could to help them, and to the best of my ability I shall attempt to fill my promise. I can but say, in the words of Lincoln, "I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true; I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have." Knowing that there are several ways in which the farming industry could be beneficially assisted, I should be remiss in my duty were I not to bring my suggestions to the attention of the House of Commons, the body which has the power, if it will exercise that power, greatly to help the farmer out of the abyss in which he finds himself. I have been a member in this house for about two and a half year's, and during the two long and one short sessions I have been a regular attendant. Now I find I have made a good beginning on a third session.
I submit we have had very few practical suggestions, let alone any material legislation, for the benefit of dairymen. That fact in itself seems rather strange. I have listened anxiously and patiently for some of the farmers in this house to say a word for eastern agriculture, but up to the present time we have not heard one practical constructive suggestion from either side of the house. The opposition never misses an opportunity of portraying the calamitous conditions under which eastern farmers are working, and have no hesitation in denouncing the present government therefor, despite the fact that hon. members opposite, when they occupied this side of the house, gave the farmers their death blow through the Australian trade treaty of 1925. The New Zealand order in council which remained in force until October 25, 1930, proved most destructive to the interests of the farmers. They have not been able to regain their former prestige and will not do so for some time. In 1922 the then government, the present opposition, enacted the Hog Grading Act, and in 1925 the Egg Grading Act. The unfair, irrational and unjust administration of both of these acts has proved a curse to the farmers. In the past two or three sessions it has been the regular pastime of some hon. members opposite to compare prices. They state that butter is so much in Canada and so much in the United States, eggs so much in Canada and so much in the United States. Particularly, that was the pleasant pastime in which the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) indulged. To-day however we do not hear so much cackling. I would like to remind the house
that all kinds of farm produce, with the exception of beef, are selling for higher prices in Canada to-day than anywhere else in the world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Follin Horace Pickel: That is absolutely true.
Hon. members do not realize it because they do not hear that side of the question discussed. While farmers in the United States are receiving only ten or twelve cents a dozen for eggs, in Canada they are receiving twenty cents or more. While butter costs only sixteen or seventeen cents in the United States it costs twenty cents in Canada. We do not hear so many comparisons of prices as we did.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the price in New Zealand?


Follin Horace Pickel: A good deal less than it is here. During my short sojourn in this house I have learned a few things, from observation and experience; not the least of these is that this house is not in sympathy with eastern agriculture. That seems strange. The eastern farmers constitute by far the largest class in this country. We all realize that the government is endeavouring to do everything it can to get us out of the terrible condition we are in, and to my mind, helping eastern farmers to increase their purchasing power would go a long way in that direction. I propose to tell you how this can be brought about without increasing the cost to the consumer.
To repeat, I say that this house is not of a dairying mentality. When agriculture is mentioned in this house the great majority of the members at once commence to think of grain growing. In grain growing we have a short seasonal occupation, seed time and harvest, with three or four months intervening which the growers devote principally to local and domestic visiting and social amenities of one kind or another and studying ail sorts of abstract political theories such as inflation and deflation, currency revaluation, increase of the price level, parity of the pound and dollar, and so on. To my mind, inflation is equivalent to destruction, damnation and dissolution of the country. After harvest these same gentlemen -barring the last two years-fortified by a large bank roll, take occasion to tour the world. They make large amounts of money, but Canada does not get any benefit from it; it is spent in foreign countries. The western grain grower cannot stand the rigors of a Canadian winter; he has to go to southern beaches where the gentle zephyrs blow through his whiskers, cooling his heated brow. I do not blame him one bit; I
1920	.	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Pickel
would do the same thing if 1 could. And I do not know that I can blame him for trying to put these things over on the east. But it is high time that the grain growers should recognize that there is an east, and to appreciate the fact that it is all due to the east that there is a west at all. They should also appreciate that where there is one farmer west of lake Superior there are three east. The westerner is a sort of migratory farmer; he goes away with the birds in the fall and comes back with them in the spring.


Mr. VALLANOE:: He doesn't take the eggs with him.


Follin Horace Pickel: Referring back to the agriculture committee. I want to say that whenever an easterner gets up in that committee and begins to talk milk, eggs, butter, anything of the kind, the western grain growers will take the words right out of his mouth. Seventy-five per cent of them use canned milk, and they do not want to be tied down to a cow, for if they are they cannot go south. Theirs is the glorious carefree life! Contrast this orgy of existence with the hard, plodding life of the eastern farmer. He puts in the longest hours of continuous and exacting labour for the least remuneration of any oloss in the world. His is not a short seasonal occupation; it is continuous from day to day and from year to year all his life. He has to be on the job over six hundred eight hour days a year without respite or holiday. That is the life of the eastern farmer.
The eastern farmer is endowed with a peculiar mentality; the great difficulty he has is that he is non-cooperative. The western-farmers, on the other hand, all hang together. I would counsel the farmers of eastern Canada to send more representatives from the rural sections, members whose interests are their interests. I think the welfare of the farmer's would be better looked after if there were more rural representation. If the eastern agriculturist were better represented in this house it would be much better for the house' and for the country. I firmly believe that if there had been a good strong representation here of eastern farmers we would not have built the Grand Trunk Pacific, nor yet the Hudson Bay railway. The eastern farmer is faced with a continuous struggle for existence; he has the heavenly elements to fighb- drought, flood, wind, frost, hail; he has numberless enemies in nature, many varieties of parasites, flies, worms, grubs and bugs. Everything he raises is the result of continuous and hard labour. One would naturally think that when he had brought his crop or product to maturity his labours would be about finished,

but, sir, such is not the case. When he comes to put his product on the market and tries to secure a little return for his labour he meets another set of pests, even worse than the others. I refer to middlemen, commission men, inspection acts, irrational and unfair administration of grading acts, governmental interference, regulations and restrictions, and by no means least, the politician. That is what the eastern farmer is up against.
Now the politician means well, but in the majority of cases he has not the slightest idea of what could and should be done to help the farmer; so adverse instead of beneficial legislation is often enacted than otherwise. For instance, we hear advocated the formation of an export marketing board. That seems to be a sort of shibboleth in this house. To my mind, sir, we do not need an export marketing hoard at all. We certainly do not need it for the east; if it can do anything for the west I am for it and will do anything I can to further it.
Here I would like to put on Hansard the percentage of Canadian agricultural production consumed in the domestic market. Excluding wheat and cheese, nearly 97 per cent of all farm produce is consumed here in Canada; excluding wheat, 95-7 per cent; including wheat, 88 per cent. The eastern farmer lias nothing of any consequence to export, just a little cheese. Of oats, 100 per cent is consumed in Canada; of barley, 100 per cent; of rye, 100 per cent; of flax seed, 100 per cent; of milk, condensed, and milk products, 100 per cent; of eggs, 100 per cent. Red clover is the article of which we consume least, namely 27-7 per cent.


Mr. DUPUIS:: May I ask the hon. member where he got these statistics?


Follin Horace Pickel: I got them from the bureau of statistics.
Percentages of Canadian Agricultural Production Consumed in the Domestic Market
	1930-31	1931-32
Field crops:	(per	cent)Oats	. .. 87-4	100-0Barley	100-0Rye	100-0Peas	97-0Beans	99-8Buckwheat	. .. 93-9	89-3Corn	. .. 99-7	99-6Potatoes	.. 83-9	93-7Turnips, etc. . ..	.. 95-3	93-0Hay	99-8Sugar beets	. .. 89-9	98-7Apples	56-9Flaxseed	.. 56-8	100-0Tobacco	.. 82-2	79-8Seeds:	Alfalfa	92-9Red clover	. .. 99-6	27-7Other clover.. . .	.. 70-2	61-9
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Pickel
nimal products:		
Butter	98-3	99-7Cheese	35-4	26-3Condensed milk	products	97-3	100-0Beef	99-8	99-4Pork	100-0	97-3Mutton and lamb.. ..	100-0	98-8Wool	86-2	74-8Eggs	100-0	100-0Poultry	100-0	96-8


An hon. MEMBER:: What year?


Follin Horace Pickel: The	last year for	- which
I have figures, 1931-32. Right at home, under our very noses the eastern farmer is being exploited and profiteered against by the middleman and the commission man. These people apparently have no difficulty in securing the necessary legislation from the different governing bodies to enable them to take advantage of the farmer, and that is the trouble with the eastern farmer to-day.
In support of my contention I bring to your notice the condition of the milk trade. In my section of the country, fifty-five miles from Montreal, 75 per cent of all the milk produced is consumed fresh as fluid milk or cream; 57 per cent and a decimal of all the milk produced in the entire dominion is consumed as fresh milk or cream, 25 per cent is made into butter, 6 per cent into cheese, and 7 per cent and a decimal into milk products-evaporated milk and milk products. The great bulk of the produce of the farmers in the east is milk; that is what the farmer depends upon principally for his income.
In the city of Montreal during the past season the farmers in my section have received a net of 70 cents a hundred pounds for milk. They are supposed to get $1.35, and they must pay 25 cents express to the city as well as cartage from the station, and then they are penalized because they are told that they are sending too much. The distributor tells them that they have so much milk that they have to separate it, and therefore the farmer has to take butter prices. This brings his net down to 70 cents and even as low as 60; at any rate it varies between 60 and 80.
The Montreal market, even at that low price, is the best market w'e have, and the result is that more milk and cream is sent to the city than is consumed as fresh milk or cream. Consequently much of this milk is churned, so that the farmers have to be content with a butter price. That is the farmer's side of the story. On the other hand, the distributor, when he sells that milk, receives $4 per hundred, if he distributes in quarts, at 10 cents a quart, and he gets 2 cents a quaiit extra if he distributes by the pint. If you consider the spread he gets out
of ice cream, which costs him 37i cents a gallon and which he sells at $1.20, and consider the buttermilk which he steals entirely from the farmer and sells for nearly as much as he does whole milk, and if you consider further the separated milk which he uses to reduce the super-standard milk which he also steals from the farmer, you will readily see that he is getting more than $5 per hundred. How in the world such an unjust condition of affairs can be permitted to exist in this supposedly civilized country is more than I can imagine. It is absolute robbery.
Now the farmer does not wish to boost the price to the consumer, who is paying enough already; 95 per cent of the consumers in the city, if you asked them, would tell you that the farmers are robbing them. That is simply propaganda spread by the milkman to cover up his wickedness. He tries to pull the wool over people's eyes and make them think he is engaged in some philanthropic undertaking instead of staging a genuine holdup.
The farmer should have a fifty-fifty break in regard to the selling price in the city; he is entitled to it and should have it. The farmer in eastern Canada is not asking for a dole or a bonus or anything of that sort. Come to Quebec if you want to see thrifty, industrious people. Come and see our farmers. Let me say that the agitators in the southeast corner of the chamber will not have much weight in Quebec; they will not get any sympathy and so they will not come there. The older I get the firmer I am in my conviction that the greatest asset the dominion has is the French Canadian race. These people are the bulwarks of Canadianism; there is no question about it. Come there and go amongst them and you will see that they are busy people. They do not travel, but stay at home and attend to their business.
Right here I want to tell the western grain growers that there is a great potential market in the east for them if they will only take advantage of it. We should not be making butter in the east. We make the poorest butter in the world. It is humiliating to tell the farmer of eastern Canada that his butter is no good, but it is a fact. Whenever we send a consignment of butter to England, which is rare, it is at the bottom as regards grade and price; it receives the lowest price in the world. But when we send a box of cheese it is of superior quality. Our cheese is on top; it is the best cheese in the world.
It is a sad reflection on the Canadian people that we have been making butter for years and years when we could have done so much better making cheese. Last summer we made butter 'that sold at 15, 16 and 17 cents, where-
1922	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Tummon
as if we had made cheese we could have got as much as 22 to 25 cents. Let our people in the west make butter and everyone else in Canada make .cheese; let us specialize in it. We make an article that the English market requires.
Let us note the trend of the trade. In 1904 we exported 247,000,000 pounds of cheese to England; last year we exported 74,000,000 pounds. In 1904 New Zealand sent hardly any cheese to that market; last year they exported 250,000,000 pounds. They have usurped our place in the English market so far as volume is concerned; nevertheless we maintain the supremacy of our quality and price. Our cheese is the best; let us specialize in it. The government is possessed of all these facts and should organize an educational campaign throughout the east to assist the people in every way possible in the making of cheese.
Returning now to the milk situation, in the cities the different inspectors, the officials of the board of health and the legislatures seem to vie with one another in passing restrictive legislation at the request of the distributors for the purpose of keeping the small man out. The distributor builds great big palaces of plate glass and marble, moving into new premises every few years, and the farmer pays the price. Go into the streets of Montreal and stop before some apartment house in which there are fifteen or twenty families and you will see half a dozen milk trucks. They are just as extravagant in their operations as they can be. They do not curtail; the farmer is an easy mark and he pays the price. There are times when one may be pardoned for experiencing a sort of sentimental charitableness towards a pickpocket or a robber who takes long chances to gain his end, but there is no charity that anyone can feel towards the milk distributor who is daily guillotining and robbing the farmer, taking no chances at all himself. The milk distributor is gouging and robbing the farmer, he takes no chance at all as he is protected by legislation. I do not blame the Dominion government for the irregularities connected with the distribution of milk but I consider this house supreme, we have the power and it is within our jurisdiction to investigate the whole situation. The public should know at once who is responsible, there should be no hesitation in investigating this matter fully.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Follin Horace Pickel: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon) that this resolution be adopted.


Mr. W. E. TUMMON (South Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in making a few remarks as seconder of this resolution I do not propose to draw any comparisons between the farmers in one part of Canada with those in any other part, nor do I intend to take up the time of the house in referring to many of the subjects already covered by the mover of the resolution (Mr. Pickel). The resolution reads:
That in the opinion of this house, the agricultural committee would give much better satisfaction if it were divided into tivo sections: (a) agricultural section; (b) wheat section.
I think the hon. member for Brome is to be congratulated for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. The subject matter of this resolution has been discussed privately by many members of the committee. I believe the usefulness of this committee could be increased by the adoption of the resolution. Like the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, I do not want the house to think for one moment that I feel that the questions which have been discussed in the past by the agriculture committee were not necessary or were not justly and properly discussed. I believe that these questions were important and were properly brought before the committee, but the fact remains that there have been certain years when practically the entire time of the committee has been taken up with questions of the grading and marketing of wheat, of barley and such like. There has been a feeling which has been not only confined to the members of the committee, that problems affecting the farmers in eastern and central Canada have been crowded out. This may be very largely due to the fact that the farmers of western Canada are more ready than those of eastern and central Canada to bring their problems to the attention of the government. As we all know, there is a proper way to get these different problems before that committee.
I went back a number of years to find out just how many meetings had been held annually by this committee and the subjects that had been discussed each year. I found that in 1922 there were twenty-seven meetings, twenty-two being in connection with wheat marketing and five in connection with questions relating to other forms of agriculture. In 1923 there were seventeen meetings held, none of which related to wheat or grain. That would seem to show that when questions concerning the marketing of wheat or the Canada Grain Act were not before the committee, the committee found time to deal

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Seguin
with questions relating to other parts of Canada. In 1924 there were seven meetings, two in connection with wheat rust and five in connection with other matters. In 1925 there were thirty-two meetings, twenty-six being in connection with wheat and the grain act and only six in connection with problems affecting other parts of Canada. In 1926 there were seven meetings held in connection with the grain act and two in connection with other problems. In 1927 seven meetings were held, all in connection with problems other than wheat and grain. In 1928 there were twenty-seven meetings, twenty-four in connection with the Canada Grain Act and the protein content of grain, and three in connection with other farm products. In 1929 forty meetings were held in connection with the protein content and grading generally of wheat. In 1930 fifty-one meetings were held, forty-nine of which were in connection with the grain act revision and two in connection with the maple sugar industry, a matter of much importance to the province from which the mover of this resolution comes. In 1931 there were seventeen meetings in connection with farm problems generally, and five in connection with the Whiteside inquiry. In 1932 there were ten meetings in connection with grain and six in connection with the beet sugar industry. In ten years there were one hundred and eighty-five meetings in connection with wheat, the grading of wheat and the like, and only seventy-one in connection with other problems affecting the farming industry of Canada.
As I said before, I am not questioning the importance of the questions relating to wheat; rather I feel that the committee at all times should be prepared to give whatever time is necessary to matters which relate to the marketing of grain and such like in the west. However, I do not think that the time of the committee should be taken up wholly in the discussion of such matters; some provision should be made whereby other branches of agriculture could be discussed. The growing of wheat is important to a great portion of the west, but there are other agricultural products which are just- as important to other sections of Canada. For instance in the dairy industry the district, from which I come, is particularly interested. The growing of potatoes is important to the maritime provinces; the growing of fruit is important to parts of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and there is also the live stock problem, the poultry problem, and other matters which are important to many sections
of the country. I am convinced that some effort should be made to increase the usefulness of the agriculture committee, and I trust that the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) will look sympathetically upon this resolution.


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening attentively to the honourable member who moved this motion; and, in reading it over I note that he requests that the committee be divided into two sections: one, properly speaking, on agriculture and the other on wheat. I cannot see why the honourable member, to be more precise, would not go so far as to request a section on tobacco and another on dairy, two industries of primary interest to eastern Canada.
I was in no way astonished to hear the honourable member complain of the fact that, since he has been in the house, since 1930, he has not heard a speech embodying proposals of a practical order in connection with agriculture. I congratulate him on having had the courage of rebuking his government for not having done justice to this industry and for not advocating a policy which would help the farming class of this country, and, more especially that of his province. I think that the honourable member revealed what was in his mind or went further than he would have wished, nevertheless, he bitterly rebuked the majority of the members of this house representing rural districts, and more particularly the honourable ministers of the province of Quebec, among whom a few at least represent rural counties.
The honourable member went so far as to suggest an increase in the rural membership. I think it would have been more proper for him to state that the present ministerial rural representation failed in its duty and in no way endeavoured to obtain from this government, in favour of the agricultural community, but especially eastern Canada, the share of protection to which it is entitled. The honourable member neglected to state, for instance, that the present government did not fulfil the pledges given in 1930 nor find the means of increasing the price of butter, but simply of preventing the decrease of the price of butter as it is to-day. These gentlemen, in 1930, made a great ballyhoo, and appealed to the people stating: that the King government was responsible if butter sold for 32 or 33 cents a pound. How does it happen that these gentlemen, within the last three years, were unable to remedy this
1924	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Hanson
evil, on the contrary, the situation is getting worse and butter, to-day, sells between 20 and 22 cents?
I congratulate the honourable member for having had the courage of rebuking his government for having acted so shamefully ever since it has been at the helm of public affairs.
Mr. Speaker, so far as the motion itself, it is worthy of being discussed, and I really wonder if we would not gain by having the committee on agriculture divided in various sections, one special section being allotted to these two great industries: that of tobacco and dairy. I think that the tobacco question is of the utmost importance, since it contributes a revenue to the country through the customs and excise. This industry should be allotted in the committee a special section which would devote itself to revising our tariff and enquiring whether the custom and excise duties existing on our tobacco should not be altered and whether something could not be done to prevent foreign tobacco competing with that of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add for the present; I shall have the opportunity of referring to this subject again before the end of the session.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, because I have the honour to represent one of the finest agricultural constituencies in New Brunswick and because I am extremely interested in the farmers of my constituency, as I have shown on many occasions in a practical way, especially during the last four years, I rise to support this motion and to congratulate the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) on having brought forward his motion as a first practical step towards a study of the situation which confronts us as the representatives of these farmers.
I have been a member of the house for twelve or more years and I have never been honoured with representation on the committee of agriculture. While I do not pretend to be a farmer, I can claim to be a son of the soil, and because I am a son of the soil I have the deepest sympathy for the farmers and their problems; I have studied their problems and I know the conditions under which they are labouring. I know further the remedies are very difficult of achievement. Nevertheless I congratulate the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) on having brought forward this motion

and intend to support it; I ask that every hon. member support it or show cause why he should not do so.
I have no quarrel with the grain growers and their representation in the house; they are doing exactly right when they come down here, discuss their problems and ask parliament to pass legislation which will assist them in the solution of those problems. We certainly have heard enough about them. I remember the session of 1922 when wheat was king in this house and the question of freight rates on wheat was uppermost in the mind of every hon. member.
I know the question of distribution is one of the most difficult with which any legislative body can deal and under our constitution that difficulty is doubled and trebled. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has referred to the situation respecting the marketing of milk in Montreal. What he has said with respect to that is duplicated in every city and large municipality throughout the whole dominion and is something that should certainly engage the attention of those who, under our constitution, are primarily charged with the responsibility. I take it that they are the provincial authorities, but there is much that the federal authorities can do in a cooperative way in respect to this matter. In the city of Saint John, which is the largest municipality in New Brunswick, the consumer of milk pays ten cents a quart delivered, while the distributors of milk pay twenty-five cents for an eight-quart can, or a fraction over three cents a quart, delivered in Saint John. It will be seen at once that there is a spread of nearly seven cents between the cost of the distributor for milk delivered at his depot and the cost to the consumer. I say-and I say it with great confidence-that anyone wTho studies the question will agree with me that the cost of distribution is entirely too great and no blame is to be attached to either the consumer or the producer, but the fault lies with our method of distribution. I am not going so far as to say, as my colleague from Brome-Missisquoi has done, that these gentlemen are highwaymen and robbers; unquestionably they are in business for a profit, but there is a way of handling this proposition and it is by the cooperative method.


Mr. POWER:: Political cooperation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not mean political cooperative method as suggested by the hon. member for Quebec South. I think he and I are pretty much in agreement as to that. There is a way, but it takes

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Motherwell
somebody to point it out to the farmer. It is through the different departments of agriculture and I make this as a constructive suggestion. In the meantime attempts should be made to have the question investigated. We have a Combines Investigation Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE. (Vancouver): Which is working overtime.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know it is working overtime on coal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
working on coal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to suggest it should not, but there is a large field of investigation with regard to the distribution of milk. The trouble with the act is that a foundation charge has to be laid by some private individual. It is not the business of any public functionary to start, in motion the machinery of the law. That was the weakness of the act from the very beginning.


Mr. IIEENAN:: It is not necessary to wait for an information to be laid.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not recall whether or not the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) was the father of the act; perhaps it was his predecessor.


Peter Heenan: I just want to point out
that my experience in connection with the act is that it is not necessary to wait for an information to be laid. If a case is drawn to the attention of the minister, he may take action.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Some
private individual has to bring it to the attention of the minister. I do not know what the experience of the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) may have been in connection with the act, but I know the results achieved under him have been actually nil, especially in regard to milk, and he was Minister of Labour for five years under the late government. We have heard a great deal of his sympathy for consumers, but when he was in a position to do something for the producers of milk and when this condition must have been known to him, because it has prevailed for years, he sat strangely silent.
The resolution, in my opinion, does not go quite far enough. It suggests that, in the opinion of this house, a special committee or another select standing committee on agriculture should be set up which will not deal with the problems of the grain growers.


John Vallance: How is the house going to become acquainted with them?


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I suggest that as long as the hon. gentleman is in the house, we shall be acquainted with them? I do not find any fault with his attitude in that respect. In what he is doing he is carrying out his full duty to his constituents. Nobody will complain about that. There is no doubt that the eastern agriculturist has been strangely silent in this house, and thait opportunities should be given to him to ventilate the grievances he unquestionably has. This is the first step towards his attaining that end.
I commend the resolution to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). I hope he will support it, and if lie does I believe lie will receive the thanks of thousands of agriculturists in eastern Canada who, after all, outnumber by far the agriculturists of western Canada, and who are the backbone of our dominion.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville); Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite proper that hon. gentlemen should ventilate this question, but I trust the government will not be too much exercised by the proposal to divide the agriculture committee into two or any other number of sections. If hon. gentlemen opposite desire to bring the milk, butter, egg or any other question before the committee I am sure they will find that on every occasion hon. members on this side of the house will be quite prepared to facilitate such action. It must be remembered that the government is responsible for questions submitted to the agriculture or any other committee; those matters must have the approval of the government. While it is claimed thait those who are growing grain are more grasping and more insistent upon having their problems considered or ventilated, it is up to other hon. members who are particularly interested in these other problems to press their views with equal persistence.
Hon. members are mistaken, however, when they suggest that only two or three provinces are interested in the production of wheat. Every province in Canada grows wheat. Ontario grows on an average about 20,000,000 bushels; Quebec grows a very considerable quantity, and although the quantities grown in the maritime provinces and British Columbia are small, yet even those provinces grow some. I should like to remind the house that the western prairie provinces produce per capita as much as any other province of
1926	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Motherwell
the dominion of any kind of live stock you may mention. They produce, per capita, quantities equal to those of Ontario and Quebec. Mention anything you like-butter, eggs, bacon, ham, hogs, cattle, horses-and you will find that we produce per capita in quantities as large as Ontario and Quebec. I make the one exception of cheese, because the western provinces do not produce much of that commodity. So I say it is folly to asume we are not interested in mixed farming products. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not be greatly moved by the pleading of hon. members who have already spoken, and that he will not accept the suggestion of dividing this country into two oamps, one of wheat growers and the other of the producers of other farm commodities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
divided now, and the hon. gentleman helped to do it.
TV/T-, A/fr\rr'TTT7'T>
YTSTTr-T T . T.	[DOT]	n ,
lvir. xvav_/ x	Yv aLmju . jLii my view Ltiat
would be a mistaken policy. Further, it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), not the Minister of Agriculture, who refers questions pertaining to wheat or other cereals to the agriculture committee. If some hon. gentleman opposite, or from any other part of the 'house, will move to have all agricultural matters and products under one minister, he will have my support, irrespective of the present or past incumbents of that office. That is a move which should be made, so that there would be only one minister to deal with and not two as at present. For the past thirty years every problem affecting grain has been referred to the agriculture committee by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should be more enthusiastic about any move which would bring greater centralization in the Department of Agriculture than any action which might tend to separate it.
I recall that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) appeared as a member of the agriculture committee for the first time in 1931, on which occasion he spent most of his time slamming the system of grading farm products. Nearly all new members who come into this House of Commons, even those from the rural districts who are not familiar with the grading system, like to take a slam at it. Before they are here very long, however, they realize that after all it is worth while and a great improvement on former "pigs is pigs" or "eggs is eggs" methods. Let us improve but not ditch or discard our grading methods. At the end of the first session of this parliament I was pleased to find before this session was half through that even the new members on all sides of the house 
who had not given the grading system great study, were strongly in favour of perpetuating that standardization of farm products policy which had been inaugurated by the previous government. When he first appeared in the committee the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi strongly advocated doing something drastic about the grading system. His suggestions were not definite however. It would appear that he wanted to hoist it, altogether. We realize that there are two or three commodities which present great difficulties, so far as grading is concerned. In this connection I would mention particularly hogs and eggs. However, taking it by and large the system of standardizing our products and especially those for export, has found general favour in the minds of both consumers and producers.
I do not know what advantage the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon) hopes to obtain from dividing the agriculture committee. Probably he is under the impression that only eastern farmers are interested in dairy products. As I said before, although in the west we are not particularly interested in the production of cheese and the growing of tobacco or other commodities which require greater heat or precipitation than are afforded by our climate, our production of the commodities I mentioned previously is as great per capita of the total population as is the production in the other provinces of the dominion. Having that in mind I am sure the hon. member will realize the folly off dividing the committee, calling one "agriculture" and the other "wheat," as if wheat was not agriculture.
The hon. member for L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin) indicated that if there were an effort to divide the agriculture committee on a basis of commodities grown there would be difficulty in ascertaining where to stop. Fruit, vegetables and other commodities are produced right across the dominion, and for that reason rather than making a geographical division such as the one suggested it would be much better to cement the divisions already existing.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I think we owe thanks to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel). He has invited the house to consider whether or not agriculture is entitled to a forum in which its problems may be adequately discussed. The last speaker has referred to per capita production of beef, butter, milk, pork, eggs and other kindred commodities in the west. In passing I suggest to him that probably that is not an
FEBRUARY S, 1933	1927
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Hackett
adequate yardstick by which to measure. In the east we have large urban centres, and a more restricted area under cultivation. Therefore I do not believe the application of the standard which he himself has invoked would lead him to a satisfactory conclusion. I think the hon. member will admit that whatever may be the production of beef, butter, cheese or eggs in the west, the first interest in that section of Canada is wheat. The complaint of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is that topics more peculiar to the east are denied a hearing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. BROWN:: Never.


Mr. HACKETT:: That is the situation
which has been described by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Vincent Dupuis: He has been misinformed.


John Thomas Hackett: The desire of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and of other hon. members from rural constituencies in the east is not to set the east against the west, or to disintegrate the agriculture committee, but merely to find a place in which the ills from which the agricultural population of the east now suffer may be adequately discussed, and, if possible, remedied. That is the argument of the hon. member, and I cannot imagine that any hon. gentleman in the house could oppose it. I am not a member of the agriculture committee, and I do not know whether it will be necessary to divide it to bring about the desired result. That may be a matter which the committee could determine as satisfactorily as could the house. I do know, however, that at the present time there is no place in which eastern agricultural problems are discussed; at least we can admit that. For instance there is a question which is vital to the milk producers of the eastern townships, that is butter. We were told a few minutes ago that our entire production of butter is consumed in Canada. We know furthermore that our Canadian production is idequate to the requirements of Canada. But the market and the price of butter appear to have been bedevilled by the possibility of importation from New Zealand. The disparity between the value of New Zealand money and our own and English money and our own has done much to nullify the benefit of the protective measures enacted by this government some months ago, so far as the butter producer is concerned. From time to time a few pounds of New Zealand butter come into the country, no large quantity came during the last year and a half, but
there is the constant menace, with the result that butter is being sold at extremely low prices, which is very discouraging to that large element in southeastern Quebec that is engaged almost exclusively in that industry. If a certain part of the time of the sessions of the agriculture committee were allotted to the discussion of questions of this kind, or if a subdivision of the committee were to devote time to problems of this type, that element which now feels itself almost without representation and without opportunity of making known its situation would feel that something had been done to alleviate its distress. If, as stated by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, there are large interests in the west producing butter, eggs, cheese, poultry and possibly tobacco, it seems to me that they should welcome this opportunity of studying these problems. I do not think it would necessarily follow, if a subcommittee were set up or a certain portion of the time of the present committee were devoted to these problems, that east would be set against west. If these interests exist in the west as they do in the east, then both have a common interest in going into these matters and seeing whether the condition of those engaged in this type of production cannot be improved.
In bringing this question before the house at this time I feel that the hon. member foi Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) has expreseec the ardent longing of that section of the country from which we comie. He made also reference to legislation enacted within the last four or five years with regard to grading, he mentioned particularly hog-grading and egg-grading. Personally I am not possessed of information to qualify me to express an opinion as to the value of this legislation, but I do know that large elements feel that this legislation is burdensome. If it is beneficial, and if results are being achieved which warrant the expense of applying it, it would be a valuable service if the facts could be made known, because at the present time great numbers of the farming community feel that this legislation serves mainly one purpose, that of providing positions of emolument for the incumbents.


John Vallance: It is not my intention to-day to make suggestions to the house as to how we should meet the problems facing the farmers of both eastern and western Canada. But I hasten to assure the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) after listening to his argument, that if the solution of the problems stated by him is to be found in this resolution, then I am all for it.
1928	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Vallance
He says:
That, in the opinion of this house, the agriculture committee would give much better satisfaction if it were divided into two sections: (a) agriculture section; (b) wheat section.
As I say, if the adoption of this resolution would remedy the ills he mentioned, I am all for it, but otherwise I am absolutely against it. I have been privileged since 1925 to be a member of the agriculture committee. The statistics that have been presented to-day by the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon) do not present a true picture. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi charged that the western members are more aggressive; I admit it, but probably that is the reason we have at least attempted to grapple with the problems of western agriculture. I hasten to assure him that the same problems which he says are facing eastern agriculture to-day are facing western agriculture. During the years 1 have been privileged to sit on that committee I can assure the house that if they will consult the various reports that have been tabled they will find that we have discussed everything pertaining to agriculture; chickens, potatoes, butter, pork and pork products, the marketing and improvement of cattle, horses, etc. I have never known a question referred to the agriculture committee during the years I have sat on it that did not originate in this house or was not sent by some responsible minister of the crown, either the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If, as the hon. member contends, the eastern agriculturists have not had a fair break on the agriculture committee it is their own fault, they have the right to bring up on the floor of this house resolutions asking that certain matters be dealt with, and never in my experience has the committee refused to discuss them. One reason stands out preeminently in my mind for opposing the division of this committee, it is this; we have 245 members of this house, the greater number of them from the seats east of the great lakes, and if the problems of western agriculture are going to be discussed intelligently, without monopolizing the time of the house, the place is the floor of that committee, and representatives of various provinces east of the great lakes should find themselves in that committee, if not to contribute to the debates, at least to get some knowledge of the position. I think those members from eastern Canada who have been on the agriculture committee will admit that sitting in and listening to the discussion has been an education to them.

In connection with the figures given by the hon. member for South Hastings, we did revise the Canada Grain Act along about 1928, and I think he charged the committee with setting up a special committee or subcommittee that dealt entirely with the wheat problem and consolidation of the Canada Grain Act. There is no reason, even as the committee is constituted to-day, to prevent a subcommittee from discussing any problem pertaining to agriculture in any of its aspects. One would judge from the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that all we do in western Canada is grow wheat or cereals. During the two months we sat here last fall I had the privilege of attending the Royal Winter Fair, and it amazed me the way western Canada scooped most of the prizes for cattle there. Does that indicate that we are only wheat growers? We are just as interested in all branches of agriculture as are the eastern provinces, your problems are our problems. I speak perhaps more as a grain grower than a stock raiser but I have some knowledge of the live stock industry and I am here to make any contribution I can towards the solution of its problems. These are our problems, and I think the proper place to discuss them is in the agriculture committee, with all sections of Canada represented. Do not divide the east against the west. I am sure the present Minister of Agriculture will agree with the ex-Minister of Agriculture and myself on that point. With the ex-Minister of Agriculture I say, again we have another illustration of the necessity for bringing all these branches of agriculture under one head. We in western Canada have always contended that the administration of the Canada Grain Act is not in the proper department of government. With all due respect to the officials of that department, we still believe that the administration of that act should be under the control of the Department of Agriculture.
I want to assure my hon. friend that in anything I say to-day I am merely endeavouring to accomplish the very thing he proposes to do when he advocates dividing the agriculture committee into two sections, but I say to him that he will never attain his object in the way he proposes. The proper method is for all the members interested in these problems which he has enumerated to bring up on the floor of the house any question that should be discussed with a view to solution, so that it might be referred by the government to the committee on agriculture, and as a westerner I can assure him that he will get one hundred per cent support from us in any effort that is made to solve the problems he has indicated.

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Mullins


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: As a member from western Canada, I have been studying this resolution and I have come to the conclusion that it is not advisable to have two sections, a wheat section and one on agri-' culture, in the agriculture committee. I would suggest that we divide the time. Last session the entire time was taken up talking about a wheat called garnet. Both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), and the hon. gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Vallance), know very well that there were many serious problems connected with agriculture which it was important to bring before the house and which we had no opportunity of discussing. I will refer to a few of these matters now.
During the recess I passed through the west and I took occasion to look into the conditions of agriculture, and I tell you now that unless some drastic step is taken and taken at once to save agriculture from its present situation we shall never get anywhere in Canada. I do not think there should be any division such as is proposed. I want us to stretch our hands over that wide space, and say that we are all 'Canadians. We want to understand each other. There are several problems that I am going to mention and I should like the Minister of Agriculture to listen to me because I am going to talk about them in a practical way. Unless he does something with regard to these problems there is no hope for agriculture.
I want the minister to take note of the commercial marketing of live stock; let him go over the live stock yards east and west and find out what is taking place there. Call the men to one side and talk to them about the commercial marketing of live stock in the *stock yards at the various districts in the east and west, and you will see what is going on. I do not want it to be supposed that I am speaking for myself, for I am out of the business although I spent fifty-five years in the marketing of live stock products; but I am bound to say that there are many things .going on to-day that are positively injurious to the successful marketing of cattle in the various stock yards. The situation is appalling. You stand in the alley way and see one man in possession of the yard, the salesmen waiting for one buyer. They are right in the grip of the big interests. I make that statement because I know what I am talking about.
There is just one buyer in the yard and he can fix his own price. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that unless he puts ani end to the iniquitous system which is in operation now, of requiring a bond of S10,000 for a man to do business in the yards, he will kill every little man doing business in western Canada; he will put them all out of business. I say, give the little fellow a chance; give the man with $5,000 a chance to operate in the yard, and the big fellow will not get the innings he is having to-day. Why should you ask for a bond of $10,000? And I believe that in the city of Winnipeg it is $180,000. The man who would be the most active buyer in the yard is the little man who is working with $5,000 or $6,000, but he cannot do business when he has to put up $10,000. The present system was inaugurated by the late Minister of Agriculture and, it is said, was adopted to protect the shipper of live stock. Well, in the old days he did not ask for protection. He came with his live stock and sold them in the yard. Before he got his money he would lock the gate and he would say, "When I get my cheque I will give you delivery of these cattle." That is the way business was done at that time.
I want now to say a word or two in regard to the grading of hogs. Here again a most iniquitous system has been adopted in connection with the grading of these animals. I have here a letter from one of the best cattle men in the west, a live stock salesman, indicating this iniquitous system of the grading of hogs is playing into the hands of those who are buying hogs in the yard, to the detriment of the farmers. That system is worn out and should be abolished.
Another thing I would mention is the need for some protection for the farmer. If you are giving protection to all other industries, why not give some to the farmer? Why not shut out all products that come into competition with the products of our farms? I have a list of products shipped in from various countries, products that are competing with our own farm production. I am not strong on statistics. I am like the vhon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)-I do not take up the time of the house reading statistics. I did, however, ask the bureau of statistics for a list of products that come into competition with our agricultural products, and I will give it:

1930	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Mullins
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-External trade branch memorandum showing- Canada's Imports of Undermentioned Commodities (Calendar year, 1932)
Total
Imports
into
United
Canada
Kingdom
Fish oil	gal.

Seal oil	gal.

Whale oil	gal.

Grease, rough for soap	cwt.

Lard	lb.
*
Lard compounds	lb.

Inedible vegetable oil, n.o.p	gal.
' *
Coeoanut oil for soap	gal.

Cotton seed and crude cotton seed	oil	cwt.
Peanut oil for refining for edible purposes	cwt.
*
Peanut and soya bean oil for soap and for canning fish.gal.

Pork, in barrels	lb.

Pork, dry salted	lb.

281,739
160,257
22,146
5,866
38,206
14,644
220,833
731,038
1,040,186
47,469
475,885
19,558
193,928
189,324
2,992,399
1,190,440
539,017
2,114,820
46,407
250.317 146,760
45,617 2,640,925
130.318 3,854 1,124
5,159
15,151
2,411
1,686
4,249
12,434
1,214
21,891
15,930
165,991
77,904
125,025
601,652
11,040
76,000
12,535
5,046
36,267
1,365
Imports from
United
States
38,858
35,058
35,795 12,958 205,888 683,384 1,027,752 46,508 309,051 13,032 159,058 160,505 2,242,964 914,668 413,992 1,513,168 4,260 18,208 134,193 40,559 2,424,658 128,953 3,854 1,124
Other
countries
237,722 110,048 22,146 5,866
14,281
43,405
165,620
6,454
12,979
12,889
583,444
203,868
31,107
156,109
12.
Then people ask why it is that the price of pork is so low. Does the house realize that Canada is importing pork in barrels from the United States to the extent of 2,460,925 pounds? We are bringing in pork from the United States down to the sea port, and into bonded warehouses, going outside the three mile limit. Why not use the Canadian product? All these products brought in from these various countries come into competition with our Canadian product, and I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to shut them out of Canada so as to give the men on our own land a chance. When I look at the man who struggles-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have no desire to
interrupt the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) but I cannot see that the remarks he has just made have anything to do with the resolution now before the house. The house is discussing the rearrangement of the agriculture committee, not the general question of agriculture.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I have had no chance to bring these matters before the committee because the members of that committee talk of wheat and of nothing else. If I cannot

bring these matters before the committee, I want to bring them before the house.
There is another matter I should like to discuss, although it may be out of order, and if your honour rules against me I shall abide-by your ruling. No man in western Canada can farm successfully in the face of the-present freight rates. Forty years ago the freight rates were forty per cent less than they are to-day. It may be said that the railroads are losing money, but if by increased volume they could reduce rates to the point where they were forty years ago, they would be giving the man upon the land a chance. In shipping a carload of lumber to the prairies from the coast, the railroad gets seventy per cent while the man who finds the logs and cuts the timber receives only thirty per cent. These are matters which I would like to bring before the agriculture committee, but I have no chance to do so. The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will bear me out when I say that the only discussion in this committee was in connection with garnet wheat.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Who brought it.
up?


Eccles James Gott: Or the protein content.

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Brown


Henry Alfred Mullins: Garnet wheat was the
only matter brought before the last committee.


William Richard Motherwell: We did not bring
it up.


Henry Alfred Mullins: In considering Canada
there should not be an east and a west, but the fact is that the west is suffering and I want to say something on its behalf. As far as the freight revenues of the Canadian Pacific are concerned, the west has contributed far more than the east. From 1907 to 1911 the eastern lines earned $43,500,000 as compared with $91,500,000 for the western lines. The figures for 1912 to 1916 were $60,000,000 for eastern lines and $152,500,000 for western lines. For the period 1916 to 1920 eastern lines contributed $70,500,000 as compared with a contribution by the west amounting to $144,500,000. The heads of our railroads should go out to the western prairies and take a survey of the conditions faced by the man on the land. They should do something like James Hill did when he went out through Montana. When he realized the condition of the men upon the land in that state, he cut his freight rates by half on the Great Northern. The same thing should be done to help western Canada.
As I have said, I cannot agree with separating the east from the west, but I do think some time should be given in which matters other than wheat could be discussed by the agriculture committee. It is hard to discuss these matters in the house because some hon. members do not take a great deal of interest. I am interested in the success of agriculture and unless the man upon the land can be made prosperous, then God help the rest of Canada.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in bringing this resolution before the house the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) has been under a misapprehension. He seems to assume that some malign influence has been at work to prevent the problems affecting eastern agriculture from being discussed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not at all.


John Livingstone Brown: He made the definite statement that the western members refused to discuss the problems of the east.


Eccles James Gott: He did not say any such thing.


John Livingstone Brown: It certainly sounded like that. Any question which any hon. member desires to bring before the agriculture com-53719-122J
mittee can be brought before it in a proper way. All that needs to be done is to have the matter brought before the house and referred to the committee by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) or any other member of the government. If that is done, I assure the hon. member that the matter will be discussed.
Apparently the hon. member forgets that two years ago we spent considerable time discussing matters pertaining to the hog trade. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) mentioned milk. We are all agreed that this is a serious problem, but why did not some hon. member take the proper steps to bring this question before the committee? It was never done. If it is done I assure him that we from the west will be just as much interested in the solution of the problem as any hon. members from eastern Canada.
The hon. member who moved this resolution apparently assumes that we from the west are not interested in any question other than wheat. I should like to remind him, as he has been reminded already by the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), that the west is intensely interested in all these problems. Does he realize that the province of Manitoba took in the neighbourhood of fifty per cent of the first prizes offered for butter at the various fairs held throughout Canada last summer? It is perfectly evident that we are intensely interested in many problems outside of wheat.
The member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) admitted that he spoke without authority, and his remarks made that quite evident. He stated that there was no place in which eastern agricultural questions could be discussed. Such a statement is not in accordance with the fact, because these questions can be brought before the agriculture committee. The hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon) gave the house certain statistics in connection with the various meetings held at which wheat and other questions were discussed. There has been an abundance of time for the discussion of other questions had they been brought before the committee; even when discussing the Canada Grain Act the committee did not sit every day in the week. I have been a member of this committee since 1922 and there never has been a question brought before it which was not discussed to the fullest possible extent. I can assure hon. members that if these questions are brought before the committee they will be discussed.
1932	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Miss Macphail
One fact has been impressed upon me since I have been a member of this house, and that is that the session is always so far advanced before these committees are set up. We were here two months last fall, we are now entering the second week since the house opened this year, and yet no work has been done by any committee. That has been the condition which has prevailed ever since I have been here. Hon. members have the time to give to the various committees if there is any business to be taken up.
I see no necessity to divide the agriculture committee. The occasion may arise, a3 it did when we were dealing with the grading and the protein content of wheat, to appoint a subcommittee, but I see no reason why this committee as a whole cannot deal with all problems relating to grain or agriculture generally. Again I say that I see no reason why we should seek to divide the east against the west.


Mr. CANTLEY:: He is not doing that.


John Livingstone Brown: Unfortunately the hon. member for Brome is seeking to do that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Livingstone Brown: Then why did he spend so much time talking about the western farmers having such a carefree life and being able to go to California to spend the winter months? I may be unparliamentary in my language, but to me such talk is pure nonsense. It does not add anything to the discussion to seek to give the impression that the western grain growers are so prosperous that they can spend their winters in California. Never at any time could more than a very small fraction of the grain growers of the west do any such thing. I feel that unless further reasons are given why we should adopt this resolution, I shall have to vote against it.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in
the speech of the mover of the resolution which was presented in an entertaining style and contained some very significant truths. But when the mover of the resolution suggests that the western farmer would not be tied to a cow-I believe that was his expressive term-inferring he should turn to mixed farming, may I say quite seriously to all hon. members who represent eastern constituencies:	What would happen to the
farmers of eastern Canada if all the western farmers took to mixed farming? The eastern farmers would have a very fine time selling their products! The figures given by him

with regard to our small exportable surplus, if they are accurate, are a great surprise to me; a great change in conditions must have occurred in the last few months because in my county of Grey, where mixed farming prevails, as I am sure the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous) will agree, a great deal of our produce goes overseas. It is all right for those who live close to Montreal to say that they do not ship much overseas; they do not, because they are near the largest city of Canada. I am going to check up on the figures. They are quite different from some of the figures that were given while the Imperial conference was in progress, as regards the very great need for an export market for the industry of agriculture.
There are very real reasons why wheat occupies a major portion of the discussion in the committee on agriculture. One reason is that wheat has been the largest single item in the export trade of Canada and to a great extent it determines the prosperity or lack of it of this country. There are other reasons why wheat has been given what may be a major place, not to the discredit of the grain growers or members who come from western constituencies but rather to their credit; they are seeking to do the best they can for their people. Another reason for the importance of wheat in the agriculture committee is that the farmers of western Canada are well organized. I almost stumbled into saying "intelligent enough to be well organized," but at any rate, they are well organized and they send not only a large group to this southeast comer who can speak as they will and who constantly fight for the agricultural interests of western Canada, but also those who represent western rural constituencies in the Liberal and Conservative parties and who have been outspoken in defence of their constituencies because they know quite well they have at home an organized and alert public opinion. I do not say that is the only reason why they have talked of wheat, but it gives assurance they will do so. Far too many of our eastern agricultural constituencies are represented by lawyers and doctors 

and I have nothing against lawyers and doctors except that they know nothing about farming-who live in cities away from the land. Here may I take the opportunity of thanking the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) for his very complimentary remarks about me in Winnipeg last year.


Mr. WILLIS:: I did not utter a word.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Not at the moment.
This was during the recess. He referred to

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Wilson
my not too great knowledge. I plead guilty to a lack of knowledge of law but as regards his observations in the house on barley as a suitable food for hens-


Errick French Willis: I again plead innocence.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not, as I said,
know as much about law as does the hon. member, but at any rate I know about hens.
Eastern farming constituencies in Quebec, Ontario and the mari times are too often represented by members who know nothing about agricultural conditions. Their utterances in this house go to prove my contention without my taking time to quote any of them, which, were I to quote would, I am sure, be very amusing to the house. I was glad, however, we had this afternoon one convert; if the conversion was not made, to-day, it was announced this afternoon by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). He is now a strong advocate of cooperation, in which I wholly agree with him. I think the milk producers ought to cooperate; they ought to be given every possible assistance in doing so by the provincial government, the agricultural college, the agricultural representative in each particular district, and the press. It would be good for everyone if the milk producers were organized in a way that would enable them to market their own products or at least to see that the price paid by the consumer for the product came back in the main to the producer and not such a great proportion of it, running over 50 per cent and sometimes very much over going to the distributor. It is economically unsound to have six or seven delivery wagons going up and down one street. The departments of agriculture are doing their best, but they are running contrary' to the economic policy of their governments and so do not get far, but just as soon as the provincial and Dominion governments are ready to give practical and moral cooperation, the thing can be done. So far the farmers have had to fight ignorance in their own ranks; they have had to fight the press and public opinion and too often the economic policies of governments. I am referring to milk because it was spoken of particularly. The milk producers of some of the provinces like Ontario and Quebec should have in this house some representative who can speak for them. It would be better, 1 think, if that man were here in the house as an independent; but even if he were not, if he had behind him a strongly organized milk producers' association that would be prepared to vote in their own behalf every time it was necessary, such a member would look after their interests.
until the farmers of the east waken up to the fact that nobody can attend to their interests as well as they can themselves, the condition of which the mover of the resolution has complained will continue to exist.


Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to commend the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel)
for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. When I first entered the chamber I was in accord with the resolution, but having heard the discussion, I wonder whether it would not be advisable to refer this matter to the committee on agriculture and, if necessary, to have subcommittees of that committee appointed. For instance, I represent a county -or misrepresented it, some people say-of some 67,000 people.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Hear, hear.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I hear the hon. member for Southeast Grey say "hear, hear." I am not going to talk about hens anyway. I represent the county of Wentworth with a population of 67,000. I have a milk producers' section, a fruit section, a potato-growers' section, a grain growers' section in my county and I have an urban section as well in which the largest farmers' market in the Dominion of Canada is situated. Possibly, therefore, I can speak with some assurance in regard to their interests. I commend the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. An hon. member on the other side stated that it might be brought up in some other way. In speaking the other night I said that I would first try to put agriculture on its feet. An hon. member asked me how I would do this. If hon. members will look at Hansard, page 1733, they will find the following:
Mr. Spencer: How?
Mr. Wilson: By dealing internally with the troubles we have, that is with the milk problem, the butter problem, the dairy problem, the meat and meat products problem, right at home
I know very well it is going to be said that this is a provincial matter, but if this does nothing more than stir up the provincial authorities to act and act promptly as regards the problems of the farmers, a great deal will have been accomplished.
I wish to bring a petition before the house and I would have done so before but for the fact that the petition sent to me is, so I am advised, not properly prepared. Let me, however, read this petition sent to me, signed by hundreds of milk producers in my constituency :
We, the undersigned producers of milk, petition and request Mr. Gordon C. Wilson, M.P
1934	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Tetreault
to take whatever steps are necessary in order to bring to the attention of the government the unfair and unfortunate position in which we find ourselves to-day. We believe that some arrangement oan be made whereby the producer of milk will be paid for his milk and milk products a price which at least covers the cost of production and provides for a profit on a par with that earned by the dairies.
As agriculture is one of the most important basic industries of Canada, all reasonable and effective measures should be taken to revive the dairy industry upon a basis equally advantageous to the producer and consumer.
That is the petition I shall present when I have it prepared in proper form in the course of a few days. I approve of the conduct of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel), in bringing this matter before the house, and I respectfully suggest the agriculture committee should take notice of it. I am in accord with the remarks of the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), when he suggests that he does not think there was any attempt on the part of the mover to effect a separation between the eastern and western sections of Canada. Far be it from me to form that conclusion from the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. Although for some time I was a member of the agriculture committee, I am not at the present time. I do feel however that those nterested in fruit, grain, meat, meat products, ar pork should be the ones to bring those particular commodities to the attention of the committee which, in turn, would bring it before the house. In that way very careful discussions would be the result, and proper measures could be introduced to relieve any situation which might arise. No one knows better than I, representing a constituency both urban and rural, that the first thing this government should attempt to do is to put agriculture on its feet.


Mr. J. E. TETREAULT (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of a rural community I am pleased to support the resolution of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel), and I should like to congratulate him upon bringing to the attention of the house a matter of very great importance. I am proud to say that all hon. members, with the exception of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), seemed to be in favour of the resolution. I have no doubt that although that particular hon. member is not in exact agreement, he may yet join in supporting it.
This resolution involves the major part of our population; we are discussing the problems of those people in whom we are most interested, the people providing our living. Even if hon. members are not farmers, or as the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss

Macphail), suggests, if some are doctors, some lawyers or other professional men, we must all recognize that we are getting our living from the ground. When we have an opportunity to do something for agriculture, I think there is a duty cast upon us, regardless of the political party to which we may belong. I am happy to see that nearly all hon. members who ha%re spoken to this resolution have approved of the attitude of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, although I am sorry some hon. members opposite, from the western provinces, seem to have missed the meaning or the intention of the resolution. So far as I can ascertain it is not his intention to effect a division of the provinces, but-and I believe I am speaking correctly-it is his intention that when the agriculture committee meets we should divide its time so that the dairy industry or other sections of agriculture might receive proper attention, instead of devoting all the time to the problems of the wheat growers.
I have no doubt hon. members from the western provinces will not suggest that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi harbours any ill-feeling towards western Canada. I am sure he will agree that every class of agriculture should be treated in the same way. It is my view that an expression of opinion by many hon. members in the house concerning this important resolution would be greatly appreciated by farmers throughout Canada.


Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. John-Iberville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at the attitude taken, this afternoon by the honourable member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) and appreciate his remarks in connection with the Department of Agriculture, which are certainly true.
He blames his government for not taking an interest in the agricultural class of the Eastern Townships. I do not know whether it is a sign of approaching elections, however, we are now in the fourth session and it is the first time that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi champions the agricultural class.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Better late than never.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: On May 18, 1931, I introduced a resolution, which specially concerned agriculture in the Eastern Townships, requesting an increase in the grants allotted to live stock. My honourable friend from Brome-Missisquoi spoke a few minutes and stated he was opposed to this resolution. I, therefore, find his attitude this afternoon somewhat astonishing. I am aware that the hon. member for Brome-

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Rheaume
Missisquoi won his election in 1930 by specially appealing to the farming class of his county, by blaming the Liberal government for having completely ignored agriculture. The western farmers are criticized for discussing only wheat. Hon. members of the opposition have certainly, on many occasions, spoken in favour of the farming industry in the Eastern Townships, especially as regards butter. Many have made suggestions and even requested that a bonus be granted on butter. We were not supported by the hon. members of Quebec; neither by those of the Eastern Townships nor by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), nor the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duran-leau) both of whom have the honour of representing farming counties.
We have, more than once, requested a bonus on butter. We have, on many occasions,
. stated that the farming class both of the Eastern Townships and the province of Quebec required a bonus on its butter and cheese, yet not one member of the government had the courage of supporting the hon. members of the opposition.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi requested an enquiry in connection with the price of milk. I share his views and I think that if the Dominion government instituted an enquiry on the milk distributed in Montreal, in connection with the price paid by the consumer and that paid to the farmer, they would discover an alarming situation. I hope that if an enquiry is held as regards milk one will also be held in connection with the meat trust. There exists, to-day, in Montreal, one of the largest trusts in this country: The Canada Packers and the Montreal Abattoir. The Canada Packers is composed of the Harris Abattoir, Canadian Packing, William Davis and Gunn, Limited, and, if I am not mistaken, there are in Toronto two similar companies:	The iSwift-Canadian and the
Canada Packers.
Everybody is aware that the Eastern Township farmers are producers of butter, eggs and meat. I must state that in 1930 most of the eastern members generously responded to our appeal, and I am amazed that they awake, to-day, from their slumbers, after three years of session.
In connection with the price of meat, pork, for instance, sells at 2i to 31 cents per pound; this, however, only on condition that the hogs be of first quality, which means that the weight of the animal must vary between 150 to 240 pounds and, if it weighs more than 240 pounds the dealers deduct one to two dollars per head.
I would request the Dominion government to help agriculture in Quebec and throughout the country in the same measure that the Quebec government is assisting their farming class.
I shall read to the house a short article which appeared in "La Vietoire", a small newspaper published, as you will recall, during the by-election of Three Rivers:
Farmers, you desire a bonus on your butter, which Mr. Tasohereau refuses you, because his Minister of Agriculture finds it senseless to help the farmers. Well, vote for the government's candidate who is ready to grant it, if you so manifest the desire. Electors of Three Rivers and St. Maurice, vote for Bourgeois, on Monday, at the polls.
Well, I find it strange that the honourable member for Three Rivers, who represents a city and rural parishes, of which fifty per cent of the people are farmers, has never had the courage of rising in the house to move such a measure, after having promised it. It cannot be said that Liberal newspapers published this article. This newspaper bears the date of August 8, 1931, and a few of our good Conservative friends have, perhaps, laid aside a few copies.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: Will the honourable member permit me to ask him a question?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: With
pleasure.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: On what date did the honourable members opposite introduce a motion in the House to request a bonus on butter, in addition to the assistance given by the provincial government.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: If the honourable member for Shefford (Mr. Tetreault) will refer to Hansard of 1932, he will find that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) requested a bonus on butter in the speech he delivered in this house.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: There was no resolution moved, the hon. member for Bellechasse made this request in his speech.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: No resolution was introduced.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: It is the bonus on butter which won the Three Rivers election.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: It is more than time that the hon. members opposite used their influence with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in order to request him to have the necessary measures enacted so as to help the Eastern Township
1936	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Duguay
farmers and the other districts of the province of Quebec, Everybody is aware that unless something is done immediately to hetlp the farming class, bankruptcy will appear everywhere. Many of our opponents are as well aware as I am of the farmers' plight and if one of these hon. members had the courage to rise in the house and request a bonus on butter, cheese or any other farm product, so as to help our farmers, he could rest assured that he would meet with no opposition on the part of the Liberal party.
I understand that the resolution under consideration requests that the committee on agriculture be divided into two sections, one of which would take up wheat and the other the dairy industry. If our western friends have obtained a bonus on wheat and if they obtain all they request., it is because they have the courage to rise in the house and set forth their claims. I have not the honour of being a member of the committee on agriculture and I do not know whether the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is one. If there are no members opposite included in this committee, I trust that the eastern township members and those of Quebec who represent rural districts will be invited to appear before this committee in order to make known their grievances and the needs of the province of Quebec.
I make these few suggestions, hoping that they will be taken under consideration. I would request the hon. members who have had the honour to be elected in the Eastern Townships and in other rural constituencies of Quebec to do their utmost in order to improve the lot of the farming class and, this, as soon as possible. If nothing is done within the next few months, we shall certainly witness a complete bankruptcy of the farming community.


Mr. L. DUGUAY (Lake St. John) (Translation) :: Representing a rural constituency
and being a member of the committee on agriculture and colonization, I deem it my duty, first, to extend my sincere congratulation to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) on the resolution which he introduced this afternoon, and then to express my humble views on the subject matter. When certain hon. members contend that this resolution purports to divide the we.st from the east, I wonder why they make such an assertion. In my opinion the resolution simply aims at granting more time to the study of the various agricultural problems.
I was present at most of the sittings of the committee on agriculture and I can assert, to my knowledge, that the question of wheat was always to the fore, except once when

eggs were discussed. I therefore think it wise to divide the committee on agriculture into two sections and have one group of members devote their time to farming in general. This will not be to the disadvantage of western farmers since they themselves state that they carry on mixed farming. We could study this subject, thus allowing more time to those who specialize in wheat growing.
Allow me to state, sir, that when one attends the committee on agriculture five or six times to discuss a subject which is of particular interest to him and finds that wheat takes up the whole time, this .subject in the long run appears tedious, especially if one hails from the outlying parts of the province of Quebec. If there existed a subdivision of this committee, we would likely appear more regularly at the sittings and take a greater interest in the discussion of problems which we have at heart.
It is unfortunate to note that hon. members of the opposition and especially those of Quebec, when it is a question of agriculture, are not broadminded enough in discussing this question outside of petty politics. Two of these hon. members this afternoon spoke on this resolution. Unfortunately, contentions were brought up, which I might characterize as false. The hon. member for St. Johnis-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) states that agriculture is encouraged in the province of Quebec; let him request the Prime Minister of that province to settle the bill of $452 which is due to Mr. Wilfrid Ouellette, since January last.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: This does
not appear in the resolution.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I am aware that I am outside of the subject and that this question does not please my hon. friend. I must inform my hon. friend on the left that they should not attach to my remarks more spite than they actually imply, but to consider them simply as a wish to show matters in their true light.
I wish to .state in closing my remarks that I am in favour of the resolution and that, if I am called upon to vote, I shall support the motion.


Paul Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much
pleasure to the discussion which took place between my. friends from the province of Quebec, on both sides of the house. I congratulate the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) for having given us the opportunity of discussing the subject matter of this resolution, by moving that the agri-

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
cultural question which interests both east and west be considered on an equal footing. I agree with him heartily.
Although being a city lawyer, I am somewhat acquainted and love the countryside. My forebears were farmers and it always gives me much pleasure to hear farming discussed, becauise Quebec, from the viewpoint of mixed farming, is the first province of confederation.
In this discussion I am particularly interested in the suggestions made to the Government by our friends on the right. They request an enquiry on milk. Very well! I am in favour of it. The farmers of Quebec are taken advantage of, there is no doubt about it. They are allowed seventy cents per hundred pounds of milk, as the honourable member for Rrome-Missisquoi stated, and, in many localities in Quebec, milk dealers allow farmers only what they themselves are willing to grant them. The milk producers are never certain of the price they will obtain for their product and they never know what amount is enclosed in the envelope which is forwarded by the butter or cheese factories. Milk is purchased very cheaply in the rural districts and it has been sold as high as eleven cents per quart in the cities; to-day, it is sold at ten cents a quart. As the honourable member for Brome-Missis-quoi, who made a special study of the question, stated, is it reasonable that milk distributors should make a profit of four to five dollars per hundred pounds? I state that it is a shameful exploitation and that no government should tolerate such a situation. Moreover, this milk is distributed to poverty stricken people and the Dominion Government pay one-third of the cost, the provincial government one-third, and the municipality the other third. This government is therefore interested in legislating on this question, in order to put an end to this exploitation and do justice to the consumers as well as the farmers.
If the farmer is too highly paid, we are charged too much; if the farmers are underpaid, we, city consumers, are still charged too much. A readjustment of prices must take place, this protection must not be granted to those who form part of trusts and exploit, first, the farmer and then the city consumer.
The same may be said of coal. An enquiry is at present being held on coal. I trust that it will not come out as dark as coal itself, that light will be thrown on the subject and the situation remedied. We are informed that coal is hardly worth seven dollars per ton delivered in Montreal, yet it is sold to consumers at fifteen and sixteen dollars per ton. There is no reason why coal should sell
at such high prices. There again the Dominion Government has an interest since it pays, in Montreal and in all cities of Quebec, one-third of the price of the coal which is supplied to those in need, the other two-thirds being paid by the province and the municipality. It is, therefore, in the government's interest to pay a lower price for this coal and they should refer the matter to the Labour Department in order that an inquiry may be held on trusts, as the members on the right have just requested on the milk trusts, for which I congratulate them.
It is all very well to ask that the Committee on Agriculture be divided into two sections, one on mixed farming and the other on wheat, but this committee embraces all the branches of agricultural activities in this country. If honourable members wish to be heard they have but to consult the rules of the House. If they have reason to complain, they have but to put their grievances in writing and muster up sufficient courage to bring them up in the House, even if they are not looked upon favourably by the government. We shall heed them and refer them to the Committee on Agriculture where they may be threshed out and justice done to farmers and consumers. Let them put in writing their complaints, let them place them on the order paper of the House and demand a vote. Notwithstanding all efforts brought to bear to have them withdrawn, under pretext that they might harm the government, let them see that they remain on the order paper of the House. Let them move their adoption, they will be put to a vote and if they have a majority they will be referred to the Committee on Agriculture where they will be given the time necessary so as to be discussed without any need of sub-dividing the committee into two sections. We shall help them, in the committee, to pass all the resolutions that they wish to introduce with a view to forcing the government to act, that is in case they should refuse to protect the farmers and prevent exploitation of consumers in the cities.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, I will only detain you
two or three minutes. During the discussion this afternoon reference was made to an alleged milk combine in Montreal. Reference was also made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) to the fact that the Combines Investigation Act was not what he thought it ought to be, I thought I would be helpful in telling him how the machinery was set in motion. He, in his usual style, said that as far as the member for Kenora-
1938	, COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Mr. Heenan
Rainy River was concerned, while he was in office for five years-it was in fact only four- the results under the Combines Investigation Act were nil, and he snapped his fingers in the customary know-it-all style which characterizes the hon. gentleman. Just to keep the record straight let me say that the Combines Investigation Act is probably one of the most unpopular acts on the statute books, and one of the most unpopular to administer. I can say that from experience. But when the hon. member says there were no results, and just leaves it at that, I think we should make a matter of record some of the things actually done. When I held office-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, but the resolution that is being discussed relates to the rearrangement of the agriculture committee.


Peter Heenan: I am referring to some
remarks made in the course of the debate.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Even so I would ask
the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the resolution.


Peter Heenan: I am replying to statements-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Whether it is in reply
or not it is irrelevant to discuss other matters in the debate on a resolution to rearrange the agriculture committee.


Peter Heenan: During the course of the
debate a question was brought up about combines and the hon. gentleman remarked that the Combines Investigation Act was not working; he referred specifically to milk. I am only replying to those remarks.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It does not make the
remarks any more in order.


Peter Heenan: I am only sorry that you permitted the remarks to go in the first place. Having permitted those remarks to be made in the house accusing the ex-Minister of Labour of doing nothing, I think in all fairness you should permit him to reply. I hope I have your honour's permission.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not recall in the
debate hearing criticism of the hon. member as Minister of Labour. If he was so criticized it was improper and the Speaker should have stopped it. But I must ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the resolution before the house.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member for
York-Sunbury said there had been no protection for the milk industry under the Com-

bines Investigation Act while I was Minister of Labour. I want to say that in nearly every instance when officers went to investigate an alleged combine they were met with the statement that the act was unconstitutional and if the investigation were persisted in the matter would be taken to the privy council to have the act declared ultra vires.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: In 1926 we appointed a commissioner to investigate a complaint as to what was known as the drug combine, the P.A.T.A. The result was that the act went to the privy council and was held to be intra vires of the federal parliament, and the P.A.T.A. was dissolved. In 1929 what was known as the A.B.C., the Amalgamated Builders Council, was investigated. The case was brought to court and there were convictions, and fines amounting to $45,000 were imposed.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with the agriculture committee?


Peter Heenan: I may say that every time you squeeze an onion it makes your eyes water more.


Eccles James Gott: You cannot make any reference to me now, I am not in this.


Peter Heenan: I was not referring to my hon. friend.


Eccles James Gott: I represent the best farming section in the dominion, including the best onion growers.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It may be the best section, but badly represented.


Peter Heenan: In addition to the $45,000 these gentlemen were fined, they returned $16,000 to concerns from whom they had taken money they felt ought to be returned.
In 1930 the Electrical Estimators Association in Toronto was investigated, and upon being taken to court fines amounting to $26,000 were imposed.


Eccles James Gott: You would be closer to the subject if you did discuss onions.


Mr. ROWE:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to draw your attention again to the fact that this is absolutely irrelevant to the question before the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The remarks of the hon. member now addressing the house are out of order. Recounting the operation of the Combines Investigation Aot so far has not been connected with the resolution, which is that

Agriculture Committee-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
in the opinion of this house the agriculture committee would give better satisfaction if it were divided. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River knows as well as anyone in the house that what he is saying now is not in order.
Mr. HEENAiN: Well, I have to repeat that unfortunately Your Honour has not been in the chair all afternoon, and during the discussion the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution alleged there was a combine in milk in Montreal. Then the hon. member for YorkJSunbury said the Combines Investigation Act did not function under my administration, mentioning the ex-Minister of Labour. I will come to the point right now and say that the alleged milk combine in Montreal was investigated during my administration, and the officers of the department reported that there was no combine existing,
I just want to have the record right, and to say in addition that there were over one hundred other cases investigated during the time I was in office.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will give a good deal of satisfaction to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) that his resolution has provoked this discussion, showing the interest he has aroused. I shall be very brief.
In the 1931 session the agriculture committee held twenty-two meetings. Seventeen of these meetings were devoted to a reference from the agriculture committee, and all of the seventeen dealt with mixed farming, none with wheat. Among the items dealt with there was that of grading.
I think that if it were generally understood that our grading policies grew out of a demand from the producers themselves it would set at rest the minds of many people who perhaps do not thoroughly understand them and take exception to them. All that grading does is to put the highest quality product here, the second there, the third next and so on, so that the purchaser can have the benefit thereof in purchasing and it encourages our producers to turn out the highest quality.
Another problem discussed was that of milk prices. This is almost entirely a question for the provinces, and the provinces have taken very serious hold of it. At least two of the provinces have for the past few weeks or months, I believe, been engaged in
very serious and careful investigation of milk prices. The Quebec government, I believe, have almost finished their investigation. They have a few references to report upon yet, and the report is not printed but only in typewritten form. The Ontario government have also done a good deal of work in this connection.
With reference to the stock yard question, we have been in consultation with the various stock yard representatives throughout the dominion and they have before them now a request from the Department of Agriculture with regard to a reduction in the charges in stock yards. We hope to hear from them in the course of at least a week or two.
It is regrettable, in a house like this, representative of all Canada, that misrepresentation should unwittingly be made regarding a great body of farmers in the dominion. I can assure hon. members that if any of them think of going to western Canada they will still find a great number of farmers living there in the winter time and that they are not all in California.
After listening to the discussion, I cannot see any problem in connection with the division of the committee on agriculture. All hon. members from eastern Canada who have spoken have expressed themselves in favour of a fuller discussion of the problems of eastern Canadian agriculture, or agriculture apart from wheat; therefore they are agreed. And I believe that all western speakers have also spoken in favour of at least a perfectly full discussion of eastern problems in agriculture. Personally I think that there is ample room and opportunity within the committee on agriculture, as it is at present constituted, to discuss all these problems. The east will get the benefit of suggestions from the west, and the west will receive some suggestions from the older and more experienced agriculturists in the east. Therefore I should like to see this matter left as it is and brought up before the committee on agriculture, because no one listening to the discussion this afternoon can have any opinion but one, and that is the necessity for cooperation and for a full discussion of any agricultural problems that are placed before the committee.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Mr. Speaker, will you
please call it six o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the business
to-morrow?
Questions


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Public bills and orders.


Ernest Lapointe: And estimates?


Hugh Guthrie: I doubt whether we shall get into estimates, but if we do we will take up one of the departments that have been opened.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 9, 1933