1938-06-15

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

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	What was the total expenditure for the medical care of ex-service men, under orders in council P.C. 1842 and P.C. 91, for the fiscal years 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38?

National Parks Act
2.	What was the total expenditure for hospital allowances for ex-service men, under orders in council P.C. 1842 and P.C. 91, for the fiscal years 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38?
3.	What were the total admissions to hospitals of ex-service men, under orders in council P.C. 1842 and P.C. 91, for the fiscal years 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38?
4.	How many ex-service men were granted treatment as class 1 patients, under orders in council P.C. 1842 and P.C. 91, for the fiscal years 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.
1935-	36	 1936-	37	 1937-	38		.... $1,548,643 61 .... 1,392,321 43 .. .. 1,461,855 96
T otal				.... $4,402,821 00
2. 1935-	36	 1936-	37	 1937-	38		.. .. $1,315,347 09 .. .. 1,083,919 42 .. .. 943,430 68
Total		.... $3,342,697 19
3. 1935-	36	 1936-	37	 1937-	38			 12,678 	 11,527 	 11,031
Total			 35,236
4. 1Q3r*-3fi 			 7,562
lQ3fi-37 			 5.990
1937-38			 4,571
Total			 18,123
MONTREAL POSTAL	EXAMINATIONS


Mr. DENIS:: 1.	How many persons were candidates at the examinations held in Montreal, in June, 1937, for: (a) postal clerks; (b) letter carriers and mail porters?
2.	How many were successful in the said examinations for: (a) postal clerks; (b) letter carriers and mail porters?
3.	How many of the successful candidates
were appointed since as:	(a) postal clerks;
(b) letter carriers and mail porters?
4.	How many returned soldiers were successful in the said examinations for:	(a) postal
clerks; (b) letter carriers and mail porters?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	(a) 1,767; (b) 2,593.
2.	(a) 402; (b) 824.
3.	(a) 63 (full time); 41 (part time), (b) 10 (full time); 42 (part time).
4.	(a) 1; (b) ?8.


LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What is the total amount of premiums paid on the life insurance policies that have lapsed during the calendar years 1930 to 1937 inclusive?
2.	What is the approximate average length of time the above policies have been in force?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The information required is not available from the annual statements received from the various life insurance companies registered at the Department of Insurance.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 154, to amend The National Parks Act, and The Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island National Parks Act, 1936.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2.
Subsection (3) agreed to.
On subsection (4)-Lands added to Elk Island national park.
Mr. BENNETT:: With respect to Elk
Island, is it proposed to vest in the crown in the right of the province the lands not required?


Mr. CRERAR:: Yes; they are transferred
to the province. They are really for road purposes, to permit some slight change the provincial authorities wish to make in a road.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section says "are
hereby declared to be no longer required for park purposes." I do not see that it is vested in the crown in the right of the province of Alberta; however, as in the case of Prince Edward Island, I should think it would be proper to vest it in the crown in the right of the province.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is that suggestion for purposes of clarity, or is it essential?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It struck me that it
might be essential, though I am uncertain as to that. When the natural resources agreements were made the reservation for park purposes was made also, as the hon. gentleman
Excise Act

said yesterday; and in the case of Prince Edward Island, as will be observed, we have stated that the lands are hereby vested in his majesty in the right of the province of Prince Edward Island. I suggest that somewhat similar words should be used with respect to the two areas mentioned in subsections (3) and (4) of section 2. Whether or not it is essential would be seen only by going back over the various statutes to find whether that was done. But it is simple to add the words, "hereby vested in the crown in the right of the province of Alberta." I think it may be essential, but it may not. I am asking the minister for information.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot say definitely at the moment, but my impression is that it is covered in the natural resources transfer agreements. I think I am correct in saying that there is some provision somewhere in the agreements that lands which may be no longer required for park purposes shall return to the province. However, I have no objection to adding-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I was just asking the minister for information.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Lands withdrawn from Prince Edward Island national park.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister can give a little information in respect to a matter which I brought to the attention of the house some time ago. There was a rather serious dispute between the province and some of the landowners. I felt that the landowners, on the evidence submitted in their declaration had made a fairly good case; and the minister said he would look into the matter.
I take it, when we place the obligation upon the province to acquire the lands, the Dominion of Canada has no desire to occupy lands with respect to which the previous owners felt that they had a grievance. Perhaps the minister could tell us what the effect of this legislation may be upon the areas which were in dispute and the values which were fixed upon them by the arbitrary provisions of a statute of Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My information is that
the matter to which the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just referred, and which was mentioned by him on a previous occasion, has been satisfactorily adjusted. I think these changes or rectifications in the park boundary lines relate to the adjustment made with the people from whom the property was acquired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I wanted to know.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is my information at the moment. I wish, however, to add that I do not think there is any responsibility on the federal government through the parks administration to see that people whose lands may be taken for park purposes are properly compensated. That is wholly a matter within the province, and of course the province has to answer to those from whom the land is acquired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not saying that the duty rests primarily on the parks branch, but I think it rests on the dominion as a dominion, when it is acquiring property by way of a trust, to satisfy itself in a general way that those who have been deprived of their property have had it taken from them by due process of law. I am not going to traverse the ground I went over before; but the minister will remember that the province passed a statute which allowed them to take the property and fix the compensation. That is, the people who compulsorily take it fix the compensation, and there was no recourse either to arbitration or otherwise. I suggest that, not the parks branch but the Dominion of Canada would not care to acquire that land which had a trust attached to it unless the dominion felt that at least those reasonable precautions, which have always obtained in British dominions when property is taken from an owner, had been observed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A rather nice point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I think the minister said this adjustment cured it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 123, to amend the Excise Act.
He said: The amendments are harmless. There is really only one amendment which substitutes the word "suffers" for the word "allows."
The other amendment is merely an amendment in point of form. Section 17 of the bill

Supply-Agriculture-Production
states that the word "five" shall be substituted for the word "two," the form ia which the section is drafted violates the rules-or perhaps the accepted practice-of parliament. Instead of section 17 being drafted in the terms that appear, the whole section should have been repealed and the word "five" substituted for the word "two." The senate has made that change in the wording of section 17. Those are the only two amendments. I would ask that the house concur in them.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one about fines, penalties. There are three altogether.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was told there were only two.


Mr. STEWART:: It is in the votes and proceedings:
Page 2, line 16. For "penalty" substitute " fine."
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Production services-Live stock and poultry

further amount required, $24,785.
Mr. LEADER:: What progress, if any, has been made with regard to shipping fresh killed beef to the old country market?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The first shipment left last week.


Mr. SENN:: When this item was up for discussion some time ago I registered an objection against the practice followed by the department of going to the stockyards to buy brood sows rather than obtaining them from breeders of pure bred swine. Will the minister give the committee the details of what has been done during the past year along this line. How many sows have been purchased in this way for distribution among the farmers for use as breeding animals?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed by the deputy that he has not that information for the past year.


Mark Cecil Senn: I think it is a very unwise policy to purchase animals in this way for distribution among farmers, particularly when there are so many live stock breeders who are doing such good work in breeding pure bred animals. They are helping, at considerable expense to themselves, to build up the breeding stock of this country, but if these animals are purchased at the stockyards the breeders will have no encouragement whatever to continue the work they are doing. They have rendered a wonderful service to the dominion by the production of pure bred hogs, cattle and other animals. Rather than continue in this way, I think it would be better if the department discontinued this service entirely and let the farmers buy from the breeders or wherever else they wish. It would be unfair to the pure bred live stock breeders to continue this practice any longer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can understand that there may be some objection to this policy, but there are also some advantages. I have shipped at one time as many as thirty or forty pure bred Yorkshire hogs to market, and many other producers have done the same thing. By there being some one at the market to make selections, many of those animals are saved from slaughter. Quite often the community in which the animals are bred is not such that they can be disposed of to advantage. Many farmers who would like to take advantage of such a distribution do not live in the immediate vicinity. We are trying to work out a policy whereby these animals will be selected at the local points rather than at the stockyards. That would provide some improvement over the present system. The department will be more than pleased to cooperate with the breeders in providing a more convenient distribution of pure bred sires.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister's answer goes a long way to prove just what I have said. These pure bred live stock breeders are forced to send their animals to market because they have no other market for them. They will never have a market so long as these animals are distributed in the way they are at present. I think the proper thing to do would be to purchase the animals from the pure bred live stock breeders. I believe these animals could be got for a very small premium over the prevailing market price for slaughter animals. That would assist the breeders and encourage them in the work they are doing.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I agree with what the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) has said. I do not think the department is giving the pure bred live stock breeders of this country sufficient assistance. About the only market they have is the ordinary meat auction, as one might call it. Considerable advancement has been made with reference to advanced registration of pure bred swine, and serious consideration has been given to initiating a record of performance in connection with swine, such as we have with dairy cattle. It seems to me

Supply-Agriculture-Production
that the department is giving the pure bred live stock breeder very little incentive to carry on a work which is essential to the production of high-class bacon. Has any consideration been given to the payment of 'bonuses for the production of pure bred swine, such as are paid in connection with cattle and sheep?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bonus policy in connection with swine has been largely done away with. This policy was in force generally some years ago, but it is not now in operation in a number of provinces. The service in connection with registration and all that goes with it is given to the breeders of pure bred swine as well as to the breeders of other pure bred live stock. However, the situation in connection with hogs is a little different from that prevailing in connection with cattle or horses. The price of a pure bred sire, as far as cattle or horses are concerned, is much higher than the price of a pure bred hog. The same thing is true with regard to females. For example, when you ship hogs to market, even if they are pure bred, you would get in the west probably fifteen or sixteen dollars a head for them. It is very difficult to make selections on the farm pay the cost of those selections and add that cost on to the price of the animal. But when the individual can go perhaps to the local yard from which the hog is shipped or to the stock yard to which it is shipped, he can purchase pretty much at the market price. In addition, the amount of money involved in the animal itself renders it difficult to add the cost of the service on to it, which would mean going around and selecting the hogs where they are to be found on the farm. That is one thing which it is difficult to overcome, the matter of cost alone. When you are dealing with a bull or a stallion, it is an entirely different matter. There you can make selections and add on the cost of selection, the cost of inspection, and all that kind of thing without doubling the price of the animal, but with the hog you would probably more than double the price. I would say this, that I think the results which have been obtained across Canada from one end to the other in the improvement of swine is a fair indication that the services of the department have been not only appreciated but effective.


William Earl Rowe: Perhaps the minister did not get my point. I believe the department would be well advised to give consideration to the encouragement of the production of high-class, pure bred swine that come up to the standard required and have the record of performance credentials. I see

no more serious difficulty in providing a system of general application with regard to hogs than in providing one with regard to sheep. I quite agree with the minister that great strides have been made in assisting in the production of better swine throughout the country, because farmers take advantage of the pure bred swine that are placed on the market; but that is more or less drying up the fountain from which the better swine have come; and while it slightly improves the general quality and general standard throughout the country, it does not offer much incentive to the breeders to whom the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) has referred.
As to advanced registry, I observe in last year's report that the department was completing arrangements for two advanced registry test stations, one in Edmonton and one in Saskatoon, and I should like to know what progress has been made in that regard and whether the department has given consideration to the establishment of advanced registry test stations at other points throughout the dominion. If we are going to keep in step with the improvement made in other countries in quality of production, special efforts should be made and special encouragement given by the department to the swine breeders throughout this country, so that breeding swine with special credentials as to record of performance might be more widely distributed. The department might well seriously consider the taking of special steps for the encouragement of pure bred swine because, after all, the swine from which we produce our better bacon to-day are all pure bred or eligible for registration. I quite agree that the small price secured for pure bred swine does deprive breeders from having a record of their breeding in many instances; but recently great strides have been taken with respect to advanced registry tests and records of performance credentials, and that is fundamental if we are steadily to improve the quality of our swine. But I am speaking more with reference to the encouragement of the breeder of recorded pure bred swine, than of what might be called the commercial breeder, who is merely taking advantage of the better hog he gets at the ordinary market price.


Mr. BLAIR:: We already have a premium
on first-class hogs and I think that might perhaps serve the purpose. It is extremely important that our bacon should be properly displayed in the old country. For many years we have heard that we have never had a proper display of our bacon in the old land. We have also heard that our Canadian packing organizations do not wish to have a proper

Supply-Agriculture-Production
display of our bacon in the old land because they say that if the price of our export bacon, which comprises 15 per cent of our production, goes up then the price of the 85 per cent we consume at home would also go up, and if the price of the 85 per cent for home consumption goes up, it will come in competition with fowl, fish, eggs and salmon, and we shall not have the turnover in bacon that we now have. Their interest is in looking after the packer. Our interest is to see that we get the highest possible price for our Canadian bacon.
I have received a number of letters complaining of our Canadian display, and I have one here which I got from Glasgow only two days ago, from a drover of my home village. He visited the empire exhibition in Glasgow and viewed the situation in regard to our export cattle and hogs. I will read a few sentences from his letter:
I came to Glasgow on a cattle boat from Montreal for three reasons: first, I wanted to see how Canadian cattle were being handled for export; second, I wanted to see what Canada in particular had to show in the empire show windows at the empire exhibition; and third, I just wanted to see what sort of country our Canadian pioneers came from.
X have been greatly impressed by the beauty and historical interest of Scotland. I have just finished going through Edinburgh castle and I am writing this as I did the enclosure, in the waiting room in the castle. Canada had the most pretentious building on Dominion avenue at the exhibition, but I don't think it would sell Canada to the British Isles. While Australia had a more modest building, I believe her display was much more businesslike.
Peter C. McTavish.
That letter, as I said, was from Glasgow, from the empire exhibition.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might make the
suggestion, the remarks just made by my hon. friend relate to item No. 4S5. We are now on the item for the production of live stock and poultry, and I would rather reserve until we reach the other item, any remarks I have to make in reply to my hon. friend.
To deal with the questions raised by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), the first of these advanced registry establishments that was built was in Ontario. Later there was one placed in Quebec, and later another in Prince Edward Island, and one in Nova Scotia, which serves both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Last year again there was one built in Saskatoon, as my hon. friend indicated, and one in Edmonton. This year we are rebuilding the one in Ontario; that is, we are building a more up-to-date plant.


William Earl Rowe: Where?


James Garfield Gardiner: Near Waterloo, in the same vicinity where the old one was established. That is now being arranged for. The desire is to promote the production of the best strain of Yorkshire hogs, particularly, right across Canada, and to encourage breeders in producing them by giving them this registry and also a test of the production under certain feeding regulations. That is being done at all these plants, and the work will be enlarged as funds are available.


William Earl Rowe: No consideration has been given to the breeders who produce the desired type of hogs for breeding purposes?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the present system contemplates that they will reap a premium on the sales when their live stock is sold. I think it has been the experience that they do, as a result of the records given by and maintained by the government.


Mr. PERLEY:: When this item was before the committee on a former occasion, I think it was May 25, I tried to persuade the minister to give consideration to the live stock breeders of Saskatchewan by way of providing sires. I wonder if he can tell us what he proposes to do to assist Saskatchewan live stock breeders this summer, and if he has reconsidered his ideas? At that time he was not very favourably disposed.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not the figures made up yet for this year. The work is now being carried on. But I gave the figures, I believe, on two previous occasions, when we were on the general estimates and also on the date mentioned. The number of bulls put out in Saskatchewan was, last year, 65, and the previous year, 70; in Manitoba 61 last year and 52 the previous year; in Alberta last year 78 and the previous year 88. In addition to this policy of putting out bulls in the communities, we are this year in Saskatchewan putting bulls into the community pastures that were established. This year 18 are being placed in those pastures, to be used by those adjacent to them.


George Halsey Perley: How many of those pastures are in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: All eighteen are in Saskatchewan.


George Halsey Perley: Can the minister give us any idea as to the number of breeding stock, females, in the pastures?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it would serve just as well, I should prefer to deal with these figures

Supply-Agriculture-Production
when we are discussing rehabilitation. I shall then have the figures available of the number of cattle served in each of the pastures.


George Halsey Perley: How many sires is the department putting out this year in Saskatchewan under the loaning scheme?


James Garfield Gardiner: The number has not yet been fully determined. As I have just indicated, we are now supplying the pastures and other areas. I am not able to give the completed figure for this year. It will be a number greater than last year.


Harry Leader: The minister has given the number of sires placed in the different provinces in the last two years. Could he give us the number by breeds?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the three provinces I have the totals back over a period of years, but not just for last year. I can give those figures if they will be satisfactory.
Saskatche-
Alberta wan Manitoba
Shorthorns..	..	539	604	295Herefords	..	.	.	128	153	90Ayrsbires	....	6	11	2Angus	
86	70	18Holsteins	16	12	12Redpolls	
47	24	7Jerseys	
7	...	...


Harry Leader: There is just one suggestion I wish to offer to the minister. Thinking over our live stock industry and the condition it is in at the present time, and realizing that we are not making very much headway in developing a better quality of beef cattle-I am speaking particularly of beef cattle at the present time-I have come to the conclusion that the production of good live stock should be left entirely with the provinces, each of which has a department of agriculture. Over this large dominion, far-flung as it is, the federal government cannot undertake to supervise better sires for our live stock; therefore, I believe, it should be left entirely to the provinces. But I think the federal department could assist in the marketing of our products; I would say that that is their job. I believe also that they should supply funds whereby the provinces could give bonuses in the production of better sires. I wish just to throw out that suggestion. I know that in the past the different provinces have had policies of their own, sometimes overlapping with the policies of the federal government. But I am firmly convinced that the production end should be left to the province, with the federal department assisting in every way possible in providing a market and also giving financial aid. When I read of the action which has been

taken, in particular, by Ireland, which is our greatest competitor in the old country market -the policies that country has adopted, the strides it has made in producing better feeder cattle for the British market-I am amazed that we in Canada have just leaned on our oars and have not made use of the advantages which we enjoy. It is all right to send Stocker and feeder cattle to Great Britain, but we should send what the market demands. We are not doing so in any quantities. Most of our feeder cattle, store cattle that go to the old country markets, are the progeny of dairy and dual purpose bulls. Can you expect them to compete successfully with Ireland, which is using the very best beef bulls it can buy in Scotland and in England? We in Canada should be concerned in providing the very best type of beef bulls we can secure, not limiting them to any one beef breed, but getting the best we can in all breeds, thereby giving the market what it demands. The same thing applies exactly to the United States. Those two countries provide us with our markets, and if we have not the initiative and the ambition to provide ourselves with the very best stock we can possibly obtain to supply those markets, then I say there is something seriously wrong.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Plant inspection, insects and diseases-further amount required, $30,185.
George Halsey Perley: Does the grasshopper question come under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, under entomology. There is a special item for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants for fair buildings and improvements, in the amounts detailed in the estimates- further amount required, $65,850.
William Earl Rowe: Will the minister explain this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: The purpose of the vote is to provide for a number of grants. For the maritime winter fair at Amherst, Nova Scotia, there is an additional S5.000. That is one year's amount to provide for a building that is being put up at Amherst to serve the three maritime provinces. The one winter fair serves the three. This will constitute part of the amount that is to be spread over ten years under arrangement with these provinces. The provinces themselves are contributing S5,000. The Vancouver exhibition is a similar arrangement, but there is some doubt whether that will proceed in view of the fact that the amount has been found scarcely sufficient to take care of the cost of the building. It may have to be delayed for another year, but at

Suppl y-A griculture
the moment the amount is being voted. I do not know whether we shall be able to go through with the arrangement, but that is the intention. The additional amount for the Montreal exhibition represents a special expenditure that has been incurred there, the province of Quebec having joined with us on a fifty-fifty basis to clear up the expenditure that has been made. As a matter of fact, Quebec is giving more than fifty per cent. The Ormiston exhibition is a similar one. The British Columbia Cattle Growers' Association receives S600. It is to increase the grant to the Kamloops exhibition for a similar purpose. With respect to the Discovery Day fair in the Yukon, we are providing a grant to take care of some special exhibits having to do largely with horticulture in the north country. The request was made by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mrs. Black) and I thought it was a good purpose to encourage the production of vegetables and flowers in that far northern country. The hon. member can explain it more fully than I can. The other amount of 850,000 is for small exhibitions across Canada, for improvements of fences and buildings and so on, where employment may be given in a small way.


Mrs. BLACK:: I wish to take this opportunity particularly to thank the Minister of Agriculture for making this grant:	Our Discovery Day celebration, the day on which we celebrate the discovery of gold in the Yukon, is on August 17, and fairs are held in the capital city, Dawson, and at White Horse and Mayo. At White Horse, Dawson and Mayo, tourist steamers call and tourists are interested in seeing what our country will produce. In the three months of the growing season when we have practically twenty-four hours of daylight or sunlight, the country produces almost all the vegetables that one gets on the outside, and our flowers are unusually beautiful. Some of our gardens rival in beauty those of the "outside" world, as we call it. Prizes are offered for the best display of flowers and the best display of vegetables. There is now one experimental farm in the vicinity of Carmacks. I do not believe that any grant is given to that farm, but seeds and roots are sent to Mr. Brown and he in turn, I believe, sends samples of the foodstuffs he has raised in that part of the world. Yukoners, I am sure, will be particularly pleased, because while this amount is not large it will at least show them that the government is taking an interest in the agricultural work away in the north country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Branch farms and stations and illustration stations-further amount required, $42,230.
George Halsey Perley: Explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: These are the items
making up the vote: Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, salaries, additional amount required for new and reclassified positions and statutory increases resulting from reorganization, $7,510. Then there are wages, additional amount required for increase in wages of labour and so on, branch farms and stations, amounting to $27,525. For illustration stations, to provide for the establishment of new stations, at $350 per station, and travelling expenses of supervisors, there is an amount of $2,035. There is a substation at Fort William, Ontario, for the study of crop improvement methods, soil improvement, live stock production, tree, fruit and vegetable production; and including salaries, rent, supplies and so on, the amount is 82.340. For the substation at Creston, British Columbia, for the study of crop possibilities, type of crop rotation most desirable on reclaimed Creston flats, there is an amount of $2,820.


Mr. MARSH:: How many of these branch farms and stations are there? I was interested in ascertaining whether this money is distributed over three or four branch farms, or whether there are. many of them throughout the country, and in what provinces they are located.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are many of them all across Canada. I was just looking for the list. I did not have it at hand because this matter was dealt with on the general estimates and, as has been indicated, this is only a supplementary estimate. But we have the information, and I can get it shortly.


John Allmond Marsh: It is not necessary, thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Entomology-further amount required, $19,210.
George Halsey Perley: Would the minister make a statement with regard to the grasshopper plague in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: The latest information is that grasshoppers are hatching in moderate numbers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and parts of Alberta. There is an organization set up to deal with the attack of the grasshoppers on the crops; as to how effective it will be we are not yet in a position to say. While I was in the southern part of Saskatchewan recently I was told that in certain sections down in the neighbourhood of Oxbow and
3876	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
Carlyle there is a somewhat serious development of the grasshopper plague at the moment, but they hope to be able to keep it under control.


William Earl Rowe: Some parts of northern Ontario are seriously affected as well. There is a grasshopper plague in Fort William and Port Arthur, and recently the Huntsville district showed signs of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am glad to have that information, and the department will take the matter under consideration.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: What steps are being taken to combat the grasshoppers? I had word this morning that on several farms in the south, half the crop is said to have been destroyed. That is not general, I understand, but it is so in these cases.


James Garfield Gardiner: The attack on the grasshopper plague is always made by the provincial governments. We do not carry on that service. We do make available any of our men from this branch of the department in order to assist in developing ways and means of handling the plague, but the work is actually financed and carried on by the provincial governments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is any subsidy given by the federal government?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no subsidy; just this assistance which is given through this branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing services - agricultural economics, including grant of $5,000 to the International Conference of Agricultural Economists-further amount required, $7,690.
William Earl Rowe: What is this further amount for? I thought the item in the main estimates provided for a grant of $5,000 for this conference.


James Garfield Gardiner: The purpose of this additional amount is first to provide for additional sums required for new and reclassified positions and statutory increases resulting from reorganization; also the adjustment of salaries of graduate assistants and student assistants as provided in these classifications. Second, it is to provide for financial assistance to the International Conference of Agricultural Economists to be held at Macdonald College, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, in Quebec, August 21-28, 1938. This is a conference that is held from time to time in different countries. This year it is to be held in Canada, and we are doing here what is done in other countries, providing some assistance towards the cost of it. The extent of that assistance is $5,000.


William Earl Rowe: Is it the intention of the government to send another committee overseas in 1939 to investigate marketing conditions?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have our organization over there at the moment; that is, we sent over Mr. Allen of the university of Saskatchewan, as was indicated when the general estimates were up, and we also have six men, sent there in previous years, who are acting under Mr. Allen. In addition others may go over from the department from time to time in connection with certain activities, but it is not anticipated that a definite committee will be sent over for that purpose. That is, the action rve have taken is a result of the activities of that committee of a year ago in establishing the set-up of the marketing branch. There is one man over there now, Mr. Arkell, who is making some investigations along with Mr. Allen.


William Earl Rowe: Does he report to the Department of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: If any
other committees are sent overseas at public expense, such as the very able committee that was sent over last year, I suggest that their report be tabled as it is presented, whether it criticizes or praises any department of the government. I think the house and the country are entitled to a full report on conditions as they exist overseas, and as they are found to exist by any such committee, rather than a report such as that to which we referred previously at some length. I do not propose to refer to it again more than to say that I want to compliment the minister on naming such outstanding and experienced agricultural representatives as made up that committee. I think it most unfortunate, however, that the original report was not presented; perhaps because in some respects it did not give any added political colour to the Department of Trade and Commerce, or perhaps it was embarrassing to the Department of Agriculture. The report was so rehashed that it was, I repeat, merely a political document complimenting the government for what they had done, advertising what they intended to do and leaving unsaid many things that the committee found essential for the better marketing of our agricultural products overseas. I do not think it is unfair to say that now, because since referring to it before I have observed in the minister's discussions of his estimates the statement that seed tomatoes of a certain kind had been distributed to only a few of the experimental farms. But on page 10 of

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
this report, which was more or less an added entry or added compliment to the government rather than any report of a committee, clause 4 states:
The seed of a particularly promising new variety of tomato has been purchased. It has been distributed among eanners throughout Canada who have undertaken to have the crop produced and processed under the superivsion of the Department of Agriculture. This particular variety is very promising and it is hoped that it may be the means of improving our product on the British market.
We find that only a few experimental farms have received this choice seed. That is only one example of the statements made throughout this so-called report, which to my mind is more a political handbook than anything else; it has not even the name "report" on it. It is most unfortunate that the advice and findings of such an excellent committee have been so much befogged by what to my mind is merely a political scramble of difficulties between two departments.
It is not in any spirit of sarcasm that I ask the minister whether he would consider again sending a committee overseas. The committee did excellent work last year. I should like to see them go back to the old country, investigate British markets as they did before, and be allowed to present in this house a report not manufactured by someone after their return and added to and subtracted from and changed in its whole purport until it is of little value except politically for the government and the department under which they were sent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairy products-further amount required, $20,050.
Mr. TUSTIN:: The details on page 24 of the supplementary estimates show a chief of dairy products marketing and merchandising services. In the main estimates there was an assistant director of marketing services. Is this a new position that has been added in the supplementaries?


James Garfield Gardiner: This position was provided for when the reorganization was arranged, but it is not yet filled.


George James Tustin: Then it will be a new
position?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and special grant of $90,500 to Manitoba Cold Storage, Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba-further amount required, $178,836.80.
Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simeoe):: Will the minister explain?


James Garfield Gardiner: The following contracts have been signed since the main estimates were submitted:
Edmonton Cold Storage Co. Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, $8,926.80.
Elgin Growers Cooperative, St. Thomas, Ontario, $525.
Oxford Fruit Cooperative, Ltd., Woodstock, Ontario, $2,355.
Creston Cooperative Fruit Exchange, Creston, British Columbia, $4,080.
Vancouver Ice and Cold Storage Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia, $15,000.
Total, $30,886.80.
Then, as to applications received but contracts not yet signed, these have been investigated by the department and we are practically committed to them:
Crown Fruit Company, Kelowna, British Columbia, $4,875.
Allied Cooperative Cold Storage, Hamilton, Ontario, $37,500.
Keremeos Growers Cooperative, Keremeos, British Columbia, $6,600.
Okanagan Valley Land Company, Okanagan Centre, British Columbia, $3,525.
Timiskaming Producers Cooperative, New Liskeard, Ontario, $1,050.
British Columbia Fruit Shippers, Ltd., West Summerland, British Columbia, $3,900.
Special grant, Manitoba Cold Storage Co., Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, $90,500.
The Timiskaming Producers Cooperative will have to come under the special grants, as well as the Manitoba Cold Storage. The reason is that strictly speaking, as the law stands, anyone making application for one of these grants must do so before any activities in connection with the building are started. These two concerns had unofficially made application before starting activities, but before we could get into the position of inspecting and taking the action necessary under the law they found it imperative to go on if they were to get construction under way this year. They started with the understanding that if we found them to be in every way in accordance with the law we would proceed. In every other way they have conformed to the law.


Percy John Rowe: The amounts are in keeping with the terms of the act?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. STEVENS:: Has the minister with him a copy of the contract form that is entered into in all these cases?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not a copy of the agreement here. It is the same agreement as has been in use for a long term of years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I am under the impression that the form of contract gives some jurisdiction to the minister in regard to rates of charges.
3878	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not approaching this in a critical spirit at all, but I should like ta point out that the original idea of the Cold Storage Act-I think that is the act under which subsidies are granted-was that it would be a service to producers; that was the foundation of it. It was with that thought in mind that parliament passed the act, and it has been carried on ever since. Now the strange thing is that over a long period of years since this act first came into operation there has grown up a tendency on the part of those who control some of the cold storage plants to use the plant as a method of enhancing their own profits rather than stabilizing the market for the producers. I do not apply this to all. A substantial number of those named by the minister are cooperatives, and they are not included in this at all. I am referring to the cold storage plants located in certain of our cities. I believe the department should make a careful study of these to ascertain whether the large contributions, running into many millions of dollars, that have been made out of the public treasury, are being used for the enhancement of private companies rather than to stabilize the market. I did not know that this item was coming up to-day, or I would have been fortified with more data.
Let me give one illustration. For the last ten years statistics have been published from time to time with regard to the amount of butter in storage. I looked at these the other day and I believe there is something like 20,000,000 pounds of butter now in storage. Hon. members who are familiar with this business will understand my illustration. The flush period of production in Canada is from June to September, tapering off, of course, as the grass dries up in the latter months of the summer. As we pass into the winter, when the cattle have to go under shelter, the production drops off. Usually the cold storage accumulation around September is in the neighbourhood of 20,000,000 pounds, and this will gradually diminish from about the end of October. Frequently the substantial portion of this accumulation has disappeared by February or March.
When the increase in storage ceases around the month of September the price paid to the farmer for butter fat ought to increase and continue to increase until the middle of the winter. Frequently the farmer does not get the advantage of increased butter fat prices until January, February or March. Mark you, the natural conditions are fairly steady. The large corporations, such as the Eastern Dairies, argue that an increased price should

not be paid because of the presence of this accumulation still in storage. This happens as regularly as the seasons. My conviction is that the large dairy companies have used their storage facilities for their own profit rather than to assist the farmer.
Let me put the story the other way around. When this legislation was approved parliament realized that Canada was unique, as compared with New Zealand and certain other countries, in that we had a very cold winter season but a summer season of prolific production. Parliament accepted the view that subsidies should be paid to provide cold storage facilities in order that fair prices might be maintained and that the farmer might receive a higher price for his butter fat during the winter. It was felt that the production could be sold at a price which would enable the cold storage company to pay the farmer a fair price in the summer. But that is not the way it has worked out. To use the words the head of one of these corporations uttered some time ago, "There is the consumer dollar from which must be obtained the cost of freight, the cost of processing and our profit, and the farmer gets what is left."
That is an absolutely false philosophy; yet it dominates the butter business, and also the cheese business to a certain extent. The same philosophy dominates the hog and bacon market. I implore the minister to give some thought to this philosophy that works eternally against the farmer. My contention is that there should be a fair price paid to the farmer. That should be your kicking-off point. Then you have the cost of processing, cold storage, freight, handling and distribution. The function of parliament should be to watch these intervening processes and see that they do not become too costly. Naturally I am just as much interested in protecting the consumer as I am in seeing that the farmer gets a fair deal. Parliament should exercise its discretion and control as far as possible.
I venture to say that scores of millions of dollars have been contributed to assist in providing these cold storage facilities. I recall one instance where a grant of a couple of million dollars was made. These cold storage companies that have received millions of dollars from the public treasury ought not to be allowed to use these facilities to control the market for their own advantage. These facilities should be used for the stabilizing of the market so that the farmer may receive a fair price for his butter fat and other products involved in the cold storage business.


James Garfield Gardiner: The remarks just made apply to what was said when the main estimates were up some time ago. At that time

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
we discussed the question whether this particular provision should be continued. My understanding of the discussion at that time was that there was an overwhelming opinion that these subsidies should be continued. When the question was raised before, I had somewhat the same idea as has been raised to-day. There is a question whether we have not reached the time when it can be said that we have given sufficient encouragement to the establishment of cold storage plants.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not want the minister to be under any false impression. I want it understood that I am not arguing for the cessation of grants under the Cold Storage Act. What I am suggesting is that these companies have taken advantage of these subsidies, and that the whole matter should be carefully surveyed from the standpoint of the farmer. That is all I am asking for at the moment. I am not making any charges, nor am I criticizing the minister. This is not a matter for which he has any particular responsibility.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nevertheless there is a question whether we have reached a point where we should reconsider the whole matter. There is just a possibility that in some places we are promoting a commercial venture rather than assisting the producer. However, we feel that with the legislation as it is, those who meet all the conditions are entitled to the assistance provided. The storing of butter at comparatively low prices during the production season and selling it at higher prices during the winter is something that goes on rather generally all across Canada. It is something that develops with the seasonal conditions prevailing in this country.


Mark Cecil Senn: Not only as regards butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; as regards other
products as well as butter. The whole question is one which is receiving consideration by the department in an endeavour to find some way of -meeting the situation, but up to the -moment we have not found any effective way of meeting it.
Reference was made to the amount. The total amount of subsidies was $2,570,525.94. I think it advisable that we should -place that on the record just to keep it straight.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I add one suggestion to what I have already said about this matter, and it is this: When we come to -the month of August, September or October, there is somewhere during that period the possibility of moving out of Canada a substantial amount of butter. I recall that some four years ago, possibly five, I -took an interest in the matter from the standpoint of the Department of Trade and Commerce; I know that a considerable amount was moved out, and it eased the tension at once and had an immediate effect on the price. I believe -that even if it were to cost a little, it would pay us to move some of that butter out just at the peak of the period because -the flush period is always used as an excuse for beating down the price to the farmer for his butter fat. I do not know the price now, but for many years it got down to sixteen, seventeen and eighteen cents for butter fat, which is a disastrous price. I think these cold storage companies and the large dairy corporations ought to be brought into line so that a reasonable -price will be paid to the farmer throughout -this fl-ush period, and I am quite certain that if we had some attention -paid to the science of -marketing during that period, in September and October particularly, a great deal could be done to assist. But, above all, during the summer months these companies ought not to be allowed to beat down the price as they do on the presentation of statistics of storage.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The suggestion of
the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) causes me to point out that in my judgment we shall never get the economic life of this country on a stable basis until we introduce from one end of it clear to the other the principle of the just price.


An hon. MEMBER:: How?


John Horne Blackmore: First of all, go to work on it; realize it has to be done. Then, probably call in those who know how to do it. There has been no evidence so far that anyone has attempted to do it, and the farmer is -being destroyed. It is the same in Ontario as in other -parts of the country. I do not wish to labour this unduly, but the words of the hon. member for Kootenay East are absolutely true, and this situation ought not to be.
I have come to the point where I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture three or four questions just to get clearly in mind the point of view of the Department of Agriculture. I am not sure whether this is the right place to ask these questions, but the first one is this:
What is the purpose of the Department of Agriculture in the Dominion of Canada? Is it here to -increase the agricultural output in Canada, or is it here to increase the farmers' prosperity and stability in Canada, or is it here to improve Canada's agricultural [DOT]possibilities? I believe that if we can definitely answer these three questions to start with, we would be on a basis from which we could go forward.



Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
The next question which ought to be asked, it seems to me, is this: Is our Department of Agriculture primarily concerned with producing Canada's needs or the world's needs?


An hon. MEMBER:: Both.


John Horne Blackmore: A very sound answer came from the other side of the house-both. That is also my opinion. If that is the case, it helps us to direct our agricultural thinking.
I come from an agricultural constituency, and I am deeply interested in these questions, as I know all members are. My province is primarily an agricultural province, and my constituency is an agricultural constituency. I have said several times already in this house that unless something is done to regulate the situation for the farmers in my constituency, then we are destroying the agricultural life of my constituency, which thing ought not to be. I think everyone will grant that.
I propose to ask several other questions after a while. I do not want to be too truculent, but the time has come when the farmer's voice must be heard, and attention must be paid to it. Otherwise we must frankly acknowledge that in this Dominion of Canada the agricultural industry no longer counts, that it is a secondary consideration. Once that is acknowledged so that everybody know3 it, well enough. Then we shall all know how to act; then we shall all know what to do. We shall all know that it is not wise to stay any longer in the western provinces, that we had better move to Ontario and Quebec where the industries are.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Mr. Hepburn will look after you.


John Horne Blackmore: We shall have to move east. That is how many people from the agricultural areas are feeling. While we do not want to have anything unpleasant, I think probably the time has come when there ought to be a show-down. That is how the farmers are feeling. We are pretty much with our backs to the wall. It is practically impossible for us to move across the line into the United States as tens of thousands of farmers have done, and it is rapidly becoming impossible for us to live on the farm. If we leave the farm and move into the cities, we face a life of misery, and we have much the same situation to face as those boys in Vancouver of whom we were speaking yesterday. While I do not want to precipitate anything unpleasant, I would ask the minister, as man to man- I know he is as deeply interested in the farmers as I am-


An hon. MEMBER:: More so.
fMr. Blackmore.l


John Horne Blackmore: You must not say
more deeply interested. You can think it, and say it if you want to be wrong. But the minister comes from the west and is a westerner with me. He is interested in the west, first, as the west itself. Second, he is interested in it because of the part the west can play in making Canada a great and happy country, and that is the attitude we all have. I have asked very few questions on the estimates, but if I could get an answer from the minister to the questions I have put, I have several others.


Mr. LENNARD:: Ask them.


John Horne Blackmore: I have asked several already, and they will take some answering. First, what is the purpose of the department? Is it to increase the agricultural output of Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I may be allowed, I move, Mr. Chairman:
That under vote 483, supplementary estimates, subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act. there be added: "and special grant to the Temiskaming Producers' Cooperative, New Liskeard, Ontario, $1,050.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I explained a few moments ago, that will rectify the position in which the item now stands. The amendment, will put it in the same position as Manitoba.


William Earl Rowe: Are the same statutory terms applicable to limited companies as to cooperative organizations engaged in cold storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It is just a matter of cold storage as long as it is available to the public.


William Earl Rowe: So long as it is available to the producer?


James Garfield Gardiner: To the public generally. For cold storage purposes, as long as the space is available, at a fee, to the public generally, whether it is for producer or consumer purposes. The public has the use of the service.


William Earl Rowe: It must be kept open for public purposes?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: In connection with this $37,500 grant to the Allied Cooperative Cold Storage Company of Hamilton, what further grant will this firm receive?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first amount paid is fifty per cent of the total grant. The remainder is spread over four years.

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage


Frank Exton Lennard: What type of cold storage plant is this?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has a space of 300,000 cubic feet, and it will be open to the public for general storage.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is not a processing plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be a processing plant built along with it; I am not sure about that. But the only part to which we give assistance is cold storage.


Frank Exton Lennard: Who are the officials at the head of this concern?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one which is pending; the agreement has not yet been signed. I have not the names of the officials here.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to have the minister answer the questions I put, because they are, to my thinking, important. Perhaps he will tell me whether or not he would answer them in the affirmative. I asked three questions which were covered up, probably, by a later remark. The first one was: Is it the purpose of the federal Department of Agriculture to increase the agricultural output of the dominion? I would say the answer is, yes. If that is not right the minister will correct me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that on two or three previous occasions I have answered these questions, particularly when I was discussing the reorganization of the department. We have reorganized the department on a basis which we think indicates what the intention of the department is. The first division is the science and research division, which investigates all possibilities in connection with the fighting of diseases of plants, and animals and other problems of scientific agriculture. Then we have an experimental division, which makes use of the discoveries made by research and otherwise, and tries them out on our experimental farms. Then we have the production branch, which promotes the production of farm products on the farms generally throughout Canada. And we have the marketing branch, which promotes the marketing of these farm products.
In reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), I would say that what he is suggesting really did occur last year in the carrying out of the activities of those who had dairy products in cold storage. Approximately 5,000,000 pounds of butter was exported last fall, mostly in October and November, and a little more
51952-246i
than 5,000,000 pounds were imported this spring to take the place of what had been exported last fall. The intention was probably a little different from the result obtained. It was probably thought last fall that there would be a slight surplus, and butter was exported; but as we got into the winter months, and found, because of the falling off of production towards the end of the season, particularly due to the fact that there were poor feeding supplies in different parts of Canada, that our butter production was down and the quantity in storage had diminished, it did become necessary to bring in later approximately the amount which had been exported early in the season. Whether if this happened every year it would invariably work out to be a good thing I am not so sure. After all what really happens in a case of that kind is that you add cost of transportation at least to somebody, somewhere. If you transport 5,000,000 pounds of butter from here to Great Britain there is the cost of carriage; if you bring butter bacK from Great Britain later on in order to supply the needs of this market, there is another transportation cost. Somebody must bear that expense, and, as I say, whether it would always work out to be a good thing for the producer in this country is difficult to determine. I believe last season it did work out beneficially to him: the fact that there was a slight shortage at the end of last year resulted in a better price this year for the farmer.


William Earl Rowe: How much New Zealand butter is in storage at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount in storage
in the country at the present time is very small.


William Earl Rowe: Has the
minister any idea how much New Zealand butter was brought in last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: A little over 5,000,000
pounds, from Australia and New Zealand.


Mark Cecil Senn: And some from England as
well?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a shipment
from England, but it is possible that it was Australian butter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister before
him the butter fat prices during the months of July, August and September last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps it would be well to place on record the wholesale jobbing

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
prices at Montreal throughout the year 1937,
by months:	Cents
January	 26-32
February	 24-98
March	 26-04
April	 26-52
May	 23-49
June	 24-67
July	 26-00
August	 26-77
September	 26-64
October	 28-39
November	 29-92
December	 30-06
The average price was 26-65 cents. Taking the next five months, in 1938, the jobbing price at Montreal was:	Cents
January	 31-88
February	 34-29
March	 35-75
April	 31-72
May	 26-35
The price for May this year is almost three cents a pound higher than the price in May last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These are wholesale prices. What I am concerned about is the butter fat price to the farmer in those months.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not that price here. There is a ratio generally prevailing between the two, but it does vary, and I should not like to quote it in relation to those prices.


Henry Herbert Stevens: While I thank the minister for the information, these prices are of no value at all in considering the matter from the agricultural standpoint. It is the butter fat price that is the vital point.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I have it here now, for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Is there any particular one the hon. member would like to have? It is a rather long list.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister give us the figures for Ontario, with here and there an indication of the corresponding western price, which, I think, is much lower?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two lists for each province, one west and one east. I will give eastern Ontario, taking one date out of each month, to represent the average. These
are weekly prices:	Cents
January	 31
February	 30
March	 30
April	 31
May	 26
June	 27
July	 29
August	 30
September	 31
October	 31
November	 34
December	 36

These figures are all averages, of course. For example, the figures for the four weeks of April were respectively 31, 32, 32 and 29 cents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand that that is the butter fat price per pound to the farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the price at the creamery in Ontario. Two cents would be deducted from that in order to give the price to the farmer.


Mr. WARREN:: What are the butter fat prices to the farmer for 1938 to date?


James Garfield Gardiner: The prices I have just
read are prices to the creamery. The butter fat price to the farmer would be two cents less. For this year the price in January was 37 cents; as a matter of fact it was 37 cents for every one of the five weeks listed.


John Horne Blackmore: What province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Eastern Ontario, around Belleville. These are the figures:
1st	2nd	3rd 4th	5th
week week week week week
January..	..37	37	37	37	37February.	..37	37	39	39	..March	
39	41	41	43	..April	
43	43	39	32	30May	31	31	32	31	..June	
29	..	..	..	..


George Halsey Perley: Can the minister give the figures for Saskatchewan?
Mr. GARDINER	The	figures	for	Saskatchewan are:	1st	2nd	3rd	4 th	5thweek	week	week	week	weekJanuary.. ..	26	26	26	27	27February. . .	28	29	30	31	March	31	31	31	31	April	31	31	31	30	28May	24	23	23	23	23June	22	
That is in the north, in the Saskatoon area. In the south it is about half a cent higher all the way through.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In order that the figures may be intelligible to a layman like myself, will the minister tell us what amount of butter is secured from a pound of butter fat?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 1-22 pounds.


Mr. FAIR:: The price list shows a difference of 9 cents between Saskatchewan and Ontario. Is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 9 cents.


Mark Cecil Senn: I was very much interested in what the hon. member for Kootenay East had to say about the rapid and violent fluctuations in farm prices in the flush months of production and in the other months. No doubt

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
certain interests have taken advantage of facilities afforded them by cold storage warehouses to profit thereby. On the other hand, I believe that the cold storage warehouses have done a great deal of good for agriculture, because in these flush periods of production, particularly as regards perishable products, it would have meant that the farmers very often would have had to take little or nothing for their products if there had not been cold storage facilities available. The minister has said that five million pounds of butter were exported last fall and that this had a good effect on the price in the winter months. He also said that some five million pounds or more of butter were imported this year, particularly in the months of April and May. I understand that butter was imported under special privileges granted by order in council in connection with the amount of duty that had to be paid on butter from New Zealand especially in regard to the exchange adjustments which were made. If I am correctly informed we still had a considerable carryover of butter in Canada when this was done. It immediately had the effect of lowering the price of butter perhaps five cents a pound or more, and I should like the minister to state upon whose recommendation this order in council was passed allowing butter to come in at a lower rate of duty or at any rate without the exchange arrangements being taken into account, and whether it was assumed that there was going to be an absolute shortage. I doubt that, and it seems to me matters could have been allowed to remain as they were without anyone suffering, and the farmer would have received the benefit; whereas the importation of five million pounds or more of butter created more than the normal surplus and consequently lowered the price immediately.


James Garfield Gardiner: No order in council was passed changing the rate of duty on butter from either New Zealand or Australia. There was an order in council that waived the dump as against butter from New Zealand, but that applied only to 25,000 boxes from New Zealand, and some from Australia. The total quantity that would be allowed in was 50,000 boxes, which would be in the neighbourhood of 1,400,000 pounds, which is less than one-third of what came in. As a matter of fact there was no reduction of price as a result of butter coming in. The price went gradually upward from the time that butter started to come in until the full amount was in. The price was 32 cents when butter started to come in and it went up to 41 cents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was that in 56 pound boxes?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: What time did butter come in?


James Garfield Gardiner: From January 14 to April 8.


Mark Cecil Senn: As a matter of fact was not that butter kept in bond until a good deal later in the year? Then, when it was released, the price dropped.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no perceptible drop. The price has been from three to four cents per pound higher than in previous years all during the season. There has been no perceptible drop except what comes about in May and June regularly, and up to June 1, the drop has not gone as far this year as in some other years. It is not true that the butter was kept in storage; it was supplied to the market during the season. In fact, at one time there was placed before me a picture of a window in Toronto advertising it effectively.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand that. As a matter of fact when the arrangement was made there were no companies authorized to bring in butter and receive the benefit of the order in council exchange premium, but different companies, I understand, brought in far more butter than the regulations allowed, with the result that the department had to allot the amount of butter which each could bring in under the new arrangement. Is not that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact,
on June 1 there were 215,000 pounds of imported butter in Canada, "put in bond" and
57,000	pounds "in bond." That is a very small proportion of what was actually brought in.


Mark Cecil Senn: I can scarcely understand how the minister can claim that after this butter was brought in the price rose, particularly after the butter was placed on the market. If I have the figures correctly, in March the price in Ontario was 35-75 cents; in April it was 31-72 cents, and in May, 26 cents. That was before the cattle were out on the grass at all, before there was any great increase in the amount of butter that was being produced.


James Garfield Gardiner: My statement was that the butter came in from the time the order in council was passed which suspended the application of the dumping duty, which I think was some time in January or early in February. The butter came in up to April 8. While it was being admitted, following the passing of that order in council, the price of butter was gradually going up, right

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
to the end of the winter season. When the summer season came along, of course butter dropped in price.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is it not a fact that until
butter is released from bond there is no account of it in the statistical branch? I believe I am correct in saying that a certain amount of butter was never released from bond but was used in quite considerable quantities to provision ships leaving the country from time to time, butter that possibly could have been produced in Canada. A short time ago the minister said there was no order in council allowing for the suspension of the exchange premium or the dumping duty. How can these regulations be changed except by order in council?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the only thing that was done by order in council, and it was simply a matter of stipulating that the dump would not apply up to 25,000 boxes. After that the dump did apply, but as a matter of fact the price of butter in Canada was so much higher than it was anywhere else that the price continued to go up after that and (he butter came in anyway, altogether apart from any regulations. The greater part of this butter came in not as a result of any action on the part of the government but because the price here was higher than anywhere else.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A moment ago the minister said there were 50,000 boxes, each containing 56 pounds, and he then gave a total of 1,400,000 pounds. I think that figure should be corrected; it is 2,800,000 pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figure I gave was
for 25,000 boxes, which was the amount allowed from each country, but we did not have 25,000 boxes from each. We received
25.000	boxes from New Zealand and 25,000 boxes from Australia. So the total from New Zealand would be 1,400,000 pounds, and in addition there would be an equal amount from Australia. But they went right on importing, even after that amount of 50,000 boxes was made up, because the price was sufficiently high to allow importation even with any dump that might have been put on.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Who imported those
50.000	boxes that did not come under the dumping duty?


James Garfield Gardiner: The different firms
dealing in the product. It was pro-rated among the different companies that buy and sell butter.


Robert Henry McGregor: Has the minister the
records?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not the
records here. The customs department handled the pro-rating of it, not the Department of Agriculture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And they will not give it.


Robert Fair: Why is there a difference of nine cents a pound as between Saskatchewan and Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: There really is not a difference of nine cents a pound on butter. On account of the freight rate there is a difference, which amounts to just about the freight, but much of what was sold in eastern Canada was used as fresh cream, which commands a premium. It was used really as cream, not as butter.


Robert Fair: Then in Ontario they can drink cream, while in Saskatchewan they must have skim milk.
Amendment (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister table the order in council having to do with the suspension of the dumping duty on butter coming in?


James Garfield Gardiner: Very well.
Item as amended agreed to.
Live stock and poultry-further amount required, $7,040.


Mr. BARBER:: There is a matter which I think has been brought to the attention of the minister by the poultrymen of British Columbia, in regard to a little more publicity to aid the marketing of eggs. From information I have received, and which I believe a large number of hon. members have received, the consumption of eggs in Canada to-day is some forty-five carloads a week less than it was seven years ago. The poultrymen of British Columbia, and I believe of Canada generally, are of the opinion that some policy should be pursued similar to that adopted by the Department of Fisheries, some general publicity campaign to encourage the consumption of Canadian eggs. I understand they have suggested that the minister make provision for the expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of $100,000 on such a campaign. It is a very serious matter when we find that the consumption of eggs in Canada has decreased to such an extent, because I believe that decrease is mainly responsible for the low prices of eggs in this country to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have a vote similar to the one referred to in the fisheries department. This year it amounts to approximately $200,000. We use that money for advertising farm products generally; for fruit, poultry, eggs, dairy products, in connection

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
with the marketing of our beef and bacon, and so on. So it may be seen that out of this sum it would be impossible to use the
8100.000	that it is suggested might be used in connection with eggs. However, a part of it, what we consider to be the proper proportion, will be used for that purpose.


Harry James Barber: Is that for advertising in the domestic market?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, largely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to discuss the question of the handling of live stock in the public stockyards. The public stockyards were undoubtedly established for the purpose of providing an impartial and, shall I say, government supervised market to which the producer could send his live stock and be assured of competitive buying. If anything intervenes that destroys the competitive nature of the business at the buying end, obviously the shipper or producer of live stock will suffer. I am convinced, from considerable study tliat I have given to this matter, that in our live stock markets, particularly Winnipeg and Toronto, which are the two main ones-and I would add Edmonton to a certain extent; as to Montreal I would hesitate to say very much, because I am impressed with the competitive nature of that market-there has grown up over the years an element of control which deprives the farmer of his right as an individual producer to a fair marketing system. One very important factor is the competition of direct trucking to the abattoirs, but I am not going to discuss that question to-day. The effect of it is that the large packing industries are able by direct shipments to maintain such a backlog of supply that they are able temporarily, if they wish, almost to ignore the public market. That [DOT]is the condition to which that form of competition with the public market has grown. But what I am going to deal with now are the abuses which I believe are prevalent in the market itself.
The public market, or stockyard, is served by commission houses or brokers who handle the stock on a commission basis for the producer, acting as a medium between him and the buyer. The buyers consist in the main of the large packing companies; but in addition there are what are known as the wholesalers who purchase some portion of their supplies from private abattoirs, separate from the packing companies. These wholesalers are a distinctly healthy element in the buyers market, looking at it from the standpoint of the farmer. They constitute something in the nature of a check on the overwhelming power of the large packing concerns. I have
before me a very definite case which the minister will recall I brought to his attention. I wish to present this case to the committee as an illustration of what goes on.
It will be noted as I read the correspondence that the minister on the advice of his officials is under the impression that the practices with which I shall deal are not prevalent on the market. This is the issue I take with the Department of Agriculture. It is extremely difficult to discuss a matter of this kind without appearing to be critical of the minister. I shall certainly be critical of him as far as it is deserved, but that is not my point. My point is that here is a grievance, of which this case that I shall cite is only a type. It exists; it is prevalent; I know it is prevalent: all I am asking is that the matter shall be grappled with and the practices stopped.
On March 11 last I brought to the attention of the minister a case where some 800 lambs were brought to the Toronto market. They were offered for sale, and the Toronto municipal abattoir, a responsible organization, bid on 200 of these lambs. The representative of Canada Packers, Limited, indicated to the commission house that if they sold a part of this lot to anyone else he, the buyer for Canada Packers, would not bid for or take the balance. And when it is understood, as it must be to understand this question at all, that Canada Packers exercise an overwhelming influence on our markets, particularly the stockyards, by virtue of the large quantities that they buy, it will be clear that any commission man who goes in the face of or does anything contrary to the desires of Canada Packers is subject to be blacklisted and driven out of business, as some of them have been driven out of business by that organization. In this instance the Canada Packers buyer declared that he would not buy the balance if the commission house dared to sell the 200 lambs to the Toronto municipal abattoir. The commission man told -the municipal abattoir that he was sorry, and turned the lot over to Canada Packers. The municipal abattoir was short of lambs for its trade. That abattoir supplies the wholesalers. Fortunately, by scurrying around, he managed to get part of his supply. But the day after,-the letter will show this-the sales agent of Canada Packers rang him up and offered to sell him carcases. The point is this: Canada Packers did not require for their own requirements the 800 lambs; they could easily have spared the 200; but they said, No, all or none. The point is that when they offered to sell to the municipal abattoir a supply of carcases they quoted a price half

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
a cent a pound above what Canada Packers were selling at to the retailer, which it can easily be understood would put the abattoir in an impossible position.
I communicated this information to the minister on March 11, and on March 15 I got an acknowledgment from his secretary. On March 29 I got an acknowledgment from the minister saying:
I am placing your representations before the deputy minister and asking him to make full inquiries into the particulars and report to me.
But it was not until April 26 that I got any definite reply to my letter of March 11. On April 26 the minister wrote:
On my return to the office I have your letter of April 1, which refers to the previous letter received from you under date of March 11.
With regard to my advice to you in my letter of March 29, consideration has been given to your representations with respect to relations between the officers of this department and Canada Packers Ltd., and also certain practices by Canada Packers in the purchase of live stock. Officers of the department state emphatically that Canada Packers have not, and do not, in any way unduly influence them in either the formulation or administration of department policies. They point out that representations from this firm, as from all other packers, which have to do with the regulations and policies of the department as they affect the packing industry as a whole are presented through the industrial and development council of Canadian meat packers.
By the way, that company is presided over, I believe, by Mr. Charles Todd, who is really
the mouthpiece of the head of Canada Packers. The letter continues:
With respect to politics and regulations affecting bacon hogs and bacon, which have been an important feature in the relations of the department with packing companies, it is contended that the record of these relations clearly shows that there has been no discrimination as between Canada Packers and other packing companies and that, when necessary, steps and action have been taken to compel Canada Packers to comply with the requirements. In all this work cooperation as between the packers and the department has played an important part in the development of it and it is believed that without this the progress which has been made could not have been realized.
With regard to the cases of lamh purchases by Canada Packers which you refer to, since the identity of only one party to the transactions has been given it has not been possible for the department to trace the first of the two alleged malpractices. We should be glad, therefore, if the date and the name of the party involved in the first transaction mentioned in your letter of May 11th could he furnished.
In the case of the second transaction, which you report as follows:
"On another day there were four car loads of western lambs on the market, and again Canada Packers declared they must have all or none. There was another packer w'illing to take one car load at $9.35 per hundred 	I ri
pounds, but Canada Packers persisted in taking the lot and got it at $9.25. This seemed a small difference, but you of course appreciate that every fraction of a cent on a pound makes a difference to the farmer. I respectfully request that this and other practices on the union stock yards perpetrated by Canada Packers be investigated and stopped."
I had no knowledge of the transaction until I read your letter and of course have no desire to take sides in what appears to be a matter of controversy within the trade. I have had the complaint checked. The report is that what actually occurred was as follows. On March 7th, Dunn and Levack sold 800 western lambs to Canada Packers at $9.25. On March 8th, the same commission firm had a further 800 head to offer and shortly after the opening of the market Canada Packers' buyer bid on them and secured the lot at $9.25. Somewhat later in the day, Swift and Company's buyer made it known that he would like to have 200 head, and he offered $9.35. As the lambs were already sold, the commission firm could not sell them again unless Canada Packers were willing to give up part of their purchase, which, we understand, they were not willing to do. Local deliveries of lambs were light, and, not having secured any of the western lambs, Swift's apparently were short and they therefore contracted for the next shipment which amounted to 400 head and for which they had to pay $9.50. Thus although the commission merchant did not secure the 10 cent advance for his client, on the 200 lambs which were already sold, they were able to secure a 25 cent advance on the 400 head. If this story is the complete report then, following the same line of reasoning as your informant, the complete transaction resulted in a 15 cent raise in the market.
With respect to this transaction it is pointed out that while at one time it was a fairly common practice for one packer to purchase the entire lamb offering and subsequently divide it with other packers, this practice was considered inimical to the best interests of producers and, because of the strong objection taken to it, it was discontinued.
Yours very truly,
James 6. Gardiner.
It will be noted that this letter makes reference to the fact that I did not disclose the name of the person. Well, I did not have the authority to do so at the time, but I did secure it and I then furnished the minister with the original letter from the municipal abattoir, which I shall now read. This is dated March 9, 1938, and is addressed to me:
Having knowledge of your attitude toward mass buying and unethical business practices, we beg to take this opportunity of drawing your attention to the "cut-throat" tactics adopted by the Canada Packers Limited on the Union stockyards this week in regard to the purchase of live lambs.
On Monday of this week there were 800 western lambs for sale by the commission firm of Dunn and Levack.
One buyer was instructed to purchase 200 lambs (one car load).
The commission people were perfectly willing to sell us 200 lambs "out" of the 800 lot, but

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
they were told by the Canada Packers' buyer (Mr. It. McDonald) that of the 800 lot were broken they would not take the balance. Mr. McDonald was instructed by head office that it was a case of "all or nothing."
The commission house had no other alternative but to sell the entire 800 lambs to Canada Packers Limited.
This, of course, left us without a lamb in our coolers and to add insult to injury a Canada Packers' salesman called us by telephone Tuesday morning asking if we wished to buy dressed lambs, saying that he was advised that we were without lambs. The price which he asked us for dressed lambs was a half cent per pound more than Canada Packers' price to the retail trade.
Fortunately, we were able to contact a feeder in the country who came to our help. We were able to purchase approximately half of our requirements from this feeder and will be forced to accept only half of our regular lamb trade, which as you can readily see, will seriously affect our dressed beef and veal trade.
This vicious practice has happened on five different occasions since the beginning of the year.
Until this week we have been successful in obtaining our full requirements of lambs either by bringing car loads in from Laeombe, Alberta and Lethbridge, Alberta, or purchasing small amounts from Ontario feeders, who, incidentally would rather sell to a small wholesaler than to the big packers.
These feed lot lambs, however, are rapidly diminishing and before long we shall be forced to go on the union stock yards to purchase our entire requirements. What then shall we do if the Canada Packers persist in this unethical practice?
In fairness to the Swift Canadian Company we would point out that these people are the essence of fairness.
On several occasions when we have run short of lambs, Swift's have sold us lambs which they already had bought and charged us market price.
We have absolutely no quarrel with the Swift Canadian Company.
This organization (Swift's) were subjected to the same treatment on Tuesday at the hands of Canada Packers Limited as we, on Monday.
Swift's at present are feeding a number of lambs behind their West Toronto plant, and are, therefore, not a big factor on the stock yards at present.
On Tuesday, however, they (Swift's) required 200 lambs to round out their requirements.
There were four car loads of western lambs in the market Tuesday and once again the Canada Packers openly declared that they must have all the lambs or none.
Another very serious angle of this Swift incident is that Swift's were willing to pay $9.35 per 100 pounds for lambs; the entire four car loads were sold to Canada Packers at $9.25 per 100 pounds.
We understand that Swift's are taking this up with the authorities at Ottawa, and are also advising the owner that they had bid $9.35 per 100 pounds for his lambs.
The Canada Packers Limited know full well, that on an even price basis, the small wholesaler, in most cases will be given the business,
but as their method of doing business is "defeat your opponent by fair means or foul" the small wholesaler is placed at a serious disadvantage.
WTe do not ask for special privileges (we don't need them) but we do demand and expect British fair play.
We feel sure in placing this matter before you, that corrective measures will immediately be taken.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander Mackenzie, Limited.
The point which is made in the minister's letter and which I desire to emphasize is that Swift's offered to pay S9.35, whereas the whole lot was sold for $9.25. If the market were a free market, the fact that Swift's bid $9.35 for 200 would have had a tendency to raise the price to the $9.35 price level. But Canada Packers came along and said that they would not buy any if the lot were broken up.
The same thing is done right along with hogs. A double-decked car of hogs, containing possibly 150 animals, will come on the market. In that carload will be selects, bacons, heavies, butchers, lights and possibly some stags, boars and so forth. But those are the five principal types that will be found. Here you have a carload, mixed. Canada Packers come along and say this; If you want to sell your hogs, we will take them all. But these wholesalers want the butcher type. They are willing to buy the butcher hogs in that lot. Montreal market is an excellent market for heavy hogs, Montreal will take the heavy hogs if they can get them. But Canada Packers say: Nothing doing-give us the whole carload or nothing. That is done right along.
Now let me give you the effect of that from the price standpoint. Under the regulations the price is fixed by the bacon grade. We will say the bacon grade is nine. The exact differential is not in my mind at the moment, but the minister will correct me if I am wrong. The bacon grade, we will say, is nine. The premium is one dollar a hog for selects. The penalty for butchers, the next grade, is one dollar a hog, I think, and then the penalty for lights and for heavies is another dollar, and another dollar, or it may be $1.50 below the bacon price. But the wholesaler wants the butcher type. He prefers the butcher type to the bacon hog or the select. It suits his business. He would be willing to pay the bacon price or possibly the select price in order to get the butcher type, but he cannot get it. If he competes with Canada Packers he must take the whole carload. The commission man is not allowed to divide .them.
3SS8

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to interrupt, but I assume my hon. friend is aware that what he is suggesting was tried out at Montreal three years ago, and that the very men he is now saying wish to have that done expressed the desire to change back to the old method. In other words, they said they did not desire to carry on in the way my hon. friend suggests.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the reason for that is this: It is not done in Toronto or Winnipeg, and those are the markets that control live stock in Canada. Toronto is the market that controls live stock in Canada, and the practices in Toronto-why, Mr. Chairman!-I digress but I will come back in a moment-if a farmer in northern Saskatchewan, yes or in the dried-out area of British Columbia at Prince George, or in the back districts of Ontario, brings in two or three head of cattle to the local market he is paid what the Toronto price is at ten o'clock in the morning. He has no bargaining power. He must take that price or take his cattle home. The significance of this thing is not appreciated, it seems to me, and yet it is fatal, in my opinion, to the whole live stock market of Canada.
I come back to the hog. Montreal will buy heavies. In Toronto there is a good market for the butcher type. These wholesalers would buy the butcher type. The same thing applies in the outlying districts. But by this stranglehold which Canada Packers have over the commission houses whom they will blacklist if they do not dance to their piping, these practices go on; they are going on to-day, and have gone on right along. The thing should be stopped, Mr. Chairman, and I say this to the minister in all due deference. I know it is not nice to get into difficulties with these large packing concerns, but I say there is a principle upon which these things can be done, and it is the duty of government to see that these principles are applied.
I hesitate to go into the story of the marketing of hogs, but I intended to do it and perhaps I might as well do it now. I have said it before and I want to emphasize it because until this situation is corrected the farmers of this country, the five millions of people living on Canadian farms, are not going to get a square deal. They are not getting it to-day, and they will not get it until these things are corrected.
It may be said that the matter of the price of hogs is not going to ruin the farming industry of Canada. But in the last ten years the live stock sales in this country have been

almost equal, I venture to say to the grain sales. They are at least one of the biggest factors in the life of the farmer, and if the farmer cannot get a fair price for his cattle and his hogs he is simply heading for bankruptcy, as farmers have been doing by the tens of thousands.
What is the method of fixing the price of the Canadian hog to-day? I have told this story before. There is a committee in England consisting of the English buyers-not Canadian representatives in England, but British buyers for British firms that are purchasing our goods. That committee sits once a week, I think on Wednesday, and announces the price which goes into effect on Thursday for the following week. That price of Canadian bacon on the British market is telegraphed back here to Canada Packers-I say Canada Packers advisedly because they get the whole business-and Canada Packers fix the price of hogs in Canada on the basis of the price of bacon in England. Now in the first place I challenge the soundness, shall I say, of that method of fixing the price, for this reason. In the last ten years we have not exported more than ten per cent of our hogs. In the last year the export has gone up to eighteen per cent, or some such figure, but in the last decade we have not exported more than ten per cent of our hogs. Now, the price of bacon fixes the price not only of that ten per cent but of the other ninety per cent for the whole of Canada. It may be argued that that is a fair barometer, but if that philosophy is sound, then let me put this: The Canadian farmer ought to be getting as high a price for his hogs in relation to the price of Canadian bacon on the British market as the Danish farmer or the Dutch farmer or the Irish farmer gets for his hogs in relation to the price of Danish, Dutch or Irish bacon on the British market. The question is, does he do so? Here are the facts, and it took me about two years to get them. I have not the schedules under my hand, but I have the facts very clearly in my mind.
The price of Dutch bacon runs somewhere near our own, with Irish and Danish bacon considerably higher, particularly Danish, from eight shillings often to fourteen shillings, a hundred. What I did find in my study was, that the differential, and mark you, it is argued in London that that is the proper basis on which to determine the price in Canada; let us accept that position-I did find that the spread as against Canadian bacon was double that as against Dutch, Danish or Irish. In other words, the packer in Canada was getting double the price-what is the term

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
the economists use? It has slipped me for the moment-the Canadian packer was getting double the spread on the price of hogs in relation to Canadian bacon on the British market that his competitors did. That is a fact that challenges both the method of marketing and the philosophy and the fairness of Canada Packers and other packers in relation to the price on the British market.
There is another thing. We have as a matter of fact, over the years, persisted in sending into the British market a grade of bacon lower than we are competent to send. That is, they mix into their export business lights, heavies and butchers, which are not the best type of bacon hog, instead of limiting their exports to the bacon hog or the selects. It is sometimes said by people who are somewhat careless that we cannot get enough selects or bacon hogs to supply the export trade. That is absolutely false. I have the facts. I do not know whether I can put my fingers on them readily, but I can say from memory, that last year there came on our markets many times the number of select and bacon hogs which would have taken care of the total export trade of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it many times the possible export trade?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I would say more than double. I am safe in saying more than double our quota, which we have not yet filled. It may be said, "Well, we are not going to denude the Canadian market." There is no need to denude the Canadian market, but one thing is certain. If you accept the philosophy that the price of bacon on the British market fixes the price of hogs in Canada, the only thing to do is to ship the best bacon you can to England and get the best price you can for it. Can we do that? Yes. Dumart and Schneider and the Owen Sound plant did it, and actually got a premium over Danish bacon. On one occasion they got one shilling and two shillings over Danish bacon. On the British market we can compete with Danish bacon, probably with not all our export but with a substantial portion of it, with a grade which would get the Danish price, and if we got the Danish price, which is eight shillings to fourteen shillings above the Canadian price, and if the price of Canadian hogs is based on the price on the British market, you can see what the farmer has lost. I made a calculation over a five year period, and I figured that the Canadian farmer had lost, because of this method of handling his business, $36,000,000 which he might have had in enhanced price had this practice not been in vogue.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to take the time to reply to all that has been said, but there are some things that might be answered. My information is that all the bacon of the select and bacon types which is available at plants for export is exported, and that is the complete export.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I have the figures.
They are all in the government statistics. I have winnowed them out, but whether I can lay my hands on them at the moment I am not sure.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason for the
extra amount of lower grades is the fact that the higher grades are not available.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the case.
If I had the time I could find the facts. I submit that there was more than twice as much bacon and select hogs on the market last year than was necessary for the processing of the bacon that was exported.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to get the full information, there may be double the number necessary to supply the trade; but when you make provision for bruises; for those that are softs; for those that are culled out for different reasons, and for those which do not go to plants that export bacon-when you make provision for all that, all that is left goes to the export market.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With all due deference
to the minister, who may have been told that by the Canada Packers, I am going to say frankly to my hon. friend-


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not been in
correspondence with Canada Packers at all. I got that from officials of the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, they got it from
Canada Packers. I do not accept it at all, and I have given a lot of study to the question. It so happens that I cannot put my fingers on the exact tables, but I checked the tables very carefully. I know that McLean argues right along that there are not enough selects; he sends out advices to the farmers- I have copies in my office-of what they should do, and all the time he has double and three times the select and bacon hogs that are necessary for him. There is no doubt about it that he is kidding the farmers of this country, making monkeys of them, and I say further that he is making monkeys of the officers of the agriculture live stock branch and has been doing so for ten or fifteen years. I have not any hesitancy in saying that. The other day I went over the file. It was prolific.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
As a matter of fact, when I asked for the letters, the Agriculture department told me there were seventy files; they brought me along a large sample, and there was hardly a day when there were not letters on every little detail going down to Canada Packers; that is, to Charlie Todd. Do not differentiate between Charlie Todd and the Canada Packers. He is nominal head of the packers' association. He is in reality the mouthpiece of Stanley McLean, and the worst enemy the Canadian farmer has. I say that without any hesitancy: it is just about time that this parliament put its foot down on these practices.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think we should get
the records right. I have not any brief for Canada Packers or for any other packing concern, but the packing concerns of this country have an organization which they set up, and of which Mr. Todd happens to be secretaiy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know all about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Because Mr. Todd happens to be an employee of Canada Packers does not remove the fact-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think he is.


James Garfield Gardiner: -that he is acting as an employee not of theirs, but of the council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know all about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact that he happens to be an official is the only reason why all the correspondence goes to him. To say he is the mouthpiece of some particular packing concern is scarcely correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know all about it. I sat in with Mr. Todd on the committee. I pay this tribute to the packing industry of Canada other than Canada Packers, that on the whole I think they are trying to do their business fairly and right. When I was minister I sat in at Toronto with this so-called council-Norman McLean, the brother of Stanley McLean, was there representing Canada Packers, and Charlie Todd is the nominal head-and discussed business with them. Well, nobody had anything to say or could have anything to say except Norman McLean, representing Canada Packers. They all know it. They are helpless. There is not a packer in Canada who, if he did not fear the weight of the hand of Canada Packers, would not endorse every word I have said this afternoon. And I have had some interesting letters from them, not very long ago either.

This man Todd, as I say, is the nominal head of the packers' council. He is nothing more or less than the lickspittle of Stanley McLean, and has been for years. When I was Minister of Trade and Commerce I had a meeting with the Agriculture department right here in Ottawa.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why did the hon. member not deal with him then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will show you why, and I will show you why I said a moment ago that the officers of the live stock branch of the Agriculture department are under the thumb of Canada Packers. I called a meeting between myself and the Minister of Agriculture of the day and his officers. He brought in some of his staff. I had at the meeting the head of the commercial intelligence branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It was an interdepartmental conference on the question of marketing hogs or bacon in Great Britain. That was the purpose of the meeting. Whom did the agriculture officials bring with them? Mr. Charlie Todd and Mr. Sales Manager of Canada Packers, whose name I have forgotten. They sat in. They were not invited; but they were there, brought there by the officials of the live stock branch of the agriculture department.


James Garfield Gardiner: While the hon. member was a minister of the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: While I was a minister. The Agriculture officers, as far as I recall, did not open their mouths. They turned to Mr. Todd and Mr. Sales Manager whose name I have forgotten. They were the men who told the story. And what did they tell us? What was their position? Our position as the government marketing agency of the dominion in regard to marketing was that we should raise the standard of our bacon on the British market in order to raise the price of hogs. That was our general stand, and we drew attention to and gave data of inferior bacon which had been going over there. Todd and this other man representing Canada Packers argued that they definitely and deliberately included second grade hogs in the bacon trade of Great Britain, because they found there was some market there for it, and because in my opinion-I add my own-it kept down the price of hogs in Canada. There was no other motive than that, to keep the price of hogs down in Canada for the ninety per cent that is consumed here. If for ten per cent you can keep down the price by using inferior hogs, as they do-I have the sworn evidence as to what goes into the export business-if you

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
can keep down the price on ten per cent, by putting inferior hogs into the making of bacon for that market, you keep down the price on the ninety per cent.
I make this further statement. If Canada Packers put out the bacon they could put out on the standard of Dumart's or Schneider's or some of the other small packers, and raised the price of standard bacon in England, they would have to find another million dollars of working capital, and that is another reason why they do not want to raise the price here. If the price goes up, the amount of working capital will have to be increased, and so the price of hogs is kept down. I can find no other reason for it, no other justification for the course that is persistently pursued. There cannot be any other reason.
I do not want to delay the committee unduly, but I make this statement in regard to this practice that I have disclosed with respect to these lambs: It is one indication of dozens of cases of which I know. These people disclose their name and everything about the matter; and if the practice in question, namely, of Canada Packers going on the live stock markets of Canada and telling the commission houses that they must sell all or none, is allowed to continue, then every day we allow it to continue the farmers of Canada are defrauded of those fairer returns which they are entitled to receive for their products. If one had time, one could go into the sale of cattle, one could discuss the trucking business and show how Canada Packers will provide facilities for the truckers, fill their gasoline tanks so that they may be able to bring farmers' produce to them. Trucks will go fifty or a hundred miles away from the centre of operations, get the farmers' cattle, and take them-where?	Right to
Canada Packers' plant. They do not go on the live stock market at all. The live stock markets of Canada at Winnipeg and Toronto particularly are a joke and a by-word, though they were established for the purpose of maintaining an element of free competition for the farmers' products, where the farmer could take his hogs and his cattle and expect to get the advantage of competitive buying and selling. But that element of competition is not there because of the overwhelming and pernicious influence of Canada Packers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, even if I had the time I would not take the trouble to try to defend Canada Packers or any other packing concern, but in the minute or two that is left before six o'clock I wish to make this statement. I do not regard the letter which was written to the hon. member for
Kootenay East as typical of a condition that exists in connection with the marketing of live stock in Canada whether at Toronto or Winnipeg or elsewhere. If the person who wrote the letter had intended to have the matter investigated at the earliest possible date and in the natural way in which anyone expects .to have a matter of that kind investigated, he would naturally have written to the Department of Agriculture. But he apparently wanted a speech of the type we have heard this afternoon with regard to it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise to a point of order. The minister is not stating the case as it is disclosed in the correspondence, or as it was disclosed in the correspondence from myself to him, to which attention was directed on March 11.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member himself directed it to the department, and he did the proper thing in directing it there. But the person who wrote the letter in the first place could just as well have written it to the department and had the matter investigated directly. Of course, there is a reason which is made apparent in the correspondence itself. This man had been in the habit of buying all his lambs from drovers and others here and there outside the yards altogether; when he was short on a certain day he went and asked for a certain number from someone else who had purchased them in the yards, and all he is complaining about is the fact that this particular packing concern did not see fit to give him the 200 lambs which he required at a certain time at a certain price. One may be able to criticize Canada Packers or any other packing concern for not being as courteous to someone else in the trade as they might have been, but I do not see that you can go very much further in criticism in connection with that particular matter. In other words, I do not think it is a typical case upon which to base the kind of criticism to which we have just listened. There may be all sorts of reasons for that type of criticism; but from investigations I made myself in England, and from the investigation the committee which was over there last summer made, and which one of my hon. friends commented upon highly-it dealt with the same thing-an entirely different reason is given for the lower price of bacon in Great Britain. We must, of course, take the information we obtain from those whom we pay to get information for us, until such time as that information is proven wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is not referring to the report-
Validity of Alberta Statutes


James Garfield Gardiner: I am referring to the report of the committee that went over last year. That report is just as authentic, and the information received is as reliable, as that received even by the price spreads committee. This information was gathered at the source.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The report was a travesty.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was, of course, critical of some people; it was critical of some activities in the past. But because it was critical it does not follow that it was a travesty. After all, the bacon industry is one that has been very carefully investigated, very carefully checked by the department, and while we are not satisfied with all the actions of the packing concerns, I do not think anyone can base the type of criticism to which we have listened this afternoon merely upon the assumption that some price is set over in Britain for some particular reason.


The CHAIRMAN:: It is six o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I happen to have the prices of bacon, which I shall give later.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 16, 1938