1938-05-18

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Fletcher Meigs Ballaatyne.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Ada Alice Burns.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Marjorie Isabel Meldrum Andersen.

Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Alice Pearl Shaver Booth.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Mary Grace French Clarke.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of John Gerard Ahem.-Mr. Hill.

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

Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Is the government aware of difficulties arising among residents of Ontario and Quebec over the exact location of the boundary line between these two provinces on lake St. Francis and the river St. Lawrence?
2.	Is the government in possession of any old maps showing the exact location of the interprovincial boundary line between Ontario and Quebec on lake St. Francis and the river St. Lawrence?
3.	If not, can it point to any act or statute, save the statutes of Upper Canada and those of Lower Canada, demarcating this boundary line?
4.	In view of the islands in this vicinity owned by the government as trustees for the Indians, is it not desirable that it should be known whether these islands are in Ontario or in Quebec waters?
5.	Has a commission ever been set up to delineate this line? If so: (a) by whom, and (b) what was done?
6.	Were the commissioners able to agree on the whole or any part of this boundary line?
7.	If the commissioners were unable to agree, can the government not do something to bring about a solution of this boundary dispute?
8.	Could the government not invite the provinces to submit the question to the Supreme Court of Canada for adjudication?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Not particularly important at the present time.
5.	Yes. (a) By the governments of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario; (b) Unofficial information has been received that surveys


S1952-190
[Stage Direction]
were made and some monuments erected but no advice has been received that any final agreement has been made and confirmed.
6.	Information has been received that the commissioners were able to agree on a part of the boundary line.
7.	It is considered that the initiative in this matter should lie with the governments of Ontario and Quebec.
8.	Answered by No. 7.

Mr. LAWSON:: How many search warrants for the search of private houses were issued under section 11 of the Radiotelegraph Act during the calendar years 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935?


Mr. HOWE:: Complete information from
1932	to date is, as follows:
Calendar year-Warrants executed
1932-	3 unlicensed transmitting stations.
1933-	4 unlicensed transmitting stations.
1934-	3 unlicensed transmitting stations; 1 private receiving station.
1935-	5 unlicensed transmitting stations; 6 private receiving stations.
1936-	2 unlicensed transmitting stations; 1 private receiving station.
1937-	15 unlicensed transmitting stations; 7 private receiving stations.
1938-	1 unlicensed transmitting station (to date).


CHEESE EXPORTS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	How many pounds of cheese were exported from Canada to the United Kingdom during the years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937?
2.	How many pounds were exported to the United States during the same years?
3.	What were the value of such exports to: (a) the United Kingdom; (b) United States?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
Calendar years	Pounds
1932		 83,813,900
1933		  70,707,600
1934		 58,076.600
1935		 52.719,600
1936		 67,801,700
1937		 81,181,500
2.
Calendar years	Pounds
1932		 610,100
1933		 1.058,400
1934		 799,200
1935		 474,900
1936		 11,456.400
1937		 4,729,900

Questions as Orders jor Returns

3.	Value of exports of
cheese to
Calendar years	U.K.	UE.1932	. S 8.504.722	$ 742571933	. 7,628,260	137,9111934	. 6,146,439	117,1201935	. 5,986,819	84,7931936	, 9.359,453	1,579,8731937	, 11,825,692	727,456


WILLIAM BOCK
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Is one William Bock employed by the federal government in any capacity in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what are his duties, his salary, and allowance for expenses?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Duties: agricultural supervisor on water development work. Salary: $150 per month. Allowance for expenses: actual travelling expenses.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What investigations have been made by dominion governments into the possibilities of producing a low cost fuel from the peat bogs
of Canada?
2.	What have been the results of such investigations ?
3.	Are such investigations being continued at the present time?
4.	Will the government consider the application of its facilities for research to the development of suitable types of machinery for the production of such fuel?


FEDERAL MEDICAL AND DENTAL SERVICES IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What was the total federal expenditures
in Saskatchewan, from January 1, 1936, to date, for medical services: (a) direct-exclusive of relief; (b) relief; (c) for Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (d) pensions and national health for militia?	_
2.	To whom were amounts paid, and what amount was paid to each?


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What was the total federal expenditure
in Saskatchewan, by all departments of government, from January 1, 1936, to date, for dental services?	.
2.	To whom were amounts paid, and what amount was paid to each?
3.	What amount was paid by the Department of Indian Affairs?
4.	What amount was paid for each agency, and to whom was it paid?
TMr. Euler.]	,



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, and other documents, dated from January 1, 1937, to date, relating to the agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways for the joint operation of the new Canadian National Railways hotel in Vancouver.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To the best of my knowledge this agreement has not as yet been completed. As it is a joint agreement, the decision as to whether or not it should be tabled is a matter I shall have to refer to both railways. It is not a document of the department. However, if the motion is permitted to stand I shall take the matter up with the railway companies.
Motion stands.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Earl Lawson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). It has just been brought to my attention that a veterans' organization in the maritime provinces protested to the Minister of National Defence by wire on May 2 and again on May 16 with reference to the employment of civilians on works of that department at Halifax. In view of the fact it has been published that a meeting is called for to-morrow night at Halifax for the purpose of arranging to picket the works, would the minister care to make a statement to the house with respect to the situation, and as to any facts he has available in connection with the matter?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I understood from the telegram I received that the agitation was with reference to projected works, and not with regard to actual works in operation. I want to say immediately that the Department of National Defence will not be influenced in the slightest degree by very extreme suggestions of that nature. We have tried so far as possible to give every possible and reasonable benefit to ex-service men. Extreme agitation of the kind indicated will not have support from the Department of National Defence.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). In view of the fact that soil and moisture conditions in western Canada are good and the acreage sown promises a good crop; in view also of the fact that the wheat board is to remain intact, would the minister give a statement or promise the farmers of western Canada that the government will allow the board to fix a minimum price and issue certificates as of August 1, 1938? This is an important matter from the point of view of the farmer.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As the hon. gentleman
knows, his question involves a matter of policy and I am sure he will realize that I cannot give an answer offhand. I shall try to give him an answer in a day or two.



JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE


[Stage Direction]
st. Helen's island
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Cartier):: La Presse of Montreal, a very important paper, contained a report last night to the effect that the government would be asked to have the toll gates on Jacques Cartier bridge removed and placed so as to give free access to St. Helen's island. Could the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) advise whether the government intends to take such action?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing of this kind has been brought to my attention personally, but it is possible it may be in the department. I shall make inquiry and give my hon. friend any further information I am able to obtain.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Chairman, we were dealing with item No. 14 last evening, but the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) finds it necessary to leave this afternoon and he has some remarks he would like to make on item No. 12. I suggest that we revert to this item.
519o2-190i
Marketing services-Marketing of agricultural products including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $50,000, $200,000.


Mr. MASSEY:: Mr. Chairman, I hasten first to thank the minister for his courtesy in this matter. I appreciate his action in permitting me to speak at this time. I rise to offer to the minister and to the government what I feel are one or two constructive suggestions. It is not my purpose during the course of the remarks I shall make either to criticize or to condemn. I am seized with the feeling that the position of agriculture in this country is of such vital importance to the dominion as a whole that every possible assistance should be given to the farmer, in connection with both the production and the distribution of his products at fair and reasonable market prices. It will be impossible in the time at my disposal to cover the subject with anything like completeness, and accordingly my remarks will of necessity be confined to one or two of the major points in the case. I am sure the minister will appreciate that I am addressing this committee fully conscious of the fact that what I may say will be only a small part of the story which should be told, a story which is of vital importance to the dominion.
There are two factors that should be taken into consideration at the commencement of any discussion of Canadian agriculture. The first is that the Canadian farmer is without a peer in the world. He has demonstrated again and again that not only can he produce products of high quality, but that he personally possesses the characteristics which tend to build up the back-bone of a nation. He has faced, as has his fellow Canadian, the industrial worker, the most difficult and trying of times. He has maintained his equilibrium in the face of extraordinary difficulties and hardships. Not only has he to face, as I said the other day in this 'house, the economic hazards of his high calling, but he is also beset by those factors which have been styled " acts of God " and which are completely beyond his control and the control of those who are responsible for government.
Second,	this	country is fundamentally
agrarian. I have in my hand a record of the 1935 production, both primary and secondary. The primary production for that year was as follows:
Agriculture	$ 622,722,000
Forestry	 227,500,346
Fisheries	 34,427,854
Trapping	- .	8,877,331
Mining	 238,581,268
Electrical	power	 125,123,078

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing

In the face of such figures and with the knowledge of the facts of the matter in regard to the importance of agriculture in this country, so readily apparent from these figures, all members of this committee, whether they represent industrial, urban or rural areas, must concern themselves with the problems of the farm, because it is apparent from these figures that agriculture comprises 50 per cent of the primary production of this country. Industrial Canada is directly dependent upon agricultural Canada, and agricultural Canada is directly dependent upon industrial Canada. So we face this whole question, not from any sectional point of view but from that of the loyal and true Canadian.
In December of last year there was released over the signature of the Minister of Agriculture a report which has since become known as the Shaw report. It was a most interesting document prepared by a worthy committee after an investigation of the possibilities of further developing the markets of the United Kingdom for Canada and particularly Canadian agricultural products. Recently, indeed within the week, a further bulletin was released, again over the signature of the hon. minister, which is essentially an illuminated edition of the Shaw report. It is changed slightly here and there, but in the main it embodies a record of the findings of the Shaw committee. I do not wish to repeat here any of the discussions which have been carried on in your committee, Mr. Chairman, within the past week in regard to this new bulletin; I shall deal with it upon its face value and with reference to the factual information that it contains.
This report reminds us that the agricultural activities of Canada are as diversified as it is possible to have them. Within climatic restrictions, the Canadian farmer from Halifax to Victoria engages in the production of all agricultural products. We are wheat farmers, dairy farmers, fruit farmers, potato growers, vegetable growers, truck gardeners and all the rest. However, we have always regarded ourselves primarily as wheat producers. With changing world conditions which have brought about accompanying changes in our wheat markets, with the increase in importance of the dairy production of the eastern provinces, our agrarian picture is indicating a slow- perhaps not so slow-and certain change. Further, extraordinary calamities in western Canada in what have been termed the drought areas have brought all thinking Canadians face to face with the problem of finding a solution of the difficulties which the western farmer, through no fault of his own, has to face, difficulties brought about by two factors,
[Mr. Massty.J
first, the loss of a substantial proportion of his foreign market and, second, a limitation upon his activities as a result of changing climatic and soil conditions. What, then, is the future of the Canadian farmer? What is the future of the western farmer? Yes, and what is the future of the eastern farmer?
Let me deal specifically with three of our important products, Canadian-wide in their production-eggs, butter and bacon.
Let me deal, first, with eggs. In 1935,
24.594.000	Canadian hens produced 223,540,000 dozen eggs at seventeen cents a dozen, to a total value of $37,763,000. Here is a product that is obviously of great importance to the Canadian farmer. It is interesting to note that of these eggs we exported only 1,300,744 dozen, while our domestic production per capita amounted to 22-39 dozen a year. Unquestionably one of the most important markets available to us for this product is that of the United Kingdom; for hon. members well know that Canadian eggs enter the market of the United Kingdom duty free. As one reads through the bulletin to which I have already referred, so recently released by the minister, and turns to page 48, which deals with eggs, one realizes at once that the domestic production of eggs in the United Kingdom is far below their own requirements even though there has been a sharp increase in their production in the past few years; but in spite of this increase we find written in this report at page 48:
On this basis of production home supplies accounted for about three-fifths of the total consumption in 1936, or 38 eggs out of every 62 consumed.
Thus it is that in spite of what has been done in the United Kingdom to increase the production of eggs, only thirty-eight out of every sixty-two eggs consumed there are produced within its boundaries. Then, if we turn to the appendix to the report, at the top of page 77 we find that in 1936 there were
24.653.000	great hundreds of eggs imported into the United Kingdom from many different countries', among which there were as important factors the Irish Free State, Australia. Denmark, Poland and the Netherlands. Of this import of 24,653,000 great hundreds of eggs, Canada exported only 103,000 great hundreds, or 0-4 of one per cent. The minister may say at once that our own domestic requirements run so close to our own production that we have not available for export eggs in any outstanding quantity. But why is it, when we realize that we are such an insignificant factor in the British egg market, that Canadian agriculture cannot take advantage of the fact that the mother country

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
prefers to buy from within the empire if at all possible, especially if the quality of the empire product is equal to that of the product of other countries. On pages 49 and SO of the minister's bulletin there appear the recommendations of the Shaw committe which tell us in part:
1.	Canada's eggs at present are not only sold as a cold storage product, but because of our method of grading are classified as "Grade B" storage.
Further:
2.	It would appear that for a certain part of each year

at least 5 or 6 months-Canada could successfully ship fresh eggs to certain United Kingdom markets.
And further:
3.	The majority of Canadian eggs at present are shipped in crates bearing attractive labels such as "Canadian eggs" but each egg within the case bears the stamp " Empire."
And still further:
Further investigational work should be carried on (possibly by the national research council) in connection with temperature and humidity control during periods of storage and transportation of the product with a view to the elimination of losses due to moulds, spots, etc.
Those are the recommendations of the Shaw report, and there would appear to be no extraordinary difficulty to be overcome. The case is quite clear. We are facing essentially two problems in connection with the export of our eggs to the United Kingdom: (1) We as yet do not produce in volume sufficient to export in large quantities; and (2) such eggs as we do export at the present time are relegated to the limbo of cold storage grade B eggs.
Let me deal now with a second important product, butter. Hon. members must be fully conscious of the subtle and veiled attack that is to-day being made upon the animal kingdom of Canada. It is not going too far to state, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian dairy farmer is in a most hazardous position as a result of the threat, insidious and unrecognized in altogether too many cases, against the dairy cow. The vast and staggering increase in the production of vegetable oils throughout the world is challenging the production of butter in a manner that must not escape the attention of this government, or of any government for that matter. Canada is certainly not in a position at the present time to have her animal kingdom decimated by the vegetable kingdom. One does not wish in any way to impede progress; but in these days when the dairy farmers of Canada are faced with and are facing such extraordinary circumstances, we must regard with extreme seriousness what is
happening in the far corners of the world. I make these remarks by way of introduction to my comments on our butter production.
In 1936 there was produced in Canada a total of both creamery and home made butter of 380,290,500 pounds, of which we exported only 7,697,000 pounds. Our domestic consumption amounted to 340,439,540 pounds, or 31-13 pounds per capita. If we turn to the minister's new bulletin, page 43, we find that the market of the United Kingdom imported no less than the extraordinary amount of 1,092,228,816 pounds of butter from many different countries, chief among which were Australia, New Zealand and Denmark. Canada exported to the United Kingdom in 1936 only 0-42 of one per cent of the total butter imported by Great Britain. The recommendations of the Shaw committee in this connection are also to be found on page 43 and read as follows:
While it appears that Canada's exportable surplus of dairy products to the United Kingdom markets will be for many years in the form of cheese, yet, due to changes in the relative values of cheese and butter in Canada as well as to other influences, it may be necessary during some years to export surplus butter.
Butter makers should continue their efforts to improve the quality of the product, not only on account of the better prices which may be realized for the relatively small quantities which may be exported, but to a greater extent on account of the effect of the export value on the price of the much greater quantity marketed in Canada during periods of export movement.
Again, we must bear in mind that our butter enters the United Kingdom duty free, and that we have here an opportunity to develop this product of our dairy farms for that market; but at the present time, consuming as we do the vast proportion of our own production, we have little surplus butter available for export to any country, let alone the United Kingdom. I fully realize the implication of the recommendations of the Shaw committee when it is stated that for some years to come cheese will be the important export from our dairy industry. Nevertheless we must bear in mind that we are still a negligible factor in a market in which we have free entry and which is certainly available to us.
Against this situation I return to the point I discussed at the beginning of my remarks on butter, and that is the staggering, vast and frightening increase in the world's production of vegetable oils. For example, let us take palm oil. In 1920, in Sumatra, 360 tons were produced; in 1936, 196,996 tons. In the Malay peninsula in 1920 no palm oil at all was produced, but in 1937 42,935 tons were produced. On the west coast of Africa
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing

in 1920 there were produced 119,312 tons as against 244,647 tons in 1937. And here, Mr. Chairman, I have taken only one source of vegetable oil, and that is palm oil. For Ceylon, Java and the Philippines, in the production of cocoanut oil a similar story can be told. Let it be remembered that we are continuing to import into Canada increasing quantities of these oils, which in the manufacture of shortening replace lard and butter, and in the manufacture of soap replace animal tallow and grease.
Then consider for a moment the importation of vegetable oil into Canada last year. These figures are as I stated, staggering:
Pounds
Palm and palm kernel	 50,700,000
Crude peanut oil	 65,300,000
Peanut oil for soap and fish..	5,400,000
Cotton seed and olive foots.. ..	4,600,000
Cocoanut oil for soap	 27,800,000
Cocoanut oil not edible for refining	 10,000,000
Crude cotton seed	 15,500,000
Olive	 800,000
Soya bean oil	 2,200,000
Vegetable oil, n.o.p	 2,400,000
Vegetable oils, for food	 4,700,000
Total	 189,400,000
Let me for a moment turn to the production of bacon, the last of the three products I have selected upon which to make a few recommendations to the minister. Canadian bacon is excellent bacon, and the bacon producers of Canada are to be sincerely congratulated on the quality of their product. When it is considered that there is one pig in Canada to every three persons, one can realize how important is our bacon and ham and pork industry.
In discussing this major product, produced in all parts of Canada, we will recall that Canadian bacon enters the United Kingdom duty free, but that we have no tariff preference provided in either of the Canada-United Kingdom trade agreements of 1932 or 1937, although continuance of duty free entrance is assured. Further, the United Kingdom agreements with Canada have assured us of a quota of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum. As we survey the export figures from 1928 on we realize just how important the United Kingdom market is to the producer of Canadian bacon. In a few moments I shall place upon Hansard the record of our export production, but sufficient be it to say for the moment that from a low in 1931 of 41,595 hundredweight of 112 pounds, our production has increased until in 1937 we exported to the United Kingdom market 1,387,006 hundredweight. But hon. members will note that we have barely passed the halfway mark in our quota.

Again turning to the minister's bulletin, this time to page 28, we will note that whereas Great Britain has in six years more than doubled her domestic production of bacon, nevertheless she is producing only a fraction of her total requirements and is still a substantial customer of many different countries, of which Canada is one. As the Shaw report well reminds us, on page 27 of the minister's bulletin, there is a prejudice against Canadian bacon because immediately after the war much inferior bacon was sold, and this, having been held in storage for some time, seriously damaged the reputation of Canadian bacon.
Let me again remind the committee that the facts of the matter are that whereas we have a quota of 2,500,000 hundredweight against Canadian bacon we have yet only reached the half-way mark in filling that quota. If we turn to pages 33 and 34 of the minister's latest bulletin we shall find a series of recommendations, among which we will read the following:
We feel that action should be taken to develop better merchandising methods. . . .
A careful survey of Canadian bacon as it is handled in the United Kingdom retail shops failed to convince us that it was being merchandised in the best possible manner. On very few occasions was it advertised or sold as Canadian bacon. . . .
Standards of quality must be maintained and improved.
As volume and continuity of supply are essential other efforts will be nullified unless this can be accomplished. . . .
A much higher percentage of sizable Wilt-shires is desirable in Canadian exports. . . .
The grading and selection of Canadian bacon has greatly improved in recent years. . . .
Canadian bacon frequently discolours too quickly after being cut. Necessary investigation to be undertaken to ascertain and remove the cause, if possible. . . .
Now, Mr. Chairman, in what I have said so far I have had a definite purpose in mind. I have considered only three of the important agricultural products of this country-eggs, butter, and bacon; and these I have selected deliberately because of the potential possibilities that they present in the development and advancement of Canadian agriculture. Last summer I spent considerable time in Denmark conducting an extensive and intensive investigation of the methods employed by the government and other agencies for the development of Danish agriculture to its position of great importance in the market of the United Kingdom. The minister realizes as well as if not better than any member of this committee the substantial portion of the British market in eggs, butter and bacon claimed by the farmers of Denmark. Here

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
is a little country of only 17,000 square miles, which means that twenty-four kingdoms of Denmark could be put into the province of Ontario alone. Of Denmark's population of 3,700,000, twenty-three per cent live in one big city in the country, the city of Copenhagen ; thirty-nine per cent live in small towns, and the balance of the population, thirty-eight per cent, live in the country. They are a people completely homogeneous, and of Gotho-Germanic origin, possessed of high character and a deep moral sense, and their honesty is outstanding. Their educational system, as a result principally of the activities of Bishop Grundvik, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, is extraordinarily efficient in the development of the young Dane into full citizenship, with a sense of moral responsibility, not only to his country but to his neighbour.
Let it be remembered that Denmark, as an important factor in the agricultural markets of the world, has been built out of what were virtually the ashes of a country. Disastrous wars with Prussia and Austria had deprived Denmark of her most fertile territories, Schleswig and Holstein, and, further, as a wheat growing country she had lost her markets. Here then in the later half of the nineteenth century was a country that had been soundly defeated by her two archenemies, had lost her most fertile territories, and had been deprived of the outlet for her only major product, wheat. Her people were little more than serfs, lacking both in intelligence and in pride, all of which combined to build down to a nation that was on the verge of disaster. But to-day Denmark, primarily agrarian as she is, is one of the leading agricultural countries of the world, whose products are justly famous for their quality and consumer acceptance. It has been during the last sixty years that she has built herself into a country where 98 per cent of her farmers own their own land; where her agricultural products are of the highest quality and kind; a country in which a new nationalism has sprung up; a country which can boast of a system of social insurance governing sickness, accidents, old age, and all the rest, more widespread than any voluntary system in the world; a country in which only one in a thousand cannot read or write; a country in which there are no immensely rich people or any very poor people. Her farms are not large. There are 204,000 of them in this little kingdom, one-half of which are less than twenty-five acres in size, only twenty-three per cent of them being more than 150 acres. Twenty-nine per cent of her exports to-day
are bacon, meat and other slaughtery products. Her butter, cheese and milk comprise twenty-five per cent of her exports, and eggs eight per cent. Fifty-four per cent of her total exports go to the United Kingdom alone.
If we consider such a country perhaps we are too ready to say that any comparisons between the agricultural development of Denmark and the agricultural development of Canada are too remote to be worthy of the attention that we might give to them. On the contrary, strange though it may seem to say it, the comparison is not so remote as one might at first think.
In Canada there are 729,000 farms; in Denmark there are 204,000. But if we compare the Danish live stock population with the human population, we shall see that their agricultural set-up, if I may so call it, is not so different from our own. In Denmark there is one horse to every six persons; in Canada there is one horse to every four persons. In Denmark there is one head of cattle to every person; in Canada there are four head of cattle to every five persons. In Denmark there is one pig to every person; in Canada there is one pig to every three persons. In Denmark there are seven chickens to every person; in Canada there are five chickens to every person. And yet, keeping in mind that their farms are small and also that many of our farms are vast in area, hon. members will realize from the figures I have given that the Danish set-up for the production of eggs, butter and bacon is not far removed in relative contrast from that of Canada.
But Denmark's approach to her markets in the United Kingdom has been dissimilar to ours. Realizing the position in which she was placed in the latter part of the nineteenth century as a result of the factors I have already mentioned, through governmental agencies she approached the United Kingdom to ascertain the type of product that would be most acceptable in the British market. Note that she did not develop her product and then endeavour to sell it in the United Kingdom; she went first to the United Kingdom and determined the quality and kind of product required, and then went back to her farms to develop that identical product. In this aim she has been most extraordinarily successful. In other words, she realized that the Danish farmer back on his little farm could not possibly know what kind of bacon would be most acceptable to the British market, for example. The government, however, was in a position to find out and to tell him, 'and that is exactly what the government did, with the net result that, realizing that-
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing

quality was the only basis upon which she could possibly hope to compete in the market of the United Kingdom, Denmark has developed for that market a product which has wide acceptance in competition with the product of every other country in the world.
It will be interesting to all hon. members, I am sure, to hear the figures I am about to give. In 1936 Denmark exported to the United Kingdom 100 million dozen eggs, while Canada exported one million dozen eggs. In other words, for every one hundred Danish eggs sold in the United Kingdom one Canadian egg was sold. And Danish eggs were sold at a premium of ten per cent. In 1936 Denmark exported 2,172,000 hundredweight of butter to the United Kingdom, while Canada exported 40,000 hundredweight; and the premium on Danish butter, even above New Zealand butter, was no less than twenty per cent. In 1936 Denmark exported to the United Kingdom 3,373,000 hundredweight of bacon, while Canada exported 1,092,000; that is, we were outsold three to one. And the Danish price was twelve per cent higher than ours.
Let us also realize the handicap under which Denmark has been operating. Our eggs have free entry into the market of the United Kingdom, whereas the duty against Denmark on this commodity is one shilling per great hundred. Canadian butter enters the British market duty free; the rate of duty against Danish butter is fifteen shillings per hundredweight. As regards bacon, it will be recalled that in the agreement with Denmark the United Kingdom among other things undertook not to regulate imports of bacon and ham unless necessary for the regulation of the marketing of domestic supplies, in which case the Danish allocation was not to be less than 62 per cent of the total permitted imports from foreign countries. With the permission of the committee I should like to have this table placed on Hansard in tabular form, giving as it does exports from Canada and exports from Denmark of bacon, butter and eggs from 1928 to 1937.


The CHAIRMAN:: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


Denton Massey: It is very brief.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Denton Massey: What shall I do?


Frederick George Sanderson: Unless there is unanimous consent, the hon. member will have to read it.


Denton Massey: I shall take the time to read it, then.


James Garfield Gardiner: Take it as read.


Denton Massey: The figures are given by the dominion bureau of statistics:
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-External Trade Branch
Imports of Bacon, Butter, Cheese and Eggs into United Kingdom from Canada and Denmark (Calendar Years 1928-1937)
Calendar	Bacon	Butter	Eggs in the shellyears	cwt.	cwt.	(great hundreds)1928-From	Canada. ..	.. 306,795	1,646	83,323Denmark..	.. 5,375,793	2,016,045	5,329,6691929-From	Canada. ..	.. 198,491	8	79,157Denmark..	. . 4,977,026	2,204,027	5,572,6291930-From	Canada. . .	.. 99,298	210	15,025Denmark..	.. 6,117,866	2,318,525	6,728,3831931-From	Canada. ..	.. 49,495	78,110	46,486Denmark..	. . 7,339,195	2,466,070	7,548,6611932-From	Canada. ..	. . 181,580	19,299	5.426Denmark..	. . 7,670,349	2,583,664	6,392,3021933-From	Canada. ..	.. 506,906	33,253	182,895Denmark..	. . 5,524,217	2,519,126	6,233,6371934-From	Canada. ..	.. 894,284	54	177.001Denmark..	. . 4,287,830	2,485,810	6,383,7511935-From	Canada. . .	.. 919,064	63,463	98,392Denmark. .	.. 3,826,386	2,186,350	6,564,7311936-From	Canada. ..	.. 1,092,360	40,128	99,298Denmark..	.. 3,373,415	2,171,594	7,988,8271937-From	Canada. ..	.. 1,387,006	(*)	(*)Denmark..	.. 3,429,427	2,256,490	9,992,919Note: Cwt. =	112 pounds.	
(*) Statistics not shown in Monthly Trade Report of the United Kingdom for December, 1937.
Great hundred = 120 eggs.
A further point that should be borne in mind is the extraordinary development of Danish cooperatives, a factor that has been of the utmost importance in the rise of Denmark to her present position. To complete the story within the limits of the moment is difficult; but let it be sufficient to say that it was in 1882 that the first cooperative was set up, while to-day there are 1,400 of them patronized by 192,000 out of the 204,000 fanners. The cooperatives to-day handle 90 per cent of the milk supply, 85 per cent of the bacon, 50 per cent of the butter, and 65 per cent of the feed and grains. Through the cooperatives the Danish farmer is assured of his market and the transportation of his products to it. He has no worries in regard to rates of foreign exchange or the problem

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
of the middleman or shipping. If he is efficient, he gets the top price. If he is not efficient, he has only himself to blame; for every possible aid is given him directly and on the ground by the educational branch of the cooperative societies, which societies are well backed up by and receive energetic support from the government. The result has been essentially the standardization of Danish agricultural production. A small farm set-up of ten acres will have four cows, two horses and three pigs. A medium sized farm, of seventy acres, will boast twenty-five cows, six horses, and twenty-eight pigs, and will also employ four labourers and one maid. So scientific is the farming in Denmark that virtually the cow may be regarded as a machine and the pig as raw material.
I have already stated that the whole basis upon which Danish agriculture is predicated is quality. Let us see for a moment what is done in regard to the three products we have discussed. Every solitary, single one of the 1,200,000,000 eggs which left Denmark last year for the United Kingdom was lamp-tested by government inspectors. Every barrel of butter that leaves the country is also passed by government inspectors; every pound of bacon the same. And not only are the pigs examined on the hoof by veterinary surgeons, but every part of that pig is also examined by a veterinary surgeon in the course of its passage through the slaughtery. Thus, if at any time an egg or a barrel of butter or a side of bacon fails to come up to the rigid standard set by the government, and is turned down by the inspector, that egg, that barrel of butter or that side of bacon does not leave the country.
From the farmer's point of view the cooperative is a tremendous boon. Take the story of cooperative butter making. The farmer, or probably his wife, milks night and morning of course, and puts the milk in cans at the farm gate in the morning. The truck from the local cooperative picks up the cans shortly afterwards and takes them to the creamery where the milk is made into butter under the most rigid inspection. Next morning, when the cooperative truck again stops at his farm, it leaves the cans of the day before, this time full of the skim milk, picks up the whole milk cans and carries them to the creamery. That is all the farmer has to do with the processing and marketing of his butter, but he rceives back the skim milk which he feeds to his pigs.
A similar story can be told in regard to bacon. As a quota is placed on the market so is the production controlled; the farmer each year receives so many " pig cards,"
which permit him to export as bacon to the United Kingdom the number of pigs for which he receives cards, nine, fifteen, twenty-five or whatever it may be, depending on the size of his farm. His pigs are bred only from government registered stock. Let me say in passing that every head of live stock and even every chicken in Denmark is registered. Unless the farmer can prove beyond doubt that not only the parents but also the four grandparents as well of his animals are approved by the government, the farmer cannot breed from that stock. It is only from government approved stock that breeding is permitted. Thus the strain of Danish cattle, horses, pigs, sheep and chickens is maintained to an amazingly high degree of perfection and efficiency.
To come back to the pigs, the farmer feeds his pigs in accordance with the best recognized methods. When they reach the weight of 170 pounds he rings up the cooperative slaughtery, which calls for them and takes them to town. On the hoof they are examined by a veterinary surgeon; if they weigh between 168 and 172 pounds and pass the inspector, they are slaughtered. If the pig weighs less than 168 pounds, it is returned to the farmer for further feeding; if it weighs over 172 pounds, it is also returned to the farmer; but in this case he cannot attempt to reduce its weight, he will fatten it and send it to Germany, where a fatter bacon is desired.
Hon. members will recognize from what I have said as briefly as possible that the Danish government has taken extraordinarily effective steps, working in conjunction with the cooperatives, to develop a great product which is acceptable in the market to which it is sent.
All that I have said thus far is in no way intended as criticism of the efforts of the Canadian farmer.


Frederick George Sanderson: I regret to interrupt
the hon. member but I must inform him that he has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Denton Massey: If I might have just about five more minutes.


Frederick George Sanderson: With the unanimous
consent of the committee.


Denton Massey: I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and that of the committee. As I have said, and I repeat, the Canadian farmer is himself without a peer in the world. But it seems to me that the government of this dominion can take many steps which have yet to be taken to assist the

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
farmer in the development of his products, so that they may be acceptable on a basis of quality and kind to the consumers of the market to which they are sent. What I have endeavoured to point out is that the Canadian farmer possesses potentialities which have not been fully developed. Our farmers have done their best and done it well; what remains to be done it seems to me is the direct responsibility of the government. The example of Denmark is before us when it was realized that the Danish farmer on his farm could not possibly know the quality and kind of product required for successful marketing in the British market. His government ascertained that, conveyed the information to him, and gave him every possible assistance in attaining that standard.
The minister, in speaking last evening, as reported on page 2992 of Hansard, said:
The Danish people have a line of hogs which have been bred up to standard during the last two hundred years.
Perhaps the minister will permit me to disagree with that statement. The Danish hog of fifty years ago was completely dissimilar to the Danish hog of to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is that not the way you get a different type, by breeding up to it?


Denton Massey: Yes; I was referring only
to the length of time taken.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the official report which indicates it has been 200 years


Denton Massey: Let me describe the Danish hog of 1880 and now. The 1938 model of Danish bacon hog is long and deep of body, with flat back, lean, and short of leg, whereas the Danish hog of the 1880's was thick, short, big of body, arched of back, and long of leg. The 1938 model is essentially a streamlined model. Bacon from the 1880 model would not find a place on the English breakfast table of to-day. Accordingly the hog that one now sees in Denmark was developed so that its bacon would find that place which it has found.
Eggs, butter and bacon are the only products which I have discussed this afternoon. In the case of eggs and butter our surplus is comparatively small; therefore we export comparatively little. But is it not a government responsibility to take the steps necessary to create an increasing demand for Canadian eggs, butter and bacon in the United Kingdom, and thus open up to the Canadian farmer the possibility of marketing these products on a larger scale? There is no reason why we should produce only so many eggs, or only the amount of butter or bacon that

we do produce, except the restriction of the market available. The farmer himself cannot develop the market, but the government can. I am not for a moment losing sight of the fact that our domestic market has been, is and always should be our most important market; but there is no reason why Canada cannot take full advantage of the possibilities of an export market as safe and secure as that of the United Kingdom, made possible to us under the agreements of 1932, reaffirmed in 1937.
Any thinking Canadian who considers the trends cannot but be alarmed at the rise of urbanization in this dominion. During the last eight or nine years there has been a sharp increase in our urban population at the expense of the rural population. That obviously means one thing, that those who would normally remain on the farms are forsaking them and coming into the cities to seek their fortune there. Hon. members know too well that there is great difficulty to-day in keeping the farmers' sons on the farm. Why? Not because farming is unattractive; not because the difficulties of farming are too much for our younger generation-far from it-but because farming in so many cases has proved unprofitable. Therefore, what might be a gainful and worthy occupation appears as wasted drudgery to the young people. What makes it unprofitable? The fact that the prices of produce are out of line, for one thing, and loss of markets for another. These two combine to promote hard times for the farmer.
The unemployment situation in our urban centres continues to be one of our greatest national problems. For that problem there is only one solution; that is jobs. If farming can be restored to the position of a profitable and gainful occupation, it will go an immeasurably long way towards solving our unemployment problem. Again let me quote Denmark. There the government has acquired large tracts of land, which it breaks up into ten and fifteen acre farms. The would-be young farmer merely has to show that he has $200 or more in his possession and the necessary qualifications to be a farmer. He is then given a ten or fifteen acre farm, completely equipped with barn, house and live stock. He does not have to pay back a single penny except as he earns. I am not suggesting that such a course could be followed here; but I am sure hon. members will agree that some steps can be taken in the development of our markets, in the stabilization of the prices of farm products, which will make farming attractive, and this will not only tend

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
to retain our farming youth upon the farms, but will also further attract many of the farming youth, who have come to our cities, back to the farm, thus relieving the acute unemployment situation existing in our cities to-day.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, permit me to state that I am not unmindful of the burden of the recommendations of the Shaw report, or the proposals already claimed to be made effective by the minister, as reported on page 10 of his recently released bulletin; but I find, looking through the recommendations and proposals of the Shaw report, a great lack of two factors which, it seems to me, are the most singularly important part of any governmental effort directly to assist the Canadian farmer. That is, namely: (1) a program designed to raise the standard of Canadian live stock and thus, Canadian products, by direct assistance to the farmer-a program designed to make sure, beyond peradventure, that the efforts of the farmers are directed in the most profitable channels to produce butter, eggs, bacon, cheese and other such products adequately suited to the market to which they are to be exported, and (2) a program to stabilize farm product prices.
In regard to the first factor I earnestly urge upon the minister, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, that he give immediate thought to a governmental program of direct educational assistance to the Canadian farmer that will permit him to take advantage of the markets which are open to him, particularly the market of the United Kingdom. We must, perforce, realize that important and all as it Still is in the development of Canada, we cannot depend upon wheat alone as the outstanding product of our farms. Through no fault of our own we have lost many of our best customers for this commodity. Thus, further steps must be taken forthwith to take up the slack in agriculture, and it would seem to me to be of the utmost importance to the dominion as a whole that this entire matter be given the full and concentrated attention, not only of the government of the day, but of the governments that are to follow; for prosperous farms in Canada mean a prosperous Canada.
The Canadian farm and the Canadian farmer form, together, a part of Canada of an importance that cannot be overestimated. Justly we are proud of the progress we have made through the years; but in the discussion which the committee has permitted me this afternoon I have tried to throw out to the government of the day a suggestion or two which, if applied in practice, will result
in the even higher development of the Canadian farm, and which will help relieve the difficulties which our farmers have been forced to face.
In regard to the second factor, no mention is made in the report of what may be regarded as the greatest problem faced by agriculture to-day, namely stabilized prices. There could be no more efficacious boon to the Canadian farmer than efficient steps taken toward the stabilization of prices of farm products.


An hon. MEMBER:: What steps?


Denton Massey: As I have already stated in this chamber, I do not pose as an economist, but I fully realize that the law of supply and demand as it at present operates in this country is operating to the severe detriment of the Canadian farmer. Other factors as well, which need not 'be discussed here, have tended toward extraordinary low levels in the prices of our farm products. Surely, it must be by this time obvious to the government of the day that some artificial means, through legislation or otherwise, will have to be employed to stabilize prices. And, Mr. Chairman, we must all recognize that the lot of the farmer in Canada will never be very much better than it is to-day until these steps are taken.
In speaking in this chamber, not so long ago, the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) used language as reported at page 101 of Hansard to which I direct the attention of hon. members. To this I shall add nothing further, but merely say, as I take my seat, that I urge upon the government that a program designed to aid the fanner directly by assisting him in the development of his product to fit the market in which he sells be stimulated at once, and that some plan be formulated and put into effect to stabilize farm product prices. To this there can be only one result-a more stable and more secure Canada, and a greater and more united Canada.


Mr. MacRAE:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) speaking on the question of marketing, painted a rather gloomy picture of the activities of the cheese producers' association. I should like to make a few remarks with regard to this question.
For many years the dairymen had two organizations in Ontario, the eastern and the western Ontario dairymen's association. I believe they served a useful purpose for a considerable length of time. But the farmers of the eastern district formed the impression that those associations had survived their period of usefulness, and the feeling sprang up among
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing

the dairymen that they needed a newer and more active organization to further their interests. Because of that the cheese producers' association came into being.
The first encouragement received was from the Hon. Mr. Weir, the minister of agriculture for the dominion at that time. The first financial assistance was received from the provincial department of agriculture operating under the Hon. Thomas Kennedy.
Their first objective was to have all cheese boarded, thereby cutting out factories selling on board rulings with the idea of stimulating a healthy competition among the buyers. Secondly, they wished to ascertain by trial shipments to Great Britain if there was too great a spread between the price paid to the producer in Canada and the price paid by the consumer in Great Britain. They made a small profit on this experiment in 1936, and sustained a loss in 1937. While there was a small loss suffered in 1937 the thought lingers in the minds of the producing farmers that the cheese exporters narrowed their margin of profit when the cheese producers made their trial shipments to the old land, with a view to driving the producers' association out of the picture, and although it appears as a small loss it may be an actual gain in dollars and cents to the farmers of Ontario.
The Ontario Marketing Act gave them the power to collect five cents on each hundred pounds of cheese manufactured, which works out at about half a cent per hundred pounds of milk. The national dairy council have been depending on voluntary contributions and the response has not been as generous as they would like. By this method of financing the association everybody makes a fair contribution to the expenses of the association and more general satisfaction is promoted among the farmers.
I have made these observations in order to convey to the committee the actual situation in regard to cheese associations.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: What does the hon.
member for Greenwood say would become of Denmark if we were to secure the market they have at the present time?


Denton Massey: I do not consider for a
moment that the market of the United Kingdom has been exhausted. There is room for both Denmark and Canada.


Mr. SENN:: It seems to me the discussion which might have taken place under this item was pretty well exhausted under another item discussed some time ago. Hon. members may think there has been undue discussion, but since this is an entirely new

set-up within the department I think it is fair to say we were entitled to the information for which we have been asking.
It is my intention at this time to direct only one or two questions to the minister, and then I shall have finished with at least this part of the discussion. There are some points in regard to the set-up which are not yet clear in my mind. For instance, at the heads of the different branches of the department we have gentlemen who have served in their capacities for some time. Are those gentlemen now acting in a dual capacity; that is, are they serving, for instance, under the marketing services branch and under the production services branch, or has their work been changed so that each serves under one branch?


James Garfield Gardiner: These men are not
serving in two capacities; they serve in one capacity in administering the work of a certain branch of which they are in charge. For example, Doctor Hilton is still in charge of the health of animals branch, but his work is carried on under the director of production. That is just an illustration.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does the dairy commissioner
act in a dual capacity, or does the head of the sheep and swine division?


James Garfield Gardiner: Practically all of our
services having to do with dairy products relate to marketing. The greater part of the production is attended to by the provinces. We take care of the marketing end, and look after inspections which have to do with the grades of products, a service wrhich is considered to be part of the marketing operation. Naturally that work is carried on under the marketing branch.


Mark Cecil Senn: I thank the minister for the
information he has given. I should like to make one more reference to the mark which has been discussed under another item. Clause (c) of the recommendation states that the right to use this mark, where it is not compulsory, will be granted only to producers under licence. I should like to know why the producers are put in a different class from exporters generally and commission men. It looks to me as though there is discrimination or a monopoly is being set up.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said earlier, the
details have not been worked out completely, but if there is to be licensing, it will apply right through. Anyone using the mark will have to be licensed to use it, whether he is a producer or a jobber.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Has any program
been devised for the stabilization of prices?

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
As one having a direct contact with farming operations, it is my opinion that if we could stabilize prices to any satisfactory degree, our production would far outstrip our ability to sell. In the area from which I come the productive power is tremendous in eggs, bacon, beef and everything that we have been discussing. Just about the time a farmer gets into pigs, as they say, just about the time that he equips himself so that he can produce, for some unaccountable reason prices come down and stay down until he is forced out of swine production. Then prices go up again when the farmer has no equipment with which to take advantage of the increase. There may be some inevitable and insuperable natural law which brings this about, but I seriously doubt it. If we could tackle the problem at that point it seems to me we would be well on the way to a solution of our difficulty.
Then there is another obstacle facing the farmer. Frequently when prices rise to a point at which farmers can "make a go," as they say, when they reach a point at which they can make things pay, then the prices of feeds and other ingredients that go into their production begin to rise. I have heard many good farmers say that by no means whatsoever can you figure your way out to a profit. So long as such conditions exist our productive power will simply be lying dormant.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no concerted effort, other than that which was put forth under the Natural Products Marketing Act, to stabilize prices. As the hon. member knows, that act was declared ultra vires, but certain activities have been carried on by the provinces since it was declared ultra vires. However, there has been an attempt made in other directions indirectly to stabilize prices upward. Attempts have been made to improve the grades and increase the consumption of certain of our farm products, and the result has been an improvement in prices. I think I am correct when I say that the increase in the annual per capita consumption of butter in Canada was 4-06 pounds from 1925 to 1936. The fact that our butter was improved in quality had something to do with the greater consumption in Canada. The fact that we have had a greater consumption has had something to do with prices having been better in recent years.
I do not know that I can say much more in regard to the point raised. It is always a question whether you can set a price for a product and maintain it. I presume that if a country is sufficiently small and the product is sufficiently standardized you might be able
to do it, provided all of the output is consumed within the country. But even a country as small as Denmark, which markets its product in Great Britain, is not able to say what price is going to be paid in Great Britain. Their prices go up and down just as ours do. Britain has much more regulation through cooperative organizations than we have, yet they have not been able to stabilize prices. The most they have been able to do is to stabilize their commodities and create a demand in a market that is more or less constant.
Some of us listened to an address to-day by an extremely well informed man from Great Britain, Sir Reginald Dorman Smith. He took a different position regarding some matters referred to in the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) in connection with the relationship between Great Britain and Denmark and other countries. I am not prepared at the moment to say which point of view is the correct one. However, the remarks made on that occasion would indicate that this stabilization is more nearly possible in a country that consumes all its own agricultural products than it is in one that consumes only seventy per cent of its production and sells the other thirty per cent outside the country. It is probably even more difficult to do it in a country where you consume only thirty per cent and ship out seventy per cent of your production, as we do with one of our products. These are some of the difficulties with which we are confronted. I do not think there is any one standard that can be set in a country with an area so widespread as ours in connection with price control or the standardization of products. However, we are attempting to accomplish results by applying suitable remedies to the varying conditions that exist in this country.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to a demonstration of price stabilization of farm products which has taken place in New Zealand. New Zealand produces large quantities of cheese and butter and exports the bulk of this production. Yet she has successfully stabilized the prices of both butter and cheese. She is able to guarantee a price of twenty-five cents for butter and something like fifteen cents per pound for cheese, using the current rates of exchange between New Zealand and the motherland. New Zealand, with a small population but producing vast quantities of these commodities, has demonstrated very successfully that a certain amount of stabilization can be undertaken under conditions

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
dissimilar to those outlined by the minister. This is not the time to enter into any academic discussion or we shall never reach the end of these estimates, -but I wanted to draw that to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. STIRLING:: It is not any too clear to me just where the dividing line is between the marketing activities of the Department of Agriculture and the marketing activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but it is quite obvious that the intention of the minister is to improve the opportunities of marketing our products. I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the difficulty we have had in the past of informing the buying public of what we have to sell and where it can be bought. I shall deal with one side of this question as it applies to this country. For many years past we have tried to sell British Columbia fruit in the prairie provinces, and I know of no more annoying type of letter to receive than the one which contains the statement, " Your fruit is fine but we do not know where to get it." When we take that difficulty back to those who are responsible for distributing the fruit or vegetables, as we always do, we are informed that apparently that whole prairie country has been divided up into territories and adequately served, and in some cases I must say that when the matter is run down to the bottom we find that the consumer did not use any too much gumption in endeavouring to obtain that produce. But still the difficulty is there. Where the produce is available it seems to be very difficult to get it into the head of the consumer that there it can be bought, and any assistance the minister is able to give through his officers in informing the buying public of the produce there is to sell, so much the better for the producer.
I want for a moment to refer to the other side of it, and that is the difficulty which occurs in Great Britain, in informing the British public of the produce Canada has to sell. I notice in the April number of Overseas an article headed, Empire Table Exchange. It is a description of what had recently been seen by the writer at the British Industries Fair, and I want to quote a couple of paragraphs:
Decidedly, Canadian bacon was the best on show. (The whole Canadian exhibit was first class.) I asked where it could be procured in London, and was told " at any big shop." I tried at a shop which is among our biggest, and has a transatlantic name. It was selling only Wiltshire and Danish. Danish bacon is excellent, but I asked why the money shouldn't be kept in the family. I was then asked, seriously and with a wish to know, whether Canadian

bacon was good, etc. In the long run I received a promise that it should be available in a week. But why did the B.I.F. Canadian officials think it could be bought when it couldn't?
This leads directly to a consideration which I hope overseas readers will pardon to an ardent friend of their produce, who wants to see Empire Table Exchange becoming more intense and more fruitful every week. I do not know what overseas housewives are like as regards new comestibles, but at home in England they are absurdly unadventurous, largely because the Englishman is very conservative in his food. They see a new thing (as once they must have seen the first tomato, as some time before Nell Gwynn they must have seen a fruit that they didn't then know was an orange), and they say: "What's that?" and the greengrocer says: "I don't know, mum; I bought a couple on chance." She doesn't buy any, and he purchases no more.
The relatively small expense of sending quantities of leaflets with empire exports to England (and to inter-empire markets) should be no hindrance to an activity of which the importance cannot be exaggerated. It is not enough to say that this tuber can be treated in various ways; a half dozen amusing, interesting recipes (and printed on good paper, in clear type, and clearly set out) will help the retail seller and the ordinary customer to increase the market. We all want to vary our menu, we all want to buy empire; but you have to help us. I think that even Canadian apples, which are so attractive to look at. ought to wear a badge of "for dessert," "for baking."
As I said when I commenced, I do not know because I do not understand the dividing line between the minister's department and Trade and Commerce in this matter, but the object of his marketing branch is undoubtedly to foster marketing, and if the minister would take into consideration the desirability and the possibility of increasing the information which reaches the prospective empire buyer in Great Britain he will have accomplished a great deal.


Mr. BLANCHETTE:: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that I can be justly accused of having taken too much of the time of the house since my arrival here, but I should like to make a few remarks upon this particular item, affording as it does the opportunity to give expression to views which I have held now for some few years with regard to agriculture, and in particular dairying, coming as I do from a dairying section of the country.
Agriculture, as we all know, is the oldest of human occupations, and it would appear to me that it should be the most paying of all human activities. But unfortunately it is not. The whole nation, and I might say the whole world, should be keenly aware of the importance to all the people of a prosperous agriculture. But unfortunately this conviction

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
does not seem to prevail amongst all, because it has been stated, and quite truly, I believe, by Sir Josiah Stamp, that:
The world as a whole, over a given length of time, has almost certainly been fed below cost for the last hundred years.
The farm problem can be stated in four words: Farm profits are inadequate. The disparity between the income of farm enterprise and the returns from the investment of equal labour, capital and managerial ability in industrial effort, is apparent to all those who have examined the facts; and neither the welfare of the people directly nor the national good itself can decently suffer the agricultural population to continue under the definite handicap of producing below cost.
I understand that the farm problem is not simply one but many. There are some forms of assistance that take effect quickly, and others only in the course of time. Amongst the aids in the former category I might mention transportation as being vital to agriculture. In the United States six per cent of the gross annual production is said to be absorbed by freight rates. Commercial attaches should find and develop a market as "international trade is primarily dependent upon international understanding and amity." More can be done to educate foreign peoples to a taste for the foods from Canadian farms. Probably the most important of all steps towards creating a permanent and growing demand for Canadian food-stuffs on the menus of the world is 1he maintenance of world peace and the diffusion of friendly understanding. Other means are agricultural colleges, research work and extension services.
Agriculture needs the greatest consideration from all governments, and especially is this true with respect to dairying, which represents nineteen per cent of the total agricultural revenue, whereas wheat represented in 1930 only fourteen per cent of the total agricultural wealth of the country. The dairy farmer has been losing money for a number of years, and the loss has been heavy enough for the farmer who can ship to the fluid milk market, but more has been lost by the dairy farmers who have been shipping to local cheese and butter factories. In support of my statement that the dairy farmer has been losing money, I should like to cite data obtained on two surveys in the province of Quebec in 1931-32, which are reported on in the report of the minister of agriculture for the province for that year.
The first data, which I shall present in a very cursory way, relates to the fluid milk
market, and the second data to the dairy farmers who have been shipping their products to local cheese and butter factories.
In 1931-32 an economic investigation was carried on in the Montreal district and in the counties around the city of Montreal. The number of farms investigated was 182, and the number of animal units 4,106. The report of this investigation was to the effect that in 1934 fluid milk sold at Montreal for $1.44 per hundred pounds, whereas the cost of production was SI .97 per hundred pounds. A similar investigation was carried on in the county of Megantic, comprising fifty farms in that county; its object was to determine the cost of the production of milk by farmers selling to butter or cheese factories, and the gist of this report was that it cost the farmers $1.44 to produce one hundred pounds of milk, and at that time the gross selling price of that one hundred pounds of milk was 72 cents, a net of sixty cents, showing thereby a loss of 84 cents per hundred pounds by each dairy producer. I believe these figures show that the assertion that the dairy producer is producing at a loss is well founded. I trust that it will be the endeavour of the Department of Agriculture to do all that they can to enhance the revenue of the farmers and especially the dairy farmers of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Compensation for animals slaughtered, $200,000.
Mark Cecil Senn: Could the minister give the committee information as to how may areas are now under inspection and how many have not yet been started for which application has been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those accepted but not yet tested are: Quebec 4, Ontario 6, Manitoba 10, Saskatchewan 2.


Mark Cecil Senn: How many areas are complete?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the total number up to date that the hon. member desires-not only last year, but the total number?


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The best I have is the districts that were tested last year. By provinces: Quebec 3, Ontario 7, Manitoba 1, New Brunswick 4. These were started last year and completed. Those that are being retested are: Quebec 10, Ontario 9, Manitoba 7, Saskatchewan 5, British Columbia 1.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does the minister contemplate that when he brings down his supplementaries sufficient money will be forthcoming to carry on activities in all the districts that have been accepted, or will some of them have to lie over for another year?
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing


James Garfield Gardiner: We are hopeful of getting sufficient money to take care of all those with which we can deal with our present staffs. It will probably not be possible to cover all the districts that have been accepted, during this coming summer.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister said something about retests in the areas that have been under accreditation for some time and are restricted areas. In the light of past experience, how nearly is this test satisfactory and how nearly have the restricted areas been kept clean of tuberculosis?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the best answer to that is to call attention to what has happened in some districts where the work has been carried on.


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: This list shows the restricted areas for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis in which infection has been reduced to one half of one per cent and less. In Prince Edward Island the entire province, comprised of the counties of Kings, Queens and Prince, has been reduced to one half of one per cent. In New Brunswick nine counties have been similarly reduced; in Quebec 16; in Ontario 6; in Manitoba 1; in Saskatchewan 13; in British Columbia 1.


Mark Cecil Senn: That seems to be a very satisfactory situation. Can the minister give us any information as to what happens in the case of accredited herds that are not in restricted areas? Has the experience been similar in that respect?


James Garfield Gardiner: The results in those are almost identical.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Would the minister give us the names of the six areas in Ontario which have been accepted but not yet tested?


James Garfield Gardiner: Province of Ontario: Peterborough county, Lanark county, Island of St. Joseph, Simcoe, Victoria and the Rainy River district.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Waterloo is not included?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Mark Cecil Senn: Or Haldimand?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not in that group.


Mr. HAYHURST:: We have heard considerable this afternoon about streamlining of the pig. I wondered if that has affected the genera! health of the animal.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed that it does not affect the health.


Mr. LEADER:: Judging from the information given by the minister we are quite a way behind meeting the demands of the cattle breeders in this country. Many of them think that a more determined effort should be made to eradicate tuberculosis. I have been in close touch with the cattle breeders of Ontario this winter, as well as with those in the western provinces, and I know that they are exercised about the inability, shall I say, of the department to keep up with their demands. For that reason I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) who believes that we should have a larger appropriation for this work. I am not going to enlarge upon that phase of the subject to-day, but there is one observation which I wish to make in this connection. Yesterday the minister, in answer to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) I believe, said that the experimental stage in connection with Bang's disease was about the same as it was in connection with tuberculosis some years ago. That, I believe, is true. For that reason we cannot undertake a wholesale policy to eliminate Bang's disease, but I suggest that we might follow a policy such as we adopted in regard to tuberculosis and start with accredited herds. After all, that is the nursery of the whole industry in Canada, and in my opinion we should begin with those herds in attempting to eliminate Bang's disease. We have been successful in eradicating tuberculosis because we had the cooperation of the breeders as well as of the government departments, and it seems to me that we must also have the cooperation of the breeders if we are to eliminate Bang's disease. I do not believe that we. will get that cooperation.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Is it not a fact that the treatment of Bang's disease is still in the experimental stage?


Harry Leader: Yes, I agree with that; and for that very reason I do not think that we shall get the cooperation of the breeders. Farmers who have valuable live stock will not have their cattle condemned for Bang's disease unless they receive some compensation, and that is why I suggest that we should start with the accredited herds and pay compensation to breeders, who will get at least something for any loss they may sustain if their cattle are slaughtered. I suggest that the minister seriously consider the advisability of compensating farmers for the loss of cattle on account of Bang's disease, and that he should start with the accredited herds of the country.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Has the regulation been changed to give compensation for grade cattle?

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. In the accredited areas they get compensation for grade cattle as well as the others. I have here a list of tests made for tuberculosis beginning in 1915-16. In that year there were 2,937 and this last year the number was 1,349,468. The development has been gradual from 2,937 in 1915-16 up to close to a million and a half last year, and I think that illustrates in another way the position we are in in relation to Bang's disease. The authorities in the first instance had to convince the breeders that the test was a reliable one. I find that in every delegation of breeders who come to my office to discuss the matter there is a difference of opinion among them as to whether the test is reliable or not. As regards tuberculosis they readily admit that twenty-five years ago they did not believe that the test was reliable. The first task of the department is therefore to establish confidence in the minds of the breeders that the test is reliable and when that is done, the next step might be given consideration. Eor the time being, however, the department is trying to establish that confidence in the minds of breeders.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Is there a reliable treatment?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department thinks so, but we have not been able to convince everyone else. We have not been able to convince the majority of those interested in herds that it is.


Ernest Edward Perley: The statement the minister made a little while ago would indicate that Saskatchewan is pretty healthy so far as cattle are concerned. Do I understand that in the retesting there was less than one and a half per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was one-half of one per cent.


Ernest Edward Perley: That makes it better. What was paid in Saskatchewan by way of compensation in the last year, and what is the average?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not that information here, but I could get it compiled.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister says that the department is attempting to establish confidence not only in the test for Bang's, but also in the treatment. I understand that the treatment is a serum which is injected. Is the federal department taking any steps to supply that serum when it is applied for, or is that left entirely to the provincial authorities?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as the test is concerned, the remark I made a few moments ago in reply to a question by the hon. member
for Swift Current was that the department was fairly confident that the test was reliable. So far as the treatment is concerned, the serum provided for injection into calves, that is purely in the experimental stage, and we are not in a position to make any pronouncements. It is merely a matter of checking the serum at the present time.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is the department taking any steps to provide the serum or is that left entirely to the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department is not supplying it to the provinces but only to institutions under the control of the department itself, so that we may experiment with it.


Mark Cecil Senn: But I understand that a serum is being used extensively in the country. Where is it obtained? I believe it is being used with very beneficial effects.


James Garfield Gardiner: Bringing it in is prohibited by law. I am not in a position to say whether someone is bootlegging it into the country and using it. It is illegal to use it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Live stock and poultry, $829,170.50.
Mr. SPENCE:: What is the reason for this excessive increase of $95,000? Is there going to be no end to increases in the amounts voted to the Department of Agriculture? No one can understand it. It is difficult for the taxpayers to be continually contributing to other things when in the meantime they are losing money themselves. Items of this sort should receive mature consideration, and money should not be wasted on such matters, if it is wasted. Is this because of an attempt at marketing, or what is the reason for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The increases are all explained later.


James Houston Spence: You can explain them faster than I can read them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it has nothing to do with marketing. This is the production end. We have covered all the marketing activities to date. In permanent salaries the increase is $12,438.


James Houston Spence: Does the minister think increasing salaries is justified in these times? They should be decreased instead of increased.


James Garfield Gardiner: The increases come under the regulations of the civil service commission, and by the return of the five per cent deduction. The increase in temporary salaries is $2,175; in telephone, telegraph and postage, increase $3,000; equipment, increase $15,093.

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing


James Houston Spence: What does the equipment consist of?


James Garfield Gardiner: Such equipment as cars, typewriters-


James Houston Spence: Limousines for the stenographers !
Mr. GARDINER -recording machines and that sort of thing, and material equipment as well, such as bulls loaned. Then there are prizes, bonuses and premiums, increase $26,662.50; buildings and lands, increase Sll ,000; miscellaneous including professional services and rents, $1,138; supplies and materials, $3,000 Freight, express and cartage is the same. In travelling expenses the increase is $20,606. The total increase amounts to $95,112.50.


Ernest Edward Perley: I assume some of that was in connection with the situation in Saskatchewan last fall.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; this is for the coming year.


Ernest Edward Perley: In connection with the bull loaning scheme, not long ago I mentioned in the house that applications had been made by different groups of farmers in the west to secure a bull under that scheme. Is it possible for the department to cope with that situation this year? I understand there are 200 or more applications from Saskatchewan alone.


James Garfield Gardiner: We get more requisitions for this service than we can fill with the amount of money that is voted. We do the best we can, keeping within proper bounds in the different parts of the country.


Mark Cecil Senn: How much money is set aside for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: This year $40,000 is set aside. The increase is $5,446.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is any time limit set within which applications will be considered? Usually the bulls are purchased in the spring or the early winter.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no actual date set, but the department insists on the applications coming in early in the spring, and then they are dealt with in the order in which they are received.


Ernest Edward Perley: There is a serious situation in Saskatchewan, brought about to a considerable extent by the policy adopted last fall of shipping cattle out of the drought areas. The policy which was adopted by the provincial government and endorsed and carried out by the federal Department of Agriculture dealt a very serious blow to the live

stock and dairying industry in that province, a blow from which I do not think they can recover in the next ten years. Early last fall when this policy was adopted many protests were made by individual farmers, rural municipalities and boards of trade. I had many protests come to me asking me to make representations to have the department change their policy. The minister will remember that early in September I wrote him asking that he give consideration to the dairymen, especially the small men with eight or ten or twelve cows in the eastern part of Saskatchewan. He was good enough to reply stating that the matter was more or less up to the provincial government. I had also taken it up with them, and their reply was that they had to enforce their rules strictly, cutting down the stock to not more than four cows on a farm in that district.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope I did not say it was up to the provincial government.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister referred me
to the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan. Mr. Taggart replied to the effect that he did not think it would be possible to supply sufficient feed.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is different from
what the hon. member was saying. I understood him to say that I said it was up v,o the provincial department.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister's letter referred me to the department of agriculture in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: To put the record right, the hon. member is making a speech which might be presumed to apply to one thing when it probably applies to another. As far as the movement of live stock out of the drought area is concerned, the federal government is absolutely responsible for that policy; the Saskatchewan government had nothing to do with it.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have here form 626B37
issued by the provincial government-


James Garfield Gardiner: Moving the cattle out
of the drought area was a policy decided upon by the federal government entirely. We asked the province to assist us in carrying it into effect; but no responsibility for the policy rests on the province; it rests entirely on this government.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, that makes it all
the worse. I suppose the minister would say it would be impossible to get feed to maintain any more than the number allowed to be kept; that is, four on a farm. I made

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
certain investigations with respect to feed that could be procured, in Manitoba particularly ; individuals and representatives of rural municipalities had gone down there and were putting up feed, and I also drove through part of the country myself. I think if proper steps had been taken at the right time of the year feed could have been procured, and many of the smaller herds would have been saved to the extent that farmers would have been allowed to have kept three or four more cows than they were allowed to keep. This is a serious matter, and I take this opportunity of expressing my disapproval of the policy carried out last fall in this respect. We know the importance of dairying; we know what it means to the farmer who has been milking eight or ten cows, and who must meet grocery bills and other expenses. It has meant considerable to him to have had a reduction in stock.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have spent the
greater part of the week discussing marketing, and have disposed of the item. But at this time the hon. member is again talking on the subject. I would ask the Chair to keep the hon. member within the limits of the item under discussion.


Ernest Edward Perley: We are on the item
having to do with the production of live stock. If the production of dairy cows does not come within that item, then I must ask the Chair to give a ruling. I am discussing the production policy carried out by the government, as it affects the production of dairy cows in the province.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Does the hon. member object at this time to the removal of cattle out of Saskatchewan last fall to the feeding grounds in other provinces?


Ernest Edward Perley: No, not at all; what I object to is the almost complete removal of dairy cattle from the southern and south eastern parts of the province. Farmers who had in the neighbourhood of ten or twelve dairy cows, which they were milking, were forced to reduce their herds to not more than four. Since that time, owing to the fact that they have not sufficient feed, there will be no dairy production in. the area this year. Every farm-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I believe the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is now discussing a matter pertaining to agricultural distress, a subject which has been before the house for a considerable length of time this session, and [DOT] one the discussion of which lasted a great many days. I have listened carefully to the hon. gentleman's observations, and I
must ask him to confine his remarks to the item under discussion, namely live stock and poultry, production services.


Ernest Edward Perley: If the Chairman rules that the production of dairy cattle does not come under this item, then I certainly am out of order.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: It seems to me there is a good deal in what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has said with respect to the supply of bulls for the production of cattle. He raised the point, as reported in Hansard at page 2540, and received the following reply from the minister:
I regret very much to have to advise that it is not possible to encourage the farmers in the Alexander district to organize an association to apply for the loan of a pure bred bull from this department this year. We have already received from Saskatchewan applications greatly in excess of the number of suitable bulls which it will be possible to purchase, and have been under the necessity of refusing consideration to nearly two hundred inquiries received from Saskatchewan alone.
This reply would indicate that the government has reached the point of frustration, and something determined should be done to remedy such a situation. Has the minister's department investigated the possibilities of artificial insemination. Science has indicated that artificial insemination is entirely practical, and I am informed that successful practice is not attended by any very technical difficulties. If this matter were studied, and some move made in connection with it, we might solve some of the present difficulties in the situation. We might not have to wait a matter of ten years before increasing the number of cattle to a normal point.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand Russia claims to be producing successfully through the process of artificial insemination. Our department is keeping in close touch with activities in that direction, but at present we are not in a position to deal with a situation such as that existing in the west.
With regard to that portion of the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle which have to do with the bull policy, I would say that under the policy we are putting more bulls into Saskatchewan than we are putting into any other part of Canada. The reason is the one which has been outlined, namely that great difficulty has been experienced in the feeding of live stock in that province in the last few years. There is probably another reason why we should be very careful. Probably in days past we have made some mistakes in certain parts of
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing

Saskatchewan. Only a few years ago one could walk into a bank in Saskatchewan and see on the walls an invitation to borrow money to secure bulls. That may have had something to do with our having so much live stock in certain sections that it was necessary to move it out. More careful investigations will have to be made when we begin to reestablish the herds in those areas, and we shall have to decide whether or not it is good policy under existing conditions to reestablish them in certain sections. In order to meet the situation which exists in the area in which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is interested, an area in which it has been pretty well established that stock rasing in a substantial way is a proper part of the agriculture of that district, something should be done to reestablish the herds. But there are certain sections to which we shall have to give very close investigation before proceeding.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe in the past year there has been a change in the policy of the department in connection with stallions in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Complaints I have had were that the notifications regarding clubbing were received by owners too late in the season. Would that come under the federal department-, or was that decision promulgated by the provincial department of agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: The premium was paid on a fifty-fifty basis. The province pays $2.50 and we pay the same amount. However, the clubbing policy is under federal jurisdiction, and is still being carried on. The premium policy has been discontinued in Saskatchewan, our main reason being that we were carrying on both activities in that province and were not doing so in the other western provinces. We are now confining our activities to the one branch in Saskatchewan, as is being done in the other provinces.


Major James William Coldwell: When was that notification made?


James Garfield Gardiner: I .think it was some time in February. There was some difficulty in some of the areas in forming clubs after the notification went out. I know, however, that quite a number did form clubs after that time.


Major James William Coldwell: There was considerable difficulty in some areas. I am thinking of an area in my own constituency where on account of weather and other conditions the owners did not receive notification until a time too late in the season to form clubs.

The result is that these horses are in the barns. The .owners have been suffering from drought, and they really cannot afford to maintain the animals and give the service they have been giving for the past several years.


James Houston Spence: There must be some duplication in connection with the vote for live stock and poultry. I notice that under item No. 11, which deals with live stock and poultry under the heading "marketing services," there is an increase of $54,928. Then we come down to item No. 16, and we find that it deals with live stock and .poultry, under the heading "production services," and shows an increase of $95,112.50. The minister has been good enough to give the details concerning the 895,112.50, but I have not heard anything about the other amount. I do not wish him to repeat what has been said-probably I should have been in the house-but I should like to know why on the same page there should be two items with respect to live stock and poultry, one for about half a million and the other for almost a full million, one with an increase of more than $54,000 and the other with one of more than $95,000. The minister goes on to tell us that there has been an increase in the cost of automobiles as well as for prizes, bonuses and premiums. There is an increase of $11,000 for buildings and lands, but that is not much in this committee. Then there is an increase of $20,000 in travelling expenses. Is the business increasing so rapidly that travelling expenses must increase to such an extent? What are we getting out of all this? If any one is receiving a benefit, I have no objection, but I am afraid a lot of it is being wasted. The minister has not the time to go into all these matters in detail, and I think an investigation should be held into them. I do not accuse any one of doing anything wrong, but if this sort of thing is going on there is not much use in hon. members protesting against it all the time when no attention is paid to their protests.


James Garfield Gardiner: This goes back to the question that was raised a few moments ago, I think by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), as to the division between marketing and production. I think the discussion we have just had with regard to bulls and stallions is a clear indication of the difference in the two policies. For many years the federal Department of Agriculture has been taking an interest in the improvement of live stock in Canada, which is purely a production activity. We have just passed a vote having to do with the health of animals, which work is carried on for the purpose of improving

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
production. We are now dealing with a section of the vote which concerns the breeding of live stock and the production of better bulls, better stallions and better sires generally. Any activity in connection with the marketing of this stock comes under the marketing branch. I do not think there should be any difficulty about understanding this. There may be some opposition to the amount we are spending, but I cannot see why there should be any difficulty in understanding the difference between marketing and production.


James Houston Spence: Are results being obtained from the marketing branch?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our friends who have been speaking seem to think we are not doing enough. Whenever we have tried to cut down in this work, objections have been raised. When we attempted to cut down in the work in Quebec in connection with the supplying of bulls, strong objection was made. I think it will be found generally across Canada that these services are quite necessary. The demand from one end of Canada to the other is for an extension rather than a discontinuance of the services.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am quite in agreement with what the minister has said. I think these services are quite necessary. If I were to offer any criticism of the department, it would be that not enough money is being expended on this work. The minister stated that the premium policy in Saskatchewan has been discontinued in connection with rams and boars.


James Garfield Gardiner: The premium policy applies all through eastern Canada, and there has been no change in that. In the western provinces we have had a club policy which suited their conditions better than the premium policy. About four or five years ago there was some activity started in Saskatchewan in connection with a premium policy, and this year we took the position that either one of two things must be done-we must have both policies all the way across Canada, or we must continue either the one or the other in the province. We decided to discontinue the premium policy in Saskatchewan.


Mark Cecil Senn: What results are being obtained from the experiments which are being conducted in connection with landrace hogs? Perhaps this question might better be asked under the experimental farms vote.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it would be
better to leave it.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister give
us the latest figures with respect to the number of horses and dairy cows in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: An order for a return
was asked for, I believe by the hon. member, which would contain those figures. I have not them available at the moment.


Ernest Edward Perley: I regret that we cannot
get the information we ask for with respect to items of this kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure that if the information has been asked for, it will be obtained eventually. The estimates referred to in the order were not these. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss these matters when the supplementaries are brought down. There was also an opportunity earlier in the session when we were discussing the warrants.


Ernest Edward Perley: What item is that in the
supplementaries ?


James Garfield Gardiner: Provision will be made for all the matters that were discussed a few moments ago.


Ernest Edward Perley: That item in the supplementaries passed at one sitting of the committee, and on the suggestion of the minister it was allowed to go through. Certain details were asked for which we could not get on that occasion, and the minister promised that on a later occasion they would be provided.


James Garfield Gardiner: That will all come
up under the supplementaries covering similar work.


Mr. DUFFUS:: I notice there is a sharp
division of opinion among the members of the official opposition in connection with these expenditures I dare say that if a comparison were made of the expenditures on agriculture with those of other departments, serious discrepancies would be disclosed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Plant inspection, insects and diseases, $246,127.
James Houston Spence: There is another large increase in this item and perhaps the minister could give us some explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: The particulars are:
Salaries, permanent	$ 5,142
Salaries, temporary	 6,187
Wages	 1,110
Telephone, telegraph	and	postage..	560
Equipment, including supplies and
materials	 3,310
Buildings and lands, including rents
and taxes	 150
Freight, express and	cartage.	....	190
Travelling expenses	 8,033

3018	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Plant Inspection


Grote Stirling: What care is being
taken at our ports of entry to prevent tourists and travellers bringing in fruit which might contain dangerous insects?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are men located
at the important ports where the traffic is heavy to check fruit plants that might be subject to disease. At points where men are not located, the customs officials cooperate in checking everything that enters. If there is necessity to refer anything for further inspection, this is done.


Grote Stirling: Are we as stringent on
this side of the line as they are in the United States? I am thinking particularly of the state of Washington. I was referring to the small parcels of fruit that the tourist might have in his car. He may eat some of this and then throw the rest away.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is practically the same condition prevailing in connection with fruit as there is in connection with animals. We have reciprocity with the federal government of the United States as far as regulations are concerned, but the regulations put out by the different states might not conform exactly with ours.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would this item cover
the inspection of containers such as sacking and other things of that kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: Wrappings and that
kind of thing are taken care of by the inspection under the health of animals vote. That inspection is carried on to prevent the entry of foot and mouth disease and diseases of that kind which might be carried in on the wrappings of plants.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That item passed, I understand.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister permit me to make one very brief observation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not complaining about the officials of the department doing their duty. I think it is very necessary and very desirable to guard against the entry of materials in the form of wrappers or packing for any class of goods that may contain disease from some other country. But a case came to my attention recently, and I could cite a number of them, where I think the department by cooperating with the importer could quite effectually safeguard our country against the inroads of disease, and at the same time not put the importer to such a
fMr Gardiner.]
very great expense as he is sometimes forced to incur. To give one illustration, some bauxite, the raw material for aluminum, was shipped to 'Canada in sacks from a country which I think was classed as infected, and the importer was forced to send the shipment back to Great Britain, I think it was, and .to have it resacked in new sacks, and brought out again. There was another case a few years ago which I mention just to illustrate my point; some cotton came in, wrapped in burlap, and a similar dispute arose. My suggestion to the minister is not that there should be relaxation of the necessary precautions, but that in such a case the importer might be permitted to repack the goods on the wharf, and the packings that came in could be destroyed; in other words, that some effort be made to minimize the loss to the importer, while at the same time adequately safeguarding the health of the animals of this country by preventing the inroads of disease from some other country. I believe that a good deal could be done along that line.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only say that there are countries which are ravaged by disease like foot and mouth disease, countries which if we had an outbreak of foot and mouth disease would probably put an embargo on our cattle for as many years as it was maintained at one time previously in our history. We must be very careful in connection with shipments that come in from a country so infected. A few shipments have come in, in second-hand gunny sacks which had been used for some other purpose before, in contravention of the well-known regulations. It has been considered advisable to have such shipments returned and not allowed to enter this country at all. The department is very exacting about that, and I do not know that it would pay us to remove any of these restrictions. We would be running the chance of suffering very great inconvenience ourselves in a very short time just to accommodate one or two individuals.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think if the importer were put to the trouble and expense and delay of repacking .the goods and destroying the containers right on the wharf it would be a sufficient penalty to make him more careful next time; but a rigid enforcement of the law, compelling the importer to ship back the whole thing, might seriously affect business in other lines, and sometimes the shipment may have come in quite innocently so far as the importer is concerned. The exporter in a foreign country cannot possibly be as familiar with our regulations as the importer on this side, or know how exacting the department

Supply-Agriculture-Seed Control
is, and there are bound to be cases where there may seem to be a disregard of the regulations but where there was no intention of breaking them at all. I do submit that with a little cooperation the loss to the importer could be minimized and other lines of business not seriously injured, as they well might 'be by a rigid adherence to the regulations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed that there is a good deal of cooperation and that every case is considered on its merits. There are cases where the very thing my hon. friend suggests is being carried out, but there are other cases where conditions perhaps are such at the point where the goods came from that we do not want our own officials or anybody here to handle the commodity at all, and where it is returned for repacking. There is a great deal of risk taken in connection with such a shipment. The number of cases such as my hon. friend mentions must be very limited, but I shall be glad to take into consideration what he has said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have heard of a goodly number of such cases.


Alexander McKay Edwards: What progress has been made in the control of the corn borer in western Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been considerable improvement since the days when the farmers in that section were considering going out of growing corn because of the corn borer, but the greater part of that work is done by the provincial government. They ask for assistance from us through services that we can give through this branch, and that assistance is given in cooperation with them. But the main activity is carried on by the provincial government.


Mr. BARBER:: Can the minister tell us something about the control methods that have been adopted in regard to the pea moth? In the lower mainland of British Columbia there has been a considerable loss because of the depredations of the pea moth; in fact, they cannot grow peas at all in that section. I should like to know what is being done to control this pest.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will the hon. member let his question stand until we reach item 30, dealing with entomology?


Grote Stirling: Do grasshoppers come under this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, under the entomology item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grant of $18,900 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $546,403.
Alexander McKay Edwards: Would the minister explain the increase of 838,396?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an increase in certain activities amounting to $58,396, and a decrease in others of $20,000, making a net increase of $38,396. Salaries for the permanent staff are increased by $19,801, and for the temporary staff, $29,595; subsidies and contributions, a decrease of $20,000; maintenance of buildings and lands, an increase of $1,800; professional and special services, an increase of $6,000; travelling expenses, an increase of $1,200.


Mr. McKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: A question was asked in the house not long ago as to what size of farm is the most profitable to operate. It entirely depends on the line of fanning you wish to follow, whether it be tobacco farming, fruit farming, mixed farming, and so forth. The farmer realizes that the farm is productive only to a certain degree, and that certain types of soil require certain kinds of fertilizer. I believe that provincially some help has been given, but I wonder what the dominion government has been doing along that line-speaking primarily now of Ontario and eastern Canada. I asked the bureau of statistics what the average production was of grains per acre in Ontario, and I learned that during the past twenty years the production was: barley, 29 bushels, oats, 36 bushels, and wheat, 23 bushels. I submit that if the right types of fertilizer were used that productivity could be increased, because in eastern Canada particularly we have abundance of rainfall; I believe we could almost double that yield. No matter what the production per acre, we have the same amount of taxes to pay on the land, and the same amount of work to do. In my opinion fertilizer should be provided at a reasonable cost, enabling the farmer to purchase it at a reasonable price. Very often the farmer has used his fertilizer without knowing just what type is required for his particular soil. I believe that at one time the department put in some mixing plants to make fertilizer available for the farmer at cost or nearly so.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that that work so far as Ontario is concerned is being carried on through the provincial government, largely at the Guelph farm. Soils are sent in for analysis; it is determined what type of fertilizer should be used, and as a result the farmer can purchase the type he requires. It

Supply-Agriculture-Seed Control
is just possible that there are many farmers who do not take advantage of this service; also there may be many who do. Sometimes I go up to the western part of Ontario, and I find that some of the farmers there are having their lands tested continuously and the proper fertilizers placed upon them.


Mark Cecil Senn: Certain criticisms have been levelled directly and indirectly against the department for changing the regulation during the past year with respect to the colouring of seed coming from Great Britain and New Zealand. I believe that that regulation, which had been in effect for some time, enabled the farmer to know whether he was buying imported seed or Canadian seed. There may be a good reason why the change was made last year, but I think the minister would be wise to let the committee know just what were the circumstances which led to that decision, because I have heard complaints about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there was a change in the regulations which was intended to result in a different colouring being used for English seed from that used for seed from other countries. That was in effect for a short time; it was found to be unsatisfactory, and the present recommendation is to return to the old colouring and that all imported seed be coloured.


Mark Cecil Senn: Did I understand the minister to say that there has been no seed imported from Great Britain and New Zealand which was not coloured? I understood that that regulation had been suspended in the meantime.


James Garfield Gardiner: For one year prior to January 1 it was possible for the seed to come in without any colouring, and from January on this special colouring was adopted. Now it is recommended that we go back to the original regulation regarding staining.


Mark Cecil Senn: What reason was assigned for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was intended to be a courtesy to the British seed grower, but in practice it was found not to be practical. The desire was to give some consideration to the British seed grower.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice the minister said there was a reduction in grants. Would he give us some particulars of the reductions?


James Garfield Gardiner: The subsidies and contributions show a decrease of $20,000. The amount was previously provided under this vote as a contribution to seed distribution
policies in western Canada. This work is now largely covered by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, therefore the item for subsidies and contributions has been reduced accordingly.


Major James William Coldwell: It is really a removal, not a reduction?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. There is much more than that being spent under the rehabilitation policy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of grants to fairs and exhibitions, $14,240.
William Hayhurst: What is the reason for the grant to the Saskatoon winter fair being $9,500, while to the Edmonton winter fair it is only $5,000? That appears on page 64. Why this great difference between Saskatoon and Edmonton?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is because they operate a winter show at Saskatoon. The grant is the same as for the "A " shows, $4,000, and $5,000 for the winter show.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $318,500.
Grote Stirling: Is the status of the "A" and the "B" classes just as it was? Are there any alterations in either of them?


James Garfield Gardiner: The status is the same for "A" and "B" fairs as it was last year. There have been no alterations.


Mark Cecil Senn: Do all fairs that comply with the regulations and give the proper amount of prizes get the grant, or are there exceptions?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the policy.
There is an attempt to have them all live up to it. There may be a little deviation here and there, just a slight difference which is not held against them, but the intention is to make them live fully up to the requirements.


William Hayhurst: On page 64 I notice an item, Advanced Registry Board for Swine. I was wondering if there are any registered Cumberland pigs in Canada. Are there any herds of Cumberland pigs kept in this country?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
Grants to agricultural organizations, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $42,350.
Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister give us an explanation of what is necessary to qualify for these grants?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I can say that there is any particular line of policy. Certain organizations have been supported Over a long term of years because of the services they give. The nature of them is pretty well indicated in the names:	the
horse parade at Ste. Anne, Canadian Council on Boys' and Girls' Club Work, the Advanced Registry Board for Dairy Bulls, Eastern Canadian Live Stock Union, Western Canada Live Stock Union, Canadian National Live Stock Records, Canadian Saddle, Hunter and Light Horse Improvement Society, Advanced Registry Board for Swine. The British Columbia ploughing match is out this year. There is the complete list.


Mark Cecil Senn: It seems to me that the eastern and western Canada live stock unions are very estimable bodies and should be supported. Why has the grant to those two bodies been reduced when these are the only reductions that have been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are nine which have been discontinued altogether. For some time we have been considering cutting down on these grants with the idea that the money could be used to better advantage elsewhere. The eastern Canadian live stock union grant has been reduced from SI,500 to SI,000, and the western organization grant has been similarly reduced. We felt that we were justified in making these reductions in order to keep the expenditure down and use the money elsewhere.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms-Experimental farms administration, $51,180.
Mr. COLD WELL:: The other day I asked a question which the minister said could be better discussed under experimental farms. I understand that a number of graduates in Saskatchewan holding various degrees from western universities are employed in the soil surveys work and for several years have been paid on the basis of fifty-five cents an hour as graduate labourers. These men are doing very important work, and some of them are now getting into the thirties and still doing this work as graduate labourers. Are men who come within this category going to receive some consideration this year? In common with other members of the house, not only western members, but generally, we regard
the survey of these western soils as of paramount importance to the dominion. In fact, it is unfortunate that the surveys were not undertaken years ago. Saskatchewan has done a great deal with the small appropriations available, and it seems to me that this work should be extended to cover the entire western area so that we may be prepared when we come to rehabilitate the country, as ultimately we shall have to do, because I have disquieting news from parts of Saskatchewan where there were copious rains. Some consideration should be given this particular staff, especially those of the university of Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: These men were previously working on the fifty-five cents an hour paylist, but their positions have been classified under the reorganization, and as they qualify through length of service and the necessity for their work is realized they will come under that classification. Some are already under it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am glad to know that.
I was not aware that the reclassification had taken place.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: The salary of the director of experimental farms is $7,500. Last year it was $6,000. Is there any reason for the increase? The minister will find the details on page 64.


James Garfield Gardiner: The actual increase is only $500. Previously $1,000 was paid out of another service, which made his salary $7,000. Now it is $7,500.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Last year,
according to the estimates, his salary was $6,000, and from now on it will be $7,500.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will all appear in one vote now. As a matter of fact, he was receiving $7,000 last year, though the salary for the position of director was $6,000. He obtained another $1,000 from another source, so that his salary was actually $7,000. Now it is being consolidated and there is an increase of $500.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Last year and this year again I raised the question of labourers' wages on experimental farms. I understand that the rate of pay was increased for seasonal workers from twenty-one to twenty-five cents an hour, which was something. Many of these men are married and they work only a few months, so that they find it difficult to make sufficient in the summer to carry them through the winter. Moreover, I have been given to understand that conditions on the Scott experimental farm in regard to boarding houses and so on require the attention of the inspectors. I do not know whether complaints of that kind are justified, but recently I received a letter asking me to bring the matter
,	COMMONS
supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
to the attention of the minister. I was going to do so by letter, but the opportunity has arisen this afternoon and I am mentioning the matter. With regard to these men who are working on the farms, the seasonal workers, some further consideration should be given them especially, as was pointed out by an hon. member sitting to my right, in view of the fact that large increases are given sometimes to heads of departments, increases that might well be distributed among the more poorly paid workers. If the conditions at some of the experimental farms in regard to boarding places require inspection, I suggest that the matter might be checked up.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, complaints
do come in occasionally with regard to conditions in boarding houses in connection with all activities, and we receive such complaints in connection with the farms. The conditions are always investigated as soon as possible after the complaints are received and are dealt with. So far as labour on the farms is concerned, there are two sides to the question. We try to pay a reasonable wage, but sometimes we come into conflict with those who are engaging agricultural assistants in the community and who consider that we overpay. We try to strike a happy medium and pay a reasonable rate without doing any injury in the district itself.


Mr. PELLETIER:: What happens to produce grown on the experimental farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: A great deal of what is produced is used experimentally. Some of it is fed on the farms, and some commodity such as milk is sold in some communities. We try to sell it in such a way as not to create competition with persons engaged in private industry.


René-Antoine Pelletier: There must be a vast quantity of vegetables grown on the experimental farms, more than can be used on the farm itself. Is it given away to charitable organizations, or is it sold?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of the vegetables are grown for storage tests and those, of course, are put in storage. Many of the vegetables grown are of so many types and varieties that there is no sale for them in bulk. They are fed, if there is stock to consume them, or they are disposed of in some other way. There is no general policy, there being no sale for them.


René-Antoine Pelletier: We have an experimental farm in Ottawa, and undoubtedly they must grow a vast quantity of vegetables of all sorts. There are many people in the city without gardens who could possibly use that 
surplus. I am not referring to anything of value for experimental purposes, but the surplus that is not used could be distributed to those who have not gardens of their own and who would appreciate a supply of fresh vegetables in the winter. I think it would be a nice gesture for the department to offer to give these surplus vegetables to poor people, until the supply is exhausted.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is really only one way in which that could be done without difficulty; that is, to give it to hospitals, or to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army or such organizations to distribute. It would be very difficult for the farmers to distribute it themselves, and decide who is entitled and who is not. The wholesalers take anything that is of value.


Harry James Barber: Is there some revenue from the sale of pure bred breeding stock?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there is a certain revenue.


Mark Cecil Senn: I referred a moment ago to
the experiments with landrace hogs. Last year we had some startling figures placed on Hansard) by the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair). They seemed to indicate that the early maturing quality of these hogs in comparison with other types experimented with at the farm is almost incredible. Could the minister tell us briefly what experiments have been carried on during the past year and the results in relation to early maturity, and their adaptability for bacon?


James Garfield Gardiner: The results of the experiments carried on to date have been given publicity through the press. A complete statement has been put out. I have not the report before me at the moment or I would read it. Generally speaking, the results show that there are some advantages in the type of hog that was introduced, and some disadvantages. From the experiments to date, it is not considered that there is sufficient balance of advantages over disadvantages to warrant attempting to interfere with the type we now have pretty well established across Canada, the Yorkshire type.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: For freight, express and cartage the amount this year is $50; last year it was $490. Would the minister give the break-down of the 1937-38 expenditure, and why he anticipates only $50 this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been a redistribution as a result of the reorganization; part of the item is now in administration and part under the central experimental farm.

Questions


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister give a statement concerning the experiments carried out at Indian Head and other stations in Saskatchewan with respect to rust resisting wheat, and when we may expect to have a general distribution of the varieties being experimented with during the last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would properly
come under the next item or the one following that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Central experimental farm, Ottawa, $594,135.
James Garfield Gardiner: As a result of the
experiments carried on at Indian Head in connection with rust resistant wheats, there are three unnamed varieties now being carried under numbers. If they prove entirely successful, they will be distributed. There has been some distribution this last year of Thatcher wheat and Renown as well. But these other three varieties being developed we hope will be even better than those which have been distributed.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Would it not
be possible, either in the supplementaries or in next year's estimates, to provide for building at least one more large greenhouse at the experimental farm for the purpose of carrying on this work with rust resistant wheat and oats, and also experiments with beans, peas and other plants used in every part of Canada? Some ten years ago the greenhouses were enlarged, and the result has been a tremendous amount of good work done in building up new and better grains for Canada, especially rust resistant varieties. More greenhouse accommodation would not involve a very great expenditure. The department and the men who handle these grains should be highly complimented upon the work they have done. I have heard in the committee criticisms of the salaries paid to men in the experimental farms, but I believe most of these men are not paid enough. If we were to pay more money in these positions, we might have held some of the good men we have lost and be able to keep some of the good men who are coming along. There is no more useful work in connection with agriculture in this country. I hope the minister will soon be able to provide a sufficient sum to give these people more room to work.


William Hayhurst: The work being done
by the experimental farms is recognized throughout western Canada as being of a very high order. I wish to add my commendation and that of this group to what has been said. The development of Thatcher
wheat and so on has done much for western Canada, and that work is appreciated by the farmers. Anything that can be done to assist the biologists and botanists who are carrying on this work should be done. We know the work cannot be done without greenhouses and equipment.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 19, 1938