1939-05-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman who is leading the government (Mr. Gardiner) if
provision will be made to give the staff of the House of Commons, particularly the stenographers, an opportunity to take part in the ceremonies in connection with the visit of their majesties the king and queen by granting them a holiday on Friday and Saturday of this week.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I have no information in regard to the matter, but I shall see that the request is considered by the government.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: An order of the house was passed on April 17 with respect to those directing operations under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. A day or so ago the minister said he would facilitate the bringing down of a complete reply. I wonder if he could state whether mat return will be tabled within the next day or so, and also whether he will table the Stapleford report.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I stated the other day, the return cannot be brought down until we have received full information from the Regina office. If it would suit the hon. member, and if it is not possible to obtain the information within the next day or two, I could bring down all the material that is availaDle here and table the remainder if we get it before the end of the session.


Ernest Edward Perley: And how about the Staple-ford report?


James Garfield Gardiner: That can be tabled within the next day or so.



LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 104, respecting stockyards, live stock and live stock products and hatcheries-Mr. Gardiner

Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: We are on section 14.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Did section 13 pass?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Mr. SENN:: Section 13 did not pass last night.
Live Stock and Poultry


Frederick George Sanderson: The records will show that section 13 was carried last night.


Mr. STEVENS:: Technically I think the chairman is right; I believe he called " carried " but I rose and made an observation and the minister spoke after that. There is no doubt the chairman called " carried," although section 13 was not actually carried because I rose just at that moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should say it would be quite all right to have further discussion on section 13. What the hon. member for Kootenay East has said is correct.
On section 13-Regulations.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have just a word to say in reply to some of the suggestions offered by the Minister of Agriculture last evening in his final discussion of this section, which deals with operations in stockyards and packers' yards. I am quite convinced that further supervision of the activities in packers' yards should be undertaken by the department. No one can deny the importance of the packing industry to agriculture. Farmers cannot process and distribute their live stock; the packers perform that service. We must have a packing industry, and I do not wish to minimize the very important duties performed by that industry, nor do I wish to cast any reflection upon it. Undoubtedly, however, there is a strong feeling throughout the country that in packers' yards at least the weigh-masters should be official. The minister said last night that the department had taken over supervision of packers' yards. While that may be technically true, I know of no method by which under this bill we can overcome the difficulties and suspicions in the minds of the farmers unless the department insists upon independent weighmasters in those yards. The minister should make some statement as to what is to be done. If the department does not intend to do anything about supervision of the weighing in packers' yards, we should know about it. If something of the kind is contemplated the minister should say so, and allay to a certain extent the apprehension in the minds of producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: The practice followed in packers' yards is identical with that which has always been followed in stockyards, so far as weighmasters are concerned. The weighmaster has really been appointed by the board, representative of the exchange, and the department has approved. In packers' yards the same will be true. The appointment will be made by the packer, but the appointment will have to be approved by 
the department. Approval is required in packers' yards just as it is in live stock yards or stockyards.


Mark Cecil Senn: Under the new measure?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, under the new
measure. Then, of course, in both places the scales are checked under weights and measures regulations. It is the practice everywhere that the man who purchases farm products-and I presume all other products-really operates the scales. The check is on the scale itself. Of course it is presumed the man who operates the scale does so honestly. If he is not honest, action may be taken against him.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is there any supervision
over marketing reports which are broadcast in the west at the close of each day's market? Certain information is given out with respect to run of cattle and prices. Sometimes those reports are not correct, and they should be, because they have an influence on the cattle sent to the market, and tend to inform the producer as to when he should take his cattle to Regina, Moose Jaw or other points. There should be supervision to see that the prairie broadcasts are correct. Broadcasts have stated that a drop in price was due to a heavy run of cattle when in fact there was no such run.


James Garfield Gardiner: The information embodied in official reports which appear in the press and are broadcast over the radio are supplied by the department; therefore so far as the department is concerned there is no necessity for a further check. There are private operators who make such announcements over the radio, and, I suppose, at the same time advertise their own business. But in those broadcasts the facts are in all cases supposed to be taken from reports furnished by the department. I do not know where any more careful check could be made than is now being made, but if there is a necessity for a further check it could be instituted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.
On section 18-Operators at the passing of this act to be permitted to continue.
Mr. WEIR:: The addition which was made in committee to section 17 should have been made to section 18. I believe there is a mistake in the bill now in the hands of hon. members. I suggest therefore that the addition to section 17 be transferred to section 18.


Frederick George Sanderson: The change will be
made accordingly.

Live Stock and Poultry


Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 17 transfers to
the proprietor of the stockyard all the authority to prescribe the terms and conditions under which any person, cooperative association, commission merchant or dealer shall be permitted to transact business. I protest against this innovation in the live stock marketing system of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Deposit of security.
Mark Cecil Senn: These sections outline clearly
the powers of commission men and the restrictions imposed upon them by the department in respect of their activity and the manner in which they shall conduct their business and make reports. Has the minister no intention of doing something along similar lines to regulate the truck business? It is just as important as the regulation of the activities of commission men.


James Garfield Gardiner: Much of the regulation
of trucking can be done only by provincial authorities.


Mark Cecil Senn: I think they go as far as they can go.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where trucks are operating entirely within a province it is difficult for this government to apply any regulations. At least that is the advice we have received from legal authorities. I believe we have gone as far as we can go in the matter of regulating. Where the business is interprovincial we have some powers, but otherwise it is rather difficult.


Mark Cecil Senn: So far as I can learn nothing whatever has been done to regulate trucking activities. After all, what is the difference between a trucker selling at a commission or acting as a commission man, and a commission man acting in the yard? If I send my cattle to the Toronto stockyards and consign them to a commission man, that man's activities, even though I may live within the province, are governed and controlled. But if I send my cattle with a trucker there is no control. Trucking is here to stay, and something will have to be done in the near future to regulate the operations of truckers. I believe the provincial governments go as far as they can go by issuing public commercial vehicle licences, and by requiring truckers to carry insurance. It is time a conference was held with provincial authorities with a view to framing regulations.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course if a trucker
is an agent of a commission house he becomes subject to all the regulations.


Mark Cecil Senn: He is the agent of the
farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member means he is a commission man himself. If he is operating in the yard as a commission man, of course he is subject to regulation. If he is operating simply as an individual who owns stock, he would be in exactly the same position as an individual farmer or any other person. If in the first place he purchases stock from the farmer, pays for it, owns it and takes it to the market, he is then selling stock, the same as anybody else. In respect to most of his trucking activities he is entirely under the control of provincial legislation. Of course, there is constant consultation between our officials and the provincial officials with regard to matters of this kind.


Mark Cecil Senn: I cannot think that the truckers are sufficiently controlled. The trucker acts as the farmer's agent when he takes cattle to the stockyards or to the packer's yard. In certain cases he buys them outright, but that is not the general rule. He simply acts as the agent, he takes the cattle to the market and carries back the return which is handed to him by the packer. There should be some regulation, but I have said all that I care to say about it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 21 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
On section 33-definitions.
Mr. BARBER:: Would this section cover milk products?


James Garfield Gardiner: Milk products are taken care of by the Dairy Industry Act.


Harry James Barber: The definition of poultry in this section is:
(g) "poultry" means domestic fowl, guinea fowl and pigeons.
Under section 44, the definition of poultry is:
(d) "poultry" means domestic or wild fowl or birds.
Why should there be two definitions of poultry in the same act?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will find that a commission merchant is defined differently in another part of the bill as well. This particular section applies only to poultry
419S
Live Stock and Poultry

as it is defined here, but the section referring to hatcheries applies to poultry according to the definition given there.


Harry James Barber: I suppose part III would apply to canaries or humming birds.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Once again I want to draw attention to the inconsistency of this legislation. Under this section we define a broker, and apparently there is no question of jurisdiction. A broker is just as much under provincial control as is a trucker, and the business he does is similar to that of the trucker. The trucker acts as trustee of the farmer, taking his stock probably a hundred miles. Yesterday evening the minister mentioned that they trucked over two hundred miles from his farm into Winnipeg. The trucker handles the whole transaction. He gets a ticket from the packer or from the yard, and he goes back to the farmer and makes his settlement. He transfers the ticket, it is true, but it has come to my attention that in some cases these tickets have not been scrupulously dealt with. I shall not go further than that.
The trucking trade is enormous and yet no attempt is made to protect the farmer. If hon. members who represent agricultural constituencies consider the stock and marketing reports they will see the amount of live stock marketed by the trucking system. The volume is growing year by year, and I venture to say that more than half of the marketing is done in that way. The extent to which it has grown is appalling, and yet there is nothing in this bill to protect the farmer in his dealings with the trucker. It does not follow that because I criticize a system under which the packer or the broker has undue control I am saying that all truckers and all brokers are crooks. That is not the point. The point is that this legislation is supposed to be for the protection of the producer, and heaven knows he is the one who needs protection.
Surely the minister and his officials must know that literally thousands of farmers can market their stock only by loading it on a truck at their farms and trusting it to others. They trust it to the trucker, to the commission agent, to the broker. This is done without any check. Apparently it is all right to define a broker and to provide penalties if he violates the act, but the trucker, who handles half the live stock, is considered sacrosanct. Frankly I cannot understand the live stock branch of the Department of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: This section of the bill leals with grading.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know that.
'Mr. Gardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: We do presume to have control over grading. A broker is defined here because the term "broker" is used in connection with grading as covered by this part. The trucker is engaged in an entirely different business and we regulate him only in so far as we can under the powers which we have. Section 13 makes provision for some regulation of the trucker. Paragraph (d) reads:
(d) the manner in which receipts, classifications, weights and purchase prices of all live stock shall be recorded at stockyards and packers' yards and made available to the minister.
There are different paragraphs in section 13 which make it possible for us to regulate the activities having to do with the delivery of farmers' stock. But there is a further difference between a trucker and a broker. It is only in exceptional cases that the broker would come in contact with the farmer personally, whereas the trucker drives right into the farmer's yard and makes a deal there. The farmer sees the trucker every time he makes a trip and he can require him to bring back the return and report what took place. The farmer is not in position to do that with the broker, who is generally located at the central point where the yard is. He is not able to deal directly with him. It is necessary to do certain things with regard to the broker that we do not require to be done in connection with the trucker. I am still satisfied that the hon. member for Kootenay East is correct when he says that we should regulate these men who are trucking stock more and more. We think we are going just about as far as we can under our constitutional rights.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are substituting a new act; in effect we are repealing the old act and we are saying to the farmers of Canada: "We are enacting new legislation governing live stock; it is right up to date; it contains the maximum that our officials can offer to you." Yet there is no protection for the farmer in that respect. That is the point I am trying to make.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: I can easily see that there is a lot of difficulty in the marketing of live stock. I think we have made it altogether too easy for the packers to get their supplies. The broker has contributed to this condition, but the farmer must take some blame as well. I do not think everything should be blamed on the government. It is the easiest thing in the world for a farmer to telephone some truckman and ask him to come and get his stock for delivery on the market. I think this advisory committee should advise the farmers to hold back

Live Stock and Poultry
their stock. When they ship stock on commission, they are placing themselves at the mercy of the commission men.
There is a whole lot wrong with the marketing of live stock to-day. My hon. friends to my left talk a great deal about the home market. The home market is no good. We consume eighty-five per cent of the live stock products of this country; but go back to 1932, 1933 and 1934, and recall what happened. I remember when select bacon hogs sold on the Winnipeg market at $2.40 a hundredweight. IVhat can a farmer get out of the business at that price, after the truck men and commission men have got their share? But was there ever a time when the home market reflected those prices in the prices the consumer paid? Nobody here ever bought bacon for less than 30 or 35 or 40 cents a pound; yet the raw material was sold by the farmer at $2.40 a hundredweight. So what is the use of talking about the home market consuming the producers' products and giving a fair deal to the producers? It simply will not do it. We all know that there are times when the gardener, the farmer, the live stock man and the dairyman sell their products at away below the cost of production. But can the consumer remember any time when he got these products at bargain prices? That is our problem; we may as well take our share of the blame, and the farmers must take their share too. We are making it too easy for the packers to get their supplies.
I remember when the packers had to come to the farmers to get their supplies. The farmer cannot ship his products four hundred miles or more from home and let them be sold on commission and expect a fair deal. The railways have lost the business they had in carrying live stock, and it is largely their own fault, because they would pick up live stock only at the full car load rate. But they will do it differently to-day. That is our problem-to give a square deal to the consumer and to protect the producer.


Mr. WARREN:: Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of sympathy with anyone who offers criticism respecting the marketing of live stock, but I should like to hear someone suggest a solution of the present difficulties; I have heard none yet. I remember when many people said that we ought to make it illegal to market live stock other than on the open market. There is no doubt that farmers suffer because of the fact that live stock can be shipped direct to the packing plants. That means you just throw yourself into the hands of the packing companies and are absolutely at their mercy. I have been inclined to think 71492-264
a solution might be found along that line, although I am not quite convinced because I know there are arguments on the other side. But it is undoubtedly true that when the packing companies know that thirty or forty or fifty per cent of their requirements on any Monday morning will be delivered direct to their plants, they come out on the market as indifferent buyers. We have competition on our markets; we have the small buyers; we have our butchers. On the Montreal market there are as many as twenty-five of these small buyers, but they have to buy in competition with the large buyers, and when those large buyers come to the markets with the assurance that half their requirements are coming direct to their plants by truck or rail, they are more or less indifferent buyers. That appears to me to be an evil which ought to be stopped. I am not prepared to suggest what ought to be done in regard to it, but it is a real evil in the marketing of live stock by the farmer.
Then we have the truckers, some of whom collect live stock and take it direct to the open market, to a reliable commission firm. I do not say that is any more dangerous to the farmer than to load his stock on a railway car for shipment to a reliable firm, who will grade it and sell it on a commission basis. Generally speaking I think we can have confidence in our commission men on the markets. There are firms that have been doing business for a considerable number of years and are regarded as honest and reliable.
I have always wondered why more farmers throughout Canada did not take advantage of cooperative marketing of live stock. Any association of farmers or any little group of farmers in any community can form a cooperative association. Then they can get together, load their stock and ship it to the market. On the Montreal market we have the Canadian Live Stock Cooperative. It has salesmen as capable I think as can be found anywhere in Canada, and an efficient office staff, and we have our government inspectors. The stock is graded and sold by competent salesmen; the returns go back to the individual farmers, and generally speaking the farmer can feel assured that he got what his stock was worth on that day. It is true that the farmer will sometimes be disappointed if he strikes a bad market; he might have received a better price if he had sold the previous week or had waited until a week later, but he must take that chance. We have that privilege of cooperative marketing in any community in Canada, and it has always surprised me that such a small percentage of

Live Stock and Poultry

our live stock is marketed in that way. The truckers certainly did a great deal to hurt that system of marketing.
But as I see it, the farmer who is most penalized is the man who sells his stock to a trucker at his farm. It is true that we have farmers intelligent enough and with business judgment enough to know the value of their stock. A trucker will come into a community and go to such a farmer, buy his stock, and pay him what they are worth, perhaps more. Then the trucker goes around the back concessions to the less intelligent farmers who do not know the value of their stock, and says, "I bought So-and-so's cattle and So-and-so's," and the farmer thinks the trucker must be a pretty good buyer if he can buy the stock of the most prominent farmers, because he knows that that farmer knows what his stock is worth. In many instances these buyers do absolutely steal live stock from the farmers, erhaps paying them only one-third of what they are worth. What are you going to do for that farmer? What can you do for him? Can you protect him by saying: You must not sell your stock in that way. Of course you cannot do it; that is the trouble. I do not know of any solution, but he is the very man who needs protection; the man who is robbed in that fashion needs the money most. It is happening all the time right under our eyes in every community. What can be done about it? A trucker will come into a certain community and carry on that sort of business for one season. Perhaps one season will be enough; he may have run himself out of that community and nobody will sell to him next season; however, another fellow drifts in. So that all over the country that class of farmer is being robbed; his stock is practically stolen from him. All sorts of glib arguments are made, such as "the market has gone bad to-day," and these arguments have their effect. The man on the back concession is the man I am sorry for.


Mr. ROWE (Athabaska):: Does the hon. member not think that the development of consumer cooperatives would assist in a solution of the problem?


Ralph Melville Warren: Certainly; that is what I say. It surprises me that so few of our communities ship the bulk of their live stock in that fashion. Therein lies the real protection for that class of men; some of them benefit by it, but more of them do not. A man brings in a calf weighing, let us say, 105 pounds, and worth very little money. If the live stock shipper knows his job he will tell that man that if he takes his calf home again and keeps it six or eight weeks and gets it up to 185
Hr, Warren.]
pounds it will be worth some money to him. The same applies to hogs. The farmer brings in a light or a heavy hog; a shipper can tell him, "You are going to lose so much money, because this hog is too heavy"-or "too light"-"if you finish it as it should be finished you will get the bacon price plus a dollar premium." That is one of the things which ought to be encouraged by someone, I suppose by local community effort. But if the Department of Agriculture can do anything to encourage cooperative shipping, it will be a good thing. I favour the railroads rather than the truckers. It is true that the railways were very slow in lending themselves to that line of business, but they are doing it now. There was a time when if you put a cow or a steer into a mixed car you paid freight on 20,000 pounds. Now you do not have to do that; you have a minimum of 10,000 pounds and you get good service from the railways. Their service has improved wonderfully, and they have made in these last few years quite a contribution to the farmer in the handling of mixed cars of live stock. Public-spirited men interested in the marketing of live stock should bend every effort to the promotion of the cooperative shipping of live stock to the open market and see that they are marketed through our cooperative institutions, such as the Canadian Live Stock Cooperative in Montreal, or the United Farmers of Ontario in Toronto. I assume there are similar organizations in the west.


Mr. RICKARD:: I agree with the hon.
member for Souris. I think he has told us the real truth of this matter. As a farmer I would rather depend on a trucker than on a commission man. My little experience has been that the farmer who sells to the trucker outright at his own yard is far better off than the man who ships his cattle or hogs to the stockyards and sells them on commission there. I believe we are being "trimmed" every day when we send our live stock to the live stock yards. We have no legislation which can control the packers or the commission men; they have the whole thing in their own hands. When I sell my cattle or hogs at the farm I know exactly what I am getting for them, and nine times out of ten I make more than I would if I shipped them to the stockyard.


Mr. FAIR:: I agree with the suggestions made by some of the speakers, but not with the hon. member for Renfrew North when he told us that if we had cooperative organizations our problems would be solved. While we have the system of marketing which is now in operation, and the packers, who
MA* Jff, 1939
Lwe Stock and Poultry
monopolize the industry, can buy most of their supplies at the back door and control the prices by so doing, we shall not completely solve our problem. I agree definitely that cooperative marketing is a step in the right direction, but I believe also that we shall require quite a change in the marketing end to control the "combine packer", if you want to use that term, before we shall have results beneficial to the producer of live stock.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 34-Regulations by governor in council respecting production within or importation into Canada.
Mark Cecil Senn: There is only one part of this section which needs, I think, any discussion so far as I am concerned, and that is paragraph (e), which gives the department power to prescribe-
. . . from time to time the quantity, quality, grade or class that may be exported.
I dealt with this matter to some extent in the few remarks I made last night. The hon. member for Souris spoke about the home market having no value, and said something about low prices, particularly of select hogs, in the years 1931 and 1932. It seems to me that if the eighty-five per cent which were consumed in the home market had not been consumed there, hogs would have been worth nothing, instead of the small price the farmers did get. At that time there was put into effect what was known as the Ottawa agreements, which in my opinion have been of more benefit to the swine industry of Canada than anything else which has taken place within my time or knowledge. However, something further might be done to help the hog industry in this regard. We are sending overseas altogether too many grades of bacon. Our bacon commands the lowest price of almost any bacon-with the possible exception of that coming from the Baltic states-on the British market to-day. That should not be true of a country like Canada, which is supposed to be up to date, where we have fairly good methods of production, where we have a packing industry which I believe is the equal of any industry of its kind in the world. It seems too bad that we should have to accept prices which are the lowest for any grade of bacon which is sent to the mother country. The minister might inform the committee what it is intended by the department shall be done under this particular part of the section. If he will give us some assurance that regulations will be tightened up, better grades of bacon sent overseas, and more
71492-264J
careful supervision made in that particular branch of the industry, he will be doing the country a real service and will set at rest a good deal of the dissatisfaction which exists to-day.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I wonder whether the minister has taken definite action towards getting production of hogs in each month of the year. We read a great deal about the difficulty which confronts us in this matter. In my area that difficulty is probably accentuated; I believe it exists there to a greater degree than in other parts of Canada. I am sure that if some concerted effort could be made by the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa in conjunction with the provincial departments, propaganda could be carried on among farmers to show them the value of producing hogs ready for market in each of the various months, instead of producing all their hogs in two or three seasons of the year and flooding the market. Would the minister mind telling us what his plans are with respect to this matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Haldimand has put his finger on the most important part of this particular section:
. . . prescribing from time to time the quantity, quality, grade or class that may be exported.
In that provision we are taking the power to do by regulation exactly what many people have been advocating. We are trying to exercise some control over the shipment of bacon of certain types to the British market. There is one feature of the problem which has been very little spoken of and not emphasized at all, and that is the fact that we are building up a market in Great Britain. Denmark had a market there and they were selling much more bacon in Great Britain than the British authorities wished them to sell. The British authorities thought that their own people should supply a greater percentage of that market than they had previously done, and under the arrangements entered into in 1932 there was not only a desire to assist Canada as one of the dominions in selling more bacon in the British market but a very definite desire on the part of the British government to encourage their own people to supply more of their own market, and they brought this about by means of quotas to some other countries, including Denmark. This rather reduced the sales of those countries in Great Britain. We on the other hand have more than double the quota we have been able to supply in Great Britain in recent years. The year before last was our highest; we were up to 190,000,000 out of a possible 2S0,000,000. We have been attempting to
Live Stock and Poultry

work up to that quota. Anyone who is trying to work up to a quota will take a lower price for the time being than others who are in. the market and who already have their quota and are supplying that market. They have established themselves over a term of years and are working in a market where they have control of all that they can supply, whereas we are only now working in that direction.
To indicate some of the difficulties in that connection I would point out that in March of this year Holland increased her supplies in the British market by 47 per cent. Poland increased her supply by 38 per cent. Denmark did not increase her supply but remained about the same, and our supplies went down by 13 per cent. There was only one reason why our supplies went down in that period, and that was the fact that we did not have the bacon to send to Great Britain; and there is one explanation, the fact that the people who were raising hogs last year did not have the feed and they went out of hog production. It takes a year to get back into production after you have gone out. Again, the cost of feed was high last year. Wheat was selling at $1.32 a bushel and all other grains proportionately. People are not inclined to carry feed to hogs when they can sell the feed for more than they can get out of the hogs, and naturally they drift out of hog production during such a period, unless you have them persuaded to the point where they are convinced that hog-raising over the long-time period is the important thing to do. If they believe that, then they will keep on producing and supplying the market which they hope to hold. Our people have not been persuaded up to that point, and many of those who were producing hogs two or three years ago were producing them as a substitute for something else which they desired to do. As soon as they had an opportunity of doing what they wanted to do, they got out of hog production. This is something we have to overcome, as suggested by the hon. member for Lethbridge.
We are producing hogs in a country where, over a considerable area, it is from 10 to 30 degrees below zero for five or six months of the year, and any farmer who has hogs born in that period knows the difficulties he has to face. He may start with a litter of ten or fifteen little pigs and inside a week he has five left; indeed, he is lucky if he has five. Where hogs are produced under these conditions only one thing can be expected; the farmer eventually comes to the conclusion that the time to have his hogs coming in is in April [DOT]or May or some time when the weather is good and he can keep his litters and raise
(Mr Gardiner.]
them. To overcome that difficulty there is much to be done in the way of education. As I stated on a previous occasion, there are a few men across Canada who are meeting the difficulty by having heated piggeries in which to have young litters produced in the winter months. These men tell me that under present conditions, when very few farmers are doing this, it pays them to do it because they can have pigs to sell in July when the price is two or three cents higher than at any other time of the year. They feed them up to that month and then sell them to advantage. But the trouble is that if everyone did that, probably the farmers could not stand the additional expense of maintaining heated piggeries for the production of hogs at the time when the price is at a favourable level, because the price would not remain at that level.
There is only one way of overcoming that difficulty and it is the method suggested a few minutes ago. The difficulty can be overcome in part by the formation of cooperatives under Bill 89 which we have put through this session. Instead of levelling up production of hogs we can level up the price. As it is to-day the producer of hogs has his hogs all coming in the spring and he has them ready for market in November. Every packing house knows that, and apart altogether from the question whether the packing houses are fair or unfair, the fact remains that if every farmer wants to sell his hogs in the same week, no matter how fair the packing houses wish to be they cannot take these hogs at the price which the farmer would receive if his hogs were sold throughout the year. That is one of the difficulties that we have to meet in a country in which there are such great variations in climate as we have in Canada, but we are doing everything we can.
We are putting out an advertisement in the newspapers, showing a graph, a copy of which I have here. It gives the price. In the middle of the summer the price runs away up. This graph applies to last year when the complaint was made that the price went up to 10 and 12 cents in July and down to 7 cents in November and December. The farmer said that when he had no hogs to sell the price was up and when he had hogs the price was down. Of course the price is away up to 10 or 12 cents in July when only the occasional hog can be purchased, and it is down when everyone wishes to sell. Production runs in the opposite direction. It starts in January and runs on down until it almost reaches the vanishing point in July, and then it runs up in November and the price takes the opposite curve. We can overcome this

Live Stock and Poultry
difficulty by producing the commodity more consistently throughout the year and supplying it to the market accordingly.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: What is the reason for the fluctuation of price from week to week or month to month from 25 cents to $1?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, sometimes we try to convince ourselves that the law of supply and demand does not work, but it has an unfortunate habit of operating whether we like it or not. We talk about trying to regulate prices, production and all that sort of thing, and we sometimes say that we should copy other countries, notably Great Britain. I understand that during the course of one week last fall the price of hogs in Great Britain dropped 12 shillings, and I do not know of any country in the world that has more regulation at the present time with regard to hog production and sale than Great Britain. After all, when hogs are there to be purchased in greater volume than they can be consumed, that will have some effect on the price no matter what regulation may be in effect; and when there are not enough hogs to supply the demand that also will have an effect on the price. I do not know how these difficulties can be overcome, other than by trying to keep the supply in some way regulated to the demand, and that is very difficult.


Mr. THOMPSON:: One of the most alarming features in connection with the bacon trade is the poor quality of bacon Canada is putting on the British market. It seems that we consume the best qualities of our bacon at home, where nearly ninety per cent of our production is consumed, and that a poorer quality is shipped overseas. At least it is a fact that our bacon takes only fourth or fifth place in the British market. Consequently it is sold for a good deal less than it should be, and that has a tendency to regulate the price of hogs in this country. I think there should be stricter grading and stricter supervision: of the bacon we export. We can never hope to build up a market in Great Britain until we supply a high grade of bacon. Quantity and quality are the two things that will spell success to the bacon hog raisers of Canada. We must arrange for a continuous supply of high grade bacon; and until there is better supervision of our exports, so that we can place on the British market bacon that will compete with the Danish, Irish and English bacon, we can never hope to get the price for our bacon that we should receive.


Mr. BLAIR:: I should like the opinion of
the minister on the question whether the variation in price in Canada is justified, in view of the fact that the cold storage plants are largely subsidized by the government. We think perhaps the farmers are being imposed upon through such great variations.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have subsidized cooperative cold storages and other plants which provide accommodation to the public, but packing house storages are operated for the benefit of the packing houses, and we do not subsidize them.
In reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lanark, I may say that the greater part of the bacon exported is our best bacon. We export 45 per cent of the bacon from inspected plants. A statement I have before me indicates that in 1938 grade A bacon formed 90'5 per cent of our exports to Great Britain, and that is our highest grade. The difficulty is not so much in regard to the quality of the bacon; it is in regard to the sizes. The British market requires sizes that we are not able to furnish in the proportion they would like; that is, sizes from 55 to 60 and 60 to 65. Our supplies are too great in some of the other groups. That is our difficulty, rather than anything in connection with quality.
The other difficulty is the one I mentioned a moment ago. Our bacon has sold within two shillings of the best Danish bacon, but that was at a time when we were not supplying the market we had previously developed in Great Britain. What we are doing now is to try to convince a greater and greater number of people each year that Canadian bacon is just as good as any other.


An hon. MEMBER:: So it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some one says "so it is" and that is true. We convince a group of people that this is so; in other words we create a demand for our bacon. But then we run into a period of a few months when our bacon is not available, and these people go back to some other kind of bacon. They form a taste for that other kind; they like it; they say, "We can get this all the time, and now we know how to handle it," and we have to go through a process of creating a market all over again. When our supplies were in proportion to the market we had created we were able to get to within two shillings of the price of the best Danish bacon. Then when we reached the other extreme a few months later and supplied more bacon than was required for the market we had developed, our price dropped considerably.
Live Stock and Poultry

So that our problem is one of producing, as nearly as that can be done, a constant supply of the best type of Canadian bacon for the British market, thereby retaining the customers who can consume what we supply, trying not to create a larger market than we can satisfy at all times but to keep our supply equal to the demand at all times, while gradually building up both our market and our exports year by year. A great deal of educational work is required in Canada as well as in the old country if we are to bring about that result.


Mr. FURNISS:: In a riding adjoining that which I represent we have a cooperative packing plant which it has been my pleasure to visit on several occasions. I was there in January of this year and watched the government grader doing his work. I believe if all our hogs were handled with the same care, many of our troubles would disappear. The grader stood there with a measure in his hand minutely testing the thickness of the fat at three places on the back of every side that came before him. I believe he told me they were allowed a latitude of only one-quarter inch in the thickness of the fat at the various points, which meant that it might be one-eighth inch thicker at one point or one-eighth inch thinner, but it had to be uniform right through. He also told me they were trying to establish, as I understood him, a special grade, and he was marking some particular carcasses in that grade for shipment to the British market. I asked the manager of the plant about the fluctuation in the price of hogs, because a farmer living not far from me had complained that the Department of Agriculture were not releasing the prices of bacon in the British market, when there was a wide spread between the price of hogs here and the price of bacon there. The manager of the plant told me that at that time every pork packer in the country was losing in the neighbourhood of a dollar per hog for every one he processed. He said, "We were bound to bid them up in order to keep up our supply at the present time, to fill in our quota for the British market." If they were losing that at that time it meant that the spread between the price of bacon and the price of hogs was very close. I do not think we could convince any farmer that a meat packer would lose money at any time. He accordingly puts that down for the spread it should always be.
If a meat packer will lose a dollar per hog in one half of the season, in order to keep up the supply, he cannot carry on unless he makes it up in some other part of the season. When hogs are plentiful he has to depress the 
price that much in order to recover what he had lost. This was the explanation that was given to me. He said that when the supply was low they were bound to bid up and make the margin close. Then when the supply was heavy they actually had to protect themselves from loss.
Something was said a while ago about cooperative marketing associations. I have marketed stock through the cooperative farmers' organization on the stock yards in Toronto. In my opinion they are just another commission house, and operate in the same way. One can get just as good service and get as good a price from any other commission house on the Toronto market. That was my experience, at any rate.
I do not believe there is any way in which to protect the farmer or to give him justice until we market our meat products through a cooperative packing plant. If there were more of them such as the one in the county of Simcoe, we would be better off. The farmer who sells his hogs-and they are practically all trucked in-has the privilege of taking either live grading, or grading on the rail. No matter which he takes, a record is kept of every hog, and a report is furnished him when he gets his cheque showing how much they brought, graded on the rail, and how much they would have brought live grading. Thus it shows how he has benefited by raising the right class of hog. The grader told me that in the two or three years he has been stationed there the dressing out weight of hogs has been improved by at least two or three per cent through education of the farmers in that way. If he finds that a farmer has a particularly good type of hogs, he writes to him and advises him to keep those hogs for breeding purposes. In that way he has encouraged many farmers to raise a better type of bacon hog.


William Gilbert Weir: Many of the points hon. members opposite have been raising are dealt with in this section. For instance, paragraph (e) contains these words:
(e) Prescribing from time to time the quantity, quality, grade or class that may be exported.
This would seem to cover the question of quality of products going overseas, and particularly the type of bacon. I had intended, however, to refer particularly to paragraph (j), which states:
(j) prescribing the manner in which a receiver of live stock and live stock products shall make returns and prepare for presentation to the seller or shipper the statements of account of purchase of such live stock and live stock products, and for the investigation of such statements and the transactions represented thereby.

Live Stock and Poultry
I think this paragraph would cover the rail grading of hogs. I presume rail grading is likely to increase in Canada. My complaint with respect to it has to do with the type of statement a producer gets. No one could understand what it means. I recall having received two or three of those statements, on which would appear the classifications BB or AA, and certain numbers. From the statement he received on a rail graded hog a man could not identify the stock he had delivered. Therefore I think we lose the inducement, or encouragement to a man to select the type of hog which will produce first class bacon. I submit that the statement furnished to the producer by people who rail grade these hogs should be so worded that it will be possible for the producers to know what the actual grading was and wherein their hogs fell below the first class grade.


Mark Cecil Senn: I fully agree with the hon. member who has just spoken when he says that rail grading is a proper method, and that it is designed sooner or laiter to be the only manner in which hogs are graded on the market. One thing, however, which should have consideration at this time is the differential between the prices of hogs on the hoof and hogs on the rail. The farmer has the opportunity and the privilege of electing whether he shall be paid on the rail grade basis or on the hoof. Who sets that differential from time to time between dive hogs and dressed hogs? After, all the incentive to a farmer to rail grade depends very largely on whether that differential is in proper proportion. If it is not in proper proportion and he gets a little more than he should get for hogs graded on the rail, or otherwise, it will affect his position in time to come. The department might very well exercise some supervision over that differential.
Speaking a little while ago about the quality of our bacon overseas the minister said that much of it was not in proper sizes. I remember distinctly a question on the order paper which indicated that grade A sizables of Canadian bacon going to the old country constituted forty-eight per cent of the total which went over last year. If we are going to have properly sized bacon going over there, some inducement must be offered to the farmer to grade his hogs to proper size. As the minister said last night, there are times in Montreal, Winnipeg and other centres when farmers get more per pound for shop hogs than they get for hogs of proper size. When that happens there is very little inducement to a farmer to raise the right type of hog. It is true there are times when shop hogs
are more valuable >to the local butcher than hogs in larger sizes. Is there any departmental supervision over the differential between prices of hogs graded on the hoof and those graded on the rail?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only supervision the department exercises is with regard to premium. The differential is pretty well determined by the purchaser of the hog. He tells the individual that he can have either rail grading at a price or hogs graded on the hoof at a price. The farmer makes his choice as to which price he thinks is the better one, and I think from that point of view the differential is settled by the purchaser from the packing house.


Mark Cecil Senn: But should it be? Perhaps I am going far afield in my discussion, but this clause has to do with the grading and marketing of live stock products. In the supplementary estimates there is an item of $200,000 to assist in the marketing of beef. Would the minister care to make a statement as to what is contemplated in connection with that vote? I believe it would come under the new legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would rather discuss that when the estimates are before the committee, because it really has no relationship to the matter we are now discussing.


John Horne Blackmore: I am interested in the question of increasing production in Canada so that we may have regular supplies. Would it be possible to set a price below which the producer would be reasonably sure he would not have to sell? In arriving at that price, could we not consider the ordinary price being offered in Britain and strike some sort of computing average below which Canadian bacon could not fall? A great many hogs were produced in my constituency during a certain period, but in 1932-33 prices fell so disastrously that a large percentage of the hog producers have never since dared go back into production. They feel that with such a variation in price they would not dare to attempt production, for fear that when their product was ready, no matter what time of the year it might be, the price would be down. The cause of all the trouble in my constituency is this dangerous variation in price. I was wondering if it would not be possible to organize things in such a way so that we could say to the producer, " No matter when you produce your hogs, whether it be in January or February, you will be assured of getting a certain price; the price will not be below a certain figure." It might be possible to build up a fund to provide for any difference that
Live Stock and Poultry

might arise. The question is a difficult one, but it will have to be answered before we can get on anything like a firm or dependable basis for hog production.


James Garfield Gardiner: Again I can only say that the country which has attempted to do more along this line than any other is Great Britain. There is a reason why it should be easier to carry it out there than in other countries, and that is the small percentage of the population engaged in the production of food products. I think it would be correct to say that at the outside not more than ten per cent of the people are producing hogs. But all the people of Great Britain are eating bacon and pork products. If there was any possibility of establishing what might be called a guaranteed price, it should be in that country. Hon. members who had the opportunity of listening to the present Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain when he was journeying across this country from Australia before he became minister will recall that at all meetings which he addressed there was considerable discussion of this very matter of setting quotas and prices and everything of that kind in order to regulate the production of food products, not only in Great Britain but throughout the empire. I am sorry I have not on my desk at the moment the report of his last speech in the old country, but he stated most definitely that a guaranteed price was an impossibility. He cited one or two cases in which it had been tried, but it was found impossible to maintain the price. He said that the best that possibly could be done was to ensure some figure below which the price of the product would not fall.


John Horne Blackmore: That was what I was suggesting.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what is being discussed widely in this country at the present time. There are very few who say that what they want is a bottom figure below which the price should not fall. What they are asking for is the cost of production, no matter what that is. In countries where they have been trying to establish something of this kind they have finally had to come to the conclusion that the best they could do was to ensure a bottom. Something has been done in this direction here by legislation this session. A method has been indicated by which it might be done, but I do not know that in a country such as ours the government could take full responsibility. I think a large part of the responsibility will have to be assumed by the producers themselves by the formation of
fMr. Blackmore.]
cooperatives or some other method. Of course, the government could come into the picture through guaranteeing the bottom.
The extent of our country presents another difficulty in attempting to regulate prices, and the valuation of conditions which prevail across the country must be considered. For example, hogs produced in western Canada must be marketed largely in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or Winnipeg. Those are the centres where centralization of population is to be found. But when you are producing hogs immediately adjacent to one of these centres of population, you are producing under an entirely different set of circumstances. It would be almost impossible to attempt to establish a guaranteed price to apply to the production of hogs in all parts of this country. However, there are ways of trying to approach the desired end, and I think these are pretty well established in the legislation we have brought down.


John Horne Blackmore: To what extent could the packing houses be used to carry over the production of, say, November to some later month? What is the cost of storing hogs for a given period of time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Most people think that bacon will keep forever because it is cured, but I am told by those who I presume know that bacon is one of the most perishable of products. It must be kept under the very best of conditions in order to maintain its quality, and that in itself increases the cost of storage. The cost of storing a product of that kind over a long period would be fairly high, but I am not in position to state just what it would cost per pound.
There is one other point to consider in connection with the packing houses. The packing plants have been established mostly in the centres of population, which is natural, because that is where the food is going to be consumed in great quantity. To compel all live stock to pass through a stockyard might make it difficult for packing houses operating in localities where there are no stockyards. If all live stock were compelled to go to the stockyard, the packing houses at Barrie, Kitchener and other points would probably have to go to Toronto and the stock would have to be reshipped. When stock is shipped by truck it is possible to locate packing houses at points like Barrie, where the packing house is organized on a cooperative basis.


Ralph Melville Warren: I was on my feet intending to comment on some of the remarks of the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard) when I was interrupted. The remarks of the

Live Stock and Poultry
hon. member proved the point I intended to make. I contend that a man as prominent and efficient and capable as the hon. member can always get the value of his stock at his farm, or perhaps more than the value. The buyer or trucker is able to go around the back concessions and say that he bought the cattle from the hon. member for Durham, and that is a great advertisement for the buyer. But all our prominent farmers do not take that attitude. There are, however, farmers in nearly all communities who will support the cooperative shipping of live stock even at a personal loss, just to keep up a service which they know is helping their less fortunate brothers in the community, and that is something which ought to be kept in mind by eveiy farmer, the welfare of his neighbours as well as his own.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 35 to 44 inclusive agreed to.
On section 45-Regulations.
Mr. REID:: Will this act apply to all
local transactions and local associations, poultry associations and others?
Another question: Paragraph (h) empowers the governor in council to prescribe measures for sanitation in or about hatcheries. But is any provision being made for the inspection of poultry premises? To me it is even more important that the source of supply of the eggs be made sanitary, because every hatchery must be kept clean if it is to have any degree of success in hatching eggs. While the hatcheries themselves are mostly sanitary, the premises in some cases from which the eggs come to be hatched are anything but sanitary, and it is felt in British Columbia that if the dominion government institute regulations for making hatcheries sanitary they are really starting at the wrong end. They should look to the poultry plants from which the eggs come for hatching.


James Garfield Gardiner: This part of the legislation will apply to the province upon request of the province. There are, of course, regulations in the province governing most of the matters the hon. member has mentioned. This legislation will operate, of course, in connection with the shipment of chicks and eggs, and all that kind of thing, from one province to another in very much the same way as our regulations did in the past. The member will know from discussions that have taken place in his own province that sometimes the difficulties experienced in connection with flocks occur in the area where the eggs are
produced rather than at the hatcheries themselves, and we have had perhaps the greatest difficulty in persuading people in the province other than the one in which the eggs are produced that they should accept chicks from hatcheries irrespective of how the eggs are gathered for the hatchery. We are attempting to carry out our regulations and inspection in that regard more strictly perhaps than the people who are producing the flocks would like.


Mark Cecil Senn: All through this part of the bill there are two terms used, "dominion poultry improvement program" and "dominion hatchery approval policy." The expression "dominion poultry improvement program" is defined, but the other is not. Is it intended to describe the rules and regulations laid down in this part, or what is the dominion hatchery approval policy?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is part of the poultry improvement program.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 46 to 52 inclusive agreed to.
On section 53-Chicks not to be shipped interprovincially except under the approval policy.
Thomas Reid: As is known to some of us, the word "flock" is used in different senses in the prairie provinces and in British Columbia. British Columbia is a province highly specializing in poultry, and our poultry men breed only from two-year-old birds. In the prairie provinces the word "flock" covers every bird on the farm-chicks, turkeys and everything else-and it is perhaps desirable that the word be used so far as the prairie provinces are concerned. When you sell chicks from British Columbia to the prairie provinces, you find that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have stringent regulations regarding the importation of chicks, which prescribe that they must come from flocks that have been tested for pullorum disease. Poultry men in British Columbia breed only from two-year-old birds, and this necessitates our poultry men having all their chicks tested for pullorum. His plant is divided into two parts, with the laying stock on one side and the breeding stock on the other. If he has to test the laying stock it means not only an added expense but a loss of revenue, because during the time the birds are being tested, egg production ceases. The minister is I think fairly well acquainted with the representations that have been made from British Columbia, but I would point out that this section, in line 32, "requires pullorum tests as stringent as those of the province into which such chicks

Live Stock and Poultry

are to be shipped." I would ask the minister to give consideration, in view of what I have said, to substituting the words "breeding stock" for the word "flocks" in line 28. It then will read:
. . . such chicks were produced in approved hatcheries using only eggs from breeding stock approved under a provincial flock approval policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not believe that
the word "flocks" would require to be changed in order to accomplish what is suggested. If the department were prepared to accept as the flock the laying section which is to be used for the purpose of supplying eggs to hatcheries, that could be done under this section as it is. The policy of the department has been to this effect: there are provinces which will not accept chicks from hatcheries which accept eggs from a producer who keeps two different flocks on the same lot, so to speak, where those lots are small, and the contention is that a person going back and forth out of the pens of one group into another carries the possibility of infection from the one group of chickens or hens to the other. In other words, they claim that there is no possibility of keeping the one flock clean if the two flocks are being operated by the one individual in a small area. The word "flock" being in there would prevent that policy being changed. It is not the desire of the department at the present to change the policy, largely because of the fact that provinces which are purchasing these chicks will not accept them on any other basis; they simply say, "We will not take the chicks from a province unless this particular regulation is enforced."


Thomas Reid: I think some of the provinces would, but it is the dominion that lays down the regulations as to what the word "flock" means, and the provinces, of course, having stringent regulations in connection with pullorum, use the term "flock" as laid down by the dominion regulations. If the minister cannot see fit to change the provision I think he should consider amending the regulations, because it is my information that some of the prairie provinces would accept chicks from hatcheries if the laying pens of the stock from which the eggs came had been tested for pullorum disease. But so long as the dominion defines "flock" it enables the prairie provinces and other provinces to hide behind-if I should use that term-the definition in the dominion regulations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe Alberta is
prepared to accept chicks from British Columbia on the basis suggested; and when a

province indicates that it is prepared to accept them, the dominion regulations permit of their being accepted. The only places where the dominion regulations prevent them from being accepted is in the provinces which object. Alberta does not object, and the chicks can go there even if the flocks are as indicated. But it is just possible that, because they are selling into all three provinces, and two of the provinces refuse to accept them, they are not in a position to handle their flocks in such a way as to satisfy even Alberta.


William Gilbert Weir: I move:
That section 53, paragraph (a) be amended by deleting all the words after the word "shipped" in line 32.
The words deleted will be:
or under the dominion record of performance or hatchery approval policy.
The paragraph will then stop after the word "shipped." This is for purposes of clarification. The sense of the provision is contained in the earlier part of the section, so that it does not change in any way the sense of the section; it merely clears up something which might otherwise be misunderstood.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 54-Offences and penalties.
Mark Cecil Senn: The hon. member for Renfrew North spoke about cooperation. There are certain places in Ontario where two or three farmers own an incubator of, it may be, over 1,000 eggs capacity: each of them will put a number of eggs into that incubator and they are hatched. Do they come under the provisions of this bill? The produce is not for sale, it is for use by the three or four farmers who own this particular incubator. It will be too bad if they should violate any of the provisions of this measure, and perhaps need a permit and all the rest of it. Really they are a little partnership of their own.


James Garfield Gardiner: The law is still optional in Ontario, because Ontario has not proclaimed this legislation, and it cannot be made compulsory unless they do. It is optional whether they apply for a permit, and I suppose that such persons would not apply for a permit.


Mark Cecil Senn: But does the minister think it is necessary in a case of that kind, where these chicks do not enter into commercial production? They are not sold to anybody; there is no buyer who has to be protected.


William Gilbert Weir: They are raising their own.

Live Stock and Poultry


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes, three or four farmers,
for their own convenience.


William Gilbert Weir: They are hatching for themselves?


Mark Cecil Senn: Hatching for themselves. I do not think that in that case they should be required to have a permit.


James Garfield Gardiner: The provision is limited to hatcheries which are hatching more than a thousand, and probably that exception would take care of most of these cases.


Mark Cecil Senn: Some of them would have a larger capacity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I notice that this bill provides in a number of places for penalties for certain offences. For instance, section 18 provides that persons who break any of the rules passed by the department shall not have the use of the stockyards. I wondered whether any provision would be made in the bill for publicizing the regulations which are made from time to time. Will they be inserted in the Canada Gazette or the live stock magazines? If people are to be punished for violation of regulations it is important that they should know what the regulations are.


James Garfield Gardiner: The practice is to publish all of these regulations in the Canada Gazette and otherwise. It does not say that definitely here, but the practice is to have them published in that manner, and in pamphlet form as well.


Thomas Reid: I have one question before
the bill goes to third reading. Will this preclude or prohibit local hatcheries from purchasing eggs from small farmers or poultry raisers if the poultry is for local consumption, within the province? I know of my own personal knowledge of hatcheries which are operating under these circumstances; it is quite a boon to the local ranchers who can sell eggs to them for 50 or 60 cents a dozen. These local flocks may not come under an approved policy; but as the chicks and poultry are for local consumption, will this act preclude or prohibit hatcheries from doing what they have been doing for many years past?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand it does
not prevent them from purchasing from individuals.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many provinces have approved or will pass the enabling legislation in respect of this measure?
71492-265J


James Garfield Gardiner: Six of the provinces
have. Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have not yet asked to have the regulations proclaimed in those provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Mr. PELLETIER:: Will the minister
inform the committee why section 46 appears in this bill? In several pieces of legislation which have been brought in recently by the government there are certain clauses to the effect that the provinces must be required to cooperate or such-and-such a program will not become operative. In this bill, section 46 provides that in any province in which the program has not been proclaimed by the governor in council, such program or any part thereof or policy thereunder may be applied on a voluntary basis as prescribed by the regulations. Subsection 1 provides that the dominion poultry improvement program shall come into force in any specified province upon proclamation of the governor in council. Why was it necessary to insert such a provision in this bill? Will the minister explain the circumstances under which the department would find it inadvisable to proclaim the legislation in any province, and generally the reasons behind this type of section appearing in much of the legislation that we are passing at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: When a province requests that the legislation be applied within its boundaries, that request is acceded to and of course the legislation is proclaimed there. But in a province in which it is not proclaimed, an individual may desire to take advantage of the benefits of the legislation and he can secure protection, so to speak, under this bill. It will be noted that those who desire to have the legislation applied are usually persons who are purchasing in large volume, shipping from other provinces. The provinces in which people are producing are not so anxious to have the legislation applied, but those who are securing the benefits of it by reason of their purchasing in large volume naturally ask to have it applied. There may be individual hatcheries in the provinces that, have not asked for it, and they will want to sell into the provinces where approval has been asked and where the act has been proclaimed, and they will get that right.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister says that if a province does not wish to have the legislation proclaimed, an individual may desire to have the benefits of it applied to himself.
Live Stock and Poultry

Does not the minister believe that that is an indirect way of circumventing provincial legislation? If a legislature desires to legislate [DOT]on any matter it is beyond the powers of this government to legislate indirectly in order to extend alleged benefits to individuals within the province, which benefits contravene the regulations of the province or are opposed to the wishes of the people of that province. I am wondering if the reason for this type of provision is that there is some doubt in the minister's mind as to the power of his department to legislate on matters with respect to which there are provincial regulations. Is there a conflict between his authority and provincial authority, and is this section inserted to get around provincial regulations? I have no particular province in mind, but this appears to be a roundabout -method of overriding provincial legislation. Perhaps the minister thought there might be a conflict between his jurisdiction and provincial authority and is passing this bill as a safeguard to enable him to carry on. I do not believe it is at all a good principal to try to legislate for the benefit of individuals within a province when it is opposed to the desires of the provincial legislature. It is an attempt to attack the autonomy of the legislatures, and to do so in an indirect way. I do not believe that legislation of this kind is advisable under these circumstances.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the point. The point is that a province may not desire to have chicks distributed within the province except under certain regulations with regard to the selection of eggs, the flocks from which eggs can be taken, and all that sort of thing, in order to avoid the dissemination of disease in poultry. One province says, "You may do it only under certain conditions," and another province says, "We are not prepared to bring it in, so far as the distribution of poultry in the province is concerned." This makes it possible for a person in the second province to have a market in the first province. He can go there and sell because he has come under the legislation and keeps his flocks in .accordance therewith.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Contrary to provincial wishes.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. They do not want to have restrictions with regard to trade within their own province.
Bill reported.


Frederick George Sanderson: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Mr. SPENCE:: Next sitting.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frederick George Sanderson: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you cannot annul the rules of the house nor rescind them temporarily except by unanimous consent, and there was not unanimous consent for the third reading at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: If there is not unanimous consent the bill of course cannot be read the third time now. If there is any serious objection we will not have the third reading. I only desired to get the bill over to the senate as soon as possible.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: To-morrow will be ample time to get it to the senate.


Frederick George Sanderson: I thought
unanimous consent was given.


James Garfield Gardiner: One member objected.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There were others.


Frederick George Sanderson: Next sitting.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 83, to assist agriculture in the prairie provinces.
He said: There is really no change in the bill. The first amendment consists of the insertion of a predicate in one section, which was suggested here by an hon. member the other day. Then the words "or through" are inserted, so that the section reads "purchased by or through" licensed country elevators. We are prepared to accept the changes.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
fMr. Pelletier !

Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production service.
17. Compensation for animals slaughtered, $410,000.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why the increase of $100,000 this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The main estimates show an increase of $100,000, but that is not the whole increase. A much larger increase is shown when the supplementaries which have been brought down are taken into consideration. The real reason for speeding up activities in connection with combating tuberculosis this year is found in regulations adopted in the United States which prevent stock entering from Canada, other than for immediate slaughter, unless it has been tested. We are trying to clean up the areas from which stock is usually shipped into the United States.


Mr. HEAPS:: In what parts of the country will most of this money be spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: A very considerable
portion of it w'ill be spent in Ontario and Quebec, and in the western provinces.


Harry James Barber: The situation is pretty
well cleaned up in British Columbia, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the British Columbia area is pretty well covered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service.
20. Plant products-Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $18,900 to Canadian Seed Growers Association, $572,878.
John Horne Blackmore: It was desired that
under this item we might have some discussion of the beet sugar industry. Several hon. members who wished to participate in that discussion are absent to-day because of the celebrations that are taking place. I wonder if it would be in order to ask the minister to defer this item for the time being.


James Garfield Gardiner: We could probably have that discussion on an item in the supplementary estimates.


John Horne Blackmore: I was just anxious that there might be an item under which we might discuss it and be perfectly in order.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does my hon. friend mean later to-day?


John Horne Blackmore: Another day would be preferable.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can have that discussion on the item in the supplementary estimates dealing with production, and we might clean up these estimates as we go along.


Mr. HARRIS:: There has been some change in the phraseology of this item, but I will pass that by for a moment. As the minister knows, feeds as such pay no sales tax, and I should like to know if the department has any way of distinguishing between a feed on the one hand and what we might call a medicine on the other hand. For example iron oxide, which is used in animal and poultry feeds, is considered by the Department of National Revenue to be a medicine, as are other iron products. Cod liver oil, which is used in both animal and poultry feeds, is also considered medicinal. Ironized and ordinary yeast are considered in the same way, and when used in these feeds they must pay the sales tax. No one knows more about wheat than the minister, but wheat germ oil is considered not a feed but a medicine. That is often combined with yeast and iron oxide to make what might almost be called a patent feed. I can mention one name as an example; the Yo-Yo product contains -wheat germ oil, cod liver oil and some yeast, so far as I know-it is a secret formula-held together by a gluten base, the idea being that this combination contains all the necessary vitamins, including vitamin E, which is supposed to increase fertility. It is fed to foxes, for example, so that they may have litters of five instead of two, and is fed to poultry in order to increase the fertility of the eggs. This product pays a sales tax, while on the other hand ordinary protein scratch feeds do not. There is quite a controversy at the present time as to whether or not wheat germ oil, for example, is a food. Yeast is a food for the animal kingdom, and should be considered as such. I do not ask the minister to make a decision here as to what is food and what is medicine, but I would make a plea on behalf of those who are producing large quantities of poultry feeds, fox feeds and animal feeds. I suggest that the minister confer with the Minister of National Revenue in an effort not to follow quite so closely the actual wording of the Excise Act. I would ask them to see if they could not so interpret the act as to declare poultry feeds, fox feeds and animal feeds containing wheat germ oil, yeast and iron oxide to be materials containing food value and, consequently, not subject to sales tax.
Supply-Agriculture

There is another aspect of .the matter to Which I wish to call the minister's attention. Blood meal, produced by drying blood from slaughtered animals, has a veiy high protein content, and is most readily assimilated when fed back to poultry, live stock or foxes. Yet blood meal which is incorporated in animal foodstuffs to bring about more regular oro-duction of eggs, to balance cattle rations, to increase the flow of milk of dairy cattle and to assist in the elimination of rickets and other diseases which affect new bom calves and baby chicks, carries a sales tax and is considered a medicine by the department. That is neither sensible nor practical. I would ask the minister to consider changing the administration of sales tax provisions so as to relieve producers engaged in poultry, live stock and fox feeding from the penalty they have to pay in this regard. Highly _ scientific food products are being devised, based on considerable research. It would seem that the more research work the scientists do to try to help these three producers, the more the producers are penalized.


James Garfield Gardiner: Complaints have been brought to .the attention of the department that patent foods are charged sales tax. Examination into the complaint showed that the statement made by the hon. member is correct, namely that so far as the food base is concerned there is no sales tax, but that there is a tax on some other ingredients. The whole matter is now being investigated in an effort to arrive at some method of separating the parts of a product used for one purpose from those used for other purposes.


Mark Cecil Senn: Has the advisory committee on seeds met within the last few months? Have there been any new regulations regarding seed standards, particularly the standards of grass seeds which are sold and exported?


James Garfield Gardiner: The committee was not called together, but there were three points under consideration which required changes in the regulations. One of the officials of the department conferred with the members of the committee. It was thought to be less expensive, in view of the lack of real importance of the suggested amendments, to have a man go around to see the committee, rather than have them called in.


Mark Cecil Senn: Was there any change in the standards set up this year by the seed committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some changes were
made, one of them being on recommendation of the seed growers' association, with regard to the matter of sweet clover in alfalfa.


Joseph Henry Harris: Would the minister break down the item, so as to show the amount for seeds, the amount for feeds and the amount for fertilizer?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand it is
impossible to subdivide the item. The same men do all the work, and all their salaries are involved in the expenditure.


Mark Cecil Senn: What supervision is made in regard to feeding stuffs? There are a good many patent feeds on the market, many of which are no doubt satisfactory and they sell at fairly high prices. Does the department exercise any supervision over the ingredients of these preparations? What is required by the department before they are placed on the market?


James Garfield Gardiner: They must register all feeds with the department and give a guarantee as to the ingredients. We make a check to see that they live up to the guarantee.


Joseph Henry Harris: Does this S572,878 include demonstration stations in the maritime provinces which are at present doing good work on behalf of the fox industry in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island? Are there any demonstration stations doing similar work in Ontario? I ask the question because there has been a tremendous increase in fox farming in Ontario; and because of the drop in the market price of furs the world over, there is a very serious condition in that industry. The producers are very much concerned as to what will happen-so much so they are afraid the industry in Ontario may pass out of existence unless there is some stabilization in the market for silver fox furs. So far as stabilization is concerned, I am not asking that the government or anyone else should help out, but it must be remembered that these demonstration stations in the maritime provinces are doing good work. It is a fact that some people engaged in the fox industry have not expanded their activities on a business basis. I hope that stations similar to those which have given such good service in the maritime provinces will be established in Ontario, which in this respect is not so well organized.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a vote in the supplementaries which have been passed in connection with experimental farms, and it included an item of S2,000 to cover a grant to the dominion council of Canadian fur breeders at Fort William. I understand that something is being done at that point, but most of the experimental work in connection with fox farming is carried on in the maritime provinces.

Supply-Agriculture


Mark Cecil Senn: I believe inspection services are covered by this vote. In the last two or three years there has been quite an increase in our exports of hay to the United States, and I understand that inspection is made only when asked for. Some hay which was not of first class quality has -been exported, and it is reported to me that this has damaged the reputation of our hay in the United States. Has the department contemplated the compulsory inspection of hay exported to the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the present time this inspection is on a voluntary basis; anyone who asks' for the service receives it. There is not a great volume of hay being exported, and it would be difficult to set up this type of service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service.
22. Grants to fairs and exhibitions-grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $322,409.86.
Mr. STIRLING:: Will the minister explain why the grant to the interior provincial exhibition at Armstrong has been cut in half?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no knowledge that it has been cut in half.


Grote Stirling: According to the particulars on page 63, the grant was $5,000 last year and it is only $2,500 this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The class B fair grant is just the same, but last year a special building grant was given to Armstrong.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would that account for .the
extras in the supplementaries that were brought down?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the grants made were voted a year ago.


Mr. MARSHALL:: It is my understanding that in order to qualify, a class B fair must spend $3,000 a year. Would the minister consider reducing this stipulation during these difficult times in order to permit certain fairs to qualify under this clause? I know a number of fairs that come quite close to this $3,000 mark, and they could qualify if the amount were reduced to $2,000 or $1,500.


James Garfield Gardiner: Class B fairs now are paid sixty per cent of what they spend, while class A fairs receive only fifty per cent of what they spend. We do not consider it advisable to give the class B fairs any greater advantage than they -now have over the A fairs.


James Alexander Marshall: Is it a fact that a class B fair must spend $3,000 in order to qualify?


James Garfield Gardiner: To get the maximum grant of $1,800 they must spend $3,000.


James Alexander Marshall: If a fair spent less than that, would it receive sixty per cent of the amount actually spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Sixty per cent of the amount spent up to $1,800.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Has the minister seen
fit to recommend that Owen Sound should be considered a class B fair?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot say that that
has been accepted, but provision is made in the supplementaries for what we are terming this year junior B fairs. The full amount will not be paid to these fairs, but an amount is being set aside to take care of them this year.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The amount will be
less than $1,800?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be less.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
24.	Marketing service administration, $106,595.
Ernest Edward Perley: The minister will recall
that in the fall of 1937 a number of surplus cattle were shipped out of Saskatchewan. I understand that during that fall the reeves of the municipalities in the eastern and central parts of the province were called to a meeting held at Melville, at which were representatives of the provincial and federal departments. An agreement was arrived at under which the municipalities were to be responsible for gathering certain statistics with regard to the surplus cattle that were to be shipped out, and were to assist the government in purchasing and shipping them. It was agreed that the municipality should receive $125 a month for doing this work, which was to be done by the municipal secretary. Three or four municipalities found that the work was too much for their secretaries, and councillors were put in charge. I understand their work was satisfactory, but they have not received the $125 a month for the two months agreed upon. The provincial government took the stand that federal assistance was forthcoming only in connection with the drought area, that these other areas were not included, although they admitted that there was no distinction between these areas when the agreement was made. Representations have been made to me by the reeves of three or four municipalities to the effect that
Supply-Agriculture

they have not been reimbursed. If the agreement was as I have stated, I think they are entitled to this allowance.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle knows, in the fall of 1937 it became necessary to move some live stock out of what was known as the drought area. The area was defined, and the arrangement entered into was that the provincial department of agriculture should cooperate in doing some of the organization work. We agreed to pay the secretaries of the municipalities a certain amount, not only for doing this work but in connection with the distribution of feed and the gathering of information having to do with the distribution of relief generally in the municipalities. This agreement covered the whole of the 170 municipalities for which we assumed responsibility. But the provincial authorities doing the preliminary work apparently did not fully understand the arrangement entered into, and when they came to the boundary line working north and east they went on over the boundary line and held a meeting in Melville, called in the municipal councils in that area, and discussed the matter with them. They put forth some effort in connection with it, and when it was brought to our attention we informed them that they were outside the district, and the operations stopped there. I understand that there has been some misunderstanding about the final settlement. Our understanding at the time was that the province was to take care of any expenditure that had been made in connection with the holding of the meeting in Melville, but I have had complaints since which would indicate some misunderstanding. We shall inquire into it and see if anything further can be done.


Mark Cecil Senn: The total of the marketing service items is $1,981,000, and there is a further vote of some $200,000 in the supple-mentaries. There is a vote in the estimates 3f the Department of Trade and Commerce for similar purposes, under commercial intelligence service, of $836,000. Will the minister briefly explain where the line is drawn and in what way the activities under the marketing branch differ from those of the Department of Trade and Commerce?


James Garfield Gardiner: The greater part of the $1,981,000 results from a transfer of activities from other branches to the marketing branch. We had, for instance, a live stock and live stock products branch of the department, and the greater part of the expenditure on these activities is similar to expenditures made in previous years for similar purposes. The same [Mr. Pe-ley.l
is true of fruits and vegetables, maple products, honey and so on. Subsidies for cold storage were always paid previously and were classified under marketing, being closely associated with the marketing activities of the department. About the only thing that can be said to be additional is administrative costs in connection with the marketing division, and the special vote for the marketing of agricultural products, including any temporary appointments that may be required. That covers much of the activity in Great Britain and the advertising in this country of farm products that are being sold.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there any duplication of
services under this vote and under the votes of the Department of Trade and Commerce?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is no duplication.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
25.	Agricultural economics, $104,905.
James Alexander Marshall: What is the reason for the reduction in this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is largely due to the increase in the previous item. There has been a transfer of administrative costs in connection with economics to administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
26.	Dairy products, $378,945.
Thomas Alfred Thompson: Why the reduction of $22,000 in this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: Part of that is accounted for by the transfer of consumers' service to the other item.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: We hear a great deal about New Zealand crowding Canada out of the British market in dairy products, but there is no foundation for that statement. Canada has in fact receded from that market herself, and New Zealand has gone in and taken possession of it. Our great difficulty again has been quantity, the lack of a continuity of supply to the British market, and as we receded from that market New Zealand came in and took it from us. Our cheese, for instance, is still selling at a premium in the British market. I think both this government and perhaps the provincial governments have been paying too much attention to the selling end of cheese, in particular. It is right and proper that attention should be paid to the selling end, but the advantage that the dairyman in Canada reaps is not from the selling end but from the production

Supply-Agriculture
end. We have individual cows in Canada producing 20,000 or 25,000 pounds of milk a year, and we have individual herds averaging 10,000 to 12,000 pounds production per year per cow; yet the average cow in Canada produces only 4,000 pounds of milk a year. It is to the breeding and feeding and production ends that governmental activity should be directed, because, with all the money that has been spent so far, the various governments have not been able to influence the market to the extent of half a cent or even one-eighth of a cent a pound. There is room to double the average production of milk in this country, to raise it from 4,000 pounds to 8,000 pounds per cow, and that would be less than the average of many herds, indeed much less. I do not say that all our farmers can have these high-producing herds, but there is far too much spread to-day between the actual and the possible, and that is where government efforts should be exerted.
The government did in the past-I do not see any this year-give grants to our cheese producing associations, and the Ontario government has permitted them to collect five cents a hundred. Last year something around $40,000 were collected, but activities were directed solely towards the selling end of cheese. I think that is a great mistake. The future prosperity of the dairymen of this country lies in the production end, and more attention should be given to production by the government, more assistance given to that end; and an educational campaign should be carried on among the producers themselves. I am not saying, of course, that the selling end should not be looked after to the very best ability of those in charge of that activity, but I repeat that it is in the production end that the prosperity of our great dairy industry lies. I call the government's attention to it in order that more may be done towards increasing production than has been done heretofore.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister indicate the reaction of the department to the experiment carried on regarding the export of chilled beef?


James Garfield Gardiner: We undertook a year ago, I believe in March, to begin a sale of 25 head of cattle of a certain type, weekly, on the Smithfield market, with a view to determining whether there is a market in Great Britain for the type of beef which was selected, and what price could be obtained on that particular market for certain amounts of that beef. We were successful in securing 25 head of the type generally known as baby beef, on the Toronto market, in all but three or four weeks of the year; during three or four
weeks in the summer months it was impossible to obtain 25 head of the type required for that experiment. The fact that we were not able to obtain the 25 head during those three or four weeks enabled us to prove conclusively that 25 head of a different type would not bring the same amount as could be obtained for the baby beef type; we were not able to sell them to the same advantage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What weeks were those?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some time in the months of July and August; I am not certain of the exact weeks. Of course jrou cannot prove very much with regard to the costs of shipment per head when you are shipping only 25 head of cattle, and shipping them under conditions which require a special expenditure. But it was found that this baby beef sold to good advantage in comparison with the best beef which was being sold on the British market. In practically all of the weeks, if not all of them, it sold at very close to the price which was being obtained for the best Scottish beef, and quite frequently at a price above the best Scottish beef. It may be said that that is partly due to the fact that a market is created with a certain group of people who desire that particular type. We have not been able to determine just how large that market may be, because we have never shipped there more than 25 head, but the demand which is there for 25 head and considerably more caused it to sell at prices which compare very favourably with those for the best beef sold on the Smithfield market.


Henry Herbert Stevens: From the records I have before me, the experiment does not seem to have been very successful from the commercial standpoint.


James Garfield Gardiner: Experiments of that type are not, from that point of view.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The object of the experiment was to demonstrate the practicability of shipping beef in this way. The minister said a moment ago that during July and August the prices were so low as not to make it profitable. But I find that during July and August the gross sales value of beef included in these special shipments in London was the highest of any period in the whole experiment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not certain of the weeks; it was some time in the middle of the summer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Here they are. July-


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know why my hon. friend required to ask me, then. Why did he not tell me?
Supply-Agriculture


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was asking the minister as to the success or otherwise of the experiment, and what were the weeks. He said they were in July.


Mr. WARD:: What the minister said was that the type of beef was not then obtainable in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not talking about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Whatever weeks they
were, they did not bring so good a return.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member for Kootenay East will wait until we get to item 29, marketing of live stock and live stock products, I shall probably have all the information here. The official who has that information is not with me at the moment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will wait until the minister reaches that item.


Mr. GRAYDON:: On page 66, giving details of services with regard to this particular vote, I notice "living allowance, $6,022.50." Can the minister indicate what that allowance covers?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the living allowance for the cargo inspectors. Some are located in Great Britain, and some in Canada at ports like Montreal.


Gordon Graydon: What amount are these men allowed for living expenses?


James Garfield Gardiner: One dollar and fifty cents.


Gordon Graydon: That is better than the rates of some of the commissions. I congratulate the minister on that. On some of the commissions the allowance is thirty-five dollars a day.


James Garfield Gardiner: The inspectors would not consider it better, though.


Harry James Barber: What has been done by the department to remove the surplus of butter in Canada? Have they acted upon the suggestions of the dairy council and other dominion organizations?


James Garfield Gardiner: If we can leave this matter until the supplementaries come up, in which that matter is dealt with, I believe it would be better.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
27.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $97,212.57.
Mr. MITCHELL:: I notice that many of the grants included in this item are less this year than they were last year. What is the reason for that? Can the minister tell us something about the subsidizing of the cold storage plants?
Mr, GARDINER: The cold storage vote always comes in this form in the regular estimates. We are fortunate this year in that we shall probably put them all through on the same day. We shall take up the supplementaries later, but the practice has always been to bring down an amount in the general estimates and then to ascertain, between the time the general estimates are put through and the time the supplementaries are introduced, the approximate amount required for the rest of the year. When that further amount is added to this there will be found to be not a decrease but an increase.


Harry James Barber: Application was made by the Sumas cooperative, a large concern in the Fraser valley for a subsidy towards a cold storage plant, and I understand they have received a letter from one of the officials of the department stating that they are not entitled to the grant. This is an important matter. It is a purely cooperative concern and I think the minister should give it consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that this company did build cold storage plants and had them refrigerated prior to making application for a grant from the government here. What they really desire to do is to change the

Supply-Agriculture
form of refrigeration to the mechanical system, and the Department of Justice here has ruled that this will not conform to the act and that under the circumstances we are not permitted to make the grant.


Harry James Barber: This is a new plant. I recall the time when they undertook the construction. I told them to communicate direct with the department, and they got in touch with the department to find out the procedure they should follow. Whether they complied with the requirements I do not know, but the plant is an entirely new one. It was built last year and, as I say, it is purely cooperative.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where is it located?


Harry James Barber: At Abbotsford. They
received a communication from Mr. Singleton, and I had a letter yesterday with reference to the matter. Perhaps the minister can give me further particulars when the supplementary estimates are under consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will try to get final particulars, but at the moment the officials tell me that they understand it is a locker affair. Our regulations call for not more than 15 per cent of locker space, and theirs is a locker cold storage.


Harry James Barber: Not one hundred per cent; it is partly locker.


James Garfield Gardiner: The present difficulty has to do with the amount of locker space.


James Alexander Marshall: Under this item there is an amount of $8,926.80 for the Edmonton Cold Storage Company at Edmonton, Alberta, but there was no vote for the year 1938-39. Is this a new agreement? If so, what is the amount of the agreement and how long is it to run?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the first year the grant is being paid, but the storage is not a new one. They are adding to the storage that was already in Edmonton, and the amount voted the first year will be half the total, the balance being' payable over four years.


James Alexander Marshall: Would the interpretation of the act include condenseries, or would they come under a different vote? Can they qualify for a subsidy under this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not quite sure what the hon, member means by condenseries.


James Alexander Marshall: Cooling plants in connection with milk. There is one in Red Deer.


James Garfield Gardiner: This does not apply to condenseries.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: What are the conditions under which subsidies are allowed to these cooperatives and cold storage companies?


James Garfield Gardiner: They apply in the usual way for a grant. They must make application before construction is started, and the application is examined by the department and passed upon. They must agree to take products for storage from the public. It cannot be a purely private undertaking to provide for their own products.


Harry James Barber: It is not necessarily a cooperative.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: How much does the dominion government pay?


James Garfield Gardiner: Thirty per cent of the cost spread over five years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to repeat what I said last year on this question. It is pretty much the same as the live stock yards. These grants were started to provide facilities for the producer to store his products over peak periods so as not to glut and smash the market, but there has grown up in Canada a practice of gambling in butter, just the same as in wheat. I am not referring to the small cold storage plants owned by cooperatives, and local cold storage plants in farming areas. I have in mind the great plants in the large centres, many of which receive government subsidies. Some I am thinking of get large assistance. The practice of gambling in butter, even employees of the cold storage companies holding butter over the flush period and reaping the advantage of an increased price in the winter, is contrary to the spirit and genius of this whole legislation. I will not labour the point, but I urge on the minister that a careful investigation, be made of this practice in the handling of goods in cold storage plants. Farmers' products are made the subject of gambling by speculators.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
28.	Fruit, vegetable and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian Horticultural Council, $555,117.
Mr. TUSTIN:: Last year the minister tabled a report on marketing. Paragraph 4 on page 10 reads:
The seed of a particularly promising new variety of tomato has been purchased. It has been distributed among canners throughout Canada who have undertaken to have the crop produced and processed under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture.
What has been the result of the experiment carried on by the department?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The experimental work carried on by the department in connection with our farms has been very successful; that is, it has demonstrated the superiority of this tomato over many others for canning purposes, but of course we did not have control of all the seed. We did secure some of the seed, which we tried out on the farms; we did have tests made in regard to the canning, but there were others who had control of a considerable portion of the seed, which was put out to farmers. My understanding is that the seed that was put out was not properly classified or standardized as to type before being distributed; that crops were grown in which the tomatoes did not conform to any standard at all, and that some of these tomatoes did give some trouble when canned. I understand also that considerable quantities of the tomatoes were not suitable for canning, and that some people took a loss. Representations were made to the government to the effect that we should bear any losses sustained by those who purchased or secured their seed even from persons outside the department. We examined all the circumstances and finally came to the conclusion that there really was no obligation upon the government, so that no payment has been made.


George James Tustin: I have before me in this file several letters from the Department of Agriculture, in one of which they say:
We will be pleased to give you instructions concerning the canning of this variety and also to have our Mr. Arengo-Jones visit your plant at the time you are doing the canning to give you what help he can.
I also have before me the formula for canning this tomato, as given by the department. to one particular company. Then I have a letter from the horticultural council, which states:
While not definitely determined I believe that the Department of Agriculture will likely supplement your order with perhaps another pound of seed which they will give you free. They are very anxious to see as large an export as possible this season and are planning to give some of the seed they are holding for themselves to a few of the canners who are going into the matter in a substantial way.
This firm of which I am speaking purchased four pounds of seed and were given another pound free.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is that a letter from the department?


George James Tustin: That is from the horticultural council.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the department.


George James Tustin: Then I have a letter dated March 23, 1938, on the letterhead of the Department of Agriculture, dominion experimental farms, which states:
We are forwarding to you under separate cover one pound of Jan-Ru tomato seed for which there is no charge. . . .
We will advise you later concerning the details of canning that particular variety, since it will require a little different treatment than that which you are accustomed to giving to those varieties you are now growing.
The point is that the farmers in my community had the impression that the Department of Agriculture was responsible for the production and processing of this tomato. The firm which entered into contracts with the farmers received one pound of seed from the Department of Agriculture gratis and purchased four pounds as well. As a result in the constituency which I have the honour to represent a good many farmers produced this tomato. When it became almost mature they discovered that it was not producing anywhere near true to type; as a matter of fact some of the fields of these tomatoes were not more than about twenty per cent true to type. In addition the department sent this firm a formula for use in canning these tomatoes. The firm took the trouble to select out of the crop presented to them by the farmers as many of the tomatoes as they possibly could use and, as I say, they were able to salvage possibly twenty per cent. After these tomatoes had been processed according to the formula sent out by the Department of Agriculture about seventy-five per cent of them blew-in other words, gases formed in the cans and they were of no further use. Samples were taken, and I should like to read the report of one of the inspectors of the department in regard to these samples. This report is dated September 16:
Weight of can: 4-95 ounces
Fill: Can full
Condition: Nine whole tomatoes
Flavour: Good
Maturity: Practically uniform
Colour: Uniform
Grade found: Fancy quality.
I have several of these reports but I do not believe it is necessary to read them all. The point is that the firm which went into the production and processing of these tomatoes is now bankrupt. I am not labouring the point on their behalf to any great extent, but I do say that since the Department of Agriculture sent out this report in the first instance, telling the people of this country they were experimenting with this tomato and that it w'as being produced and processed

Supply-Agriculture
under their supervision, it is now up to the government to take cognizance of the fact that the farmers who in all good faith produced these tomatoes have not been able to get their money. Certainly the government should give consideration to those who did all the work in connection with the production of these tomatoes and who now find it impossible, as I say, to collect. Many of these people, as a result, are unable to pay their taxes or purchase the necessities of life. I urge upon the minister that he give particular consideration to the grower.


Mr. SLAGHT:: May I ask the hon. member what was the loss? As I understand it, there was only one pound of seed.


George James Tustin: They purchased four pounds of seed at S60 a pound and were given one pound free. I believe the loss to the growers alone is in the neighbourhood of six or seven thousand dollars. That would not include anything for processing the tomatoes, of course.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not purchase
any seed from the government.


George James Tustin: They purchased four pounds of seed from the horticultural council, and the Department of Agriculture gave them one pound gratis.


James Alexander Marshall: In 1937-38 there was
a distinct drop in the production of honey. I wonder if the minister could give the committee any information in that regard, and at the same time he might tell us what is the export business in honey at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The last figures I have are for 1938. In 1937 the production amounted to 21,733,000 pounds, and in 1938 to 33,975,000 pounds.


Gordon Graydon: Can the minister give
us any information as to whether or not there has been any real progress in the negotiations with Washington in regard to the splitting of the periods for the fixed valuation on imports of fruits and vegetables under the terms of the- new agreement? I understand some move was to be made in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course such negotiations are through the Department of External Affairs. The Department of Trade and Commerce and the customs branch have something to do with it. We are not directly associated with the negotiations, and I am not in a position to give information.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: What use is made of
this $5,000 which is granted to the horticultural council?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand it is expended on operating or administration
expenses.


Wilbert Franklin (Frank) Rickard: Has the government any control over them?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Gordon Graydon: At the sittings of the
Ontario vegetable growers' association held at Toronto in January a good deal of time was consumed in discussing the unsatisfactory condition which exists with respect to statistics of vegetable production in Canada, and I believe resolutions were forwarded to the government. A lengthy discussion took place, revealing wide differences between the actual value of the industry to Canada and the statistics put out by the government. I appeal this year, as I did last, to the government, asking that some attention be given to a better system of compiling statistical information so far as vegetable growers are concerned. Speaking from memory I would say the vegetable growers' organizations have come to the fairly accurate conclusion that from the point of view of annual production the industry is worth to Canada something between $150,000,000 and $200,000,000, whereas statistics indicate that total production is between $40,000,000 and $50,000,000. There are those who believe that some of the reductions in protection, brought about by the last two trade agreements, were made because the government did not realize, through the statistical information available to it, that the industry was so large, so comprehensive or so important.
On behalf of the vegetable growers I appeal to the minister to have some real move made to get for growers' associations reasonably good statistical information. I was present at the association meeting held this year in Toronto. Many suggestions were made as to how this improvement could be brought about at the time of the next census, which, I believe, will be taken in about two years. I ask the minister and his department to give every possible consideration to a proper statistical review of the industry, so that, as to its importance in Canadian economy, it may be shown in its true light.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: How much honey do
we export annually, and what is our best export market?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Our exports are almost entirely to the United Kingdom. The amounts are as follows:
Pounds
1934		 1,755,000
1935		 2,200,000
1936		  1,781,000
1937		 2,384,000
1938		 2,175,000
The United States receives a small amount. The Netherlands, taking a comparatively small amount, are next in importance to Great Britain. Germany gets a small quantity, and other countries a very small amount.


Gordon Graydon: I believe the experimental farm and other departmental organizations have made exhaustive experiments in connection with vegetable juices. At a meeting held not long ago mention was made of this fact by Doctor Archibald. Has the minister any information he would care to give the committee? I ask the question because I realize that this movement is important to the vegetable and fruit growers.


James Garfield Gardiner: When in Summerland last summer I tasted some very fine cider made and cured there. I believe it could be distributed and sold throughout Canada in very much the same manner as orange and tomato juices are now being sold. One of the difficulties of distribution is that of getting a container cheap enough to permit its being sold at a price people would pay. I am informed the only container which would be suitable, and would not bring about injury through the action of acids and other agents, is the glass container. Experiments are being made with different types of containers. I am under the impression that if cider could be marketed it would help considerably in the marketing of apples.
With regard to the keeping of vegetable records, my understanding is that they are kept by the statistics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We obtain our records from that branch, in common with other departments of government. The real difficulty arises in the botanical distinction between fruits and vegetables. Most of us think of a tomato as a vegetable, but botanically it is classified as a fruit. I believe the same applies to cucumbers. If I remember correctly the botany I was taught the distinction is that fruit is that which is the covering of the seed. Anything formed in that way is looked upon botanically as a fruit. Some of the vegetable growers think we should classify as vegetables botanical fruits generally considered to be vegetables. They urge that by so doing we would place their part of the

industry in a more favourable light, as compared with other parts. The matter has been discussed from time to time at conventions, and at other places. I do not know whether there would be much gain by making the change, but the change could be made.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I was brought up in a part of the world where cider is made in tremendous quantities. Since I was a boy, cider has been so much improved that its production has become one of the most important industries in the west of England. I have often wondered why in a country such as Canada, where so much fruit is grown, and where such a large proportion is not suitable for shipment, we do not make more cider. Is it because the type of apple grown in Canada is not suitable for the manufacture of first-class ciders, such as those made in Devonshire, for example, where I was born? When I last visited England I was amazed to find that some of the small cider factories I had known as a boy had developed into million dollar industries doing an enormous trade throughout the world in the production and sale of apple cider. It is strange that in a country like Canada, where such fine apples are grown in large quantities, a cider industry had not been developed. I am not necessarily referring to hard cider, of course.


Grote Stirling: The reason is certainly not that we do not grow the right kind of apples-although possibly a person coming from Devonshire to this country might disagree with that view. For at least twenty years we have been making cider in the Okanagan valley, but the real difficulty is that this is not a cider drinking country; people in this country appreciate other forms of liquid refreshment. But the development of the consumption of cider would be a matter of educating the people as to the desirability of drinking cider. I would point out, however, that a large quantity of most palatable cider is produced in the Okanagan valley.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The champagne cider made in Devonshire nowadays is shipped to Canada, and, I believe, is sold extensively in some parts of the country.


Gordon Graydon: Because of subsidies and other encouragement given to the fruit and vegetable industry of the United States, the fruit and vegetable men of Canada have a real problem to solve in encouraging the public along certain lines of consumption. Oranges and other citrus fruits have to some extent taken the place of our home grown apples and other products of the kind, and the same applies to vegetables, perhaps in

Supply-Agriculture
greater degree. Could we not follow the policy adopted by the Ontario government some years ago, only on a more comprehensive basis, and endeavour to educate the people of Canada to eat more of our home grown products of the orchard and garden? I do not think it is open to successful contradiction that considered from the point of view of lusciousness and health-giving qualities, the products of our gardens and orchards are better than those grown anywhere in the United States.
We have a large consuming public, and I have no doubt the consumption of these products could be increased by a proper advertising campaign. Public consciousness could be aroused to the value of the products produced in Canada. Such a campaign would go a long way to reducing some of our present surpluses, as well as providing a better price for the grower. I should like to be constructive in this connection. I appreciate the claims which must be made upon public funds, but it seems to me that we could cut down in other respects and give a little more attention to the people in the market-gardening and fruit business who are trying to make both ends meet. I do not know what success attended the campaign of the Ontario government, but I think such a campaign would be well worth a trial. Many people in this country are orange conscious when many of them should be eating the luscious fruits produced in Canada. Because of the advertising campaigns which have been carried on by the producers across the line, many people have come to believe that oranges and other fruits are superior to our own apples in health giving qualities. I deny that. I contend that we produce the best fruits in the world, and for that reason I think the government should give serious consideration to a campaign to educate the public to the consumption of more of our home grown products.


Mr. FRASER:: Is the hon. member aware that at the present time the apple growers of Ontario have organized an advertising committee? The growers are arranging to contribute so much per barrel toward the advertising of Ontario apples. I do not know whether I understood the hon. member correctly, but I believe he intimated that the government should undertake the advertising of special lines. It seems to me, and I speak as a fruit grower, that the responsibility of promoting the marketing and consumption of a product should be on the shoulders of the growers. Not only in connection with agriculture but in other directions we are drifting
in the direction of a socialist government set-up. If education is necessary, our people should be educated to assume some responsibility in connection with their own lines of business.


Gordon Graydon: I hesitate to place my humble opinion against that of an expert on agricultural matters, especially in regard to apples, as the hon. member for Northumberland. No one has a higher regard for his opinion than I have, but I think he entirely missed my point, or perhaps I did not make it quite clear. My idea was that the government should assist such organizations as he has referred to. We give assistance in almost every other line, and I do not see why our orchard men and gardeners should not be assisted. It would not take a great deal of mone3q but some effort should be made to make our people home-grown conscious so far as certain products are concerned. I thank my hon. friend for his suggestion. This is one way in which our orchard men and gardeners could be greatly helped.


William Alexander Fraser: I want to indicate my appreciation of the over-indulgent remarks of the hon. member. I should like to bring to his attention a reference which was made a few minutes ago to the Canadian horticultural council. I happen to have the honour of being one of the charter members of that council, which has carried on in a most effective way since 1916. Assistance has been rendered by the council not only to the fruit industry but to the vegetable industry. In my opinion it has done much to promote the interests of the vegetable and fruit producers across this dominion. Through the good offices of the Canadian horticultural council, and its most efficient secretary, Major Burrows, and the directors, who are changed from year to year, the case of the fruit and vegetable growers has been placed before the government in such a way that they have received most generous assistance in connection with the promotion of their industries. I feel I should be derelict in my duty did I not bring this fact to the attention of this committee.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am glad to see the hon. member for Northumberland take an interest in a matter which is so vital to his constituency and about which he knows so much. I endorse the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel, but I had hoped that he would go a little further and take in another branch of the industry. The hon. member for Northumberland will agree with me when I say that one branch of this industry is much worried about what will happen when the next crop
Supply-Agriculture

is harvested. I am thinking of the tomato growers. There has been a marked recession during the last two. or three months in the consumption of tomato juice. This has been particularly evident since the trade treaty went into effect on January 1, 1939. One effect of the treaty has been to revitalize the consumption of oranges , and orange juice to the detriment of the tomato producer. Those interested in this business are concerned as to how much acreage should be planted to tomatoes this coming year. Perhaps no one in this chamber knows more about this matter than the new addition to the treasury benches, the hon. member for Northumberland. Long may he remain on the treasury benches. If he could divorce his mind for a few minutes from the orange industry-I do not refer to that industry in the terms of colour-and also from the green apple cider industry-again 1 do not use the word " green " in the sense of colour-and get back to the industries themselves, perhaps we might see red for the next few minutes if he would give us a short exposition on red tomato juice. To my mind that is better for each and all of us than either the champagne cider of which he spoke or the United States orange juice referred to by the hon. member for Peel. I think the country ought to have the benefit of his knowledge on that particular subject, and I trust that the minister and the house will bear with us while the new adjunct to the treasury benches tells us about the tomato juice industry, so that Canada might be guided in that regard for the coming season.


William Alexander Fraser: Mr. Chairman, while I have a full appreciation of the remarks of the hon. member, I happen to have been associated with a company that was one of the first producers of commercial tomato juice in Canada. The consumption of tomato juice in Canada increased very materially from the time it was introduced twelve or fifteen years ago until internal competition became so keen that the price was reduced to a point where it did not pay a great many canners to produce it. I cannot agree with my hon. friend when he says that the consumption of tomato juice is decreasing; I think he will find from the figures that its consumption is increasing in Canada.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should have said the price of tomato juice as well as its consumption was decreasing.


William Alexander Fraser: The price has decreased as a result of the competition in the canning industry in the production of tomato juice;

but as a result of the decreased price and improved quality consumption has been increased.


Mr. WALSH:: I want to refer to another juice, the juice from the Canadian maple tree, and to ask the minister to what extent the amount of this vote is affected by the work of the Department of Agriculture in this particular field. How much is the department spending at the present time in the matter of the production of maple syrup?


James Garfield Gardiner: The inspection services covered by this vote are in much the same position as in the other branch we discussed a few moments ago. It is difficult to segregate the activities of an inspector who inspects a number of different commodities, but I think what the hon. member has more particularly in mind is what we intend to do in regard to the maple products industry this year. There is an item of $300,000 in the supplementaries upon which we could discuss the matter.


William Allen Walsh: When we come to the vote in the supplementary estimates, will the minister be prepared to say how much maple syrup and maple sugar is exported, and to what countries it might be exported, how much is used in those countries for purely commercial purposes in the process of manufacturing secondary products, and how much is used in actual consumption? What I have in mind is that additional encouragement should be given to this industry. It is one of our best primary industries in the province of Quebec, and I feel that more remuneration might be obtained by the primary producer of this product if some encouragement were given to the industry, either by this department alone or in cooperation with the provincial department. Considerable progress has been made in the marketing of other products, but so far as I know we are still marketing our maple products as our great grandparents did. Are any efforts being made to improve the marketing of our maple products, to make them more attractive to housewives in other countries, and thus increase production here and increase the price which the primary producer of this article may receive? I was thinking of the English market in particular. In conversation with people from that country I gather that we are making no effort to market our maple syrup and maple sugar in as attractive a form as we are marketing some other products, honey in particular. If we marketed our maple products to better advantage we would

Supply-Agriculture
produce more. I know many maple groves in this country that are not operating but are just being neglected from year to year by the proprietors; whereas if they received a little more for their products to compensate them for the rather difficult work of producing the syrup and the sugar, our production and the price to the primary producer would be increased. I trust that we can have a statement from the minister when the item in the supplementary estimates is under consideration, because this industry is of great interest to the people of the province of Quebec, and probably to other parts of Canada as well where maple products have some real value.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall be pleased to discuss it at that time.


Mr. LENNARD:: In Ontario at least the grower of fruits and vegetables who puts up his product in package form is required to have his name and address on the package, while similar packages coming from the United States merely have to show the country of origin. That in itself is unfair to the Canadian grower. Possibly it is not the duty of this department to look after that, but I draw it to the minister's attention because I do not think sufficient care is taken to see that packages of foreign fruits and vegetables sold in our stores are stamped with the country of origin. Several weeks ago in an Ottawa store I bought a pound fancy package of tomatoes. It did not contain the name of the country of origin, and when I made inquiries of the storekeeper he told me he did not know where it came from but that he would go down the cellar and find out. He came back with the information that it came from Cleveland, Ohio. Tomatoes sold in package form over the counter in our stores should show on the container where they were grown. The present practice is embarrassing and unfair, and should be abolished.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole question is receiving consideration. I understand that the requirements of the law and regulations as they now stand are met by putting the name on the carton, and that the name does not appear on the container inside. But it is just possible that it should be on both.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Has there been any change in the regulations governing the use of a standard size celery crate? I think difficulty was experienced last year in enforcing this regulation. I know of some firms manufacturing these crates who perhaps suffered considerably from their willingness to conform to the regulations. There are some difficult
problems associated with the enforcement of this regulation, but I believe action should be taken early in the season to protect the interests of firms who are extremely anxious to live up to the regulations prescribed by the department. The firm I have in mind suffered considerable inconvenience, and I believe some loss. They are not finding any fault, in fact they commend the efforts of the departmental officers to deal with what is admittedly a very difficult situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that an effort is being made to establish a standard container for celery in Quebec and Ontario. The difficulty which arises in that.regard is one which always arises with relation to any similar effort. People have been using a certain size of container, and firms have been making that same size; when regulations come in to standardize the article, all of these concerns are affected, and some time has to be given to enable the change to be made effective. Right now, while some are being compelled to do certain things, others are probably getting away for the time being with a certain measure of non-compliance, but that is merely with the idea of getting rid of the containers which do not conform to the regulation, without too great a loss to those who have made investments in them,


Thomas Bruce McNevin: As regards baskets for peaches, boxes for berries, et cetera, I believe the manufacturer must stamp on his product the name of the firm, or other identification mark. Would it be possible to have a similar regulation or restriction with respect to the manufacture of celery crates? All firms should be forced to live up to the regulations, or if not, early in the season the manufacturers who are extremely anxious to live up to the regulations should be notified as to whether or not the department intends to enforce the regulations.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a suggestion worth considering. At the present time it is not being done, but we can consider the possibility of having it done.


Mr. McKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: There seems to be some controversy as to whether bushel and half-bushel measures are standardized from the dominion or the provincial standpoint. Do not the provinces as well as the dominion provide for some standardization of containers?


James Garfield Gardiner: A province of course, has the right to establish its own standard size of container if the trade is within that province, and while the trade remains within its

Supply-Agriculture
borders we are not very much concerned; when it becomes a matter of interprovincial trade we try to establish standards in these, just as we try to establish standards in crates.
Eventually the provinces try to make their people conform to the same requirements so that there will not be any difference in the matter of a general trend, and so that all may work towards the standard set up by the federal regulation.


Joseph Henry Harris: Six and eleven quart baskets are used in many lines of commerce as carriers of products other than fruits and vegetables. Is permission given or are permits issued to any of the basket manufacturers to make baskets of sizes other than six and eleven quarts? For example, is it possible to buy eight or twelve quart baskets?


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulation requires 6, 11 and 20 quarts; these are the only sizes.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is under dominion
legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: No permit is issued
for the making of baskets. They simply require certain sizes for use in the trade. *


Joseph Henry Harris: It is impossible, then, to
buy anywhere in Canada baskets other than of 6 and 11 quarts sizes? It is illegal to make any other size?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not illegal to make any other size, but it is illegal to use baskets of other sizes in connection with certain transactions. There is nothing to prevent a man making a basket of another size.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
29. Live stock and live stock products, $538,664.
Mark Cecil Senn: Under another item the hon.
member for Kootenay East asked certain questions of the minister regarding an experiment, which was carried on during the past year, in shipments of dressed or chilled beef to the British market. It seems to me that this is a most important experiment. We have at all times in Canada a surplus of beef, and the manner in which it is disposed of has something to do with the price which the farmer receives. In a return which was brought down not very long ago it was shown that during the past year, by this experiment, 358,607 pounds of baby beef were exported to Great Britain. I judge from that return that the average price received in the markets of Great Britain was about 16 cents a pound; that, at least, would be the maximum. At that rate the beef which was exported netted
rMr. Gardiner.]
about 857,377. The same return shows, however, that there was a loss on this experiment of about 823,636, which amounts to about 40 per cent of the return. It is of some importance that the minister should give full details as to how this experiment was carried out, and what arrangements were made with the packers when the guarantee was given to them against loss. Taking due account of the fact that it is only an experiment, and that the amounts sent over were not very large, does the minister think it is possible by means of bulk shipments to overcome this loss of at least 40 per cent on the net amount which was received for the shipments during the year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course no effort
was made to prove that the experiment would pay, because it was known before it was started that you could not buy 25 head of baby beef on the Toronto market, have it slaughtered in Toronto, shipped to Montreal, and then shipped overseas in cold storage and delivered as fresh beef in Britain, and make sufficient money to pay all the costs of a limited operation of the kind. It was known before we started that as a commercial undertaking that could not be done. The effort was to determine in the first place whether the type is at all times available on our markets. We found that we had to go to what is probably the largest market in Canada in order to be able to select 25 head of that type week after week; and we also found, as I stated earlier, that during certain weeks we were unable to get the type we required and had to take a heavier type. I stated then that I thought those weeks were towards the end of July and included a part of August, and I know from the prices paid that we did obtain beef the price of which to the shipper was anywhere from 25 cents to SI a hundred less than was paid for it at other times. I assume the question of type had something to do with that. At any rate, we did obtain less for it in the old country market, as will be seen from the return.
As the return shows, the packers who had come under the agreement-the Swift Canadian Company of Toronto, Canada Packers of Toronto, and Burns and Company Limited of Calgary-were signatories, but Burns and Company have made no shipments to date because they have no abattoir in the east, and no experimental shipments have yet been made from the west. These concerns entered into agreements, but one of them did not make shipments. The quantities of beef are listed in the table contained in the return, but I do not think it is necessary to give them. The

Supply-Agriculture
results obtained all the way down are given in the return, and they show that a loss is taken on each of the shipments. That was expected when the experiment was started, but it is shown that we secured a much better price for that type of beef than could be secured for any other type that is being shipped to the British market.
I have here a statement which appeared in an old country publication. It gives, I believe, a better review of the matter than I could give by going over the statistics:
In the words of Mr. Matthew, the oldest beef salesman in Smithfield market, who has been selling beef for fifty years: "Nothing superior to the Canadian consignment has ever been seen on the Smithfleld market in my memory."
That is as high a tribute to quality as can be given by anyone, and this gentleman is the oldest salesman in the Smithfleld market, one of the largest meat markets in the world. In further reference to this shipment, it is interesting to note the editorial comment made by a prominent organ of the United Kingdom meat trade, the publication, Modem Meat Marketing. It reads:
Easily the best beef of any description yet seen at Smithfield within the memory of the oldest trader at Smithfield was a consignment of 44 short and 6 long sides of Canadian fresh beef on the stand of Messrs. W. Burchnall Limited, during the Christmas market, writes "Buyer." "Although I was early on the scene, I was unable to secure a side and was not surprised to learn that the short sides fetched 6s. Od. to 6s. 4d. per stone-8d. per stone more than the best Scotch beef then on offer-and that the long sides made 5s. 8d. per stone. The finish was excellent, with not an ounce of waste, and it was a great pity that our fat stock show judges were not present in force to inspect what was undoubtedly a triumph of good breeding and wise feeding."
Lieut.-Col. T. Dunlop Young declared that he had never seen "such wonderful beef, so skillfully dressed." . . .
They also give the opinions of others along the same line.


Major James William Coldwell: How many pounds to the stone, eight or fourteen?


James Garfield Gardiner: Fourteen, I believe.


Major James William Coldwell: One is eight and the other is fourteen.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister scarcely gave all the information I asked for, particularly in regard to the agreement made between the department and the packing companies who were shipping beef overseas, buying the cattle and slaughtering them and preparing the beef for shipment. The minister says that this was only an experiment, and that the result was to be expected, but I doubt whether, under the circumstances, the experiment was wise.
If it is true that not enough of that quality of beef can be procured in Canada to provide continuity in the British market, there is little use in attempting an experiment of that kind and we might better have experimented with a type of cattle and carcasses of which a plentiful supply could be found in Canada. I stated before that there was a loss of 40 per cent. Would the minister consider that the experiment has been a success, and does he think it has been demonstrated that this can be carried on as a commercial enterprise, or otherwise? In my own judgment a loss of 6| cents a pound on every pound of beef shipped overseas cannot be accounted for by lack of bulk in shipment, and no matter how large the bulk of shipments sent overseas, I do not think a 6J cents a pound loss can bq overcome. I doubt whether the experiment has been worth the money-some $23,000 *-spent on it. The minister might give some explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the experiment has been worth while and I believe that it would be worth while extending it.


David Spence: And lose more money?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that
we have lost money. My hon. friend will agree that in his own business he spends a considerable amount of money in order to get returns later on, even though he does not get immediate returns from it.


David Spence: It is time we were getting returns.


James Garfield Gardiner: One cannot get it
until one has the product to supply the demand created. At present we are operating more than thirty community pastures where the stock can be bred and produced up to an early age and finished elsewhere so as to supply this market with a considerable amount of beef of this type. We have not had sufficient control over either breeding or feeding of our live stock to supply the markets in the same way as some other countries have done, but there is no doubt that over a period of years we can develop methods that will achieve this end and supply certain markets. We believe that the best type of beef we can produce here and put on the market in the old country is this particular type, because we know that if we attempted to put on some other types we would have to compete with people who have already established themselves in that market.
The Argentine is selling annually over one million head of cattle in the British market. The producers in the Argentine have established themselves in an entirely different
Supply-Agriculture

trade; they are selling chilled beef. Toronto is within ten days of Great Britain for this trade in beef. I understand that the Argentine is thirty days away from Great Britain, and ten days is about the limit within which one can kill, hang and sell beef as fresh beef. We are therefore able to produce a certain type of beef, slaughtered and dressed here and delivered on the Smithfield market as fresh beef. Delivering it there as fresh beef we can get a very much better price than could be obtained for chilled beef. Of course this is the smaller animal, which meets a demand that is very heavy in Great Britain to-day. I am told that a generation ago you could not have sold a smaller animal there at all because of the different habits of the people, the size of the families and all that sort of thing. To-day, however, they want the smaller cuts and are prepared to pay a better price for them. It has been shown that these smaller cuts are taken up immediately they are placed on the market, and there is a demand for much more than we have been able to procure and ship under this experiment. There is no doubt that this demand would grow very greatly if the experiment could be enlarged. We will have to work on both ends of it; we will have to try to produce the type here and then ship these animals in quantities which will make this business profitable, instead of merely sending over 25 head by way of experiment, as we have been doing recently. So far as the agreement is concerned, I have it in my hand if the hon. member would like to have it read into Hansard.


Mark Cecil Senn: Just the main features.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is as follows:
Now therefore it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows.
1.	The companies jointly agree and undertake as follows:
(a)	to purchase each week during the currency of this agreement, 25 beef cattle of a type and weight satisfactory to the dominion;
(b)	to process such cattle in short sides; and
(c)	to ship each weekly allotment to London, England, to be sold as directed by the dominion.
2.	It is understood and agreed that the cost of the beef shall include buying, holding, killing, chilling, cutting, wrapping, shipping and supervision expenses, rail and ocean freights, landing and selling costs in England, and any extraordinary expense incurred in transportation, or as may from time to time be agreed upon.
3.	The companies shall credit against the aforesaid cost the full amount realized from the sale of short sides and, with respect to hides, by-products and other portions of carcasses, shall credit against the aforesaid cost and for the time fixed by and with the consent of the dominion, whatever amount may from time to time be agreed upon.

4.	The method of computing and the details of any items entering into the aforesaid cost shall be agreed upon from time to time as occasion shall or may require and shall be set out in a schedule or schedules to be attached to and to become part of this agreement.
I think those are the most important parts of the agreement, under which of course the federal government has paid the cost and has had credited against that cost any returns there may have been.


Mark Cecil Senn: Did the companies give full account of all by-products?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. At the end of the agreement there is a schedule which shows the by-products, as follows: Hides, livers, hearts, tongues, headmeat, tripe, breads, brains, tails, fats, casings, tankage,


Major James William Coldwell: A moment ago I asked about the size of the stone to which the minister referred. I understood him to say the price was 6 shillings a stone, and if it was a stone of 14 pounds that would be only about 10 cents a pound. If it was the 8 pound stone it would be 18 cents a pound. I thought the price was slightly over 10 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price was over 16 cents.


Major James William Coldwell: Then it was the 8 pound stone?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The price was 16, 17, 18 cents and so on.


Harry James Barber: Has the minister the total loss incurred in this connection?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have it in individual items, but not totalled.


Joseph Henry Harris: I understood the minister to say the loss was about 6| cents per pound, and perhaps he would put on record where the spread comes in. I notice that the cost to the shipper of the first shipment was $8.60 per 100 pounds, and that from then on it ran as high as $12.24. The slaughter of this type of cattle would bring the price up to about $14.30; then the cost of handling, wrapping and so on, as set out in the schedule which was agreed to by the interested parties, was 61-3 cents per hundred pounds, bringing the cost to $14.91. I understand that the loss per pound on the transaction was 61 cents which, added to the price realized of 6 shillings per small stone of 8 pounds, leaves a spread of at least 7 cents a pound to cover shipment from Toronto to Montreal and subsequently in refrigerated space to the Smith-field market. It would appear to me that the gross sales must have included the by-products, but the statement of the minister that the

Supply-Agriculture
price was 6 shillings per small stone would seem to eliminate the value of the by-products entirely. So that in addition to the 7 cent spread in getting the beef from Toronto to the Smithfield market, one must ask what happened to the value of the by-products. Someone says, "Give them to the packers." I do not suppose they would object, but this schedule provides for details as to the disposition of these by-products and the amount realized from their sales. There is a very considerable differential, which in my opinion is far too great. It gives a black eye to this whole experiment.


James Garfield Gardiner: There really is no differential between the purchase price and the sales price.


Joseph Henry Harris: Then this entire transaction, from the time the live beef was purchased at the stock yard until the beef was sold in the Smithfield market, must have been loaded with extraordinary expenses all the way through. I fail to understand how a spread such as that indicated in this return would be possible. During the last two or three decades the Department of Agriculture has been importuned on many occasions to see if it was not possible for Canada to ship beef to England. First we tried to ship chilled beef in competition w'ith the Argentine, and the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), when he was Minister of Agriculture, put on record considerable information in that regard. Then he came to the conclusion the attempt was hopeless; and that was dropped. In the next phase boats were fitted up at the government's expense. Arrangements were made for yards at Quebec city to handle the loading of cattle, in the hope that there would be some success in the shipment of live cattle to the old country market. Then Montreal became active and said that this should not be done at the city of Quebec, that Montreal was the logical place to handle cattle from the west. Steamers were brought up to Montreal and loaded from yards in that city, with the consequent loss of another day's shrinkage in going down the St. Lawrence river. That trade was handicapped through influences which, to my mind, were not for the general advantage of Canada in the expansion of this trade.
And now this afternoon we have the spectacle of the discussion of a report with regard to an experiment which many producers had hoped might prove beneficial and of some advantage to Canada. In these days of fast moving ships and other transportation facilities it was the sincere hope of a large number of Canadians that we would get
something which was really new and which would take the top price on the market, namely, dressed beef hung just about the right time, as the minister has suggested, so that there would be no danger of the Canadian product reaching the table of the British consumer in an improper condition as a result of not being properly hung or matured.
We have now the result of the first experiment. I say-and I ask the minister to reply -that the results of the equation are a great disappointment to the Canadian people who had high hopes that we might achieve something. I am sorry that those interested in the handling of this transaction, namely, the three gentlemen whose signatures appear on the agreement-and really there are only two, because the man from Calgary could not qualify to the same degree as the others- were not quite hungry enough to see that every possible care was taken with regard to the gi'eat problem of shipping beef to the Smithfield market.
When the minister was reading the sections of the agreement I believe he stopped at section 4. I suggest he might have read section 7, which states:
The dominion agrees and undertakes to indemnify each of the companies signatory to this agreement against loss arising from compliance with the provisions thereof.
I suppose in the loss on a transaction of this kind one would have to add the necessary departmental profits which are required in transferring the live beast from the stockyard to the company yard. They have to make a profit on the transfer to the killing floor. They must make a profit from there to the next floor. They must make a profit from there to the chill room. They must make a profit from there to the wrapping department. They must make a profit from there to the shipping department. Profits must be made all down the line. And so the pyramiding of costs has shown a loss of about 6i cents a pound-all of which, to my mind, has given this particular project a black eye. I do hope that, in pursuing this matter further, the department will see if it is not possible for Canada to get a market in Great Britain for this particular product.
The only other criticism I have of the agreement is that one of the clauses shows that the Minister of Agriculture has only one representative on a board of four. The other three representatives are from the packing houses, and I believe the names are recited in the agreement. I am not casting any reflection on those three gentlemen, whom it is my pleasure to know, and who represent the
Supply-Agriculture

packing house industry. But instead of allowing the packing house industry to run the department, the department should show a little back-bone and sand, and it should step in and take charge of a transaction of this kind, which was designed for the general benefit and advantage of Canada, rather than to help out the industry which is processing our cattle.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service.
593. Entomology-further amount required, $25,755.
Ernest Edward Perley: Has this extra amount anything to do with the grasshopper plague?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not particularly for the grasshopper plague in the west. That is handled by the provincial governments. We do give some assistance through our entomology branch in connection with fighting grasshoppers, but this is not particularly for that purpose. This is only a further amount required over and above what was voted in the general estimates, to carry on the activities of the branch.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I notice $19,000 of it is for temporary assistance. Would the minister give details?


James Garfield Gardiner: The additional amount required is, in the first place, for new work in connection with the control of fruit and greenhouse insects in Ontario and British Columbia, and for stored product insect investigations in Ontario, $5,770; forest insect control projects in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, $3,360; field crop insect investigations, including control of insects which spread potato diseases, and on pea insects in Quebec and maritime provinces, and for live stock insect projects in British Columbia, $5,520; purchase of additional property for parasite laboratory at Belleville. Ontario, $2,500; re-grading temporary positions according to provisions of order in council P.C. 63027, December 6, 1938, $8,605.


James Alexander Marshall: I notice there is a new appointment. Is that made under the civil service?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, all under the civil service.


James Alexander Marshall: What is the person's name appointed to that position?


James Garfield Gardiner: I could not give that without checking the list.
Item agreed to
[Mr. Harris.l
Experimental farms service.
594. Branch farms, stations and illustration stations-further amount required, $88,279.


Harry James Barber: What is the extra vote for?


James Garfield Gardiner: In Alberta, to provide for the permanent establishment of an experimental substation, $15,000.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Whereabouts in Alberta is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not completely settled. The ground will have to be gone over.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Is it in the north?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the north. Then in British Columbia, to provide for the establishment of an experimental station to investigate problems peculiar to the north central part of British Columbia, $25,000.


Harry James Barber: In what district is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Fort George. Then Nova Scotia-Cape Breton, to provide for the establishment of an experimental substation to investigate problems peculiar to that district, and to stimulate agriculture, $3,000. Extension work in British Columbia at Summerland and an increase of the amount for low temperature research in connection with Canadian fruits and vegetables, $4,000. At Ottawa, to provide for the carrying on of illustration stations which we had anticipated closing, and for further experimental work and the establishment of new stations for which we are committed, $7,550. At Harrow, extension of investigation work, $2,500. Then in Quebec, Lennoxville, $7,500.
Mr. .HARRIS: Will this include the establishment of fur farming illustration stations in Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would come under vote 604.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service.
59 B. Health of animals-compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $400,000.
Mark Cecil Senn: Last evening the minister gave a list of the districts which were likely to be tested for tuberculosis during the year. I am not sure whether the intention is to start working in all these districts, or whether it is intended to take only as many districts as the vote will cover.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of the original vote and this vote is not sufficient to cover the entire list. Even though we had

Supply-Agriculture
sufficient to cover the entire list, we could not do all the work with the staff now available.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the districts be taken in the order in which they were read last evening?


James Garfield Gardiner: In approximately that order if we can make arrangements and if the people are organized for it in the areas.


Ernest Edward Perley: Are any areas being established in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: The health of animals in Saskatchewan is about as good as anywhere.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. McCUAIG:: Last night the minister mentioned Simcoe county after Lanark county, but I assume work will be proceeded with in Simcoe county.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that we have either started or are about to start in Simcoe county.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What compensation is paid for animals slaughtered?


James Garfield Gardiner: Two-thirds of the value, the maximum valuation on grades being $60 and on pure breds, $150.


James Alexander Marshall: Who sets the value?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our own inspector inspects the animal and sets the valuation.


James Alexander Marshall: Has the farmer any appeal from that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose he argues the point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
598.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $118,074.23.
David Spence: This looks as though we are going into the cold storage business altogether. It would seem as though we are establishing an extensive organization under this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service.
599.	Fruit, vegetable and maple products, and honey, including grant of $500 to advisory export council-further amount required, $39,500.
Grote Stirling: Is this advisory export council the one in Nova Scotia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Grote Stirling: This advisory export
council is sending a representative to the imperial export council which is meeting in London. The British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association also has an export council, and their representative has either just left or is about to leave on his journey to London. It is much more expensive to travel from British Columbia to London than it is to travel from Nova Scotia to London, and I wonder why the advisory export council in Nova Scotia should receive assistance whereas the council in British Columbia does not.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose the main reason is that we have not had a request from British Columbia.


Grote Stirling: The department certainly has. I hope the minister will look into this matter. The imperial export council, which is made up of delegates from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and Great Britain, does a most valuable work in endeavouring to regulate the quantities flowing into the British markets.


James Garfield Gardiner: I quite agree they should be used alike.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General.
600.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $750,000.
Mr. J. H. LECLERC (Shefford) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, although the county of Shefford, which I have the honour to represent, is half industrial and half agricultural, it has a larger number of dairy cows than any other county in my province. Allow me to repeat, therefore, that I am deeply interested in the dairy industry and in all measures proposed on its behalf. Although this bill does not go as far as I should have liked, and may not produce the immediate results which the present situation calls for, I congratulate the government on having introduced it. It is a most important measure, its purpose being to promote and regulate to as great an extent as possible the production and sale of cheese and butter, thus tending to curb speculation in these commodities, a practice which has often proved detrimental to the farmers, as for example in the autumn of 1938, when speculators drove down the price of butter.
The opponents of the government, either through ignorance of the real causes of the break in prices or through partisanship, are making a political issue of the matter. Some hon. members have sought to do so in the
Supply-Agriculture

house and certain speechifiers are using this argument to distract attention from the promises made by their own party on the subject.
On January 26 last, I think I established beyond all doubt, by means of statements which have not yet been refuted, that our imports of butter from New Zealand in the early part of 1938 had had nothing to do with the downward trend of the price of that product since last autumn. As I pointed out then, the imports received during the first four months of 1938 were merely intended to make up for the shortage of Canadian butter experienced during that period. I stated on that occasion that it would have been useless to allow the consumers of the cities to be exploited by those who held large quantities of butter in storage when production was at is lowest level, since the farmers would not have benefited in any way.
In fact, the government is to be congratulated for having so dealt with these imports of butter as to prevent them from affecting the producing season of 1938. Hon. members who are acquainted with this industry know that the butter-making season opens on the 1st of May. May I again remind the committee that the supply of butter in storage on May 1, 1938, was lower than on the same date of the preceding year. But owing to the good condition of the pastures throughout the country a large number of farmers of certain sections of Quebec and Ontario had given up making cheese in order to send their cream to the butter factories, with the result that the production of butter greatly increased. This situation was intensified by the speculators, large and small, who prevented the normal export of this surplus of butter at the proper time and brought about a fall in prices during recent months when they had to liquidate this butter before the opening of the new producing season. All the butter stored since the beginning of last June was not of exportable quality, and the government is now adopting the only possible policy, while at the same time doing a very good deed, in making a free distribution to the poor of the country of four or five million pounds of this surplus. This policy is far sounder than the measures taken in other countries where surplus quantities of foodstuffs were destroyed.
Reverting to the bill under discussion I must say, Mr. Chairman, that as a member of the committee which considered this matter during the session, I found that it was much easier to note the existence of these problems than to solve them. This fact has also been

realized at the conference of the various agricultural organizations of Manitoba, Ontario, the maritime provinces and Quebec, recently held in Montreal. At that conference Quebec was worthily represented by the president of the Catholic Farmers' Union, Mr. Marion, who presented a very able brief on the subject without seeking to make a political issue of the question as a former president of that association is now doing. This conference of competent organizations assembled for the purpose of discussing various farm problems, particularly problems relating to the dairy industry, came to the conclusion that, by means of price stabilization, a dominion marketing board would contribute in great measure to the solution of the difficulties now confronting the butter and cheese industry. The courts having already held that this act would be unconstitutional without the approval of the provinces concerned, the government has, through the advisory committee feature of the new act, come the nearest possible to it. The duties of this body will consist in advising the farmers to use their surplus milk in the production of butter or cheese, whenever possible, according to the needs of the country, and also to advise the government on other measures to be taken with a view to disposing of the surplus at the proper time. It is well known that we never have a surplus of cheese and that we could export to England twice as much cheese as we do now. The government has done the proper thing in granting bonuses for the production of cheese of the very highest grade and also for the organization of cheese factories along cooperative lines and their refitting according to the latest principles. It must not be forgotten that trade and industry are constantly developing and that the dairy industry is no exception. Our products are meeting on the British market with strong competition from those of other countries, such as Denmark and New Zealand. It is therefore essential that we should modernize our cheese-making processes and that we should strive to improve the quality of our cheese. I believe this measure will prove to be more than a mere palliative. When we convert more milk into cheese we shall no longer have a surplus of butter and our butter will bring a better price.
Allow me to say, Mr. Chairman, that the free distributing of a few million pounds of butter, the bonus for high-grade cheese, the grants for the refitting of our cheese factories, and the creation of an advisory council constitute the most practical aid which we have received in a long time.
I also feel it my duty to mention the new act intending to promote the formation of cooperative organizations for the marketing

Supply-Agriculture
of farm products, such as dairy products, vegetables, cattle, fruit, poultry, honey, syrup, tobacco, and their by-products, so that the farmers may no longer be left to the tender mercies of the middlemen. This act will allow farmers who are sufficient in number and who form a majority in their respective districts to organize; with the aid of the government they will be able to obtain an advance up to 30 per cent of the average value of their products at the time of delivery, the cooperative societies paying the balance to the producers as soon as they have disposed of their products. This measure will make it possible for the farmer to store his products and hold them until the right time to sell them comes along.
I would not wish to close my remarks without urging upon the government the advisibil-ity of complying with the request of those who have been long interested in the dairy industry, and imposing an import duty of 3 cents a pound on vegetable oils. Such a tax has recently been clamoured for by members of the opposition. I wonder why they did not impose it themselves, the problem having existed before 1935 when they were in power.
I have always been deeply interested in dairying, that great agricultural industry which forms the basis of the operations of all the farmers of my county and of the eastern townships. I am well aware of the constant work, the perseverance and the expense involved in maintaining a good herd of cows in normal times. My work having always kept me in close contact with the producers of butter and cheese, I wish to assure them of my sympathy in the financial difficulties which they suffer when their products sell at low prices and to say to them that so long as I shall represent them in this house I will do all I can to help them, in order to have the satisfaction that comes from doing one's duty.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: This $750,000 is
evidently to take care of the bonus on cheese and improvements to cheese factories. How much is estimated for the bonus on cheese, and how much for improvements to factories?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total premium for
all Canada, estimated on the production of last year, is $421,179.78. The amount for 94 score at two cents is $42,980.48; for 93 score, $378,199.30.
While I am on my feet, I just want to say that this vote is for the purpose of covering the costs of legislation put through in connection with the dairy industry, specifically cheese; at the same time I wish to thank the hon. member who has just taken his seat for the remarks he made in connection with that legislation.


George James Tustin: When that bill was going
through the house, I suggested to the minister that some encouragement should be given to the makers of cheese. Since that time a good many representations have been made to me from that quarter. As I said then, 15 points are allowed on the score for the finish of cheese. While that does not make any particular difference to the quality of the cheese, that number of points is allotted to it; and to obtain a really good finish a certain amount of work has to be done. I am still of opinion that if the government wishes to have real cooperation by the makers it should give them some encouragement. I understand that a number of the cheese boards have been approached by the makers and asked that some part of this bonus be divided with them. I am opposed to that., but I believe the minister should take into consideration the offering of some encouragement to the maker as well as to the producer.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said either on the second reading or when the bill was in committee, the boards of the various cheese factories are taking that matter into consideration, and we already have some evidence that a number of them are giving encouragement in that way to the makers.


George James Tustin: That is just what I said.
The makers are approaching the board to give them at least 25 per cent of this bonus. I am absolutely opposed to that, but I th'nk the government itself should offer some encouragement to the makers, and no portion of the bonus should be taken from the farmers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General.
601.	To provide for the distribution of butter, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, $1,000,000.
Harry James Barber: The minister might explain this. I believe he referred to it once before. Would he also indicate what is implied in the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act?"


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that only two appointments have been made in this connection. A Mr. Mackie, who was originally in charge of one of Simpson's mail order houses, has been engaged for the next two or three months to take charge of the direction and distribution through the Red Cross. We have engaged just one man in the department; he has a stenographer, and will require, I suppose, one or two other officials as the distribution goes along. The intention is to dis-

Supply-Agriculture

tribute among those who are on relief, a million dollars' worth of butter in the proportion of an additional pound to every pound they are now receiving. Those who are not on relief and are not obtaining any assistance, but who require assistance, according to evidence furnished by charitable organizations of one kind or another, are provided with a supply of butter equal to the average of the per capita consumption in Canada. That is being done through a voucher system. The vouchers are furnished to the Red Cross; the Red Cross is dealing with the relief organizations in the various communities and also with the charitable organizations across Canada, and make the decisions as to distribution. We provide the Red Cross with the vouchers. The vouchers are supplied to the individual. The individual exchanges them for butter. They must be signed by the individual who receives them and by the merchant who supplies the butter; then they are presented to any chartered bank in Canada and are cashed by the bank. The government makes payment to the bank of the amount which is presented in the way of vouchers by the bank to the government.


Harry James Barber: The purchase, then, is made from the retail merchant? The government is not buying butter in quantities from some wholesaler?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the government is not buying any butter at all. We merely supply the vouchers, and the individual who receives them goes to the merchant with whom he usually deals and is supplied in the usual way that he would secure supplies if he were getting relief supplies; or if he is not getting relief he goes to the same merchant with whom he usually deals and purchases his butter with these vouchers, and the vouchers will be presented to the government.


Harry James Barber: Of course that will not tend to remove butter from the Canadian market, and therefore it will not relieve the situation we are in to-day of having a large surplus.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it should use up from three to four million pounds of butter which otherwise would not be consumed in Canada.


Harry James Barber: I am not sure of that. The people on relief to-day who are entitled to, say, a pound of butter, will probably take something else in place of butter when they present their vouchers. That is not going to relieve the situation as regards the surplus in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: A person who receives relief of this kind must take his relief order in the way of butter. The information we 
have from the relief committees is to the effect that individuals on relief are now allowed one-half of what is the average per capita consumption of butter in Canada. We are proposing to give them the equivalent of the average consumption; in other words, we are giving them an extra pound for each pound they get on relief. With regard to those who have not been on relief, but who are in very difficult circumstances and are not buying butter-for, as anyone knows who has been in the homes of people who are very hard up, butter is one of the first things they stop buying; they buy cheap jam and other things to spread on their bread instead of using butter-we are arranging to give them by way of vouchers the equivalent of the average per capita consumption of butter, and with these vouchers they cannot secure anything but butter.


Harry James Barber: About how many pounds, in the opinion of the minister, will this distribution remove from the market?


James Garfield Gardiner: The average consumption is about six pounds in two weeks per individual. We are assuming that this will take off the market somewhere between three and four million pounds.


Harry James Barber: At what price?


James Garfield Gardiner: Between 20 and 25 cents; whatever the market price is at the time.


Harry James Barber: How large is the surplus of butter in Canada to-day?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the first of May the surplus over last year was about 8,000,000 pounds, but a year ago we were 2,000,000 pounds short, so that there is a surplus of about 6,000,000 pounds. Therefore, if we take three to four million pounds off the market we shall have removed well over half the surplus.


Harry James Barber: Was the surplus not close to 15.000,000 pounds at the beginning of the
year?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been reduced. At one time it was, I believe, between fifteen and sixteen million pounds greater than at the corresponding time a year ago, but at that time-a year ago-there was a shortage of three or four million pounds. That would place the surplus at about ten million pounds.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When will this distribution begin?


James Garfield Gardiner: To-day, I believe, or in the immediate future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the position of those districts which are not covered by a Red Cross organization?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: They are dealt with
through charitable organizations, the Salvation Army, or other church organizations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister knows there are large stretches of territory where there is no organization of that sort, or if there is one, it has not adequate facilities for distribution. Could not a distribution be made through municipal councils or town councils?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been, of
course, some difficulty which has been responsible for the delay up to the present. But in every province of Canada there is a central Red Cross organization. That organization has made all the arrangements. Some of those arrangements are with municipal or other councils where there is no well set up charitable organization to deal with the matter.


Mr. McIVOR:: I commend the Minister
of Agriculture and the government for getting rid of our surplus butter in this way. I do not know in what better way that butter could have been disposed of than by giving it to those who have not sufficient.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about wheat?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We know there are governments who get rid of their surpluses in another fashion. I think a word of commendation for this sort of thing should come from the opposition.


David Spence: The hon. gentleman always commends the government no matter what they do. He would commend them if he were absolutely sure they were wrong. I am not criticizing the giving away of a million dollars' worth of butter, but it is not being disposed of in a fair way. If we could have taken a loss and removed the surplus butter from the market, there would still be enough for the Red Cross to distribute. Those who have been getting one pound will now get two. and those who have been getting none will get some. I am not criticizing that, but I suggest that this is the most ridiculous item that has appeared in the estimates, because we are still bringing in vegetable oils which are killing the sale of butter. The minister can see what we are up against.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Did the minister say there would be six pounds per individual every two weeks?


James Garfield Gardiner: Per family; I believe I said " individual."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How long will this distribution continue?


David Spence: Until the next election.
71492-266J


James Garfield Gardiner: It will probably take two months.


George James Tustin: In many municipalities there is no Red Cross. Surely the minister should have the butter distributed through the relief officer. Where there is no Red Cross, that would be the proper channel.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is being distributed through the relief organization where there is one and, where there is not, it is distributed through other channels. We wanted to have one central organization through which the checking would be done, and we thought that was the best organization because it would ward off the sort of remarks made in the last few minutes.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What remarks?


Harry James Barber: The distribution will be limited by the number of vouchers?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Harry James Barber: I believe it has been charged in this house before that some political party slipped into office on butter. There may be some slipping this time in one direction or the other.


John Horne Blackmore: I commend the minister for this move. While it sounds strange to hon. members now, I believe that a great many of us will live to see the day when this very thing will be done with other commodities in Canada, and it will not have any reference to electioneering at all. It will be the normal procedure. Are the vouchers negotiable? If a voucher is turned in to a merchant for a pound of butter, can he hand it over to somebody else for some other commodity or must he turn it over to the bank?


James Garfield Gardiner: He must turn it over to the bank or the wholesaler, and we pay.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: In view of the minister's statement that last year there were two million pounds less than normal and this year six million pounds above normal, will he tell us what are the major factors contributing to that condition-such a wide swing from subnormal to abnormal in less than a year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The main factor was dealt with by the hon. member who spoke in French to the effect that a year ago last fall we exported so much butter that we did not have enough to supply our own market, as a result of which the price of butter rose fairly high, the consequence being that the producers shifted from cheese to butter to such an extent that during last summer the production of butter went above consumption to about sixteen million pounds more than in the previous year. Since, however, we were
Supply-Agriculture

down by five or six million pounds the year before, we were up, at the peak, about nine or ten million pounds this year. Naturally the price .of butter went down. That, however, is not the entire cause, because the price of butter is down over the whole world this year and there is a low market everywhere. We could not take the butter off the Canadian market and sell it anywhere in the world to-day at a higher price than we can get in Canada for any butter that can be consumed here. We thought the best thing to do would be to make it possible for some of our people who cannot buy butter to have it and thus get it off the market.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Is there a world surplus?


James Garfield Gardiner: There appears to be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the price be 20 or 25 cents a pound?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be whatever the market is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The market in the particular district?


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of butter in the community.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The price at which the storekeeper or the wholesaler sells?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be the price at which the retail merchant sells.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Where will this butter be bought?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not buying any butter. We will give a voucher to the individual, and he will hand it to the merchant and get butter for it at the market price of that day.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But the butter comes
originally from the farmer. If you give it away

and I commend the action-why should there be a middleman to make an extra profit? If any benefit is to be derived in this way, why not let the farmer get it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid that if we started making deals with individuals we might face an accusation of the sort made a little while ago. The best thing is to have the matter dealt with through the ordinary course of business.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree with the minister in regard to the method of distribution, but this is the point. There may be only one merchant in a district. Suppose he decided to charge 30 cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will have something to say about that, but it has not been our experience that very many merchants do that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They might if the government were doing the paying.


James Garfield Gardiner: We may have to check up on some merchants and that will be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A good many farmers who are selling butter to merchants do not get much for it. Many farmers are beaten down in price. The voucher is for so many pounds of butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not believe that any merchant in the neighbourhood will be able to get away with charging anything different from the price he charges in his usual trade. W'hat he puts on the voucher will be the same as the amount he charges in his trade, and in any event other people buying butter in the community will take care of that. He will not be able to charge more.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He will be charging the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be listed, and it will be an easy matter to find out what the butter sold for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
60i. Grant to the Dominion Council of Canadian Fur Breeders, Fort William, Ontario, $2,000.
Daniel (Dan) McIvor: On behalf of the fur breeders of Canada, who have their headquarters at Fort William, I desire to express appreciation for this small vote. It is a step in the right direction and will help to encourage the fur breeders. It may not be all they might have asked for, but it will be a fine stimulant to a growing industry. We have about thirty ranches at the head of the lakes distributed over quite a large area, and on behalf of these people I thank the government,


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice this amount is going to Fort William; perhaps that is one reason why the hon. member is so profuse in his thanks. I am just wondering-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not going to Fort William. The president happens to live there but the donation goes to the organization.


Abraham Albert Heaps: According to the item this is for the Dominion Council of Canadian Fur Breeders, Fort William.


James Garfield Gardiner: They gave his address.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this a dominion-wide
organization?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does it extend to the mari-times and the far west?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I believe it is a dominion organization.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member for Fort William just spoke of representing some thirty organizations in and around his own district.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is a dominion
organization.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
495. To provide for material aid and feed and fodder relief in the dried-out areas of the province of Saskatchewan for the months of April, May and June, 1939, $1,200,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: What is the number of
municipalities sharing in this vote this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not the vote for the entire year but only for the period from April 1 to July 1. We have been in the habit of voting this amount apart from the other because the agreements extend just to the end of the fiscal year. Then we cover the period from April 1 until another crop is in sight, when we hope to be able to bring this to an end. The number of municipalities concerned this winter was, I think, about 119.


Ernest Edward Perley: Did any municipalities in the semi-drought area in the eastern part of the province come under this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably some assistance was given by the provincial governments in some areas. Half the total amount was raised by means of a grant from this government and the other half by means of a loan. Some assistance may have been given in other municipalities where there were local difficulties.


Ernest Edward Perley: Was any assistance given
by way of supplying gasoline or fuel oil instead of fodder?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I am told the wording of this item should be amended, and that it should contain the words "and for seed and seeding operations." I believe $200,000 of this amount was for seeding and seeding operations.
Item as amended agreed to.
496. To provide assistance to the provinces for the reestablishment of settlers, $400,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many settlers have
been reestablished under this vote?


John Ritchie MacNicol: And in what provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: This covers expenditures in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, I do not think anything was expended in any of the other provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many people were reestablished under this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were 4.088
families in Saskatchewan, 1,124 in Alberta, 304 in British Columbia and 2,098 in New Brunswick.


Mr. QUELCH:: Just what does this
assistance provide?


James Garfield Gardiner: These families were moved under arrangements made during the previous administration, I think in 1932. The arrangement was that families were given a grant of approximately $600 in order to assist in moving them, largely from cities on to the land. In Saskatchewan, with which I am most familiar, during that period quite a number of families were moved into the northern part of the province. In New Brunswick they were moved into new areas. I think in Alberta they were largely moved to the Peace River country in the north, and in British Columbia they were moved to small farms in different parts of the province. The hope was that they would become self-sus-staining, but the experience has been that most of them remained on relief. Then the previous government started what has become known as the resettlement or reestablishment plan, under which an attempt has been made to get these people off relief by assisting them to break up their land. A large number have been taken off relief in that way and are now operating on their own. There is an agreement with the provinces under which they spend dollar for dollar with the federal government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give the committee a brief synopsis of the general results of putting these people on the land? Could he tell us how many went on originally, how many have stayed on and how many have become self-supporting?


James Garfield Gardiner: The number of settlers receiving assistance this year who were also assisted in one previous year is 3,265. The number receiving assistance this year who were also assisted in two previous years is 1,920. This gives an idea of the reduction. We cannot go further back than that since the reestablishment scheme was in operation for only two years prior to the preparation of this report. With regard to the percentage of settlers receiving assistance in 1938 who may be expected to be self-sustaining in 1939 under normal crop conditions, it is difficult to give an accurate estimate because many settlers will go on and off relief for the next year. In the first six months of the current relief year, relief costs have been cut 25-8 per cent as compared with those in the
Supply-Agriculture

corresponding period of the previous relief year. This would indicate that about 25 per cent fewer in number are obtaining assistance now as compared with a year ago.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Not necessarily.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is in spite of the fact that owing to unfavourable conditions we found it necessary to take on numerous families previously taken off relief. It is hoped to effect a more substantial cut in relief costs during the remainder of the current year. Probably the main reason for taking on people this year who had been let off in a previous year is the fact that drought has been experienced this year, for the first time, in the northern section. It is possible that on that account some of these people have had to go back on relief.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister give the committee any idea as to how successful or unsuccessful the scheme has been? I am thinking at this time of settlements known as the Saskatoon settlement and the Moose Jaw settlement, near Loon Lake, Saskatchewan. I know that three or four years ago conditions there were very bad, and the people were contemplating going back to the cities. I was wondering how successful the scheme had been, and to what extent a reduction in relief might be because some of these people had left their holdings. Are there any figures on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think any considerable number have left their holdings since this scheme was undertaken. I have just forgotten the exact figures for last year, but they indicated there had been a substantial reduction. The figures indicate again this year that there has been a reduction in the number now obtaining assistance.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does that indicate to the minister that many of these people are now self-supporting on the land?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, many of them are. As a matter of fact it has been estimated by those who are in charge in Saskatchewan- and, by the way, the scheme is being administered by the province-that in another two years they will have completed reestablishing these families.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is any of this vote used to assist settlers to move from one province to another?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, this money is not used for that purpose.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this money used exclusively to help city dwellers to reestablish themselves at the occupation of farming? Is it used
[Mr. Gardiner. 1
exclusively to assist persons in the cities to take up farming as an occupation?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it is being used exclusively for the purpose of assisting people who were placed on land under the scheme brought into operation in 1932. But it ceased to operate three or four years later, and these people remained on relief on their new holdings. This money is being spent for the purpose of assisting them in breaking up this land so that they may become self-sustaining. It is estimated that the number of settlers receiving assistance in 1937 who may be expected to be self-sustaining in 1938 is 30 per cent. That is about the extent to which they are being reestablished from year to year.


Mr. PATTERSON:: Are there 2.000 who come under this scheme in New Brunswick?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe the figure is 2,088.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many families have been moved out of the dried-out areas and out of the cities in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not the figures for that. This matter has been carried on by the province, but the last figure I recall was about 8,000 families.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister know how many moved out of the dried-out areas?
Mr, GARDINER: No, I do not know how that 8,000 would be divided.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT]>«7. .frame f: arm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,250,000.
Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Of this amount how much is allocated to the southern part of Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: About two-thirds of the area is in Saskatchewan, and about one-third in Manitoba and Alberta. We hope to be able to spend about two-thirds of one-third, or two-ninths, in Alberta. But in connection with some of our activities in Alberta we have not been able to get an agreement with the Alberta government. We have not been able to expend the total amount there.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: What is the largest project being considered for Alberta this year under the prairie farm rehabilitation schemes?


James Garfield Gardiner: The largest project being considered is just outside Medicine Hat. It is associated with the lands of the Canada Land and Irrigation Company.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: That is what I wanted to know. What land is being brought under

Supply-Agriculture
this scheme; what is to be spent on. it, and where is it to be located?


James Garfield Gardiner: That particular project has not yet reached the stage where we can state whether or not any expenditures will be made on it, and, if so, how much. The proposal made by the Canada Land and Irrigation Company is that they are prepared to place entirely at the disposal of the federal government 15,000 acres which can be irrigated, and upon which it could place settlers who may be taken off lands to be taken out of cultivation.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Is that land being deeded by the Canada Land and Irrigation Company?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. If the project proceeds, the land would be deeded by the Canada Land and Irrigation Company to the federal government.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Would that be a substitute for the larger project of the Redlcliff-Ronaline scheme?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Redcliff-Ronaline scheme, as I remember the figures, would cost about $2,000,000 or $3,000,000, and it would be absolutely impossible to proceed with a scheme of that kind with the funds made available for this work. That scheme would not take care of a sufficient number of people to warrant the expenditure of as much money as that in any one year. The proposal made by the company is a much smaller one, amounting to about $350,000. That, too, would probably be expended over a period of two or three years, if the project were undertaken.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: How is it intended to spend that money? Would it be for enlarged canals, reservoirs or what?


James Garfield Gardiner: The proposal in connection with the smaller scheme is for the provision of further storage for distribution over lands which cannot now be irrigated with present facilities. It would not involve the enlarging of the main ditch, which is about 110 miles long, running from the Bow river to the main storage.


Major James William Coldwell: Does this vote include an appropriation for work done in the vicinity of Saskatoon? I refer to the Saskatoon river project. If so, what does the government propose to do at that point?


James Garfield Gardiner: According to the contract, the total amount necessary for the building of the dam at Saskatoon is about $243,000. It was estimated at the time they began work that before the end of the financial year, namely March 31, they might expend in the
neighbourhood of $100,000 on that work. I am not in a position to say how much was spent, but whatever was not spent out of the $243,000 would come out of this vote.


James J. Donnelly: Is the Vanguard project one of the projects for this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there any restriction as to the labour which shall be used on the project at Saskatoon? The people in the municipalities in the vicinity of that city are anxious that there shall be no restriction.
I believe that some Saskatoon people were hoping that it would be restricted to residents of that city. Has the government made any proviso of that sort?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not being restricted entirely to city labour; there is some being brought in from roundabout. But the bulk of the labour will be taken from the city. Labour is being secured through the labour office in the usual way and on the usual terms for contracts of that kind.


Major James William Coldwell: I ask this question
because the neighbouring municipalities have urged that the project should not be closed to people living in municipalities surrounding it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The agreement says "in the locality." We did not want to be specific about that in the early stages because we did not want to attract many transients to Saskatoon.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understand the minister to say the dam at Saskatoon will cost about S240,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: 


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that to be a dam across the Saskatchewan river?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What height will it be?


James Garfield Gardiner: Twelve feet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That seems a small sum for a dam across that river. What is the width of the river at that point?	,


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot say offhand, but it is quite wide.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the banks are fairly high?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a dam in the sense of a dam built for power purposes or anything of that kind. It will be about twelve feet high, or eleven feet to be exact, and the water will flow over it. It is to stop the current in the river so that it may be used
423S
Supply-Agriculture

for different purposes, including the landing of aeroplanes and similar activities.


John Ritchie MacNicol: More like a weir to
retard the flow of water. It will be made of concrete, of course?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
James Garfield Gardiner: We estimated more
than that, but that is the figure we got from the contractor and he is working on the project now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there a rock subsurface?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is clay.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Is that the only purpose for building the dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: It makes the river more useful for people living in the vicinity. There are a number of farmers up the river who will be able as a result of this, to have pump irrigation.


Ernest Edward Perley: Are several contracts involved in the building of this dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is all one contract.


Ernest Edward Perley: 
James Garfield Gardiner: That is the total
amount.


Ernest Edward Perley: About three days ago there was tabled a return about ten inches thick for which I had asked on February 3. In going through this file I find there were three main objects in building this dam. The first was to provide a landing place for seaplanes; the second was to provide a permanent water supply for Saskatoon, and the third was to provide recreational facilities. I think the building of this dam was unnecessary. The Saskatchewan river has been flowing for we do not know how long; it will continue to flow, and there will always be a water supply there. I do not think this government should spend money to provide recreational facilities.
I suppose that means swimming pools and so forth.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not suppose the
lion, member would want the people not to use the river for recreational purposes?


Ernest Edward Perley: 
James Garfield Gardiner: We have not the completed figures for 1938-39, but it is estimated that administration costs will be $397,500, which include engineering works and services, and all that kind of thing which may be part of the cost of works which are going to be done as well as the cost of inspection of works which have been earned out in past years. It is estimated that small projects will cost $325,000; large projects, $608,605.99; water storage, $399,01029, making a total of $1,730,116.28. In order to avoid making the same mistake which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) made on a previous occasion when he was discussing this matter, I intend to take all the facts into consideration when giving the figures. On a previous occasion the hon. member for Qu'Appelle rose in his place in the house and read from the auditor general's report to the effect that a certain engineer, I think one Mutchler, had an expense account of $7,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have it right here.


James Garfield Gardiner: That expense account was for ten people.


Ernest Edward Perley: It states " J. I. Mutchler."


James Garfield Gardiner: That covered the expense accounts of the whole party under Mr. Mutchler. When one just reads the name of an individual and says that his expenses were $7,000, it gives an entirely wrong impression. These expenses are for the staffs that happened to be engaged in the office. One cannot take these staffs, divide them into this

Supply-Agriculture
sum of money and say that these are the expenses of running the office, say in Regina. The administration costs include expenses and the operating costs of the parties that are at work on this particular project.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister is trying to make out that I tried to leave a wrong impression when I mentioned the account of Mr. Mutchler. I have the auditor general's report before me, and I should like to read from part A, page 57, under the heading of " travelling expenses." The first is W. G. Bock, $2,579; the next is W. P. Cheney, $2,884. I am leaving out the cents.


Mr. HOMUTH:: There is no sense to it.


Ernest Edward Perley: The next is A. B. Cook, $2,450. Then there is J. A. Davis, $2,704; F. L. Evans, $2,715.85; S. Forsyth, $2,099.14; W. L. Foss, $1,903.72; M. H. French, $2,457.43; S. H. Hawkins, $4,539.87; C. A. Henderson, $2,135.49; J. E. Hogan, $2,195.41; C. M. Moore, $2,763.54; J. I. Mutchler, $7,085.89; J. Pender-gast, $2,549.78; and another inch and a half of space on the same page is filled with names of individuals and the amount of their travelling expenses. As I mentioned, Mutcli-ler's expenses were $7,085.89, and no other interpretation can be put upon these items than the one I put. The minister says it includes all these men, but-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say any such thing. Each one of these men is an engineer in charge of a party or a superintendent in charge of a district. Mutchler had ten rod and instrument men working under him, and the sum of $7,000 is the expense account of the whole group.


Ernest Edward Perley: Why does it not appear in that form in the auditor general's report so that we can understand it? There is a list of twenty-five more, and I maintain that I am perfectly right in my interpretation.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I wish to refer again to the Canada Land and Irrigation Company project. What conditions will the settlers be required to meet before they can settle on that land? My reason for asking this question is that this government spent some $50,000 in developing a project known as the Rolling Hills scheme in southern Alberta, and the last knowledge I had of it was that thirty-five families had settled there, none of them being from Alberta but all from Saskatchewan, because the qualifications for settlement in this completely federal-eontrolled scheme were not such that Alberta farmers could quality. Before we spend more money on a new project I should like to know whether the same settlement policy is to be pursued, and if so, why.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Rolling Hills project is in the neighbourhood of Brooks, Alberta. There are 50,000 acres of land in the vicinity of Brooks which was originally and still is part of the old Eastern Irrigation project, which was first put into operation by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It is now operated by a board set up by the farmers in that community. They have 50,000 acres which could not be irrigated unless the storage lake was raised three or four feet, four feet to be exact, and there was some doubt at the time the undertaking was entered into to raise the level of the water, whether the entire 50,000 acres could be irrigated even with the water level raised four feet. It was considered that there would be no difficulty in placing water on at least 25,000 acres, and that has since turned out to be the fact. The 25,000 acres can be irrigated.
We entered into an agreement with the Eastern Irrigation people that we would spend $50,000 on raising the level of the storage lake to make possible the irrigation of the 25.000 acres of land provided they would consider the $50,000 as a first payment on the land, which by the way belonged to the company, and which they were willing to sell at $10 an acre. So we agreed to raise the level of the storage lake four feet on condition that the $50,000 was considered to be a first payment on the 25,000 acres of land, which worked out at $2 an acre.
Another term in the agreement was that they would accept as settlers and purchasers of the land individuals that we designated, and those individuals were taken off the submarginal lands which we consider unsuited for further cultivation for grain purposes and which we hope to place in pasturage to be used as community pastures by farmers in the surrounding districts. To date we have 200 families on our list of people who are living on submarginal lands where pastures have either been organized or are in course of being organized, mostly in Saskatchewan. The only reason why these families have been taken from that province is that the Saskatchewan government is the only provincial government with whom we have been able up to the moment to enter into an agreement that is satisfactory to us. We have insisted on the title to the pasture lands being turned over to the government of Canada, and the only provincial government that has so far undertaken to do this is the Saskatchewan government.
Therefore, so far as the Brooks project is concerned, we have taken these people off lands to which we have obtained or will obtain title, and we are moving them on to lands for which we are making a first payment.

Supply-Agriculture

Then the settler enters into an agreement with the company to pay the other $8 an acre over a term of years. So far, thirty-five families out of the 200 have been moved from the submarginal areas to the Rolling Hills area in the Eastern Irrigation district, and many others have been taken to the district for the purpose of looking over these lands. As a matter of fact, some of what may appear to be rather high expense accounts charged up to certain individuals are expense accounts incurred by men continually driving farmers from the pasturage areas to Brooks or Val-marie, where we have locations on which to settle these people. Farmers are driven from their homes to look at the land and back to their homes again; and if they decide to move, we assist them in moving from the one location to the other.
The proposal that is made with regard to the Ronaline area is that the title to the 15,000 acres shall be turned over to the government, and any agreement made with any settlers moved there, if the project goes through, will be made between the government of Canada and the individual settler. The whole amount of the purchase value of the land would be expended to put water on the land; the land would become the property of the federal government, and we would then enter into undertakings with families in the submarginal areas to move them into this other area. We hope a large percentage of them will be Alberta people, but we would first have to have an undertaking that the Alberta government would be prepared to cooperate with us in the plans that we think should be followed in view of the fact that we are spending the money.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I am not the least bit antagonistic to the scheme. I think the Rolling Hills project and the ones suggested for the Canada Land Company area and the Ronaline area are all excellent projects; physically there is none 'better, and that policy ought to be pursued right through. I am entirely in favour of it. I do not like to make any petty criticism of the method of settling the land, but undoubtedly there are farmers in Alberta living in submarginal areas.


James Garfield Gardiner: Many of them.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I know there are, and there is a project of much greater proportions than this little 15,000 acre scheme which is now being held up because of lack of agreement between the company, the provincial government and the federal government. It seems a shame that the welfare of thousands of people as well as the welfare of the dominion should be stalemated, while govern-
ments bicker with one another for position. Personally, like a number of people in my constituency, I am getting heartily sick of that sort of thing. And that applies not only to the settlement of land but to many other such matters.
I should like to refer to an answer given on April 5 to a question. Some nine different dams built under the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme have washed out. The original cost of the dams, together with the cost of repairs, runs to something over $100,000. One dam in my own constituency, the Wild Horse dam, was built first in 1937 at an expenditure of $17,990; it washed out in the spring of 1938, was repaired at a cost of $6,379.78; washed out again the following spring, and has not been repaired yet.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Perpetual wash-outs!


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I notice the Wild Horse dam was not repaired on April 5; also that the Lake Rivers dam is not repaired yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: It went out just this spring.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: And the Lake Head dam was not repaired. Are they repaired yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of those mentioned went out only this spring. There has been no opportunity to repair them. For example, I signed an order in connection with the Lake Rivers dam just the other day, I think.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: What is going to be done with the Wild Horse dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the list here. Crystal City dam was built-it says here 1936 -an the fall of 1935 and went out in 1936. It was rebuilt in 1936 and went out again, I understand. The cost of that was $355.30.
If the return was the same as I have here, the dates are scarcely correct. I think the Wild Horse dam was built first in the fall of 1935 and completed in the spring of 1936. It went out the first time in 1936 and went out again last year, I believe.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: That dam was built in the first instance by the Gilchrists who ranch in that area; we assisted in the building. The dam went out in the spring; we replaced it, and there has been some damage since then.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I know the history of the dam, but what I should like to know is, since there has now been spent on the dam some $25,000, what does the government propose to do with it? Is it going to be repaired?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Unless we can find some way of keeping it there, I would say it should not be rebuilt, even if we have spent $25,000 on it. We should have further engineering advice. I drove over the dam myself, and the reason why I say this was done in 1935 is that I think it was 1936 I drove over it. But possibly it was built in 1936 for the first time and went out in the spring of 1937. At that time it looked to be a fairly substantial dam, but it was built during the drought period when everything was dry, and when the water came down with a rush in the spring it took out the centre of the dam.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Some boy built it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, some people who have not built dams in the west do not understand the nature of dam building in that section of the country. This may happen anywhere. Hundreds of these dams have been built, and if only nine of them have gone out in the spring floods in the last four years that is not many. Any railway company will tell you that they have had more of theirs go out, that were built to supply water to the railway.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I am not complaining about the dams that have washed out. I know this particular dam, and that is why I was asking about it. My constituents ask me about it, and I do not know any particulars except what I am able to find out here. That is why I have been questioning the minister.
Return No. 59 was brought down on an order of the house. The first question was:
Who is in charge of prairie farm rehabilitation projects?
The reply is:
Mr. Ben Russell is in immediate charge of water development projects.
The next question is as to his qualifications for the position. I should like to know who Mr. George Spence and Mr. Vallance are and what are their positions and their qualifications.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Ex-members of parliament with a good job.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think this information is being brought down in a return which will be tabled to-morrow. I was asked about it yesterday by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I checked up this morning and found that the information is now available. But some of the information which is contained in the return I have here.
Mr. George Spence is director of rehabilitation. His qualifications are: Special studies in electrical engineering in Leith academy and technical college in Scotland; three years 71492-267J
in charge of day and night shifts in the oil gas plant of the North British Railway in Scotland; three years field experience with the Canadian Pacific Railway in railroad location and construction; executive experience as a minister of the crown in the province of Saskatchewan, highways department and the department of labour and industries, and minister of public works, over the years 1927-1929 and 1934-1938; member of the better farming commission appointed by the provincial government of Saskatchewan in 1920, to study drought conditions, and acting chairman of that commission during its entire sittings in the country; twenty-seven years practical farming experience in the drought area of Saskatchewan, together with six years experience in farming in south central Manitoba.
John Vallance is superintendent of water development. His qualifications are: Senior matriculation and two years technical school education in Scotland; three years military engineering with the Lancashire Royal Engineers; thirty-three years practical farming experience in Saskatchewan, and for a number of years a member of this house.


Mr MITCHELL:: I have no objection to these men having these positions. But there is a name now being applied to George Spence; they put the letter X in front of his name, and they apply it to the whole prairie farm rehabilitation scheme and call him George X Spence.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the people who do that do not know George Spence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What projects are to be undertaken in Saskatchewan under this item; where are they, and what is the amount to be spent on each?


James Garfield Gardiner: The following are the projects and their costs:
Robsart irrigration project	$ 10,000
East End	 3,000
Caron water storage		....	132,000
Cypress and Davis Creek diversion
projects	 13,500
Kisbey flood irrigation	 14,500
Souris-Estevan flood irrigation.	..	20,500
Glen Ewen dam	 9,500
West Valmarie	 45,500
Saskatoon dam	 275,000
Notuken creek irrigation	 160,000
Qu'Appelle river development..	..	20,000
Maple Creek storage	 85,000
The estimate for the Saskatoon dam project is S275.000, but the contractor agreed to build it for $243,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are tenders called for the building of these dams?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, for all of these dams.
Supply-Agriculture


Leslie Gordon Bell: The minister said that the Saskatoon project might be used by farmers for pumping. Under what terms will that be allowed'-without any payment for the service? Will they be able to use the water? I think they should.


James Garfield Gardiner: For pumping irrigation, which would probably be the requirement along that section of the river, there would be no charge for the water, but the individual would probably be put to some expense for the pumping equipment.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to hear that there is to be no charge for the water.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How much
of this will represent administration, and how much will go in actual wages and salaries, and supplies to those who are doing the work?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I submit
that the amount spent on supervision and administration is out of all proportion to the amount spent for actually doing the work. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act had, if I remember rightly, a twofold object:	One
was for the conservation of water, and the other was to carry out as far as possible the idea of putting money into the pockets of farmers and others in the district who could use horses and do some work, thereby making some money on the side. According to the auditor general's report, the amount spent in wages and salaries is 8483,18184, and the amount spent for travelling expenses is 8205,172.44, while the amount used for new automobiles and repairs is 848,114.62. In other words, for travelling expenses, new cars and repairs alone, for the inspectors covering the territory, we spent about half as much as was spent in wages and salaries paid to those actually doing the work. That is a high item. The administration costs 50 per cent of the total wages paid out to those actually digging the dams and constructing the work. I repeat, the amount spent on supervision is out of all proportion to the amount spent for other purposes.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the hon. gentleman speaks of the expense involved in what
rMr. Gardiner.]
he calls supervision, I suggest that he is hardly using the correct term. I have here, for example, individual small water development projects from the inauguration of the program to February 28, 1939. Applications for small projects in Manitoba numbered 3,436; in Saskatchewan, 5,529; and in Alberta, 712; making a total of 9,677 on that one set of projects alone. Approval has been given 7,747 projects and 5,178 have been completed. One can quite understand that when 9,677 applications for projects are scattered over one-third of one province, one-sixth of another and probably one-tenth of still another, someone will have to do a good deal of driving to inspect the applications to begin with; and the fact that almost 2,000 more than were passed had to be inspected shows the impossibility of charging up supervision costs to the works that are actually done. This is not simply a matter of building dams, making dug-outs and so on; it is a problem of rehabilitating a section of country which has been dried out in the last seven or eight years, and much of the work is merely the inspection of land to see whether the farmer should be living on it at all and the inspection of another piece of land to see if he could live there to better advantage, and then reporting back. There may be no expenditure on an undertaking apart from the small job of looking into the necessity of moving persons from one place to another.
Then we have all the work I spoke of as being associated with the attempt to persuade people to move from areas where they have been living for twenty years, where they have homesteaded and put up buildings and subsequently discovered that the land was unsuitable for farming. There may be a section of country somewhere else to which they can go and we spend money trying to assist them to find better places. If they are prepared to exchange the land they have for the land we have and they are moved, we take over their lands and put them into pasture. This does not represent a direct expenditure of money, but it does represent a great deal of work that should be done; and to suggest that administrative work of that kind can be charged against a few dams and dug-outs is to propose something that cannot be applied to such work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What the
minister says emphasizes the point I am trying to make. He says that a very large number of these projects must be inspected. Last fall I went to the western end of my constituency to look over a large community dug-out that was being built there. I got there at supper time, and the men told me

Supply-Agriculture
that two inspectors had driven from Weyburn that day to see the work, coming about two hours apart. I have talked to men who have put in dug-outs on their farms, and I find that three different inspectors examined the work before it was approved. These may be isolated instances, but that is what I have learned in conversations with people who have been in contact with the work. There has been a great deal of supervision, one man driving all over the place and then someone else coming in to look at the same work. The fact that the travelling expenses amount to 8205,000 suggests that there should be a different system of supervision. Whether it could be worked out by having residential inspectors, or whether it could be handled by the municipal councils doing the inspection, I do not know, but I certainly think that, in relation to the total amount spent, the expenditure in connection with travelling expenses and cars is out of all proportion.


James Garfield Gardiner: The area is divided into districts, with a superintendent over each.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is a large district.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is fairly large, but if it were smaller the expense would be greater than it is now. Not so long ago much of the work which the hon. member for Weyburn says is being done now by an inspector probably would have been done by an engineer with two helpers. I do not think that is necessary at all. Expenditures of the kind- to which the hon. member has been referring have been cut down materially in the last three years. I just gave the number of dug-outs as 9,677. Stock watering dams number 5,373 and irrigation dams 2,131, making a total of 17,181 projects. It is only necessary to look at the staff engaged in carrying on that work, and I think it will be agreed that no other part of the public service of this country is doing as big a job with so few persons engaged in the work.
My hon. friend said two inspectors called at a particular project on one day. If that was the case the project might have been located very close to the line dividing two districts, where perhaps one inspector might overlap on the work of another. I should, however, be much more inclined to believe that probably one of the inspectors was a representative of the council. Many of these projects are carried on in cooperation with the council, and it may have been that some individual who was associated with the activities of the council called at this particular project. On the other hand it may have been that the superintendent, in making his general round of the district, called the
same day that the inspector in charge of the work was there. The men in charge of these districts are over the whole district continuously to see that the work is being done properly by those entrusted with it. The farmer might call them both inspectors, while actually only one was an inspector and the other was probably someone other than a representative of this government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can assure the minister that they were representatives not of the municipal council but of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. The minister has given the total number of projects. Could he give us the total staff and the various classifications of it?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are four in charge of the Ottawa administration. We have sixteen engaged in the economic surveys that are being made of the areas being rehabilitated. There are sixty-two engaged in cultural experiments and research, practically all of whom are associated with our experimental farms in different parts of the area. The Regina administration is composed of twenty-nine, and the land utilization branch also has twenty-nine employees. The water development branch has seventy-eight working out of the Regina office, seven out of the Winnipeg office and eight out of Edmonton. There are twenty-five employees in the water rights office at Regina. The federal relief inspection office has two employees, making a total of 260 engaged in that work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that include clerks and stenographers?


James Garfield Gardiner: That includes the whole staff, with the exception of the labour that is hired out in the field.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I think the remarks of the hon. member for Weyburn are quite timely, if I may judge from some experience I have had in my own district where a good deal of prairie farm rehabilitation work is being done. There is never any difficulty in having the fellows who drive round the country look over the project. When one applies for a dam, I do not know how many men land at the spot and look it over, before ever an instrument arrives. There seems to be an abundance of supervision.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, there are only eight on the whole staff in Alberta.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: We have no difficulty with the supervision; sometimes we have to wait a long time for the engineering, but the real hold-up is in connection with the drafting. We do not seem to be able to get the technical office work, perhaps the more
[DOT]1244
Supply-Agriculture

poorly paid work, done. I went into an office to inquire about a dam and learned that there were some two thousand projects at that time awaiting the drafting. All the farmers were wasting good weather waiting for an opportunity to have their dams built, but all the work had to wait for the drafting to be done. I also know that the Wild Horse dam washed out when there was nobody within miles of it, and the same thing could be said of several other dams. There was no official there, nobody in charge, although thousands of dollars were spent in throwing up the dirt according to the specifications.
I believe in these dams, to the extent of having three of them, one on my own farm and two on the farms of my partners. These dams have never washed out, but that is because of the hours of work, sometimes at night with lanterns, and the hundreds of sacks that were filled, to keep these dams from washing out when they first began to soak up water. Otherwise they certainly would have gone; the first wind would have taken them out. They had to be nursed through the first few days and the first wetting. The only reason why those dams are standing to-day is that we saw to it that the spillways were open so that if the dams filled up to the danger line the water could escape; and of course there were snow banks and so on that had to be cut out. It seems folly to put up structures of that kind and then not have a watchman on duty to see that the dam has a normal chance of surviving. Once a dam has washed out, it becomes just twice as hard to make it hold water again.
Many settlers in the Wild Horse neighbourhood, and many men qualified to know what they are talking about, have told me emphatically that everyone knew when the snow was melting; everyone in the neighbourhood could see it, but there was no one within miles of this project. It was simply completed and paid for, and after that apparently no one took any interest in it. Since we have such a large supervising staff and since we are spending such large sums of money, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Weyburn, in running hither and yon all over the country to do these things, we should protect our investment by seeing the dam through its early hours or early days.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the fact that I was able to state to the committee a few moments ago that out of the large number of dams built only some ten have gone out-


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Ten large ones.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is, of the larger dams. One of those was the dam mentioned

so often by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the Wild Horse dam.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: And the Bartman dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose many hon. members know the Gilchrists, and I do not suppose anyone in the south country has built more dams than the Gilchrists, who have been ranching in that country in a big way for a long time. The particular dam about which most of the talking is being done was built in the first place by the Gilchrist people, with assistance from this government.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: And paid for by the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: All the work was not paid for by the government. I am saying that, not in defence of a particular individual, because Gilchrist was always a strong supporter of the previous government, and the dam was started during the time the previous government held office. We completed it.
As I said a few minutes ago, however, I went down and looked the dam over, and I would say it was as well constructed and as well protected as any dam built in the south country. We assisted the Gilchrists in rebuilding it a second year, and it went out again. With all due respect to engineers I would say the Gilchrist people know more about the maintenance of dams in the south country than any other engineer who could be sent there. They know conditions. They know how the water comes down those ravines. They were not able to keep the dam there under conditions which existed in the spring of two different years. Anyone who has lived in western Canada knows that there can be a rush of water down a ravine where water has not been seen for ten years. That rush of water would take out any dam anyone could construct. They go out, in spite of everything.
In so far as having drafts of a dam a farmer may want, I would say that if I wanted a dam on my farm I would go ahead and build it, and I would not ask anybody anything about it. That is what most farmers would do. But when a government begins to do anything of that kind, or to assist in doing the work, it has to have more information than the farmer who is simply going to build a dam across a stream and take his own chances. The government has to run lines from the source of the stream right through to the outlet, particularly when those streams are in the vicinity of the United States boundary line. There are international agreements which affect them. We have to measure the water flow and find out the amount of water to which we are entitled on this side of the

S upply-Agriculture
boundary line. Even where streams do not cross the line at all, we have to find out how much water a farmer may be entitled to. as compared with other farmers up or down the stream. When we construct a dam we have to take consideration of all the facts, and we have to let sufficient water go down to provide for those who may live below the dam in question, in the event of their desiring to build a dam. They may not build it for the next twenty years, but we must make provision for their having some of the flow of that stream.
All those details necessitate a great deal of work. If one has the impression that after an application for a dam has been made by a fanner a man can go back to his office, sit down there and write next day saying, "Here is the plan; go ahead and build the dam," I would point out that it cannot be done in that way. When I first took over the administration of this matter, I had the idea that was the way to build a dam. But I was not long in finding out that all this matter of water rights is under the control of provincial governments. We have to make application to those governments, and they have to make surveys. They have to tell us what water we can or cannot take. All these matters have to be dealt with on a legal basis. 'Therefore much of this work referred to as being associated with the building of any particular dam is not necessarily associated with that particular work. It is associated with the whole problem.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Much of the work of which the minister has spoken and which has to be done before water rights can be granted depends upon the drafting of the plan. Those who are in control of water rights in the province cannot grant the rights for a project until the plan has been completed. What I am saying is that the field notes for the drafting of thousands of those plans were allowed to pile up in one year because the men in charge were not able to do the work, as a result of not being able to obtain authorization from Regina. They simply said, "All we get is promises. We have plenty of men, but they cannot draw plans. The men who can draw plans we are not able to obtain." I could give the minister the name of the official who told me that. This whole prairie farm rehabilitation scheme has developed quickly, and it is a permanent and good thing. It will ultimately have a splendid effect on the whole economy of western Canada. But it is now commonly beginning to bear the stamp of becoming a political machine; and if it is to become a political machine, the intrinsic value will be greatly
reduced. There should be no question about it, whereas to-day there is plenty of questioning.


Mr. EVANS:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, and possibly if anyone is playing politics he is doing his share. A great deal of this prairie farm rehabilitation work has been carried on in the constituency I have the honour to represent. I have found, after surveys have been made, there has been very little delay in the authorization of projects. In fact, some of those surveys took two or three years before the department was satisfied to authorize expenditures to carry on the work.
I believe I know something about the Wild Horse project. It is not far over the border from my constituency. I know the people who constructed the dam in the first place, namely, Gilchrist brothers. When I was talking to them last year after the dam went out, they told me they thought there was something the matter with the type of soil at that point, and that, with the type of soil available, it would have been almost impossible to build a dam to hold the volume of water that came down in this particular place.
I do not think there is in my constituency anything on which a person could lay his finger that is connected with political patronage. In fact, I feel that 90 per cent of the people who have had service from the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme are 100 per cent satisfied. They have received dollar value for every dollar spent.


Harry James Barber: We have heard a good deal about the cost of individual works. I am sure I would be the last one to criticize the government with regard to the work being carried on in the western provinces. I believe, however, the committee would like to know how much has been expended under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage from the beginning of operations of that kind up to to the present time.


Mr. GABDINER:: It amounts to 86,521,403.65.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does that include the amount in this year's estimate?


Robert Gardiner: No; that is only to March 31.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister add the amounts this year as they appear in the regular and supplementary estimates?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is only this one vote of $3,250,000.
Supply-Agriculture


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Amounting in all to about 19,000,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: Close to 810,000,000.


James J. Donnelly: The constituency 1
represent does not lend itself to any of the major irrigation projects to which references have been made. I have, however, been very much interested in work under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. For three years, in 1933, 1934 and 1935, I urged upon the government of that time the absolute necessity of doing some work in the prairie country along the lines of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act projects, such as surveying the land to see what might be done to hold moisture or in the way of planting trees and devising different methods of farming in order to prevent soil drifting and so forth. In 1935 the government of that day saw fit to start this work, and contracts were let for some irrigation schemes, one of which was the Valmarie dam in the constituency of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Evans). Several of these large irrigation schemes have since been built, but in my opinion they are good only to show the people what can be done by irrigation. If western Canada and the farmers of western Canada have to depend upon irrigation alone, then I think western Canada has seen its best days and the future is not very good.
As I say, these large irrigation schemes are good things to show the people what can be done by irrigation, but the great work being done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is in connection with smaller irrigation projects such as dams and dug-outs, small reservoirs and other works of this kind. Some good work is being done through showing the farmers how to avoid strip farming, how to prevent blowing, how to plant trees, how to keep gardens going and other methods of holding moisture. The chief work, however is in connection with these small dug-outs and dams. I have driven round the country a good deal with these inspectors and I know whereof I speak. It has been said that there are too many inspectors, but all I can say is that we have found difficulty in getting enough of them. There has been difficulty also in getting engineers. I have telephoned and written engineers to try to get them to come and do the work, but have not been successful in many instances. One of our chief complaints is that there are not enough engineers.
When a man wants a dug-out or a dam built on his farm, he makes an application to Regina. An agricultural inspector comes out and looks over the project. If it is only a dug-out that is wanted, if it is only a hole in

the ground to hold water, the inspector steps it off, puts in the stakes and tells the farmer to go to work. That is all there is to it. It is not necessary to call an engineer. When the farmer has completed the dug-out, he notifies the authorities, and the inspector comes back, measures it up, tells the fanner the number of cubic feet he has removed, and the man is paid for his work. These inspectors are not surveyors or engineers.
But if a dam is needed, the inspector looks over the ground to find out if there is gravel underneath and if the soil will hold water. If it is possible to ,put in a dam, he advises that it will be a good project. Then the government sends out an engineer who makes a survey. A man is not allowed to build a dam unless an engineer says it should be built. I do not think it would be advisable for the government to expend money upon the building of dams unless an engineer looks over the ground and advises whether a dam should or should not be built.
The engineer goes out and stakes out the ground. If he finds it is advisable to build a dam, the farmer goes to work and puts in the dam. When the work is completed the fanner writes to the department, and an engineer is sent out to measure the work and tell the farmer how many cubic yards he has removed. The farmer is then paid for the work. The engineer may show a farmer where he can put in laterals for irrigating half an acre, two or three acres, or whatever it may be. This work is of great importance, and I consider it has done more to help our people and has proved to be of greater benefit than these large irrigation schemes. These small schemes will irrigate two or three acres so that a man can put in a garden and have something to tide him over when the country is dry and when he may be short of feed. Most of the engineers I have met are taken up with their work. They are quite enthusiastic and they believe they are doing a great work.
I commend the government for the work they are doing along this line.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have supported the prairie farm rehabilitation construction projects from the very commencement, so I am not rising now to oppose them. I was greatly surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Mitchell). If what these two members say is true, and it must be, for the minister also said that ten dams had gone out, then something is wrong. An interjection was made a short time ago. Perhaps it was not as it should have been, as are many interjections; but this was made by the minister, and I think

Supply-A griculture
a minister is expected to lift the debate a little higher than the average member may do. The minister threw across at us over here who happen to come from the east the remark that the people in the east did not know much about constructing dams in the west. That statement may have been true, but it was not a nice statement for a minister to make. We in the east are ready to help the west. We are ready to do anything we can. We put up a lot of money, or we put up our portion of the money-perhaps no more than we should put up-and we have always been willing to do everything we can to help the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think the hon. member wants to misrepresent me. I do not recall having said anything about members from the east. I said that people who have not built dams in the west do not understand conditions in the west.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear the
minister say that, because that is really what caused me to rise. I notice the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) is in his seat. I was watching his face while this discussion was going on, and while I could not read his thoughts, I thought I noticed a little smile. He is an engineer and he would know what caused these dams to go out.


James Garfield Gardiner: He knows that many
earth dams go out, no matter what engineer builds them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When they are properly
constructed they will not go out. Perhaps the necessary material was not at hand in the vicinity of these dams. The hon. member for Medicine Hat referred to one dam which cost about $18,000. After the dam went out, approximately another $6,400 was spent on it. When the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) stops speaking to the minister, perhaps he will pay some attention to me.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for
Moose Jaw was telling me that the greatest earth-fill dam in the world, the Fort Peck dam. went out even though it had been constructed by the best of engineers.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Millions of
yards went out.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member for
Moose' Jaw will allow me to finish, I will proceed. When this Wild Horse dam was being constructed, if the engineers knew it could not be constructed properly with the earth in the immediate vicinity, would it not have been sound business to bring in whatever material was necessary to construct a
proper foundation? It might have been necessary to send 100 or 200 miles for the proper materials, but that would have been better than having the dam go out. If you have to keep on repairing dams that are going out, I would say the dam should be properly constructed in the first place; and if competent engineers are not available to build the foundations properly, I would wait until they were available.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister gave the number of employees under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act as something under two hundred. Are they temporary?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, they are all listed as temporary employees.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have the
minister's officers given consideration to the construction of the Manybones creek dam? A survey was made some years ago with a view to augmenting the supply of water in the artificial lake in Regina by damming up Manybones creek, and it would also serve the further purpose of supplying reserves of water from Regina down towards Francis and Tyvan. I understand that the engineers at the time were pleased with the prospect of such a project. Has anything been done, or is anything contemplated in that connection?


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been many reports received on the Manybones creek dam. Last year, on the basis of a report received from an engineer in 1935, we undertook to give consideration to the construction of a dam at the location that had then been decided upon, but it was found that it was impossible to build a dam there except at great expense and the resultant flooding of valuable lands. So it was not considered advisable to construct the dam at that location. Further investigation was made, and a report which came before me within the last two weeks was to the effect that a preliminary survey should be made of another location. The present position of the whole matter is, I think, that a preliminary report is being asked for, which means that they will go out and run a line in order to determine whether it is possible to build the dam at another location.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no possibility of any such work being done under this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt it. Perhaps some of the preliminary work might be done.


Victor Quelch: Recently engineers were engaged in carrying out a survey of the Red
Supply-Agriculture

Deer river in connection with certain dam sites. Is there any information with respect to raising the level of Buffalo lake?


James Garfield Gardiner: Both propositions were investigated-the possibility of putting more water into Buffalo lake and the possibility of filling lake Sullivan. The cost of the former project would be so high that it would be impossible to do it in any one year. If we finally decided to proceed with that project, it would have to be spread over four or five years.


Victor Quelch: Is there a copy of that report available?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, just the verbal reports I get from the engineers when they are in the office.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Practically all these projects are in the southern part of the prairie provinces. Is anything being done in the more northerly areas? I have in mind the Eagle creek district in the Saskatoon area. Have any surveys been made in the north, because there is a crying need for water conservation in the districts north of what is called the southern drought area.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been some activity in relation to Pike lake; I do not think it is connected at all with Eagle creek. Surveys have also been made on Eagle creek, but I do not think we have any projects there. There are some works being surveyed along the North Saskatchewan river, something similar to the project carried out by the provincial government at Battleford, where a damming proposition places water on certain lands.


Major James William Coldwell: What have we done at Pike lake?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think the development has gone any further than having a report from the engineers. There is a possibility of development there. The report we have up to date is that the purpose of the project is to store flood water of the South Saskatchewan river at Pike lake in township 34, range 6W, third meridian for stock watering and irrigation. Surveys made during 1938 indicate that it is impossible to raise the water level of this lake by the diversion of water from the Saskatchewan river. It may be possible to irrigate certain lands adjacent to Pike lake by damming, but further field work is necessary to determine the amount of irrigable land that may be served in that way.


Major James William Coldwell: What field work has been done?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is necessary to do it this coming year.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The hon. member for Wood Mountain said that if a fanner wanted to get a dug-out, if the engineer approved, the farmer could do the work and get paid for it. Can anyone in any part of the western provinces do that, or is it restricted to certain parts?


James Garfield Gardiner: Restricted to the whole drought areas, two-thirds of the area being in Saskatchewan, two-ninths in Alberta and one-ninth in Manitoba.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Then no water conservation work is being done in northern Alberta ?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Perhaps we do not need it at the present time, but one mistake that was made there was to let available water run away. No conservation work at all was done. I believe the best time to conserve something is when you have it, and even now surveys should be made of those northern areas with a view to conserving the present water supply. If that is not done, the work may cost a great deal more in future years. I realize that there is not an absolute need for it at the moment, but we should look ahead and try to conserve what we have. It is easier to keep what we have than to recover it later.


Ernest Edward Perley: Speaking of new projects, the minister mentioned the Qu'Appelle river development. Will he indicate what that is likely to be?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only work that is being done there at present is in connection with the retaining of water in Long lake. Long lake was at one time filled up through the operation of a dam just east of Silton, which was put in many years ago. That dam was operated for many years to force water into Long lake in the spring of the year and allow it to run out in the succeeding months. Quite a number of people grew hay on the flats as the result of the natural flooding caused by the dam, and an action was started against the government of the day for damages in connection with the operation of the dam. We had had experience many years ago of having an action taken against the federal government in relation to the lands at the end of Long lake at a cost of $50,000 to the federal government. The operation of the dam was changed about 1922 or 1923 and placed under the control of the highways department of Saskatchewan, and it was operated to allow water to go down the river in the spring of the year when the ordinary flow went down. Thus no proceedings were taken against the government for damages.

Supply-Agriculture
During the period that has resulted in no water going into Long lake in the spring. The water is going down the river, with the result that Long lake is from six to eight feet lower than it was a few years ago. At present we are building a dyke across the south end of Long lake, and we are hoping to be able so to operate the dam, which will probably have to be reconstructed just east of Silton, as to refill that lake to its natural level-or rather it was an artificial level created by the previous dam. Then the waters can be used for irrigation purposes below that supply. But at present it is just a matter of building a dyke across the south end of Long lake.


John Gordon Ross: The real need in the Qu'Appelle valley is construction of a dam to hold the spring floods that come down from the west before they get to Long lake. I understand the prairie farm rehabilitation officials have been checking over the Qu'Appelle valley at the end of Buffalo Pound lake, a long narrow lake in there that could hold as a storage basin 120,000 acre feet of water. When a big spring flood comes in years when there is a great deal of snow and a fast run-off, it floods that whole Qu'Appelle valley. If there were a dam at the end of Buffalo Pound lake just east of where the Moose Jaw creek runs in, which has an average flow of 23,000 acre feet a year and in some years has a run-off of 100,000 acre feet, and that water could be conserved so that it could be fed from that storage basin to Long lake, Qu'Appelle lake and other lakes there, it would hold them at a proper level throughout the summer. That is a most important piece of work that could be done in the Qu'Appelle valley, making a large storage basin to hold water to run down during the summer and fill the other lakes below.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am interested in this matter because the Qu'Appelle valley runs through the northern part of my constituency parallel with the Canadian Pacific railway, and this project would regulate the flow later in the summer and would be a splendid thing. Have the minister's engineers or officers made a survey of the Crooked lakes in the Qu'Appelle river a little north of Whitewood and Broadview? Representation was made, I believe, to the provincial government to have a dam built there. It would be a splendid thing; it would back up a large body of water, and it would not affect the farmers in the Qu'Appelle valley because they are more or less on the slopes. I believe a project that would be of real service could be undertaken there.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think a survey has yet been made as far south as Crooked lake. But it seems that those flats below Silton are the result of the filling up of old lakes; they are almost a dead level, and it is very difficult to have irrigation other than flood irrigation applied to the development of those sections.
The work we are doing is directed to the resettlement of people rather than merely raising water levels in certain lakes. If we can make it possible for more people to be taken off the sub-marginal lands and put there, we undertake the works. If not, we do not usually proceed with them.


Ernest Edward Perley: Coming back to the discussion earlier in the evening, when some of these expense accounts were mentioned, I agree with the hon. member for Weybum-
I think he quoted the same figures I did- that the expenses for salaries are altogether out of proportion to the vote and the amounts spent on the projects. The minister rather criticized me and the statement I made on some other occasion; he said I was trying to leave a wrong impression. Coming back to this Mutchler account and several others, I wish the minister would break up this expense account under this man's name in the auditor general's report, and also that of one E. J. Stephen, amounting to about So,500, and would indicate the staff that these amounts cover.
In the auditor general's report there are some three pages of particulars of staff, setting out stenographers, clerks, graduate assistants, junior assistants and junior clerks.
I should like to have the set-up covered1 by that item so far as expenses are concerned.
The minister also stated earlier in the evening that a certain return would be brought down to-morrow giving particulars with respect to staff. I asked for it on April 17 when I think the first supplementary estimates were printed, in order to be prepared with certain information respecting these estimates when they were being considered. We have not yet received the information. The minister says we shall have it to-morrow. I suggest that he take all these expense accounts over $4,000 and break them up, showing the staff included, bring it down to-morrow with this other information, and let this item stand until we get that information.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid that task would take about as long as the one the hon. member gave us when he asked for this return. He asked for a return giving all the qualifications of individuals for particular
Supply-Agriculture

jobs. Of course, when we hire these men, we hire them on our knowledge of the men themselves and what they can do. We did not have their whole past history, and we had to write to them to get their history. They have their headquarters in Regina; they are often out on the road at their work, and we had to make inquiry there for the information. That information came to me this morning for the first time. I asked to have it put in shape to be brought down immediately. In order to make the break-down that the hon. member is suggesting, it would be necessary to make inquiry again to get the names of individuals. The crew with every engineer is made up in the spring and is usually composed of two rod men and an instrument man. In the type of work being done by Mutchler during the season represented by this expense account, they were cutting lines through an area where they had to cut scrub, and he had a certain number of men given to him for that purpose. My understanding is that during that time there were ten different men, not occupied all the time during the season, but men engaged in the locality where they were working. The expense accounts of all these men are charged in this total. I could get information in regard to who the men were and how much each got, but certainly it could not be done before to-morrow. I suggest that it is not necessary to hold up this item for that. If the question were put on the order paper, that information could be brought in as soon as it could be obtained.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister has been able to give a great deal of this information right off the bat to-night; he was prepared to answer the question in regard to the Mutchler account; surely he can give the names of the ten men and their accounts. They might be in this list; there are about fifty of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they will not be in that list.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, there are fifty or sixty men mentioned here. It is only travelling expenses. If there are only some 260 in the whole set-up, offices in Regina and engineering staff and all; if you take about fifty out of those, the ten might be in that number. I suggest that the minister give the details of the ten. The vouchers must be there.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason I have this information is that when that statement was made in the committee it struck me as ridiculous because I knew the work Mutchler was doing. So, as soon as I went to the office,
I made inquiry as to how there could be an expense account of S7,000 for him, and I was informed that it covered the expenses of his whole crew. Then, when I was in Regina 
the last time, at Easter, I made further inquiries, and they told me that during that season there were ten men engaged whose expenses were included in his account. I did not ask for the names of the men. Some of the ten would be men who were on his crew during that season, and those names could be easily obtained, but those of individuals who were engaged at different places where he was working during that season could not be so easily secured.


Ernest Edward Perley: Evidently the minister had looked the matter up, and no doubt he had the ten names.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I have not; I do not know any of them.


Ernest Edward Perley: The tone of the minister's voice when I mentioned the matter this evening would indicate that he thought, as he certainly implied, that the statement was ridiculous, and I suggest that he withdraw that implication. The statement was not ridiculous, and for proof of that I have the auditor general's report. Here his staff is given on four pages, including stenographers, clerks and so on. Then we come to the travelling expenses of the different inspectors and engineers, and on another page thirty more officials are mentioned. Was I making a ridiculous statement, or was I right in surmising that under Mutchler we have $7,085? There was nothing to indicate to me that this included ten men or women. I do not think the minister can charge me with making a ridiculous statement, .nor could anybody put any other interpretation upon it than I did. Let me ask the minister himself this question: If he took the auditor general's report and went through it, in the absence of any more information than I had would he have interpreted it differently?


James Garfield Gardiner: If I gave the impression when I was speaking that I regarded what the hon. member said as ridiculous I withdraw that implication. When I went back to the office, however, I inquired how a statement of that kind could have got into the auditor general's report; for I knew it was impossible for an engineer doing work of that kind to have an expense account of $7,000, and I found that the statement as given did not afford a proper explanation. I am not blaming the hon. member at all, but unfortunately a wrong impression has gone through the country.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have been asked to get the expense accounts of twenty of these men, and that is why I looked up the report myself to verify the information that had been given to me. After I looked up the report, the

Supply-Agriculture
interpretation I put upon it was as I have stated, and I do not think I was wrong in the conclusion I drew.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister will notice that at the end of travelling expenses an item is given "sundry persons, $33,375.98." If these persons working under Mutchler had been included in this sum and if Mutchler's own expenses had been put in after his own name, this would have avoided confusion. There is another item, "E. J. Stephen, $5,519.57." That must include others, but anyone reading the item as it stands can construe it in no other way than to mean that this is the amount of expenses incurred by this gentleman. It is misleading. There is a question of new automobiles, in regard to which I should like the minister to give an explanation. A number of new cars were bought. How were they obtained? Were tenders called for?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, tenders are called for in the ordinary way, just as is done in every department.


Major James William Coldwell: Has any field work been done in the neighbourhood of Goose lake in connection with water conservation?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member is referring to the old Pearce scheme, there is nothing beyond the work done at Red Deer in connection with the dam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What has been spent on the Moose Jaw project, and what will be the total expense to the federal government?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount estimated for the Caron river storage is $150,000. The original estimate was $400,000, so I assume this is the amount necessary to finish the work.


Ernest Edward Perley: I understand that in establishing these community pastures they let certain contracts for wire posts. I believe the Northern Wood Preserving Company have a contract for 400,000 poplar posts. Does the minister consider the poplar post, when one is constructing a project that must stand for the next twenty or thirty years, is suitable?


James Garfield Gardiner: The contract is not for
400.000	poplar posts but for 400,000 posts,
300.000	of which are jack pine, and they are all creosoted posts. The poplar post, properly creosoted, will last a great many years.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the price per post?


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of the creosoted post is about thirty cents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
499. Science service, new buildings, $189,900. Mr. STEVENS: What is this item for?
James Garfield Gardiner: These are buildings right across Canada at different points where scientific work is carried on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What are they for?


James Garfield Gardiner: The shortest answer would be to read the list:
Animal pathology, Lethbridge- Animal house, garage and caretaker's house	

Animal house	
Incinerator	
Fence

Total	$28,000
Botany and plant pathology, Ottawa- Extension of laboratory, greenhouses and fencing, experimental buildings	$39,350
Charlottetown-
Extension to laboratory	 3,500
Petawawa-
Garage	 450
St. Catharines-
Fence and drainage of experimental plots	 1,900
Alterations to laboratory	 7,500
Winnipeg-
Extension of laboratory, garage, removal of threshing shed	 70,000
Entomology-
. Greenhouse, Vineland	 7,000
Alterations to temperature control
system, Belleville laboratory.. ..	1,300
Forest insect laboratory, Winnipeg.. 15,000
Insectory at Vancouver and Petawawa	 900
Alterations to Fredericton laboratory. 15,000


Henry Herbert Stevens: Should not these buildings be constructed by the Department of Public Works?


James Garfield Gardiner: The vote is in our department, and we have them do the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
500. Experimental farms service, new buildings at central experimental farm and branch farms and stations, $233,330.
Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister explain this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are new buildings at the central farm and at branch farms across Canada.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Last year when this item was under discussion the minister assured me that he would look into the question of an experimental substation at Beaver Lodge, Alberta, and that he would obtain information concerning that station, and probably take some steps to convert it into a full-fledged experimental station. What has been done since the minister gave me this assurance last year, and what is the present situation?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I discussed this afternoon the question as to expenditures in Alberta. I made further inquiries when I went back to the office, and I found that it was for the Beaver Lodge station in the northern part of the province. I cannot say at the moment that we have definitely determined to enlarge it, but we have a vote that makes it possible to go ahead.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It has been the policy of the department to give material assistance to substations, and I should like to know whether it has been finally decided to make that station a full-fledged farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been finally decided to do that, but if we were to go on with the development of it the station would eventually develop into an experimental farm.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Undoubtedly the minister realizes as well as I do the necessity for an experimental farm in the Peace River country. The experimental substation at Beaver Lodge is rendering wonderful service to the people of that district, and I believe the person in charge has been called to Ottawa on various occasions to help in the preparation of reports on experimental farms throughout Canada. This would seem to testify to the ability of that individual. I believe that part of Canada deserves consideration, and I think it should not be too long before the department finally decides to establish a permanent experimental farm there. We in the Peace River country do not ask for dams or for many of the other things that are requested by those in the drought area, because up to the present time our conditions have been favourable. What we need is guidance, and we believe that an experimental farm in the Peace River district will greatly benefit that part of the country.


Mr. MASSEY:: Would the minister be good enough to place upon Hansard the total cost of the operation, maintenance and expansion of all our experimental farms during the last few years.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not that information over a series of years. This afternoon I gave the total amount we estimated would be required this year, as follows: Central experimental farm, $626,950; branch farm stations and illustration stations, $1,406,427. . Then we have this supplementary estimate which we are now asking the committee to vote, which should be added to make up the total. The total estimate for the administration of the central farm and the branch farms is $2,033,327, to which should be added the $233,330 covered by this item. That also

would be approximately the annual amount back to perhaps 1930.


Denton Massey: I wondered if the amount was increasing as rapidly as the efficiency of the work. I think we all recognize the magnificent work the experimental farms are doing and the great contribution they are making to the welfare of the country. My question was asked because I wondered whether the expenses were increasing as the efficiency of the farms increased, or whether the work was being done better with the same amount of money.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has not been any great increase during the past ten years with the exception of the natural increases resulting from annual advances in salaries.


Denton Massey: How many experimental farms are there in addition to the central farm at Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: I put a list of the farms on Hansard two or three days ago.


John Horne Blackmore: There is one matter,
Mr. Chairman, which I believe I should bring to the attention of the committee. It does not exactly bear upon experimental farms, except in so far as it is very important in connection with the development of the agricultural industry in Canada.' I refer to the beet sugar industry. We had intended to discuss this matter under item 20, but we saw fit to defer the discussion until this evening. I make that statement, sir, so that you will understand why we are bringing on this discussion at this point.
I believe the beet sugar industry and its possibilities are very much misunderstood throughout the dominion. I find that even many hon. members do not seem to know as much about the industry as members of parliament perhaps should know in the interests of the country. Coming from a constituency in which there are two very successful beet sugar factories, I feel it my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members some important facts pertaining to this industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where are those factories located?


John Horne Blackmore: 
Mr. McLEAN (Meffort):: What was the
Alberta figure?


John Horne Blackmore: In 1937 it was 11-88 tons to the acre, and in that year the sugar content of the beets was 18-594 per cent, while 75,603,700 pounds of sugar were produced. The return to the growers amounted to $1,376,073.52, at the rate of S6.65 a ton. There were 3,813 pounds of sugar produced to the acre. Perhaps, if I stop here for a moment to allow hon. members to visualize that fact, they may realize that this is a tremendous amount of sugar. If we had 3,000 pounds of sugar in 100 pound bags piled up on the floor of the house, lion, members would be impressed with the size of the pile. When we remember that this came from one acre of soil, we realize there is being produced on those acres more food than could be produced by any other crop in the whole British empire.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: How many pounds did the hon. member mention?


John Horne Blackmore: I mentioned the figure of 3,813 pounds per acre. There was $3,040,000 worth of sugar produced altogether, and a gross return of $155 per acre.
Mr. MaeNICOL: That is for Alberta?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, in my own constituency. Of that amount of money $77.50 went to the manufacturers and $77.50 to the farmers, less $25 for hand labour and $35 for other expenses, leaving $17.50 per acre as a net return to the farmers.


Mr. THORSON:: How much tariff protection does the hon. member want?


John Horne Blackmore: I have not mentioned tariff protection yet.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: How much does the hon. member want?


John Horne Blackmore: We will talk about that later on. If the farmers' children did the work instead of hired men, they could make $42.50 per acre.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the hon. member think that $17.50 net to a farmer is a fairly good revenue from an acre of land, at present land prices.


John Horne Blackmore: I should be inclined to think it is fairly good, compared with what one could make in the production of wheat. Of course it must be remembered that this land had to be carefully prepared.	.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is it irrigated land?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, it is irrigated
land.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the net return?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. It must also be remembered that an individual farmer cannot raise a great area of beets. Ordinarily they are not allowed to raise more than twenty, thirty or forty acres of beets, and consequently it is not as though one had an area like 160 acres producing that return.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Do weather conditions
affect the crop?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, but no more
than they would affect any other farm crop. As we are at present managing affairs in Canada, the government is taking $38.13 per acre from the beet sugar industry.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: From the $17.50?


John Horne Blackmore: By the excise tax.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: From the industry, or from the consumers of sugar?

Supply-Agriculture


John Horne Blackmore: From the industry. It would affect both, because one can see that if we allowed beet sugar to be sold without the excise tax it would fall in price one cent a pound, which would certainly enable it to displace cane sugar in the country, and would thereby give advantage to the people who produce beet sugar.


Malcolm McLean: But would not that reduction take place in cane sugar prices, too?


John Horne Blackmore: There is no reason why we should not make the change apply only to beet sugar as a means of encouraging our own production.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is where the hon. member is after the protection?


John Horne Blackmore: I have not made
that suggestion yet. First we must realize that we have an industry which is worth cultivating and developing. In 1938 there were 19,593 acres in cultivation, producing 12-89 tons to the acre, compared with a United States average of 11-8 tons, in eleven states. California produced	11-5 tons;
Colorado, 13-7; Idaho. 13;	Utah, 13-5;
Nebraska, 14-and that was the highest. Those states have been producing beets for between thirty and forty years. The sugar content in Alberta was IS per cent as against 16 per cent in the United States. Only the state of California had as high a sugar content as Alberta. We produced 78,898,900 pounds of sugar. On November 7, 1938, over a million dollars was paid to the growers, at the rate of S5.35 a ton, representing the first payment. More payments were to follow as the sugar was sold.
I believe these figures are sufficiently clear to show that the sugar beet industry is no fly-by-night affair. It is not a hothouse concern, but a genuinely stable and economical industry.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Then it does not need
protection.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In addition to sugar, is
there not some other product to be used to feed cattle or other stock?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. Just now I am talking only about the production of sugar, but later on we shall see what other elements enter into the production.
Another evidence that sugar production in Alberta is genuinely successful is to be found in the fact that we are competing in a market where prices of sugar are relatively very low. I have been surprised to find that

many people have the impression that we are paying high prices for sugar in Canada.


Malcolm McLean: Relatively high.


John Horne Blackmore: Probably the opposite is the case, namely, that the price is relatively low. In support of that statement I would offer some figures. According to the statistics placed before the international sugar conference held at London in April, 1936, as quoted by Ralph P. Bell in the Halifax Herald of February 8, 1939, the following prices were paid in the various countries indicated:
Per 100 pounds
U.S.S.R	 $34.60
Italy	 14.79
Germany	 13.95
The Netherlands	 11.72
Czechoslovakia	 9.86
Turkey	 9.11
Portugal	 8.56
Australia	 8.19
Union of South Africa	 7.16
New Zealand	 7.16
France	 7.07
Irish Free State	 7.07
United States	 4.93
The Argentine	 4.84
Canada	 4.84
Great Britain	 4.65
We see that only one country pays less than Canada.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: What is the price in
Cuba?


John Horne Blackmore: It is lower than that.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: How much lower?


John Horne Blackmore: I will give those
figures in a few moments.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Could the hon. member
give the Cuban figures now, so that we may make a comparison?


John Horne Blackmore: It is quite clear that in 1936 Canada was not paying an exorbitant price for sugar. Here is another set of figures appearing in the fourteenth annual report and financial statement of the Alberta cooperative sugar beet growers, and giving comparative prices for the year 1935:
Cents per pound
Australia	 6-41
Brazil	 4-40
Canada	 5-8
Cuba	 3-2
England	 4-10
France	 10-4
Germany	 13-2
Italy	 24-0
Japan	   4-6
Mexico	 3-5
Sweden	 8-9
Switzerland	 3-2
The same report gives the prices for 1936 as follow-s:

Supply-Agriculture
Cents per pound
Australia	 6-54
Brazil	 4-40
Canada	 5-7
Cuba	 3-5
England	 4-19
France	 9-5
Germany	 13-4
Italy	 21-7
Japan	 4-8
Mexico	 3-5
Sweden	 9-4
Switzerland	 5-6
While there is disagreement between the figures for 1936 as cited by Mr. Bell and those given in the beet growers' report, the two evidently quoting from different sources, yet both sets of figures show that Canada's sugar price is relatively low.
In 1937 the prices per pound were as follows:
Cents per pound
Australia	 6-55
Brazil	 4-40
Canada	 5-7
Cuba	 3-5
England	 4-15
F ranee	 9-02
Germany	 13-3
Italy	 14-5
Japan	 5'5
Mexico	 3-5
Sweden	 9-9
Switzerland	 4-8
To me these figures show fairly conclusively that Canada is not paying an exorbitant price for sugar.


Malcolm McLean: Are those wholesale or retail prices?


John Horne Blackmore: Retail prices. I have not given the per capita consumption.


James J. Donnelly: Is any duty imposed on sugar entering those countries?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, in practically every instance, with the possible exception of Cuba.


James J. Donnelly: Is it not that which increases the price in most of those countries?


John Horne Blackmore: It probably is. Since the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) has mentioned it, let me say that those countries apparently consider the industry to be of such value as to justify protection to such an extent that the industry may survive.


James J. Donnelly: The people that use the sugar pay for it.


John Horne Blackmore: That may be so, but the important question is whether they are deriving other advantages which would justify an increase in the price.


Malcolm McLean: Perhaps these high prices are put on by the different governments in an effort to prevent the people
from eating too much sugar. It may be considered unwholesome in some circumstances.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member's remark makes it advisable to give the per capita consumption. Would he like to have that?


Malcolm McLean: It would be interesting.


John Horne Blackmore: The per capita consumption in 1935-36 was as follows:
Pounds
Australia	 112
Brazil	 42
Canada	 100
Cuba	 83
England	  108
France	 56
Germany	 55
Italy	 17
Japan	 25
Mexico	 36
Sweden	 107
Switzerland	 79


Malcolm McLean: What was the per capita consumption in Russia?


John Horne Blackmore: It is not given on this chart. The thing which I think should impress every hon. member is the fact that other countries find it to their advantage to protect their sugar industry and give it an opportunity to survive, whereas Canada places impediments in the way of her industry. In 1936 the government collected from the crop in the Lethbridge area alone, $3.14 a ton, or a total of $649,970. In 1937 there was collected S3.21 a ton, or $756,037. These figures are based on the collections in my own constituency.
Another matter that comes to one's mind when considering this industry is whether there is plenty of suitable land in Canada for its further development. Alberta has 200,000 acres of irrigated land which would be just as adaptable to beet raising as are the 20,000 acres now being used for this purpose. Alberta could support seven factories with a daily slicing capacity of 1,200 tons. Ontario would be able to support many factories, Lambton county alone, according to the estimate which I have, could support four factories of this capacity. The counties of Kent, Essex, Middlesex, Elgin and Huron would all be good for the production of sugar. The Emerson and Gretna areas in Manitoba would be well adapted for the production of sugar. In 1936 there were twenty-nine plots in Quebec between Three Rivers and Montreal which yielded an average of 13-4 tons to the acre, the quality being comparable with that of beets produced in other areas. British Columbia could produce sugar beets in the Okanagan valley and in the Sumas district. The maritime provinces apparently are adapted for the production of sugar beets. The question then
Supply-Agriculture

arises whether we should continue to neglect this industry, or whether we should proceed to develop it and derive from it the benefits which could be obtained.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Give it more protection.


John Horne Blackmore: It must be remembered that one slicing mill with a capacity of 1,200 tons, similar to the mill at Raymond, is estimated to be capable of supporting 10,000 people. This is in addition to the other benefits to be derived. Surely we are acting unwisely when we neglect this industry.
The beet sugar industry is of great value to agriculture, a fact which must not be forgotten in considering the matter as a whole. For the cleaning of soil there is no better crop than sugar beets. No other crop raised on farms forces a greater rotation of crops than sugar beets. No other crop enriches the soil as do sugar beets.


Malcolm McLean: How does it enrich the soil?


John Horne Blackmore: Because of the rotation which is necessary to produce sugar beets successfully. Alfalfa has to be introduced.


Malcolm McLean: The alfalfa
enriches the soil and the sugar beets consume the nourishment.


John Horne Blackmore: The succcessful production of sugar beets forces the fanner to enrich the soil.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Never mind the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean).


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member is asking some interesting questions. I think we can get on common ground in regard to agriculture. The other night the hon, member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said that I did not know anything about fanning, but that shows he does not know me. I am at home on matters pertaining to agriculture. It adds nitrogen to the soil.


Malcolm McLean: The alfalfa.


John Horne Blackmore: It aerates the soil and forces deep cultivation, all of which is good. It forces the producer to see that the drainage is good.
There is another matter with which I might deal right now. The beet tops which are left on the ground when the crop is harvested provide valuable pasturage, and sheep are generally run in on the land to devour these tops. The result is that the soil is enriched. Most of those who raise beets aim to feed stock. I know of no branch of agriculture which so strongly impels a man toward mixed or diversified farming as does the raising of sugar beets.


Malcolm McLean: Sweet turnip growing would have the same effect.


John Horne Blackmore: But the farmers will not raise sweet turnips. They raise sugar beets because they provide the cash crop which sweet turnips will not. Some hon. members may not be quite clear as to why the raising of sugar beets impels man to stock feeding. The by-products consist of beet pulp, which is of great feeding value, and beet molasses, which again is of great value. With beet pulp and beet molasses a farmer can feed to advantage all his straw, the combination making an ideal feed-again affording an incentive to diversified farming, and almost obliging the farmer to enrich his soil.
As I said a moment ago, the beet sugar industry aids diversification greatly. Besides beet pulp, the tops, and beet molasses, we have the hay from the alfalfa which comes in the process of crop rotation preparing for the beets. The result is that where you have a well established beet sugar industry, you have practically automatically a fine supply of feed. All round the Raymond and Picture Butte areas, the live stock industry was saved for four or five years because there was so much surplus feed to be found in those areas. Had we had ten or twelve factories all through southern Alberta we should have found our task of alleviating the distress of the farmers in Saskatchewan greatly simplified, because the feed would have been there and would have been available cheap. Beet pulp sells at from 40 to 50 cents a ton.


Malcolm McLean: Not dried, surely.


John Horne Blackmore: No, not dried, but it is exceedingly valuable as feed. The figures I have given are correct, but I must tell the committee that I have not been able to verify the figures I am now going to give. I have been reliably informed, however, that three tons of beet pulp are as valuable as one ton of hay.


Malcolm McLean: Not as valuable as the ton of alfalfa hay that it replaces.


John Horne Blackmore: The statement made to me was just in those terms. I asked about alfalfa, and my informant-he was a graduate of an agricultural college and of pretty high standing in my district-was not quite prepared to tell me how it compared with alfalfa.


Malcolm McLean: That would be dried beet pulp.


John Horne Blackmore: No; he said three tons of ordinary beet pulp, but we can leave that aside because I have not been able to get exact figures. That figure, however, was given me, and I know from personal experience that beet pulp is of great value as stock feed.

Supply-Agriculture


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the hon. member figures of the cost of production to the growers?


John Horne Blackmore: I hope to come to that. In addition to what I have already said, dairying is greatly encouraged wherever there is beet pulp, wherever sugar beets are being raised and beet sugar is being produced. If we could manage to give a fair profit to our dairy men we would find there would be a great value incidentally added to the beet sugar industry.
Another aspect of the beet sugar industry is this: It ensures a cash crop against hail, frost and drought. I have not seen since 1925, when the beet sugar industry was established in the town of Raymond, a failure of a beet crop. The only thing that we have had that threatened a crop failure was the beet web-worm which was mastered, in time to save the beet crop, by the skilful men who were engaged to look after that pest. Once in a while the wind in the early spring will cut the tops off, and drifting soil will kill the little beets just coming up; but apart from that, there is hardly anything which threatens to destroy the beet crop; it is almost a certain crop, which fact is greatly in its favour. It makes for stable homes, just because of the fact I have just mentioned. It is almost indispensable for the success of irrigation projects. When we remember that Alberta has $35,000,000 invested in irrigation projects, we can see how important to her future is the beet sugar industry. I will read two short quotations which may be of interest to the committee in this connection:
The irrigation projects in Alberta represent an investment of over $35,000,000. The future of southern Alberta depends largely on the success of these projects, and the expansion of the sugar beet industry is essential if disaster is to be avoided.
Here is another one:
The importance of the industry in relation to successful irrigation farming is fully appreciated by the federal United States government. The reclamation bureau considers the sugar beet industry second only to good land and a dependable water supply in assuring the success of any major irrigation enterprise.
I think I have said sufficient to establish, first, that the beet sugar industry in Canada is a thoroughgoing concern and economically sound; and, second, that it is of great value to the agricultural industry as a whole. Of how great a value it is, we can gather from two or three facts. In Germany between 1870 and 1903 the state paid $340,000,000 in subsidies on sugar beets, but Germany increased her yield of cereals during those years from 14 to 34-9 bushels to the acre.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As a result of what?


John Horne Blackmore: As a result of the
development of the beet sugar industry. A
good many hon. members get somewhat out of contact with the facts when they argue that Germany is producing her own wheat requirements purely through a policy of economic nationalism. They have actually increased their productive capacity by a wise use of their soil. They have encouraged the beet sugar industry.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same in England.


John Horne Blackmore: 
James J. Donnelly: How is that?


John Horne Blackmore: By the imposition
of the excise tax.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can the hon. member
give the amount of labour engaged on the farm and factories by the beet sugar industry?


John Horne Blackmore: I was going to deal with that next. Thank you. The beet sugar industry is valuable to Canada's economy. It will supply much employment. One 1,200 ton capacity slicing mill such as that at Picture Butte will keep 10,000 people. Those people will all be in Canada. If you buy your sugar from Cuba you keep Cubans, but
425S
Supply-Agriculture

it happens at the present time the people to whom we are paying relief are Canadians. To produce 100 pounds of beet sugar furnishes twenty times as much employment for Canadians as to produce 100 pounds of cane sugar. Besides that, it uses much Canadian material. To produce 45,000,000 pounds of beet sugar, which represents about five per cent of Canada's consumption, consumed the following materials in 1933:
Coal	$ 55,000
Sugar bags	   100,000
Boxes, supplies and maintenance. 105,000
Lime rock	 20,000
Coke	 9,000
Freight	 330,000
And $175,000 went for factoiy payroll and
S940,000	as payment to growers. So far as I know, practically every dollar of this was spent in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that in Alberta alone, or in all Canada?
Mr. BLA'CKMORE: This would be in Alberta, but I think the same situation would exist with respect to all Canada. It happens that in Alberta we produce practically all these necessaiy materials. But there are many parts of Canada where the same condition exists.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What proportion of our consumption of sugar comes from sugar beets?


John Horne Blackmore: About 14 per cent.
It means much to our railways and transportation companies. The railways derive at least twice the revenue from beet sugar production that they do from cane sugar production; for they have to haul the incoming beets to the factory as well as the coal, limestone, coke and other supplies.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Could Alberta coal be used in the manufacture?


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes, Alberta coal is admirably adapted for almost anything. The beet pulp is hauled away from the factory by the railroads, and then there is the hauling of the live stock which are fed by it. Surely one could hardly think of an agricultural development in Canada which would be more in the interest of the railways.
Besides that, it will help to balance our trade. The more we produce within our own boundaries, the less we must buy from abroad. It means also a secure sugar supply in time of war. Those of us who remember the exigencies we fell into as a result of our short sugar supply during the last war should be impressed by that. I could say a great deal more about this industry, but perhaps I have said enough.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he has spoken for forty minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: I am just closing.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member may continue only with unanimous consent.


Mr. POULIOT:: Unanimous consent.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you. Surely, bearing in mind the three main considerations which I have outlined to-night, namely:
1.	That the sugar beet industry is economically sound in Canada;
2.	That the sugar beet industry is of very great value to agriculture as a whole in Canada;
3.	That the sugar beet industry is of great value in the whole economy of Canada;
Everyone throughout the country should be eager to do whatever is reasonably possible to cause the development of that industry within this dominion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said about the importance of the sugar beet industry. He said that the cattle could eat the leaves of the beets. Quite often they eat turnip leaves also; but when they eat the leaves of the turnips the milk has a turnip flavour, which is not so good. I wonder if it would not be possible, in case the cattle eat the leaves or the pulp of the sugar beets to take advantage of that for the sugar industry.


Mr. HARTIGAN:: Does the hon. member mean that the cow would make sugar?


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute. At the
present time the sugar is extracted from the beets by a chemical process. There is an analogy between the making of sugar from beets and making it from the sap of the maple tree, although the former is a little more complicated. But if the beets are eaten by the cows I wonder if it would not be possible to treat the milk chemically, because the proportion of sugar in the milk would be higher if the cows ate the sugar beets, and that should facilitate the making of beet milk sugar, which would have an analogy with maple cream or something of the sort. I wonder if one cannot summarize the whole thing by saying that, instead of treating the beet pulp chemically, the milk of the cows which have eaten the beets could be treated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Questions


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 59, to amend the Live Stock Pedigree Act, 1932.-The Minister of Agriculture.
James Garfield Gardiner: It is not desired to proceed with this bill and I should like to have it dropped.


Frederick George Sanderson: Dropped.



ADJOURNMENT-ROYAL VISIT

Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the house adjourns I wonder if the minister could arrange that on the opening of the house to-morrow a statement be made of the present program of their majesties' visit. There is great confusion in the minds of hon. members as to exactly what the program is to be on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and if the government could give a statement on the opening of the house tomorrow, it would be greatly appreciated.


Mr. HOWE:: I shall endeavour to get
the official program and give it to the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The reports in the press are conflicting.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 18, 1939