1940-08-05

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he proposes to make a statement to-day with regard to the action of Mayor Houde of Montreal to which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) referred on Saturday, and particularly to the action of the censor in endeavouring to prevent further publication of the statement and comment on it in the press.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice I understand has under review the statement made by His Worship Mayor Houde. Personally I think the statement should never have been made. I think that when it was made any newspaper office that had seen it ought to have prevented its publication. Certainly I think it was quite correct that the censor should ask that the statement be censored, and I understand that it was censored and that after the attention of newspapers had been drawn to the fact that the censors regarded it as a statement the publication of which would mean violation of the defence of Canada regulations, it did not receive further publicity.
I would say further that I think the statement might well have' been left out of the remarks made by the leader of the opposition in this house the other day. It is a statement calculated to endeavour to arouse opposition to the laws of this country, and every effort should be made to prevent any action of that kind at this time.



PASSPORTS AND VISAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the proper minister to the methods of administration of the office at which passports are issued in Ottawa. I do not wish to complain because I know that that office has been strained to the limit and has been overwhelmed with applications. But a few weeks ago I received letters written by three different people in western Canada who in June had
applied for passports, two of them to go to the United States for medical treatment which I know they need, and the other to go to Chicago to examine an expensive piece of machinery which is coming up to be used in British Columbia. I had no answer to my letter asking whether these applications had been received and whether the passports had been granted, so that on Friday I went to the office. A clerk was called in, a memorandum made, and presently he came back and said they could not tell me whether the applications had been received or whether the passports had been granted. I think they ought to adopt some more businesslike system in the passport office. When an application comes in a memorandum should be made of it, perhaps a card index kept, noting the date of application for the passport and the date when the passport was granted. Then they would be able to tell people what the position was, but as it is, they are in a fog and do not know what has happened.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I imagine I
am the minister responsible because the passport office comes under External Affairs. I was informed by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs that all the applications made t.o the Ottawa office for passports had been cleared off the slate some days ago. What my hon. friend said just now comes as a surprise, because I was informed not only that the applications at the Ottawa office had been duly attended to but that that was equally true of applications made to the other offices. However, I do not question for a moment what my hon. friend has said, and I shall immediately draw the attention of the Undersecretary of State to his statement and seek to give my hon. friend a due explanation.


George Black: Thank you. I am
very glad to know that that is the state of affairs and that the slate has been cleared off at the passport office. But they were not able to tell me that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend realizes that for a time there was a terrific rush for passports, and it was necessary to get in a number of additional clerks. Possibly the clerk my hon. friend interviewed was one who recently came to the staff and was not familiar with the work of the office.


Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: I do
not know whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) fully realizes the difficulties that the people of Canada have had in connection with passports, but in order to indicate to him how much trouble we have had and may perhaps have in the future I should
Passports and Visas

like to read a copy of a letter that was sent to the passport officer, Department of External Affairs, Ottawa. It reads:
Dear Sir:
On June 18 last, my son-
I leave out the name.
-applied for a passport.	.
Since then, I have written you three times, telegraphed twice and phoned by long distance once in an effort to obtain this passport, but am still without it or any communication regarding it.
May I again ask that you send this passport by return-please oblige me.
My wife, who applied at the same time for a passport, and who sent her application papers in the same envelope, received her passport weeks ago.
I personally applied to the passport office on Friday of last week, and the passport was issued on Saturday evening. There has undoubtedly been great trouble in getting passports from the office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must admit
that there has been a great deal of trouble, but it originated south of the line, not in this country, when the obligation was imposed. As a passport is in the nature of a legal document, and one that has international significance, great care must be taken in the issuing of any passport. What has happened I think in many cases is that while the passport office has received some of the information that is required before a passport can be issued it has had to communicate further for additional information. I do not say that that applies in the particular case my hon. friend has mentioned, but there has been a very difficult situation to meet. At the present time, I understand, the difficulties have been overcome.



PROCESSING TAX-REPORT AS TO PROBABLE INCREASE IN PRICE OF FLOUR AND BREAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Will the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) say whether the war-time prices and trade board has come to any decision following the investigation into the proposed increase in the price of bread?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: I can best answer the question of the hon. member for Weyburn by saying that the matter is under the consideration of the board. I have not been advised of any definite conclusion at which they have arrived, but they are giving the matter careful consideration at the present time.



THE PRESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Early in July I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question with reference to press censorship. He promised me an answer some time later, and then I asked the question again. Would it be possible to get the question clarified before the end of the session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has struck a good moment. The matter I mentioned was in the hands of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and I believe the acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) has been intending to answer the question when he saw the hon. member in the house. Probably the minister has not had the good fortune that I have had of having a view of my hon. friend directly opposite him. Perhaps the minister will answer the question now.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Justice):: The question referred to by the hon. member was submitted to the officers of the Department of Justice, and his observations were taken into consideration. Two or three similar cases had to be considered at the same time. In fact representations have been made in respect of two newspapers of opposite views published in Canada for having committed the same offence. After considering the facts in the two cases, and in view of the fair and open apologies which were offered by the two newspapers in question, it was deemed advisable not to proceed. We were convinced, among other things, that after the apologies had been published the penalty that might be imposed by the court would be very slight and the matter would become of much less importance thereafter. In the circumstances it was decided that the matter should rest and that, instead of taking proceedings at once, we should try to secure the cooperation of newspapers and endeavour to obtain, if possible, their assistance, so that we might ensure the observance of the defence of Canada regulations. No action was taken, particularly in view of the fact that complete and unequivocal apologies were made by the newspapers.

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

Supply-Fisheries-Administration



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
77. Departmental administration, $129,300.
Mr. HAZEN:: When the committee rose on Saturday we were discussing the regulation prohibiting the catching of salmon in the nontidal waters of the Saint John river with stationary nets by the descendants or assignees of the men to whom those rights were granted about the year 1785. I said at that time that I did not want to get into an argument with the Minister of Fisheries over this matter, but there are one or two things to which I wish to refer in view of the statement he made to the committee. I am referring to these matters in the hope that he will give them careful consideration. For, despite what he has said, I believe an injustice has been done and an illegal attempt is being made to deprive these men of what they rightfully own; and unless this regulation is changed it will be a continuing source of discontent and the matter will be brought up on the floor of the house year after year until justice is done.
The minister said that I was labouring under a misapprehension if I believed that any inherent rights were being taken away from these people. I say that certain inherent rights or, as I prefer to call them, vested rights, have been taken away. I have drawn his attention and the attention of the committee to the wording of the grants under which these rights were obtained by the present holders or by their predecessors in title from the crown when the grants were originally made. By these grants they obtained all the fishing in all the fishing waters. I will not go into the grants again to-day but I would point out to the minister that, in addition to the grants of the fisheries, these grants ran to the middle of the river or, to put it more correctly, ad medium filium aquae.
I would ask the minister to confer with the law officers of the crown further with reference to the matter before coming to a definite conclusion, with a view to changing this regulation.
I must take exception to the statement made by the minister that this regulation does not interfere at all with the rights of the people to fish, because the method they follow is the only one by which those who possess the grants can catch fish. The fish cannot be caught in these waters by angling; they cannot be caught by bait fishing; they cannot be caught by trawling. The only way in which these fish can be caught in the waters in which the people in question have these particular rights is by netting, and it has always been an inference, from the time the
grants were made, that the fishing to which they have the right included fishing by netting. This regulation, by depriving these men of the right to use nets, prevents them in fact from fishing. As a matter of fact, this so-called regulation is not a regulation at all. It is not a regulation in the proper sense of the word but is an attempt to confiscate valuable legal rights by order in council and without any compensation whatever.
The minister said on Saturday that the government was not infringing upon the ancestral rights of these people but that it was simply saying to them that they cannot snare salmon just as they cannot snare deer and moose. But it does not say to the people that they cannot hunt or capture deer and moose, whereas it does say to these people that they cannot capture or catch salmon. It has prohibited them from catching salmon; for it has stopped them from netting, and that is the only way in which these fish can be captured or caught by the people who hold the grants. It is an attempt to confiscate a valuable legal right by order in council and without compensation, and I say to the minister that it is illegal and unjust.
If, for the general good of the country or of the province or of a certain part thereof, the government considers it advisable to acquire these rights then it should pay for them. The minister's suggestion that they will pay these men for their nets and equipment is simply adding insult to injury and injustice. If their rights are to be taken away they should be compensated not only for their nets but also for their rights in the land.
When private angling clubs on such rivers as the Restigouche or the Bonaventure and others wanted to improve their fishing, how did they go about it? They went to the net fishermen. They did not ask the government to confiscate the rights of these fishermen, or if they did they did not succeed in getting the government to do any such thing, paying nothing for it. They went to the fishermen themselves and paid them for their rights and got them to take up their stands, thereby allowing a larger number of fish to go up the river. That is the course which the government should take to-day if it wishes to take away the rights from these men in the nontidal waters along the Saint John river.
If the minister wants to improve fishing in these waters, he might very well remove the dams from the mouth of the Mispec and also from the mouth of the Nashwaak opposite the city of Fredericton. If these were removed not only would angling be improved but the commercial fishery would also be improved in the non-tidal parts of the river and in the harbour and the bay of Fundy.

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
I do not want to labour the matter but I am going to ask the minister to do two things. I ask him to review this regulation and to consider further the facts and consult with the law officers of the crown so as to be thoroughly satisfied that it is not an infringement of legal rights. I ask him also to consider the matter from this point of view, that it is not a regulation but an absolute prohibition or confiscation. I will ask him, further, to go to the non-tidal part of the Saint John river and investigate the matter carefully for himself.


Hon. J. E. MICHAXJD (Minister of Fisheries):: I cannot allow this item to carry without adding something to what has already been said and correcting the impression that may be created by the hon. member's statement, that the change in the regulation, brought about this last spring, is an injustice to the land owners and also that it is an illegal attempt to deprive people of certain rights. The regulation, which I read before, is that the use of nets in any non-tidal waters, except under a permit of the minister, is prohibited. My hon. friend has construed it as confiscatory. It is a provision restrictive of the common law rights of people to fish in waters on the foreshore of their land. It is claimed that it is illegal and unjust because the grants from the crown, to which reference has been made, specifically mention that the owner shall have the right to fish and to the fish running in the waters. This has to be interpreted just as the provision of the British North America Act must be interpreted. The British North America Act says that the federal government shall have the exclusive right to regulate fisheries in sea coast and inland waters, and the interpretation put upon the grant has been that it means that the owners had the exclusive right to enjoy the fishing in these waters, provided that the public interest and conservation were safeguarded. It has been so interpreted from time immemorial.
Up to 1908 these people had not enjoyed the legal right to net fish on the foreshore of the Saint John river. From 1908 up to the spring of 1940 legislation allowed them to set nets at a certain time of the day and during a certain period of the year. If my hon. friend were right in his interpretation of these grants it would mean that no municipal, provincial or federal authority would have any right to regulate the time of year, the time of day or the day of the week, or the method in connection with the catching of fish. It would mean that these people would have the right to place a fence in the river and hold all the fish that came up to the fence or net, since no one could interfere with their
[Mr. Hszen.1
ancestral or legal rights. That would not be fair and no interpretation carrying that meaning could be put upon the wording of the grant. All that the regulation does is to control the method whereby these people or the owners of land abutting the foreshore or waters of the river Saint John shall exercise their rights. In the past, legislation has been enforced and accepted by these people, limiting their rights as to the time, the season; now we are limiting their rights as to the method of fishing.
With regard to the argument advanced that these people cannot catch fish except by nets [DOT]-that is, that they cannot catch the salmon that run in those waters by angling or trolling -I submit it is possible for them to catch by angling if they want to use that method, and they are not deprived by legislation of the use of that method. As proof that it is possible, I might quote the headlines from New Brunswick newspapers showing that since nets have been prohibited in those waters angling has been very successful. For example, a news item from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of July 18, headed:
Record catch of salmon taken. Hartland pool popular place during week; many visitors.
Then from the same paper of July 13:
Fishermen have field day at Hartland salmon pool.
That is in the middle of that territory, about midway between the head of the tidal and the head of the non-tidal waters.


Douglas King Hazen: Did not the same conditions prevail at the Harts pool?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: And that is below where the netting took place.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am just giving these examples to show that fish can be caught in those waters by other methods than setting nets. Another news item in the Telegraph-Journal of July 25, from around Fredericton, says: "Hooked fish jumps into angler's boat." The fish are so plentiful, so anxious to get out of these waters, that they jump into the boat when hooked. I am simply giving these examples to show that fish can be caught by other methods than by set nets.
I know that there has been for some years a controversy with respect to the interpretation of the wording of these grants of land on the Saint John river. But after many years of consideration by officials of the department and law officers of the crown, and in the light of interpretations placed on other constitutional clauses by the different courts of the country and the privy council,

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
it is thought that the Department of Fisheries or the government by legislation have the right to regulate the methods by which the successors of the original grantees can exercise their rights. And that is the limit to which these rights have been interfered with. They have simply been regulated as to the methods of exercising such rights.
Regarding the request of the hon. member that I should look into the possibility of removing a dam at the mouth of the Nash-waak river, flowing into the Saint John, I am pleased to be able to inform him that recently steps were taken with a view to having these obstructions removed by the owners of the mill or the industry or of the shore rights, and I am told by the officers of the department that finally we have been successful in having this obstruction removed. But I understand my hon. friend to state that there are also obstructions at the mouth of the Mispec and that such obstructions should be removed. I remember having had considerable correspondence and negotiations with the city of Saint John and some people in that district regarding an old granite dam built some years ago which is no longer used for industrial purposes and which offers some obstruction to the fish ascending that branch of the Saint John river or the east side of the bay of Fundy. We are still negotiating with the interested parties. Last year an offer was made to the interested parties in Saint John through the city council that the federal Department of Fisheries would contribute fifty per cent of the cost of removal of those obstructions. So far I do not know of any action having been taken by those interested, but this offer still stands, and if it is found that the public interest requires the total removal of the obstructions at public expense, we shall see that it is done.


Mr. GILLIS:: I notice that the departmental estimates have been reduced approximately 36 per cent. In my opinion this will render the department unable to carry on much necessary work with respect to developing the fishing industry from a national point of view. I was surprised a few evenings ago to hear the leader of the opposition bring to the attention of the house the fact that in New Brunswick a privately-owned fish company had been subsidized to the extent of seventy-five per cent of the total cost of the erection of a fish processing plant in that province. I was surprised for this reason, that for the past five or six years throughout the maritime provinces an effort has been made by the people themselves to rehabilitate the fishing industry along cooperative lines. I know of no other industry
in Canada in which the people have made greater strides towards reestablishing themselves and improving their economic position. This assistance was given, I understand, through the provincial government to a privately owned fish company. I was surprised because I know in that province the cooperative movement is fairly well developed and is paying particular attention to the rehabilitation of the fishing industry. For example they have in New Brunswick 650 study clubs with a membership of 5,200. The plant established there is a private enterprise operated for profit. While we have contributed seventy-five per cent of the total cost of the plant, we have no say in its operation, and the fishermen are being exploited through that medium, instead of being aided in reestablishing that industry on cooperative lines.
If there is any solution to the problems of the fishermen, it rests with themselves. They have to be instructed in the processing and marketing of fish. The extension movement through the university of St. Francois Xavier has made great strides, at least in the maritime provinces. I have had the pleasure of travelling through Nova Scotia and seeing the work that has been done in that industry. I know that the government are subsidizing it to some extent, but the grant is not adequate.


Mr. ISNOR:: How much was it last year?


Clarence Gillis: It was $50,000 spread over the maritime provinces. That is not very much.


Mr. REID:: It is more than we get in British Columbia.


Clarence Gillis: Dozens of young men who were taken out of fishing boats have given gratis their service and their time to that movement. They have been schooled and educated in that movement; they have studied the problems connected with the processing and marketing of fish, and I consider them the most capable group of people in this country to deal with those problems. These young men travel from one end of the province to the other carrying on that work. If the government are interested in establishing that industry on a firm, workable basis, instead of having it handled by private enterprise which exploits the fisherman, I believe every assistance ought to be given that cooperative movement in connection with the erection of processing plants, cold storage plants and so on.
I have had some correspondence with the Minister of Fisheries since coming here, in connection with the Lockeport fishermen, who have been trying very hard to improve their

Supply-Fisheries-Administra tion
position. They went through a strike and formed a union. In my opinion the lowest standard of living to be found anywhere in Canada exists in that district. Wages are as low as ten to fifteen cents an hour, and the fishermen are exploited by the private fish companies. In addition to establishing a union they have established a cooperative fish processing plant, and have been asking for some assistance with respect to the establishment of a cold storage plant as well. The minister pointed out, no doubt quite properly, that this year there is no grant for services of the kind, so that he was not in a position to help them. That is one reason why I am somewhat disappointed to see the estimates of this department reduced. In view of the fact that the fish industry in Europe has been completely wrecked, they should be increased. Canada has a potentially great market for fish if that industry can be properly organized, set up, assisted and directed by the government, through the medium of the people themselves.
There is another service which I called to the attention of the minister and which I still believe should be established, though the minister's reply was not very encouraging. The fishermen ask for a radio broadcast setting out fish prices from day to day or week to week, so that when they come in from fishing they may know exactly what their fish is being sold for. This service would not cost a great deal. In sections where the fishermen are organized and operating cooperatively they have established standard prices, but in other sections private buyers take advantage of their ignorance with regard to prices, buy up the catch in the whole section and throw it on the market, which tends to keep fish prices unsettled. The minister's reply in regard to the establishment of this broadcast, which would be similar to the broadcast provided for the information of farmers, was that it would not serve any national purpose. Probably that is correct; Saskatchewan and some of the other provinces might not be interested in the price of fish. But I do not think it would entail a great deal of expense if once or twice a week there was a broadcast from Ottawa to inform those interested in the price of fish as to market conditions, so that fishermen might be in a position more or less to standardize their prices.
I should like to leave those two thoughts with the minister. Personally I think the fisheries is the most depressed industry in Canada. I do not know of anyone who suffers as the fisherman does, but I believe there may be a solution to the problem. They are taking a greater interest in their own affairs; they are trying to establish themselves on a
[Mr. Gillis.l
reasonable basis, in order to rehabilitate their industry. I think that is the real solution to the problem, to have them become interested in themselves, to help them establish lobster packing plants, fish processing plants, cold storage plants, and so on, to give them an incentive to keep on working. At present they are unemployed fifty per cent of the time; at times they face starvation, and often I have wondered where they got the courage with which to carry on. If there is any chance of doing it the minister should rearrange the funds available to his department in order to give these men every possible assistance.
If we are going to help these people, Canada should be made fish conscious. In 1939 Canadians ate only 26 pounds of fish per capita, as against 125 pounds of meat. One reason for this is that meat is government inspected and graded and attractively displayed in the average store. Fish is neither graded nor inspected; it reaches the market in any old condition, and when you go to a store to buy fish it does not look' very inviting. Here is something the government might do. We have plenty of inspectors and other officials in this department, and it would be a good move if the minister considered some sort of organization which would see to it that fish are properly graded and inspected.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: With most of what the hon. gentleman has said I quite agree, but I should like to point out to him that the grant or subsidy to which he referred was made by the provincial government. Our only connection with it was to agree to the use of part of the money which had been allotted to the province in order to subsidize that plant. We did not do even this, however, until we had surveyed the ground and investigated the possibility of having this industry taken over by the cooperative organizations of the province. However, we found that these organizations were not then, and are not yet, in a position to undertake a project of that magnitude. They did not have the proper organization or experience to carry on that work. The provincial authorities entered into a contract in order to prevent exploitation by private industry; and the fact that this year these people are receiving for their fish 100 per cent more than they were paid last year, before that industry was established, would indicate that they are being safeguarded by the conditions of that agreement and by the control the province has over that industry. To-day the cooperative groups of the district are very well pleased with the treatment they have received, and it is entirely possible that in a few years they may be in a position to take over this

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
industry, after they have acquired the necessary experience. It must not be forgotten that this is a new industry in that district.
It is an altogether new form of fish processing and marketing at that point. Prior to this year those fishermen were drying and salting their fish almost exclusively for export markets. Due to world conditions we sought to change the method which had been followed by these people, for their own benefit.
With regard to helping cooperatives by means of bonuses or subsidies, that was not confined to New Brunswick. ,Uast year we helped the industry of Nova._JScotia by subsidizing private plants, in efrder that they may be equipped to take care of local conditions.
I recall that we offered a subsidy in one very important district which has been badly stricken, the Canso district. They were intelligent enough, however, to realize that under present circumstances they were not yet ready to take care of or to use to advantage the money offered to them. They suggested that some semi-public undertaking should be entered into with the industry which had been established in that locality, and for the time being that served to take care of the situation. It cannot be said, I suggest, that we have neglected the fishermen or their cooperative organizations.
Something has been said in regard to the broadcasting of fish prices. May I point out that the question of finance is not involved. The fact is that in Canada we have not yet any fish market; we have no fish exchange; we have no fish pier-except in respect of halibut on the Pacific coast, and of course I am confining my observations to the east coast. The industry on that coast is still using cut-throat methods of operation. Prices are not determined by any board, exchange or market in any locality. Those prices are determined by what fishermen are willing to take from the people who want to buy their fish.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: By the demand.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, by the demand. Therefore we should find it very difficult to inform the fishermen of fish prices for any particular day at any particular place. Of course we could tell them what buyers were offering at a particular time, but it is possible that that information might lead the fishermen to the belief that the prices mentioned are market prices, and that they could not get more even if they asked more. Until the industry is better organized, the government believes that for the present it is in the best interests of the fishermen not to induce them to believe that certain sets of facts or certain conditions do exist, when in 95826-155
reality they do not exist. I hope that before long we shall be in a position to supply the information the fishermen want.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister some questions in regard to the departmental staff. At page 88 of the estimates I find an allowance of $3,600 for a private secretary. This is the usual grant for a private secretary, and I am quite sure he has earned it. All private secretaries do, although this department is not a very big one. But lower down on the page there is a further item of $600 as an allowance for secretarial duties. Will the minister explain the purposes for which that money is used, and tell the committee how much of it was spent last year?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: A similar item has
appeared in the estimates of almost every department from time to time in the past, and I am told that it is to supplement the $3,600 where a person taken out of the civil service to act as private secretary is receiving a salary less than $3,600. The $600 would bring such person's salary up to an amount which would be considered fair for a private secretary, notwithstanding the fact that he might receive a stated salary in respect of his duties in the civil service. I might point out that since 1935 this expenditure has never been used in the Department of Fisheries.


Alan Webster Neill: In the present instance the
gentleman who is private secretary is receiving $3,600.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, and no more.


Alan Webster Neill: So that there is no present
need for this item of $600?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; but if during the
year, for some reason the private secretary should drop out, and it became necessary to enlist the services of a person in the employ of the civil service whose present salary is less than $3,600, we should need this amount to bring his remuneration up to the amount we believe a private secretary should receive.


Alan Webster Neill: I suggest that argument is
unsound. If we are going to adopt that principle we shall have to duplicate the salaries of all in the civil service, for fear they may die or change. This is war time, and we are supposed to cut down expenditure. Indeed we do know that expenditures are being cut down. It seems to me there is no reason for this item of $600. It is an item which has appeared for five years, and it will appear again. I would feel inclined to move to reduce the amount to be voted by this amount of $600. However, for the moment I shall leave that subject.



R1VI8ED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries-Administration
I wish to direct the attention of the minister to the item for director of publicity. This matter was discussed a few days ago by the leader of the opposition, but it may be that he did not have full information on the subject. I understood from what the minister said on the previous occasion that the gentleman in question is a Mr. Paisley, who was appointed in 1929. It was pointed out that before his appointment he was a well known newspaper writer. As would appear from the item, his duty would seem to be that of publishing, once a month, the fishing news bulletin, a four-page pamphlet with three columns to the page. It is a small publication, and I do not think much complaint could be made about it. As a matter of fact it contains useful information, and I like to read it. I understand, too, that this gentleman is charged with the duty of regulating the advertising done by the department. No doubt that would be a considerable item. I have no objection to his salary, which, in fact, is a substantial one. But when we go farther down the page we find an item for a publicity agent. When was this gentleman appointed ?
Joseph Enoil Michaud: This is not a new
appointment, but rather a reclassification of a position which has existed in the department since 1931. Formerly there was the position of assistant director of publicity. A gentleman was appointed to that post in 1931, and in 1938 he was retired on pension. We then asked the civil service commission to reclassify the position so that we might lower the salary, which then stood at $3,780. In order that the salary of the new appointee might be lowered, we asked permission to reclassify the position, and it has been reclassified as that of publicity agent.
_ Mr. NEILL:	It is a new appointment,
inasmuch as it is another person who has been appointed?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: And the salary has been cut from $3,780 to $2,040?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: That might be held to
be desirable, or a step in the right direction. But I should like the minister to tell us what he does to earn his salary, I do not care whether it is $2,000 or $200,000. What does he do? The director of publicity is a highly paid and good man. Why does he need an assistant? It does not matter whether he is called assistant director of publicity or publicity agent; that is only a play on words. What does this man do?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: He is assistant to the director of publicity. That branch of the department was organized in 1931, on the recommendation of the Maclean commission, which in 1927 investigated the fisheries of the maritime provinces and the Magdalen islands, and in 1928 made its report. At page 83 of that report we find this recommendation:
(b) Departmental organization: We were not asked to make any general survey of the departmental organization, but we wish to point out in what respects the departmental staff should m our judgment be increased and strengthened for the performing, ot. addi tional services.
(1) FisheriqgjTntoTS|gence Branch: There is need for a fisTreriRs"intelligence branch under the direction of a highly qualified officer. We were much impressed with the widespread demand for reliable and regular information, particularly regarding the production and market conditions of other countries; the stocks on hand from tinre to time; market prices and forms of marketing; recent developments in the industry in Canada and elsewhere; statistical information of all kinds; and, in general, information of any nature which might be helpful in the intelligent direction of the industry. Information of this nature accurately collected, and properly edited and circulated by a regularly issued fisheries intelligence publication, would prove of great interest and of much value. This is not a light undertaking if it is to be properly and effectively performed. We recommend the creation of a fisheries intelligence branch in which such work may be carried on.
The_ next paragraph goes on to deal with statistics and to show that they are of great importance to any industry, and it gives reasons why they are specially important to the fishing industry. My information is that it was consequent upon this report that the director of publicity was appointed in 1929. As his work increased, an assistant was appointed and then the position of the assistant was changed to that of publicity agent in 1938.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the date of that report?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: 1929. The director of publicity and his assistant, the publicity agent, gather all the information we require, prepare the annual report and the statistical statements that are issued from time to time, and generally keep the minister and the departmental officers properly informed on statistics relating to the fishing industry of the world.


Alan Webster Neill: This report by the Maclean commission was made eleven years ago, and the minister has simply quoted the portion which backs up his justification for the appointment of this officer. But the report does not say that two men should be appointed to do one man's job. The work indicated is valuable and no doubt necessary. But all that

Suppl y-Fuhe ries-A d min istration
comes entirely within the jurisdiction of the director of publicity. We have one already at a salary of $3,780 a year, who presumably is doing this work, and doing it well. The Maclean commission never recommended that we appoint another man to assist him. A good deal of this statistical information can be obtained now from the Department of Trade and Commerce, whose business it is to collect the statistics.
Here is a chance that does not occur in every department to save money. There is pressure put on all departments to reduce expenditures, and it has to be done willy-nilly. Here was a man who was superannuated, but the department, instead of taking the opportunity to leave the position vacant-and it was an absolutely unnecessary one-appointed another man to the position. He is now on probation, and when he has served his probation he will automatically go into the permanent service. I make that distinct criticsm of the department. They are carrying a man whose services are entirely unnecessary, and at considerable expense to the department, when they have already a thoroughly competent and fairly well paid man to do the work. I do not think that can be gainsaid. Talking about the Maclean report has nothing to do with it. That report indicated the need of a director of publicity. We have got him, and we pay him well. That is the proper way to do it. But we do not need this other man. Here was an opportunity to save that amount of salary.
I want to draw the attention of the committee to the difference between economy as it is spelled in one department and as it is spelled in another. The dictum went out by the finance minister and the government, and quite properly, that we had to cut down the running expenses, so to speak, of the country in order to conserve our funds to meet the war. Expenditures in the Public Works department, for example, were cut down to an extent that if it were peace time, I would say was disgraceful. No new work at all is being undertaken, and even the most essential repairs are looked at with a jaundiced eye. Only if you can make a very strong and a very urgent case can you get anything for repairs. If it was peace time I would say that that policy was penny wise and pound foolish, because it will cost more money ultimately to make the repairs. The Minister of Public Works, if he were here, would bear me out that I have complained to him that I cannot get these expenditures, especially for new work, but he has explained the situation and I have acquiesced cheerfully because I appreciated the circumstances. I can explain the situation to my people and they will have 95826-155J
to accept it, and they will do it willingly if the same treatment is applied to all. That is the essential feature.	_
Now look at what economy means in the Department of Fisheries. Page 13 of the estimates shows a reduction of roughly $150,000. But look at the analysis and see where the reductions are made. At pages 88 and 89 you will find the details of services for departmental administration at Ottawa, and a few outside places like Vancouver, Halifax and Saint John. At Ottawa there has been an increase of two employees and of approximately $6,000 in salaries. It is true that page 88 shows an increase of only one employee but there is a sort of-I will not say trick- but manoeuvre there. The publicity agent is shown as non-existent and the staff appears to be reduced by one, but actually the publicity agent exists and he is shown as on probation. Therefore he is paid from the temporary vote, which has been increased by a little more than the publicity agent's salary comes to. So there has really been an increase of two employees and an increase in salaries of about $6,000.
The minister has told us that he has saved $8,000. How? He did it by appointing an unnecessary man at S8,000 to a position that was not needed, and then he appointed the same man at the same salary to another position which was really needed, and by amalgamating the two positions he says that he has saved $8,000. He did not save anything at all. Actually there was a net increase of two employees and a net increase of $6,000 in salaries. We have seen this sort of thing so often that I would hardly have bothered rising to protest against it to-day if it were not for the special circumstances. Perhaps this is the price of democracy, I do not know; but there are special features about this thing which compel me to protest.
Lest it be thought that I am making some political attack let me say that I used almost the same language on a similar occasion when the Bennett government was in power and when there was a demand for economy on account of the depression. In this case the demand for economy is on account of the war. In both cases cuts had to be made, and in this case you will find by page 13 that there have been reductions in five items. In some the reduction is as low as $105, and in others the reduction goes up to $1,300. There is one outstanding item on which practically the whole cut is made, a reduction of $235,340. There is another reduction of $7,000, and another item of $18,000 has been cut out altogether. The votes that have been reduced or eliminated are votes that serve a really vital

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
purpose, essential for the conservation and preservation of the fishing industry. For many years we have spent from $2,000,000 to $3,500,000 to protect the fishing industry, and that is good business. The money has been spent mostly to prevent poaching, to enforce the closed season at certain times of the year or week, and more particularly the closed or prohibited areas where people cannot fish, and in propagating the young fish, making it possible for them to be produced and protected. But now there is a demand for economy and how are we going to get it? Not by reducing but by increasing the official staff, and by reducing the votes essential to the life of the industry.
I have already shown that the officers' salaries are up $6,000. Now let us look at outside officialdom. We find on page 88 an increase of five employees, mostly inspectors with an increase in amount of S9,000-not a very big increase as time goes on and development goes on. But when there is an insistent demand and a patent need for economy, and when vital, essential things have to be cut down $250,000, $9,000 of an increase in salaries is, I submit, an unnecessary expense. It is true to the well-known policy, whenever an emergency arises, of "up with the salaries and down with the wages."
I will explain this big cut. It is on the practical work. It mostly cuts out guardians who watch the streams to prevent poaching and also to see that fishermen do not come within half a mile of the mouth of the river or the creek. Last year the amount voted was $391,082; this year the vote is S248,842, showing a decrease of $142,240. There are three other similar cuts. The vote of $18,000 for the air service has been cut out altogether, and for building fishways and clearing rivers the item has been reduced from $9,000 to $2,000, a mere 77 per cent cut. There is also the matter mentioned the other evening by the hon. member for New Westminster, the item regarding hair seals; $30,000 is just wiped out of the book, or a 100 per cent cut.
Now as to the first two items. It is not only the matter of the loss of fish which will be poached through our withdrawing protection from them. If this was for only the one year we might put up with it, but there is no doubt the war will go on longer than that; it will continue for years to come, anyhow. The point is that, through the withdrawal of these practical working guardians, and so on, it may be ten, twelve or even sixteen years before the run in the particular place is restored.
The fish congregate as a biological urge or something of that kind to go up a certain 
river at a certain date. They wait perhaps till the rain comes to give them more water, or until they feel like it, and they gather within half a mile of the mouth of the ri%rer. Practically the whole run is there. And we pay a guardian whose business it is to stay there and see that no seine boat goes within a half a mile of the mouth of that creek. If they go outside of that area they are not so congregated together and cannot be slaughtered in a wholesale manner. But if a couple of seiners can get into that area to work their will for a couple of days they will take out perhaps ten thousand fish, which is the bulk of that run, not only for that year but almost for eternity. It will take at least two or three cycles of four years each to build up from the scattered ones which are left.
Remember, these fish which are there are the last resource, the final remnant. They have encountered and have suffered and been destroyed by all their natural and human enemies. They have escaped all the perils of the spawning ground and got down into the river. They have escaped all the fishing people who have been taking them legally on the way back, and have got to the river at last, and every salmon there is worth $5 or $10 because of its potential spawning value. Yet those are the ones we shall allow to be eliminated because we are going to withdraw their guardians, the inspectors there and let the whole run be poached. If that is done the area will have to be closed not for two or three years but for two or three cycles in order to restore it.
Now it may be said that this change merely means putting a little more work on the guardian, that he will have to cover a little more territory. That is not so. It is well known that these guardians have little gas boats, and a fisherman knows as well the sound of the exhaust of the guardian's engine as we would know the number of our car. They can hear him as far as the sound can be heard, probably a couple of miles or more on the water, so, knowing exactly when he is coming, they can pull in their nets when they are fishing illegally. And also there is what is called the grapevine proposition. An inspector has gone south, they know that he has gone south; they have wired ten miles and learned where he has gone, and they know that it is perfectly safe for them to go north, because he cannot get back in time to do them any harm. It is a free-for-all for everybody. Fishermen are like other human beings, no better and no worse, and they will take advantage of the opportunity, 'because if they don't, somebody else will do it.

Suppl y-Fish e ries-A dmin is t ration
I think that the cutting ouit of the air service is one of the most foolish economies the government has proposed. Even when you have these efficient guardians it is possible to trace them by telephone and telegraph, and fishermen know the sound of their engines. But the aeroplane people are impossible to guard against, so to speak. Seiners have come to me and said, "Why do they put on these airplanes so that an honest man doesn't have a chance?" The reason for the complaint is that he is happily poaching, and an aeroplane comes over a mountain top or a little hill, and two or three minutes from the time he hears the first sound of the engine the inspector lands down beside him; there is no time to pull up nets or anything of that kind. It 'has been said that this service has not got many cases of infractions of the regulations. That is because the fear of them is more powerful and more effective than any actual arrests they might make. A couple of years ago I had a date with an inspector in connection with a court case, and he was late. He explained that as he was flying down from some place he had to stop and pick up a couple of seiners whom he had unexpectedly found poaching. That is the beauty of the aeroplane; the inspector can come upon them unexpectedly and the poacher does not know when or where they will appear.
I have roughly estimated the reduction in these material expenses. My hon. friend has said something about 37i per cent, but you can do anything with figures. I estimate that the material expenses will be down 60 per cent, while the official expenditures have been increased. In the case of the hair seals, mentioned by my hon. friend from New Westminster, you are going to undo the work of sixteen years. I believe that it is something like sixteen years since I first agitated that the bounty on hair seals, which had been suspended, should be put on again, and I succeeded. Now you are going to have a closed season for them, and of course they will breed and they will undo all the advantages which have resulted from the policy of the last few years. It must be remembered that hair seals do an incredible amount of destruction.
As to the item "building fishways and clearing rivers." Last year the vote was $9,000 and this year it is $2,000. Long experience has shown that fish ladders are one of the most effective methods if not the most effective method of preserving fish. A fish ladder within a few miles of where I live cost $4,000; it was put up to allow the fish to get up the falls where, without it, nine times out of ten they could not pass. The odd one
did get up, in order to perpetuate his species, but the numbers were not of any practical value. There were three to five gill netters operating on that valuable sockeye run. We put this ladder in and closed down for five years, and now there are 165 gill net men getting their living off that river, because the fish go up that ladder. You can watch them leaping up step by step, and it is an attractive sight to many visitors. It is also obvious that clearing out the jams on rivers caused by logging operations, and so forth, is a very useful thing, because if you get one jam one year, that closes the run; they spawn in unsuitable places, and the run does not amount to anything.
Another consideration. In the past we have spent millions-and that does not mean one million-on hatcheries. In the long past we conceived the idea that that was the way to increase the run: as we were taking such a heavy toll of the ordinary catch of fish, we ought to help to bring them into existence, and we established these expensive hatcheries. A fisheries commission which I was on some twenty years ago doubted the wisdom of this. They ordered an investigation, and in the report, which is in the minister's office, while they do not say that fish could not be produced artificially, they contended that it could not be done economically, or not so economically as by permitting and encouraging the natural resources of the fish. They said, cut out these expensive hatcheries and encourage the natural breeding methods, and enable them to get up the river by building fish ladders,- by removing jams and so on, and things like that. We were promised in this house-and there is many a promise made in this chamber which is afterwards broken- that the large sums formerly spent in the hatcheries would be devoted to helping the natural resources. That promise was not lived up to. Last year for this work all over Canada, the vote was $9,000. I know many places where that amount could be spent profitably; half of it could be usefully spent at one place in my district, and there are others as well. Yet last year's vote has been cut 77 per cent, and $2,000 is left for helping fish all over Canada to get up to the spawning grounds. Yet there is a vote of $10,000 for the travelling expenses of the salt fish board- who won't produce any spawning fish-and that only for the maritime provinces.
I want to emphasize again that this loss is not for the moment-if it were we might endure it-but it will be in force and effect for years to come. It will not reduce the official staff. They increase like pink rabbits. But for a number of years it will reduce the fish catch and the number of men who are

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
living by the fisheries. The authorities do not seem even to have the sense to see that if there are no fish there are no fishermen, and therefore no officials. Many years ago, when I was appointed an Indian agent, with all the enthusiasm of a young official I suggested what seemed to be some desirable changes to my superior officer. He said to me, with the greatest of kindness and frankness, "Neill, let me offer you two pieces of advice. First, stop annoying your superiors with these ideas; it only irritates them; and second, see that you get your salary paid punctually every month." "But," I said, "if we go *on like this it may lead to the Indians dying off." "Oh," said he, sarcastically, "they will last our time, anyway." And they have lasted my time.
It is things like that which make people sore-I cannot think of a better word-and when you make people sore, look out. I have been astonished at the reception which the heavy taxation imposed by this government has met back home. I may find things somewhat different when I go back home, but those who have written me have taken this line: "It is terrible taxation, it is a very heavy burden, but we have got to face it, and we will do our part." But they do insist on this, and some do so with blasphemous emphasis, that there must be no discrimination, money must not be wasted, and the taxation must be applied to all and sundry. Many an oak tree of discontent, perhaps of revolution, grows from the tiny acorn of dissatisfaction, the sense of injustice. What caused the revolution of the thirteen colonies against the British government? They said it was the tax on tea-a small exaction. Well, they said, it was not so much that, it was taxation without representation which they resented. But when the whole thing was boiled down it just came to this-a galling and gnawing sense of injustice. These fishermen in British Columbia, and I believe other workers also, will bitterly resent a decrease having been made on the outlay on practical work accompanied by an increase in the cost of officialdom. They will say, and I think wisely say, "Money unwisely saved, money unwisely spent."
I want to speak for a few minutes with regard to the salt fish board. The committee will recall the objections which were made last year when the bill was going through the house. Hon. Harry Stevens and myself, and also Mr. Cahan, who was then a member, took the matter up, and we were told definitely -I can quote from the record if necessary- that the board would apply all over Canada; there was nothing to prevent it. That was in the house. But when it got to the senate, 
guided by some vague sense of common sense and justice, or veracity, they put in a preamble which flatly and plainly stated that it was consecrated for the benefit of the maritimes only-which of course we had always insisted it was but that was not officially recognized in this chamber.
Another thing we objected to and fought very bitterly-and Mr. Stevens and Mr. Cahan know their law and what they are talking about-was that the bill would give the money which was being granted, about $800,000, to the wrong people; it was going to be given to the exporters and not to the fishermen. But with the arrogance bom of the backing of a large majority, the measure was deft as it was. If anything is brought into this house nowadays it is rather like the law of the Medes and the Persians, it cannot be and must not be altered, and if you criticize or even comment on it you are guilty of disloyalty. But when the bill got to the senate they inserted this clause to the effect that the money had to go to the fishermen and not to the middlemen. Suddenly the government got a change of heart and said, "Why, this is all right. There is nothing wrong with it. We will accept it." Mr. Stevens commented caustically on the fact that the government had yielded to pressure from another place what they would not yield to suggestions put forward in good faith and all sincerity by Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cahan and myself. The bill went through. Not a cent was spent in British Columbia. We did not expect that there would be. But great emphasis was laid, when the bill was going through, on the necessity of this vote of $800,000 to relieve the necessities of the maritime fisheries. I am all for that. I am not making any objection to it. I did not do it then and I do not do it now. But I should like to know why only $400,000, or just about half the vote, was spent.
The leader of the opposition asked if anything had been done about marketing, and he did not get a very satisfactory answer. Perhaps this is necessary and is the only way by which these fishermen can be taken care of, but the department did take a man at $7,000 a year to enforce the act, although we were told definitely when the bill was going through that it would not be necessary, that the matter could be handled by the officials then in existence. I wonder why only half the money was spent. What was the trouble? Did they, in their enthusiasm ask too much, or did the need disappear to that extent, or did the election come on too soon?


Mr. MacNICOL:: Both.

Supply-Fisheries-Administration


Alan Webster Neill: At any rate only [DOT] half was spent. The other day an hon. member from the maritimes undertook to defend the fish board. He said:
On the whole the board did a good job. We have $400,000 in the estimates this year for the same purpose. The board will function again, and if fish do not yield a price to give the fishermen a decent living, the board must make a deficiency payment to take up the slack.
Further on he said:
The money was paid on production of fish, and a large part of the money came to my county, because we produced the greatest quantity of salted fish.
Possibly if the leader of the opposition and myself had been able to make the same remark about our counties, we would have had the same complacent attitude, but I hope not. I particularly want to quote again what the member said, because it is so absolutely correct. He said:
... if fish do not yield a price to give the fishermen a decent living, the board must make a deficiency payment to take up the slack.
Hear, hear, I say to that. I am all for that. It was necessary to keep going these fishermen, who are in a very bad way, and keep the industry alive; but surely the law should work both ways, and I want to know why it is not working both ways. A law enacted for the whole of Canada has one effect in the maritimes and another effect in British Columbia.
The trouble in the maritimes was due, to some extent at least-I am subject to correction because I am not too familiar with the situation there-to the loss of the market because of changed conditions following the growth of systems of refrigeration. The ability to ship fish on ice and so on has hurt the salted fish market, and it is very doubtful whether that market can ever be recovered, whether it is not as much doomed as the horse and buggy was. It seems to me that it would be better to spend money on trying to switch a dying industry into the growing system of handling fish in an iced condition.
But in British Columbia conditions are somewhat different. This is not a state of affairs which will never pass away, but it is strictly a war condition. I am talking about a matter which was ventilated a few weeks ago, regarding sockeye salmon. This condition will pass after the war. Britain will not buy it to-day because she can buy cheaper fish; sockeye salmon is a luxury fish used by wealthy people; it is not any better food than the cheaper kind. The British people have not said that they will not buy it, but they fix the price so low that there is no sale. What we want is a price to give the fishermen a
decent living and make up the deficiency, a comparatively small amount and for a comparatively short time. But what happened to us? If the fishermen were not tricked I never saw men tricked. They were not going out to fish. A fisherman does not strike, he simply doesn't fish. But they were advised that things would be made right and that the government had appointed a committee.
I think that was a genuine misunderstanding; the committee was not appointed by the government-it was an informal one among ourselves, and we did not have the same authority as a committee appointed by the government. Then we were told the matter had been referred to the economic council for study and report, and on July 10 the minister said he expected the report of the committee to be ready for release that evening or the next morning. But on July 11 a change had come over the picture, and the minister said:
Whether it will be laid on the table is a matter which has to be considered, because the committee was not a committee of the house but simply an advisory committee. . . . Personally I see no objection to making the centents of the report public, but I shall inform the hon. member later as to whether it will be laid on the table.
It was not tabled and never will be. We were told it was a privileged or private communication. I challenge the minister to produce it now. It is a public document, a report of a public body. I challenge him to produce it or to produce the report of his department on which the report of the economic council was based; it would give us a lot of information that we have not got now.
I suggest that the reason it has not been brought down is that they are ashamed to bring it down. I would say the result was a complete, cold turn-down.
Let me quote some of the reactions. British Columbia is supposed to be half pink and the other half red, but these fishermen are not as bad as they are painted. Here is a letter from the secretary of one of the fishermen's unions:
Of course the fishermen are very much disappointed at the result of the whole affair and I am afraid it will reflect very badly on the Liberal government as a whole.
The hon. member for Yale can take that for his comfort.
For some reason the fellows had banked quite a lot on government doing something to aid them this season, but as you know only too well, nothing has come of it.
Yes, I told them the truth from the beginning. that they were not going to get any-

Sup pi y-Fish e ries-A dministralion
thing, that they ought to sell their fish on the United States side. Then he says:
It is very easy and to some people satisfying to drag out the red bogy to fit every situation, but it should be evident to everyone that when fishermen think over their inability to get benefits like other -workers from the acts covering compensation, arbitration and now unemployment insurance, and at the same time get no aid such as the farmers obtain from government loans, subsidy of crops and market control, etc., there is no wonder that they get the idea that they are the original forgotten men, at least as far as this coast is concerned.
Perhaps there is still a chance that something will happen this season that will inspire the fisherman. If so will you let us know about it.
I have not had any occasion to write or wire him of anything inspirational up to date.
Here is a man-I do not like to quote his name, but if I did I think some hon. members would know him; he is not connected with fishermen but he lives among them-who says:
I was out on the fishing grounds talking with some of the row-boat men (and God knows they have no easy time) and actually it was amazing what they voiced: in brief, "What does it matter to us who wins? We can't be any worse off than we are."
That is not red stuff, but it does illustrate the indifference born of despair, and you cannot get any worse combination than indifference and despair. The government in this matter are playing with fire; they are asking for trouble. I make this distinct charge, that too often they act in the interest of the big cannery combines rather than in the interest of the fishermen: for the cannery combine the fatted calf is always on hand, the ear and the pocket and the eye of the department are always open to their representations.
Apart from and beyond that is this further complaint; although British Columbia produces more than all the maritime provinces put together and within a reasonable distance of more than the whole of the rest of Canada, first consideration is always given to the maritime provinces, partly perhaps because they are older and longer established, partly because the officials of the department all come from the east-there are fifty-two officials in the department here and if there are more than two who do not come from the maritimes I don't know who they are.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Take out your salmon.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, what about herrings and pilchards?


Thomas Reid: And halibut.


Alan Webster Neill: It is like the man who was going to make the farm pay but -when his father looked over the figures he said, you 
have forgotten to put down SB,000 for rent. "Take out your salmon"; I can retaliate, "take out your cod". They are both there and wall be long after we have gone away, I hope. I said partly because of the officials, and partly also because there are more members of parliament from the maritimes than from British Columbia.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned another instance in which the government is going in for helping the cooperative scheme-a very excellent thing, and I support every word he said in that regard; $50,000 was voted for it last year. But British Columbia, with a larger catch and more fishermen, got $5,000.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: And they did not use it all.


Alan Webster Neill: If they did not use it all, they asked for more this year. It all leads to the conviction-and I am not speaking on my own account only-that we are neglected. It is not only the fisheries, but also the loggers and the grain men; I saw a big report the other day of the grain men complaining, but that has been in part altered. Begin a little further back; right down through the pages of history you get this story. Take the vote for $160,000-1 will not bring that up just now because the weather is hot and it always makes our maritime friends so exceedingly hot under the collar that I am afraid they will get apoplexy. But history shows that the fishermen of the Pacific coast have been robbed of their share of that $160,000, so much so that we have had men like Hon. Mr. Rhodes trying to defend it, but he had to admit that the act ought to be altered to agree with his conception. He said it was intended to mean something else. But the law says this is for the fishermen of Canada, not the maritimes alone.
Then take the lobster industry; they had an order in council passed about May 1. The lobster fishery in the maritimes occupies about three months in the year, and they thought they would not catch more than 70,000 cases- why, one cannery in British Columbia would put up that much. And they thought the price was going to be low and that something should be done, that the dominion government through the Minister of Fisheries should intervene in the marketing of canned lobster by appointing a controller and giving him authority to buy not more than 55,000 cases at $18 a case. That comes reasonably close to $1,000,000, and they gave him authority to sell it as and when he could. There was also an advertising campaign carried on. But that was not enough; later they introduced another amendment to the order in council.

S upply-Fish e ries-Adrninist ra tion
In the first order there was a provision that in order to get this number of cases bought from him the lobsterman had to certify that he had paid the fisherman a reasonable price per pound, I think 5i cents or something like that. But that did not suit the operators, so they had it changed to provide that the lobsterman had to take his oath or swear in an affidavit that he had paid this agreed price to the fisherman, but only on that portion of the pack in connection with which he got paid by the government. Well, if it was right and proper that he should pay 5J cents per pound on part of the pack, surely it was a good idea that he should pay it on the whole pack. This was aid for the maritimes alone.
That is just a casual instance. I have already dealt with this $800,000 that was so urgently needed, but of which only half was spent. Perhaps after the next census we will have a larger and more united representation from British Columbia; at all events I hope so. And if we have a majority I hope we will treat the maritimes more fairly than we have been treated in the past. I know it is not popular to speak at any length at this stage of the session, but is twenty minutes too long to take to discuss the merits of one of the largest industries not of British Columbia only but of Canada, and I think the second largest in British Columbia, involving revenue to the country of millions of dollars, revenue to the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars and the employment of many thousands of men? If the matter comes up late in the session that is not my fault. I always know when the house is going to adjourn because the fisheries estimates are always brought down the day before adjournment. Is that because the department is so small that they have very little regard for it, or is it that they do not want to meet criticism?
We have an additional handicap this year because of the war. This session the government has been too ready to hint that this, that and the other thing should be done because of the war. They do not use the word disloyalty, but if any attempt is made to oppose or debate a bill or estimate they say we are hindering the work of the war. Sometimes that is utterly unfounded. The other day we were scolded for holding up a matter for a day, but it turned out that the bill had to go to the senate, which did not meet until eight o'clock that night. The senate got the bill at eight fifteen, so that we really did not hold up the work of the war for very long. Attached to no party, as I am, I have sat on the side-lines this session and watched the various manoeuvres. I want to say that the leaders of all groups, par-95826-156
ticularly the leader of the Conservative opposition, have been cooperating with the government to the very greatest extent. We have also passed a great many things by unanimous consent, more than I ever saw before, and many of these matters easily could have been held up.
There may be odd cases in which the necessities of war require apparent discrimination or injustice as against an individual, a group or even a province, but such occasions are very rare indeed. There are few cases in which the prompt and vigorous prosecution of the war cannot go hand in hand with justice and equity in what may be called internal matters, provincial or even local in their character. A demand for justice in this matter is no sign whatever of disloyalty, and I resent even the indirect implication that if anything is done to oppose any measures the war effort will suffer. We have heard that; but this session we have adjourned more Friday nights than ever before, and have sat only one Wednesday night, so there does not seem to have been such a great rush after all.
This session we have seen a large number of workers in two of the greatest industries in British Columbia discriminated against. The fishermen of that province will say, and truly-that is the bitter part of it-"We have seen millions spent in the maritimes to help the very needy, poverty stricken people there, but we cannot get a nickel for British Columbia. We cannot get even the conservation work required to protect our industry, which is imperilled because of the way they have carried out these economy measures, by doing the cutting not in connection with the officials but in connection with the amount available for this work." The loggers will say, as they are saying already, "Yes, they gave unemployment insurance to the Japanese in the saw mills, but they have not given it to us. I suppose between them these two industries employ fifty or sixty thousand workers. Is that going to help our war work? Is that going to make us a united people, all anxious to do our share?
I do hope the government will adopt a different policy in regard to British Columbia. We are far from being disloyal; never mind what they say about being "pink." The other day the records showed that British Columbia had bought more war savings certificates per capita than any other province of Canada, and twice as many as Nova Scotia, so that after all we are not so very disloyal. Let the government show us that we are not the forgotten dog. The common expression is "the forgotten man," but I think I have used a better word. Show us that we are not the



Supply-Fisheries-Administration
forgotten dog of the federation, and together with the rest of the country we will bear whatever sacrifice which may be necessary in order to win this fight for democracy.
There is one other point I should like to mention. This matter was referred to the other night by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and every fisherman member from the maritimes has been aghast when I have told him about it. Until a few years ago in British Columbia you could give a man a licence to catch sock-eye salmon which, after he caught it, he was compelled by law to sell to one man for 55 cents and prohibited from selling to another for 75 cents. It seems incredible now, when I look back on it, but that was the law for many years. The 75 cent man was in Seattle; the 55 cent man was in Vancouver, and the fishermen were compelled to sell their fish within the province at the price fixed by the local cannery. That situation continued for many years. Finally when the hon. member for Yale was minister of fisheries he gave us a fair deal. The matter was brought up in the fisheries committee, and when they realized that they had an open hand and could do as they wished, that situation was changed. It had been the political pull of certain parties in the west that had maintained that situation for so long. That was years ago. None of the terrible things happened that were predicted; as a matter of fact the cannerymen themselves now import fish from the United States when it suits them and pays them to do so, just as they do it the other way when it suits them to do so. But if the fisherman wanted to ship his fish to the United States, where he would get 75 cents for them instead of 55 cents, he was not allowed to do so. To-day the law is that a man can sell his fish in the best markets.
That applied only to sockeye. Last fall, for reasons I need not go into, the price for chum salmon, a late, cheap variety, went up. A better price could be obtained in Seattle than in Vancouver; but the cannerymen, unknown to the fishermen or the members representing the various districts, had an embargo on chum salmon put through by the department. They wrapped it up nicely with some talk of loyalty, because the men concerned were mostly Japanese, and everybody knows I have not much use for the Japanese; but there is such a thing as fair play and honesty. The cannerymen did not want to pay a little higher price in Canada. I did not hear of it until the thing had been done. The fishermen's unions were not consulted or even advised. Surely the members representing those districts concerned could have been 
given a chance to express themselves. Some of the members of the fishermen's union approached the cannerymen and asked what they were doing, but they were told that it was none of their business, that it was a private matter between the cannerymen and the government, which was almost true. That was not done because of the war but because they did not want to pay a higher price.
The other night the hon. member for New Westminster asked the minister if there had been any application from the canners to renew this embargo on sockeye. He appeared to think he had some reason to believe, as I have some reason to believe, that the cannerymen are going to make such an application, if it has not been made already, because there is now a demand for sockeye on the American side. There is no question of loyalty involved here. The British government does not want sockeye salmon because it is too costly, and the canners of British Columbia do not want to put it up because the market is doubtful. I do not blame them. They will pay only a very low price, because they have to take the risk. But there is a demand and a good price in Seattle. Why should the fishermen not sell in that market? It is not a case of keeping them from British empire consumption at all. They are not wanted in Great Britain, for the reasons I have stated.
The minister said that representations had been made to him by the same people that United States buyers were coming into the Fraser river. He also said that it was the intention of the department to maintain its independence as regards cannerymen, as it had with regard to fishermen. It would do me-and I think some other hon. members, and certainly the fishermen's union

a lot of good if he would make that more definite, and if he would say he would not for this season, at any rate, put an embargo on sockeye salmon. If he is asked to put it on the other four kinds I would ask that at least he first consult the fishermen, and the members of parliament representing fishing districts, who know something about the matter.
Of course I am not authorized to speak for other members of parliament in the matter, nor am I authorized particularly to speak for the fishermen. But I do know what their position is. I am convinced that they would very much like to hear such an announcement from the minister, simply that in view of the circumstances, and as it has no connection with supplying the British empire, he will not yield to pressure that may be brought upon him to place an embargo on sockeye salmon this year. We would like

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
him to say that if he is asked to put it on other fish, as he was last year, at least we might be consulted. I am not asking more than that. But we do urge that we ought to be allowed to express the wishes of the people who elect us before he takes any action in the matter.


Mr. THORSON:: For a moment I should like to turn the attention of the committee from salt water fish to fresh water fish. I have the honour to represent a constituency in which there are two large lakes, namely lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba. Lake Winnipeg is one of the largest lakes in the world. I believe I represent more fresh water fishermen than any other member in the house. We have not heard from the fresh water fishermen of Canada to any extent. But there is one problem which I would like to place before the committee, and to which I would like the minister to give his serious consideration.
The fishermen and fish producers of lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba would like to have a dominion government system of inspection and grading of the fresh water fish exported to the United States. The greater portion of the output from our fresh water lakes goes to cities in the United States, and it is the desire of the organized fishermen and fish producers of our two large lakes that there should be established a dominion system of inspection and grading of the fresh water fish which go by way of export to the United States. It is their desire that that be done in order to ensure a high quality of fish for the export trade.
I hope that during the recess the minister will give his most serious consideration to the suggestion of establishing a dominion system of inspecting and grading fresh and frozen fresh water fish sent to the market in the United States.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I do not know much about deep sea fishing, but I do know something about eating fish. The people in the constituency from which I come are interested in procuring sea fish. We cannot understand why a fisherman on the coast should receive only three-quarters of a cent per pound, or possibly one and one-quarter or one and one-half cents-I do not know what they get to-day-'and we should have to pay an amount so much greater than that. I am referring to prices of cleaned fish. For instance a pound of cod or haddock would cost anywhere from 15 to 25 cents in Toronto. We see large sums of money being spent on the administration of the Department of Fisheries. We know, too, that none of that money is spent in Ontario, or for the benefit of fishermen in that province. Therefore we 95826-156J
conclude that it is spent for the benefit of the fishermen in the maritimes. We like to see those fishermen receive help, because we realize we are helped in other ways. On the other hand we would like to receive something for the money the government is spending.
There is no doubt that we would benefit greatly if we in Ontario could get more sea fish. For purposes of health, and for the benefit of those who may be subject to goitre, more sea fish ought to be available. The difficulty is not that we have been unable to make our people fish conscious, nor is it a question of publicity. It is rather a question of price. For the life of me I cannot see why we should have to pay twenty cents a pound for fish when the fishermen receive only two cents. Surely there must be something wrong.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Is the hon. member talking about processed fillets or fresh fish?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am talking about fish-just plain, ordinary fish. I am referring to the kind of fish one buys in the grocery store. The grocery man cuts off a piece, and that is all the processing there is to it, so far as I can see.
As I said before, I know nothing about sea fish. I know that one can go out and catch a fish, bring it in, clean it, cut it up and put it into a pan. That is all the processing I know anything about. Of course we may find fish in some stores which have gone through a fancy process; but that is not what I am talking about. The people want sea fish-and they do not want fancy sea fish.


Mr. FULFORD:: What about lake Ontario fish?


Mr. ROSS (St. Paulis):: I am coming to that. In lake Ontario we have the finest fish in the world, and we have no trouble in disposing of them. But the people in Ontario want sea fish too. And of course they would like the people in the maritimes to eat some of our fish. I understand that the fisherman receives 14 or 15 cents a pound for lobsters.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Not always that much. He may receive from 5i to 10 cents, for canning purposes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: And what do we pay for lobster? We pay a dollar a pound, or somewhere in that vicinity. Can we not get lobster cheaper than that? What is the reason for the spread beween two cents and twenty cents on a pound of halibut or haddock? The people of Ontario do not receive any assistance from the dominion government so far as fisheries are concerned,

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
and we would like to be told why the fishermen do not receive a better price for their fish.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. ROY (Translation):: 
Mr. POIRIER (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, with regard to fisheries, I should like to tell the house how much I appreciate the splendid work of the minister in charge of thats department. In the first place, I wish to point out the training of adult fishermen undertakers by the Department of Fisheries. Economists are unanimous in saying that plans undertaken in the economic or social field cannot be successfully carried out unless they are based upon an efficient and proper unit. Now, in the particular case of fishermen, such a unit has to be formed by means of advanced training.
As regards fisheries in particular, no development plan can be permanently successful if it does not provide for competent and efficient fishermen. The necessary impetus must come from within, it must be derived from the enlightened will of the fisherman himself. Without such a starting point, all outside assistance, such as cooperation from the church, government help, scientific data, eit cetera, can only supply temporary solutions, if it does not indeed remain wholly fruitless.
And it should be emphasized that efficiency and competence are not necessary only to those fishermen who wish to direct their activity toward the economic field, with a view to the establishment of a cooperative system.
The owners of large fish processing plants also benefit from the training of good fishermen, who supply them with raw materials. The quantity and especially the quality of the fish supplied must also be considered. And in the case of a product that becomes perishable as soon as it is taken from the water, the importance of this matter should not be underestimated.
In the case of fishermen who wish to secure-economic independence in their occupation, adult training is essential if success is to be

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
achieved. Fishermen are not in a position to take over at a moment's notice the management of their own affairs.
Since fishermen have neither the money nor the time to go back to school, it behooves the government to make adult training available to them. The government have two ways of discharging that duty: if they have their own teaching staff, they can undertake the work themselves. That is a rather unpractical method. The best one is that whereby the government discharge their duty by providing the necessary funds while entrusting the task to an independent institution accustomed to that kind of work.
It was for that purpose that, last year and again this year the government have voted $50,000 for adult training among the fishermen of the whole country. They have entrusted that work to proper institutions and, especially in eastern Canada, to the social and economic department of the high school of fisheries at Sainte-Anne, and to the department of public relations of the university of Antigonish.
During the war, a continuation of this work is required in order that fishermen may be induced to discharge their duty fully and to do what their country expects from them in the matter of production. There is no more efficient or less expensive form of propaganda.
We must provide for the problems of the after-w'ar period while the hostilities are still going on, and this is a field where adult training is especially required. We all know the slump that was experienced by fisheries after the war of 1914-18. If we are to measure the magnitude of the next slump by the ferocious character of the present war, we may expect a dreadful crisis. That is where the competence and efficiency of fishermen will take a vital economic importance, in avoiding social upheavals or at least lessening the country's burden.
Statistics show that there were in Canada, in 1938, 56,969 deep-sea fishermen, distributed as follows: Prince Edward Island, 3,309; Nova Scotia, 18,548; New Brunswick, 13,713; Quebec, 11,150; British Columbia and Yukon, 10,349.
Mr. Chairman, as it is my privilege to have the floor while the right honourable the minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is taking his seat. I am pleased to tender him our respects and our compliments.
To grant $50,000 a year for adult education would represent an appropriation of only 88 cents for each fisherman. Is anyone able to suggest a less costly and more effective form of assistance?
Mr. Chairman, although I have no desire unduly to waste this house's time, I would nevertheless like to point out that this item
[Mr. Roy.l
of $50,000 appropriated for the education of adult fishermen is without a doubt the wisest expenditure undertaken by the Department of Fisheries; the results obtained at the St. Anne school, thanks to a grant of $8,000, are magnificent, and entirely meet the wishes of those who have been endeavouring for many years to better the lot of our Gaspe fishermen. This educational work has developed the personal initiative of these people, who have already organized, under the leadership of the school's director, Father F. X. Jean, and of his confidential assistant, Professor Boudreau, 200 study circles comprising 1,500 members. These members after studying various matters related to fisheries, have organized eight unions grouped in a federation known as the "Pecheurs unis de Quebec." The federation controlled, this year, more than six million pounds of fish.
And that, Mr. Chairman, is what we have long desired; that the Gaspe fishermen should, following in the steps of their Cape Breton colleagues, assume the management of their own business for their own profit. The individual fisherman is powerless to better his lot, but, grouped in trade unions, our people will achieve each year a greater measure of prosperity. They will receive education in their special field, learn, without added cost to the consumer, better methods of preserving their fish and of preparing it for the market, as well as the most favourable conditions under which it can be shipped and marketed.
This entire cooperative achievement is due, Mr. Chairman, to the adult education programme carried out to date; and it is in view of the success obtained that I would request the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) to increase next year to $15,000 the amount of $8,000 granted to the Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere school.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word concerning the equipment allowances granted to fishermen during the last few years by the Department of Fisheries. These direct grants have proven most valuable to our poor fishermen: ranging from $10 to $25, they have brought each man an additional income of $100 or $150. The minister will acknowledge that, on the very day following my election, I requested him by wire to maintain these grants; since then, I have submitted to him several petitions from my constituents asking the maintenance of these very valuable grants. Unfortunately, it has been decided to abolish these allowances due to the enormous expenditures brought on by the war. I have no protest to make on this

Supply-Fisheries-Administration
score, Mr. Chairman, but I trust that this grant will be renewed as soon as the war is ended.
In view of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that there are a great number of industries related to the fishing trade which could be profitably established in my constituency, and that we do not possess 'the capital required to this end,
I would like to make, if I may be permitted to do so, an appeal to capitalists in other parts of Canada and even outside this country. There are at present in Spain and Portugal a great number of industrialists and business men whom 'the war has exiled from their respective countries, whether France, Belgium, Holland or Poland. I hereby invite them to establish such industries in Bonaventure county, where they will receive a hearty welcome from our people, a people of mixed origin who have found the secret of living together in the most perfect harmony, who are industrious, easily satisfied, and need only steady employment to live contentedly.
It might be possible, for example, to convert into fish flour the enormous amount of waste which is at present a total loss. Then there are the sand banks, replete with clams, which stretch almost without interruption from Nouvelle to Bonaventure, a distance of fifty miles. These clams are the finest in the world. If w'e had the necessary capital, we could establish a clam cannery which would be profitable both for the owners and the shore fishermen.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we could if we had the necessary capital establish one or two mackerel canneries. Mackerel, as the hon. member for Gaspe has just indicated, is an excellent fish which is found in abundance in the waters of the bay of Chaleurs. Many other industries could be established in connection with the products of our fisheries, farms and forests. Fresh farm produce could be placed on the markets of Canada and the United States when other sections of the continent cannot supply it. Our forests, properly developed, could produce indefinitely large quantities of lumber as well as of spool-wood, furniture-wood and box-wood.
I therefore make a sincere appeal to sound capital within and without Canada to open new industries in Bonaventure county, and also in Gaspe county, if my hon. friend the member for Gaspe does not mind my saying so. Such capital would meet with a most cordial reception from a people most eager to cooperate.
One word more. In the province of Quebec, as hon. members are aware, the administration of fisheries has been transferred by agreement from the federal to the provincial authorities. I do not quarrel with this, except to point out
that since this transfer was made Quebec does not receive its fair share of grants to fishermen. I therefore ask the Minister of Fisheries and the government to give the matter their serious consideration with a view to making to Quebec grants proportionately similar to those which the other provinces are receiving. Contributing our share of the taxation from which the expenditure on fisheries is provided, we are logically entitled to our share of the benefits. So long as I remain a member of this house I shall not cease to make this plea.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind indulgence.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I wish to say a few words of appreciation for the flattering remarks which the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Poirier) has made about me in connection with the treatment meted out to Bonaventure fishermen during the last few years. I also wish to correct a mistake that the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) who spoke before the hon. member for Bonaventure, has made with reference to the help given to Gaspe and Magdalen islands fishermen for the last few years. You are no doubt aware, Mr. Chairman, of the relations existing between the federal government and the provincial authorities as regards the Quebec fisheries. As a result of a judgment of the Privy Council and a subsequent agreement between the Quebec government and the central, or federal, government, the administration of Quebec fisheries, with the exception of Magdalen islands, is under the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial authorities. As regards Magdalen islands, the federal government never relinquished their jurisdiction and they have always exerted it. However, the hon. member for Gaspe has made a serious mistake in saying that help for fishermen from Magdalen islands or for those from the province of Quebec had begun in 1930. Before 1935, and that is the year in which grants to fishermen were initiated, nothing had been paid to the Quebec or Magdalen islands fishermen, either as- direct help or relief, or in the form of money contributions, with the exception of the funds voted and spent for purely administrative purposes.
In 1935, when the present government took over the affairs of this country, we found the situation, as regards fisheries in eastern Canada, and especially in Gaspe and the Magdalen islands, most deplorable. We endeavoured immediately to remedy this need, and it is thus that during the first year of our administration, in 1935-36, we provided a grant of $25,000 which the provincial government agreed to distribute among the fisher-
Supply-Fisheries


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
8Ji. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, $243,700.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the federal Department of Fisheries anything to do with fishing in lake Nipigon in northern Ontario?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The federal Department of Fisheries makes the regulations pertaining to fisheries in all waters of Canada, but the administration on the inland lakes is under provincial jurisdiction.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My question is based on a survey I made on lake Nipigon where I find that pulpwood being dumped into the lake from a reserve-I believe the whole territory about the lake is reserved-in any event the pulpwood is destroying-fishing in lake Nipigon. Perhaps nothing can be done about it, but I thought I should bring it to the attention of the department.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of the provincial authorities, in whose hands would lie the power to deal with conditions there.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The Department of Fisheries makes the regulations as to open seasons and so on?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, on the recommendation of the provincial authorities, for inland waters.


Mr. HANSELL:: How much is appropriated for fish hatcheries in Banff national park?

Supply-Fisheries


Joseph Enoil Michaud: This department has no jurisdiction over national parks. That comes under the Department of Mines and Resources.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SC. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international fisheries commission under treaty dated May 26th, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $40,000.
Mr. GREEN:: Would the minister explain to what stage the work of this commission has developed? Perhaps he would explain also the reason for the small increase in the vote.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The reason for the small increase in the vote is that early in the year when these estimates were prepared representations were made by the United States section of the commission that they had increased their appropriation in order to carry on more extensive work, therefore it was necessary to increase our part. I am happy to say, however, that since then I have received information that the United States members have changed their view and have not increased their appropriation; therefore we shall not expend any more than the United States section will.
As to the first part of the question, I think I can do no better than ask the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) to give the answer, since he is an active member of the commission.


Thomas Reid: At the present time the commission is not in a position to state its findings. It has been paying a great deal of attention to ascertaining the various species of fish comprised in the sockeye group. It has also done considerable tagging of fish. Last year some 10,000 sockeye salmon were tagged. Many of the fish had to be bought and great numbers were tagged. A reward of 50 cents each is given by the commission for the return of these tags. The returns in connection with these tags have amounted to something like 40 or 50 per cent, and much valuable information has been obtained. This year an effort has been made to study the situation at Hell's Gate, where the disaster occurred in 1913. It is the view of the commissioner in charge that great numbers of fish are prevented from passing over Hell's Gate at certain seasons of the year, due to low or high water, and engineers have been instructed to particularly study the situation at that point. Tagging operations are taking place in the open, in the gulf of Georgia and at various points on the Fraser river. Weirs have been constructed in various rivers to discover the number of
fish that go up. All in all it will take a good deal of time before the complete information is obtained, and the commission is not prepared to make a statement until it can vouch for the facts.


Howard Charles Green: When will the commission actually take charge of salmon fishing on the
coast?


Thomas Reid: In 1937 the treaty between the United States and Canada came into effect. In that treaty a proviso was inserted, at the instigation of United States interests, under which the commission would not have full jurisdiction until two cycles had been completed, a cycle amounting to four years. So that the commission will not have complete jurisdiction over the catch of fish until 1944 or the beginning of 1945.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
87. To provide for the Canadian share of expenses of a board of inquiry for the great lakes fisheries appointed under an agreement by an exchange of notes on February 29th, 1940, between Canada and the United States, $3,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister might just explain the background of this vote.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: On February 29, 1940, by an exchange of notes signed by the secretary of state of the United States and the Canadian minister at Washington, it was agreed that a board of inquiry for the great lakes fisheries should be established. The problem of the conservation of the fisheries of the great lakes had long engaged the attention of the governments of Canada, the United States, the province of Ontario and the states bordering on the great lakes. The production of certain species of great lakes fish had reached very low levels. Representations were made by fishing interests both in Ontario and in the United States to their respective governments with the view of finding some means of conserving certain species which have good market values and which were fast disappearing. After several years of consultation between the various governments it was felt that the best way would be to appoint people who knew something about and were vitally interested in the matter to look into the question jointly and make suggestions as to the best possible means to cope with this situation. Last winter we were enabled to come to some agreement, and each country is providing $3,000 for the present year to carry on this investigation. We have appointed to the board Doctor Huntsman, a member of the fisheries research board of Canada and Mr. D. J. Taylor, deputy minister of game and fisheries for Ontario. The United States have appointed two gentlemen, Mr. Gallagher
Supply-Fisheries

of Chicago, a director of the fisheries council of the United States, and Mr. John A. VanOosten of Ann Arbor, Michigan, who has been very much interested in the great lakes fisheries for several years past.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Has a report been made?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, the investigations were just begun last winter.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Could the minister say what types of great lakes fish are becoming scarce?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Lake trout and whitefish.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
88. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing, and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to the Pelagic sealing treaty, 1911, $135,000.
Mr. HOMUTH:: Is this work let by tender or how is it done?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: As the hon. gentleman probably knows, under the international treaty we get our share of the seal skins taken off the Pacific coast. I am told there are only two places in the world where the process of_ dyeing these skins is carried on, in St. Louis, Missouri, and in London. For some years past our skins were all shipped to the St. Louis dyeing house. A few years ago a change was made and they were switched to London, because there was a good market in Europe for these furs. Last year we found that the European market had disappeared, and we decided to market them in Canada for the first time. We imported two lots of furs, which were disposed of in the Canadian market at considerable profit; we had buyers from practically all over the continent of North America attending those sales, and we expect to dispose of the balance now on hand in the same way. Our policy for the future is indefinite, of course, because we do not know what conditions will be either in Europe or the United States.


Alan Webster Neill: These seals are caught off the district I represent, and I am familiar with the circumstances. This is not an expense; it is a cross entry only. They pay out this money and get back more money when they sell the skins. They have done well by this switch from St. Louis to London. We make money in connection with these skins. At one time we allowed the United States to process these skins and we took the 15 per cent to which we were entitled. Now, however, we exercise our option and take our 15 per cent of the skins and process them ourselves; and we have made money doing so.


Mr. MacINNIS:: What revenue accrues to the government under this item?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We must base our estimate on the two sales that took place in Canada last year, because we hardly anticipate that it will be possible to have any sales in London during the next year or for some years to come. We still have quite a number of skins in London which we are bringing back to this country already processed. We have to pay the cost of processing, the duty and the transportation, and this amount of
8135.000	is our estimate of that cost. From the first sale last year of 3,124 skins, which were not of the very first class, we obtained 843,076.35, an average of $13.98 per skin. Of the second sale, of which the quality was better, there was a lesser quantity. The 2,197 skins brought $44,924.25, an average of $20.45 per skin.


Douglas King Hazen: How many seal skins are involved in this expenditure of $135,000?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We have an estimate of
12.000	for the coming year. I do not know whether it will be possible to market all of them. That will depend on the demand and the condition of the market. We do not intend to dump them on the market, because they are valuable. We are selling them to meet the market demand, and when there is a chance to make a profit.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Can they be bought in
Canada?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, the Canadian sales take place in Montreal. They are offered at public auction, and buyers from all parts of North America are notified in advance. I can assure the hon. member that the buyers do come to the sale. I happened to be present at one sale, and was very much impressed. There were buyers from Mexico to British Columbia, who had come to bid on our stock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I understand that they are fur seals, not hair seals.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They are the fur seals from which the fine coats are made.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The year before last I was in Vancouver, and there seemed to be a shortage of seal skins. Skins had to be imported to put on the bottom of skis used for purposes of climbing. I believe those would be skins of hair seals. They had to be imported from Norway.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That would not be the same kind of seal.

Supply-Fisheries


Alan Webster Neill: The fur seal is the valuable seal used to make ladies' coats. The hair seal is practically hide, covered by hair and has just about as much value as a cow hide.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
90. To provide for the extension of educational work in cooperative producing and selling among fishermen, $50,000.
These payments were by way of compensation allowances or deficiency payments, and the amounts paid were arrived at by taking the average at which the fish were sold in the foreign markets, and adjusting that amount with what was considered a fair living wage for the fishermen.
Alan Webster Neill: Not to exceed 25 per cent.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, of the export value.


Angus MacInnis: How was this money distributed last year as between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Last year there was an appropriation of 850,000, divided as follows: $5,000 to British Columbia university, British Columbia; $8,000 to the school of fisheries of Quebec at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, and $37,000 to the extension department of the university of St. Francis Xavier, at Anti-gonish, Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
91. To provide for assisting the salt fish branch of the fishing industry, $400,000.
Douglas King Hazen: Where does one find the
details respecting the expenditure of the $SOO,000 voted last year? I understand certain amounts were paid to lobster fishermen for loss of lobster traps, either last year, or this year before the elections.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Details for the expenditure in the last fiscal year are not published, but I have them here. The sum of $445,968.73 was distributed among 15,268 fishermen, as
follows:
Number of Province	fishermen
Nova Scotia	 8,128
New Brunswick	 1,287
Prince Edward Island. 605 Quebec	 5,193
Amount distributed $275,032 98 35,290 20 13,470 09 122,175 46


Douglas King Hazen: None in British Columbia?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Douglas King Hazen: In what parts of New Brunswick do these fishermen live? Were there any on the bay of Fundy, or were they all on the north shore, or the Miramichi?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: These are the names of the counties, and the numbers of fishermen in each county in New Brunswick, who received
deficiency payments:
Number of County	fishermen
Gloucester	 1,018
St. John	 14
Albert	 1
Kent	  2
Charlotte	 2o2
Amount received $26,080 48 345 09 19 92 49 69 8,795 02
1,287	$35,290 20


Douglas King Hazen: Would the minister give the name of the fisherman in Albert county?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have not that information, but I will send it to my hon. friend.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Under which of these
items comes the appropriation for advertising for the Department of Fisheries?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There is no appropriation for advertising this year.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There was I believe an appropriation for advertising last year. Under what vote shall I find that?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In last year's estimates and for the previous year there was an item, "to aid in expanding the sale of the products of Canadian fishermen in foreign and domestic markets."


Douglas King Hazen: Why was the money paid?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They were deficiency payments. The money was voted to help the fishermen who were processing their catches for the salt fish trade. The product of that branch of the industry is practically all for export. The markets to which these fish were exported were 'broken down, and the prices were low. In order that these people might be permitted to continue-because there is no other way for them to use their fish- the salt fish board took this action. These people live in remote places, and their fish cannot be sent to the fresh or frozen fish market.


Alan Webster Neill: What was the amount last year?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: 


Douglas King Hazen: The minister did not answer my question about lobster traps and compensation paid to the lobster fishermen.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In the year 1939 the government of New Brunswick aided, by way of grant or subsidy, the lobster fishermen of Grand Manan district, in the county of Charlotte, who had lost their equipment in the severe storms of November and December. 1938. The provincial government appropriated
247G
Supply-Fisheries

for this purpose part of a grant which had been made to the province to help needy fishermen, but there was no direct aid from the federal authorities.


Douglas King Hazen: Can the minister state what was the amount appropriated for the fishermen in 1939?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It was $11,352.09.


Douglas King Hazen: Was Grand Manan in the county of Charlotte the only part of the province which received that aid?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That was the only district, according to the report we received from the provincial authorities.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In what month of 1939 was it paid out?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I could not say, but it was during the fiscal year.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Very early in the fiscal year? Mr. MICHAUD: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has told us that he has cut out an item for $200,000 for advertising this year, which is regrettable but perhaps necessary. It just emphasizes the point I tried to make before luncheon, that we did not need this publicity agent, and now that we are cutting out this $200,000 item for advertising we need him less than ever.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is a matter of opinion. For the last eleven years it has been felt in the department, both now and under one of my predecessors who sits on the front benches opposite, that this appropriation was needed, and we still think in the department that this official is needed.


Alan Webster Neill: A director of publicity is needed and he is doing useful work, but the other man never was needed, is not needed now, and is needed less than ever now that this $200,000 advertising appropriation has been cut out.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That was not his job.


Alan Webster Neill: Then what in heaven's name was his job?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It was to assist the director of publicity, to help him prepare his work. There is more work than can be done by one man, and we have employed two for the last nine years.


Alan Webster Neill: There is a good deal of work m connection with an expenditure of $200,000 for advertising. The advertising has to'be drawn up, arrangements made with advertising agents, and so forth. We have a really good man in Mr. Paisley, who is quite able to do 
work of that kind. But now that you are cutting out the $200,000 for advertising you certainly do not need to keep on his assistant.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: He has had an assistant for the last nine years, and we are continuing his assistant but at a reduced salary.


Alan Webster Neill: It was a political job in the beginning and it is still a political job.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The item of $200,000 for advertising has been cut out this year. I do not think the item ever was needed. I said in my remarks this morning that what was more necessary than to spend $200,000 for advertising was to get the fish to the people more cheaply. There is no use in advertising if you cannot get the prices-right. There is a big potential market all through Canada for salt water fish, and the minister and his department should go to the-root of the matter instead of spending money on advertising. But that is the way this government always tries to do things-from the bottom up instead of from the top down.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is possible that my hon. friend is right, but there is a difference of opinion even among those who sit opposite, just as there is among those who support our policy. I would refer my hon. friend to the opinion of his former leader, who in 1936 in this house did not agree with what my hon. friend has just now said. By popularizing the consumption of salt water fish we are doing what we are constitutionally authorized to do, and the greater the consumption of fish the lower the price will be, under the ordinary laws of economics. I think we have succeeded in that respect. We have succeeded in increasing the demand for fish and the consumption of fish in the metropolitan area of Toronto more than in any other area in Canada, and if my hon. friend would take the trouble to visit one of the splendid modern fish distributing stores that now exist in the city of Toronto he would realize that the owners have not invested their capital in these elaborate plants just for the sake of spending their money but because it was an advantage to them, that their earnings increased with the greater consumption of fish, which justified them in the efforts they made in providing these distribution facilities for the people they served. They provide a large number of consumers with the best quality of salt water fish that can be procured.
As to price, my hon. friend knows that the federal government has no jurisdiction, except as a war measure, to step in and tell the fishermen or the dealers at what price the fish shall be sold. In bringing fresh and frozen fish from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts into the

Supply-Fisheries
centre of Canada we have achieved something that has not been achieved by any other country so far. When fish caught off Nova Scotia or the Grand Banks can be brought fresh or frozen to Toronto some 3,000 miles from the source of supply, my hon. friend will realize that there must be a margin of profit between the cost at the source of supply and the cost to the consumer. There are costs of distribution, of course. The housewife will call up the store for a pound *or two pounds of fresh fish and have it delivered in time for dinner. When to the cost of distribution is added the intrinsic value of the product itself, I think my hon. friend will see that the cost to the consumer in Toronto is fair as compared with the price paid to the fishermen on the Atlantic coast.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The departmental appropriation this year .is $1,260,000 less than last year. The appropriation for the fisheries department is only sixty-five per cent of what .it was last year, and yet the total amount saved on departmental administration is only $3,780. In other words, there is a substantial saving in the total appropriation, yet in the administrative section the saving is almost infinitesimal. Could not some other economy be effected there, particularly in view of the fact that, although the failure to appropriate so much money as last year may be regarded from one aspect as a war measure, it is a condition which is likely to obtain for a number of years?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I think there is much force in the argument put forward by the hon. member. However, the administrative staff is almost exactly the same as it was five years ago, when we were spending about the amount which we are asking for this year. During the last five years the appropriations of the department have been increased and we have been fortunate in being able to carry on without adding to our staff. This year large reductions have been made: for example, $400,000 in the appropriation for the salt fish board, $200,000 in relation to the advertising branch, and a further economy in the administration of the protection service. The occasion for this reduction is that the Department of National Defence has taken over from our protection service all our large boats, which were very costly to operate, the wages of personnel alone amounting to a considerable sum. These three items mainly account for the reduction of the departmental vote this year. If it is possible to reduce the administrative costs, I can assure my hon. friend that it will be done. As a matter of fact, already we are short of six in the personnel of the office, and we expect to carry on with that reduced staff.
If in any other branch of the department we can economize I am sure we shall do so. The treasury branch keeps close watch on this and all other departments, and we cannot spend one cent without the approval of its officers.


Clarence Gillis: I should like a little information with respect to deficiency payments. As pointed out by the hon. member for St. John-Albert, Nova Scotia fishermen just prior to the election received cheques, and according to the minister's information they were deficiency payments. Could he give the figures of payments to fishermen in Nova Scotia?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In Nova Scotia $275,032.98 were disbursed to 8,123 families.


Clarence Gillis: How much of that went to Cape Breton county?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We distributed $6,628 to 307 families.


Mr. MARSHALL:: It may seem ludicrous for a member who comes from the centre of the prairies to speak on the matter of fisheries; but, in view of the fact that western Canada is a huge potential market for fish, I think I have the right to say a few words about the marketing of fish.


The CHAIRMAN:: There is nothing in the item now under examination which relates to the marketing of fish, so that any question concerning it would be out of order.


James Alexander Marshall: Item 91 provides for "assisting the salt fish branch of the fishing industry." It seems to me that, in bringing certain suggestions to the minister to enable him to increase markets for fish, I am perfectly in order under this item. I refrained purposely from discussing the matter until we came to this item. Of course, if I am held not to be in order I shall bow to your ruling.


Thomas Vien: I will allow the hon. gentleman to proceed. I shall see later whether he remains within reasonable bounds,-which I do not doubt he will do.


James Alexander Marshall: The point I want to bring to the attention of the minister is simply this. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) says that the important factor is the price of the fish. May I say that there are thousands of people in western Canada who would be happy to purchase this fish if they had the purchasing power, but unfortunately there is not in many parts of the west the price of even a can of salmon. Has the minister explored or has he under consideration at the present time any method of

Supply-National Health
stimulating the sale of fish in western Canada other than through the media of advertising and lecture demonstration?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, there is no other plan under consideration.


James Alexander Marshall: Well, now that our export markets are gone, the minister might explore other avenues than through advertising and lecture demonstrations. There are other means of developing the demand for fish in western Canada, which is a home market, and a very large one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH Health branch.
2-JS. Treatment of sick mariners, $178,970.
Howard Charles Green: Under present conditions, is this vote sufficiently large? With the war raging, will there not be more calls for assistance of this type?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): My advice is that the vote will be sufficient for the coming year.


Howard Charles Green: Some time ago there was a press dispatch reporting a celebration of some kind which the minister and his deputy had held for the press. At that meeting, a dinner or whatever it was, certain statements were made. The deputy minister was quoted as saying that the department had made arrangements for hospitalization in case of heavy civilian or military casualties in Canada during the war. Apparently he was stressing civilian casualties. What provision has been made along that line?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Hospital accommodation is being enlarged throughout Canada, I believe in about six centres, in anticipation of possible requirements.


Howard Charles Green: Both military and civilian?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Both military and civilian.


Howard Charles Green: What increase is there in the facilities? What number of beds?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: From 2,000 to 8,000 beds.


Howard Charles Green: Are	these in the present
military hospitals, or are new hospitals being built or in contemplation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Some are in military camps, and the rest 
would be extensions of present hospitals under the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Howard Charles Green: What does the minister mean by "military camps?" Does he mean ordinary camp hospitals or up-to-date hospitals being erected in these military camps?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are all well equipped and up to date.


Howard Charles Green: But are they modern hospitals or simply camp hospitals?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Camp hospitals.


Howard Charles Green: So that in reality no new
modern hospitals are being erected?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
S)i9. Industrial hygiene, $11,185.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister considered wiping out this branch? There is just one chief with one stenographer and they cannot do anything anyway. The work is being taken care of by the provincial government; what can this government do?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We cooperate with the provincial and municipal authorities and boards of health, and we cooperate with them also in connection with industrial plants so far as health is concerned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is all taken care of by the government of Ontario.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But we cooperate with them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think this branch
should be wiped out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only two provinces have such branches.


Howard Charles Green: There is a chief of division
whose salary is being increased from 84,920 to $5,220.	*


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is statutory.


Howard Charles Green: What are his duties? His
whole staff consists of one Stenographer. What does he do?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He does laboratory and engineering chem-

Supply-National Health
istry work in connection with the various plants, investigating industrial conditions. He renders a valuable service.


Howard Charles Green: Is he a doctor?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does he go to different
parts of Canada making investigations?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I repeat, the minister
should wipe out this branch. In Ontario such work is being done by the provincial health department so that this department has nothing to do with industrial conditions in Ontario. I speak from my own experience. The minister says that onty two provinces have such branches. There may be perhaps some necessity for the work, but in any case I do not see how much can be done by one chief and one stenographer.


Clarence Gillis: I do not fully understand the functions of the department but I believe it carries on investigations into diseases peculiar to certain industries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: I am sorry I do not agree
with the hon. member for Davenport. There is great work for this particular branch to do and I think it should be enlarged.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The^.-fcon*^member is
speaking of Nova Scotia, I aM speaking of Ontario.


Clarence Gillis: I am speaking of Canada. One-disease peculiar to a certain industry is silicosis. Those engaged in the mining industry suffer from this disease, and so far as Nova Scotia is concerned I can speak with authority. The provincial government carries on no research work in this disease and it has done nothing about the elimination of it. In Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, in fact in practically every province, there are miners who are susceptible to the disease and it is becoming widespread. The government of Nova Scotia brought silicosis under the compensation act, regarding it as an occupational disease, but they might as well have left it out for all the benefit it has been to the miners. In the first place the onus of proving that the applicant has the disease rests upon the applicant himself, and to prove it is a long and expensive process. Ninety-nine
per cent of the men subject to the disease cannot prove it for the simple reason-and I know this from experience-that there is only one test known to medical science in the differentiation of chest conditions, and that is to put men through the lipoid treatment.
I know many men in Nova Scotia who have had the disease for a considerable time. They have applied for compensation but they cannot establish their claim because they cannot prove it.
Instead of abolishing this branch, the department should reorganize and build it up. In the mining industry alone a large number of men are affected'. The whole matter is supposed to be under provincial jurisdiction, but the provinces are not doing anything about it. It would be a step in the right direction if the department took over the work in connection with silicosis-and there are many other diseases that are peculiar to particular industries. In my opinion it is a national question that should be looked after by some national body assuming jurisdiction and responsibility for it. Research work is necessary ii? this field and the branch should be reorganized and its wrork extended.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I agree with the hon. member to this extent, that I am in favour of this department being carried on and developed. Ontario has done a considerable amount of work in relation to these industrial diseases. A great deal of information is gathered together from time to time and I am sure that Ontario would be glad to have all that information handed on to the provincial authorities in Nova Scotia. Possibly we are better able to stand it. At any rate, this department should be built up and the information obtained handed on to Nova Scotia. They should have the benefit of all the work that 'has been done in Ontario. In Ontario there are large educational centres like the university of Toronto, Western and Queen's. A great deal of the work is being done by these universities and the information so obtained could easily be disseminated through this department. I am in favour of the vote as it is, and if the minister wants more money I am ready to support it.


James Alexander Marshall: How much was actually spent out of the vote of $11,400 last year? In the previous year only $7,000 was spent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amount spent was $10,407.03.


James Alexander Marshall: Is it all spent in salaries and nothing on investigations?
Supply-National Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These are the figures: Salaries, $6,890; equipment, $1,558; telephones, $53; sundries, $494; travelling expenses, et cetera, $1,409.


Howard Charles Green: Is any work done by this department on silicosis?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Clarence Gillis: There is one thing that could be done. He are badly in need of information with reference to silicosis and I think it would be a good thing for the federal department to pass on the information to us as suggested by the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We shall be glad to consider the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
250. Medical investigations, $36,520.
Thomas Reid: How many applications have been made by enlisted men since September last? What number of applications ha^ye come from Canada and Great Britain respectively?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not the separate figures for Great Britain and Canada, but 5,000 applications for investigations have been made.


Douglas King Hazen: What medical investigations are carried on under this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mostly regarding illness in the civil service.


Angus MacInnis: I presume under this item new methods of treating diseases are investigated?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, the second branch of the department i3 concerned with investigation and study along any line that seems desirable.


Angus MacInnis: Could the minister give a brief synopsis of the work under the industrial investigations during the last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The' best reply I can make is to refer the hon. member to the report on the study of illness in the civil service of Canada, which is a published document. I shall be glad to send a copy to my hon. friend.


Angus MacInnis: It was drawn to my attention recently that there is an institution in Ottawa, which I believe has branches in other cities, which has developed what it contends is a satisfactory treatment for respiratory diseases. Probably I had better 
not mention its name. Has the department investigated the claims of that institution, and has the minister any statement to make?
r Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): The situation is that the gentlemen in question have been trying to interview me for the last ten days. I am going to see them when the session is finished. There is a certain medical resistance to their claims; as a layman I hesitate to judge and will have to be guided by expert advice, but they claim substantial and meritorious results.


Howard Charles Green: The minister mentioned a survey of the health of the civil service made by this branch. There are apparently five medical officers in the branch. What other work do they do?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Every civil servant who is ill for more than three days has to report, bring a certificate and be examined by this branch.


Howard Charles Green: Are these five doctors just for caring for the civil service? Is that all the work they do?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With regard to two of them, yes.


Mr. McCANN:: Have any problems of
medical investigation been undertaken other than the incidence of disease in the civil service, and with what results? An expenditure of $36,000 for investigation as to the incidence of disease in one class in the country appears large. It is probably a duplication of work which has been done by other medical organizations) If the work is in the nature of research likely to prove of some benefit to the people of the country or employees of the dominion government it is money well spent, but I think we might have a little further knowledge as to the type of medical investigation and the results to date. If these results have been satisfactory, that work should be continued, but if the work is nothing more than perfunctory, the money could be spent to better advantage. I am not critical; all I want is a little detail regarding this branch.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As my hon. friend knows, several researches have been carried out by this commission. One was in regard to the treatment of syphilis. Also in 1936 a comprehensive survey was made in regard to deaths among war pensioners, classifying in age groups the effect of certain diseases on those who came back from the great war. That is also published and available to hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-National Health
Health branch.
251. Venereal diseases, $50,000.
James Joseph McCann: Is the policy of the department with reference to the treatment of specific diseases in line with what was appropriated last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly the same.


Douglas King Hazen: Is this money spent on
individual treatments or appropriated to different diseases?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is for the purchase of arsenicals to be distributed among provinces.


Douglas King Hazen: How much is appropriated to each province?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Prince Edward Island	 $	278
Nova Scotia	 1,886
New Brunswick	 2,337
Quebec	 16,533
Ontario	 16,193
Manitoba	 2,695
Saskatchewan	 2,991
Alberta	 3,952
British Columbia	 3,131


Howard Charles Green: Was all the $50,000 used
last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. SHAW:: Whether we like to admit it or not, I believe it is a recognized fact that war aggravates the venereal disease situation. Has the minister any recent statistics to show what effect the first eleven months of war have had on this situation in Canada, as compared with last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not any figures as far as the present forces are concerned, but generally speaking tremendous progress is being made in connection with this problem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants.
255. Health League of Canada, $5,000.
Howard Charles Green: Why was this item cut?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is part of the general economy. There were four or five of these grants that had to be cut, and two or three abolished altogether. This used to be $5,000; last year it was raised to $10,000 and this year it is cut to $5,000 again.


Howard Charles Green: Which grants were cut out altogether?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Those to the Dental Hygiene Council and the Canadian Council of Nutrition.


James Joseph McCann: In the miscellaneous grants to voluntary institutions it is rather to be regretted that the appropriation for the Health League of Canada is the only one for which the grant is less than a year ago. I think that calls for some explanation. The Health League of Canada is a national voluntary organization set up for the purpose of educating the Canadian people along lines of public health, both personal and community health, and with regard to the prevention of disease. This organization bases its activities on the belief that a lack of health consciousness hinders development in almost every field of public health. While this lack of health consciousness is serious enough in times of peace, it becomes dangerous in times of war. This is particularly true in connection with problems of venereal disease and malnutrition.
I am glad that the department has seen fit to continue the grant of $50,000 to the different public health organizations of the country with regard to venereal disease. Anyone who knows anything about public health history in Canada knows that the incidence of specific diseases during and following the last war rose at an alarming rate. In peace time it is not as great. We may reasonably expect that the incidence of these specific diseases will increase now that we are at war again. Probably there should be a greater appropriation at this time than during the peace years. The Health League of Canada has done a great work in bringing this matter to the attention of the public and making the people of Canada what we might call health conscious.
It will be noted that in the appropriations this year the publicity department of the health branch has been done away with. How then are the people to obtain public health education except through the medium of voluntary organizations? Conscious of these facts the Health League of Canada has plans on foot to extend its operations. This year its budget amounts to $113,000, and let it be known and remembered that this money comes from citizens and organizations interested in public health matters. The insurance companies, the various provinces of Canada, public spirited citizens-particularly those of the city of Toronto-within the last few months have made generous contributions to this organization. This league is extending its activities and has opened a branch in the province of Quebec. The needs of that province are well known. The personnel of the league in Quebec includes men outstanding in
24S2
Supply-National Health

the professional and business life of that province. They realize that the incidence of diphtheria in Quebec is greater than in any other province. They know that through public health education and public health work the city of Hamilton, for instance, has not had a single case of diphtheria in the past seven years; the city of Ottawa has had very few cases, and the city of Toronto has been almost entirely free of this disease. I do not wish to make any comment which would be derogatory to the health authorities of Quebec, but because of the lack of health education among the people of that province the incidence of diphtheria is very great. With that fact in view, the league is extending its activities to that province, for which purpose they are allotting from their budget some fifteen or twenty thousand dollars.
This year, instead of a grant of $10,000, this league is receiving only $5,000 from this government, the agency which should be most interested in public health activities and which, having done away with its own publicity branch, should take advantage of the publicity functions of the health league. The only tangible way we can give expression to our support of public health activities is by making our contribution even greater than it has been in the past. This government has the facilities for carrying on that publicity by means of the press, the radio, the pulpit and the screen. All these methods may be used to bring these problems to the attention of the people, and in time of war public health education is even more necessary than in times of peace. Yet now with a war on, when we should be anxious to conserve the health of our people; when those engaged in war activities or in industries having to do with those activities are under greater strain and working harder than ever; when perhaps their supplies of food are not as varied or as adequate as they may be in peace time; when there is danger of malnutrition and all that goes with it, we foolishly cut down our contributions to those agencies which are trying to help the government by keeping our people in better physical condition. This league carries on a regular propaganda of education. It has official contact with all the provinces. It has a nation-wide membership and executive.
Let me remind hon. members that medicine is the only profession which is international in all its activities. Even with a war on, we can take advantage of any medical advances made by our enemies just as we may take advantage of any findings made by our allies; and what holds good in a national sense holds good also in a federal and interprovincial

sense. So I would say to the government that they might well take into serious consideration an increase in the appropriation to be granted the Health League of Canada. I know that cannot be done under this item, but they should realize that public health is a war activity having to do with the physical condition of the people as a whole, including our soldiers. That being so, additional aid might be granted to this league from the war appropriation of $700,000,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did I understand the
minister to say that one reason for the reduction in this item was the elimination of the grant to the dental hygiene services?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. Several departments had to be cut down as a result of the attempt to carry out general measures of economy, and this was one of the departments that did not get a grant equal to that of last year. It did get a grant equal to that of the year before last. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew South, I may say that the department has applied for an additional grant for the Health League of Canada, but as yet a final decision has not been given.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Under what item was a contribution made to the dental hygiene services of Canada previously?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was a separate item last year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Under this vote?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) ; No, a separate vote for $2,500.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And there is no item this year at all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Grote Stirling: It was among this group?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am sorry to see that vote dropped.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So am I.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am firmly convinced that to-day dentistry is doing a marvellous work which has resulted in many wonderful cures; but since that item is not here, I suppose my remarks are out of order. I hope the minister will consider putting it back next year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly shall.

Supply-National Health


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Could the minister give us any guarantee that we shall have that appropriation made this year? I think he said he had applied for it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The department has applied for a grant from the war appropriation, but as yet we have not received the final decision of the treasury board in the matter.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I should like to point out that if it were possible not only to bring up the grant to the amount given last year but to increase it, we would be doing a great service at this time. I understand that this health league has been doing a wonderful work with regard to the nutrition of our people. They have been holding meetings in various parts of the country, at which meetings they have been instructing housewives as to the best way to spend their money with regard to nutritional values. I cannot help feeling that at a time like this, disease is more or less a fifth column activity which will sap the strength and morale of our people. I would plead with the minister to endeavour to have this grant made even larger than last year; I think that would be one of the best things we could do for our nation in time of war.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I add my
voice to what has been said by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann). For some years I have had something to do with the Health League of Canada. It seems to me that if an organization of that kind does a good job and has been successful for a few years, it should not have its grant cut to the extent of $5,000. We have before us supplementary estimates to a total of $3,197,488, and I submit that another $5,000 could have been added without, in the total, making much difference.
It is all very well to say that the health league receive voluntary contributions. They do in fact receive not only voluntary contributions of money but also contributions of work. We must realize that we must have organizations of this kind to do this type of work. People cannot be expected to give their services voluntarily all the time. There must be money to be paid to the staff. It seems to me a blot on the Dominion of Canada that we should have supplementary estimates to a total of more than $3,000,000, and permit the Health League of Canada to be deprived of $5,000, especially at a time like this. In these days they ought to have $10,000 more. In my opinion the government ought to know more of what is done by this organization. They have coordinated the work in the different provinces, and when we
realize that the provinces are working with the Health League of Canada, we must admit that this $5,000 should not have been cut off.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: May I speak for the
group to which I belong, and thereby make unanimous the plea for an increase in this item? We are sorry indeed to note the reduction, and hope that an increase may be brought in so that the branch of the health league in western Canada may be reopened.
I would urge that the minister do something toward the formation of a health committee of the House of Commons which would sit at the next session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be pleased to take that into consideration between now and the next session.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I register my definite
protest against this proposed reduction? After all, we must realize that poverty and sickness are the agents and allies of nazism and fascism. I do not see why we should not be combatting those allies just as vigorously as we are combatting the members of the political groups I have mentioned. Once again I register my protest against this reduction, as well as against other reductions in the estimates of the health branch.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister give
particulars of grants which have been cut out?


Thomas Vien: That question has been answered.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not give
them all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Dental hygiene, $2,500; council of nutrition a further amount, and $5,000 for the health league.


James Alexander Marshall: Has the minister
accounted for the amount of $21,500 which comes under the heading of appropriations not required for 1940-41?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was the sum of $5,000 last year for the International Hospital Association meeting at Toronto, which does not appear this year.


Howard Charles Green: Was that for one year only?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It
was a special grant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants.
259. Montreal Association for the Blind, $4,050.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is this organization? Is it connected with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind?
Supply-Pensions and, Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It . is an independent organization.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Does this expenditure not overlap that for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is a French-speaking organization which has been in existence for some years.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not object to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants.
262.	St. John Ambulance Association, $4,050.
Howard Charles Green: Has there not been an extension in the work of this organization as a result of the war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Should not the grant be increased? It seems to me it does an important work in war time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This organization does receive a certain amount from the moneys allocated to air raid precautions work. It is doing an excellent work for the government in this connection.


Howard Charles Green: Is the organization connected with air raid precautions activities throughout the dominion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Have arrangements been made yet with Ontario for air raid precautions activities in that province?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants.
263.	Canadian Red Cross Society, $10,000.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: I understand there is a Canadian council for crippled children, consisting of the Canadian Red Cross Society, the Ontario Society for Crippled Children and the Quebec Society for Crippled Children. Has that organization been brought to the attention of the minister?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 1 am informed there has been no application for a grant for that organization.


John Horne Blackmore: I am wondering if the minister has contemplated making a grant of his own initiative. I understand that this is a year of rigid retrenchment, but at the same time I realize that the minister very likely has

thought of the great possibility of improving Canadian manhood and womanhood by looking after the luckless little children who from time to time become crippled. Has the minister formulated any plan since he became minister of the department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should be very glad to bear the suggestion in mind.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has there been a request from the Canadian Red Cross Society for an increase in the grant this year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


James Joseph McCann: Is it the intention of the government to give an increased grant to the Canadian Red Cross Society out of the war appropriation? Surely we should have some leadership from the government. At this particular time the Red Cross Society in Canada is doing perhaps the greatest work of any organization in the dominion. They are taking pennies from the school children. They are receiving voluntary contributions. We know that many private individuals have given sums of more than $10,000 to the society. In this time of war, when the organization needs the assistance, cooperation and help of the government we should give more than the donation made in peace time. While the Red Cross may not have made an appeal to the government, yet I suggest by way of generosity and magnanimity the government should show its appreciation of the Red Cross Society in Canada by giving more help at this time.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I add my voice to that of the hon. member for Renfrew South. I know the Canadian Red Cross Society would be loath to come to the government asking for more money, but I believe the government would be setting a fine example if it would increase even by a small amount-we would say a token amount-the amount given to the Red Cross.


John Horne Blackmore: I am told that in Canada there are about 24,000 cripples. I understand the provinces have not undertaken the work of tabulating cripples in any systematic manner. I am informed something is done about it in several provinces, but that even in those provinces the wrork is not thoroughly, comprehensively or effectively done. It seems to me that something should be done by the dominion, at the very least to coordinate and systematize the work of the provinces and grant some money to aid those now engaged in this work. It seems strange that simply because a child happens to be stricken with infantile paralysis or some other malady that

Supply-Pensions and Health
leaves him incapable of filling his part in life, he has to become the victim of every wind of chance. We must be behind the times in the world's history if we allow such a state of affairs to exist in a country like Canada. I think that next year the minister would be well advised to bring down an estimate of $15,000 or thereabouts, and I shall support him in doing so, to help the self-sacrificing, earnest and energetic people who have constituted themselves into a committee throughout this dominion to help these crippled children and give them a chance in the world.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits.
26 . Pensions payable to men on active service, Northwest rebellion, 1885, and general pensions, $18,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask how many veterans who took part in the rebellion of 1885, some fifty-five years ago, are still drawing this pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are seven.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How much is the pension?


Howard Charles Green: The item reads, "Pensions payable to men on active service, Northwest rebellion, 1885, and general pensions". What is meant by "general pensions"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Pensions to those who incurred or suffer from disability on service prior to the great war. The actual payment is made by the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Howard Charles Green: Does it mean men in the permanent force who suffered disability?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Are they not covered by
the vote under the Militia Pensions Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Howard Charles Green: How much of the vote of $18,000 is paid to veterans of the Northwest rebellion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are thirty-nine pensioners altogether, seven of whom are pensioned by virtue of service in the Northwest rebellion. The other twenty-nine are in the class I have just mentioned. I have not particulars of the amounts paid out.


Howard Charles Green: The minister cannot say how much is paid to each group?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry I have not that information.


George Hugh Castleden: There is in Toronto a group of veterans of the Boer war numbering perhaps fifteen to twenty, and according to the information given me their pensions are quite inadequate. One man seventy years of age claims to have had letters from members of parliament and cabinet ministers offering to support an increased pension to these men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unfortunately that does not come under my department.


Howard Charles Green: Does Canada pay any pensions for service in the Boer war? Are they not all paid by the British government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, they are.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I thought the Boer war veterans were included under the act last year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was for war veterans' allowance.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Referring for a moment to the next item, the Militia Pensions Act, 1901, I think there was a revision of that act in 1914. There are not very many of these pensioners. I have spoken on their behalf two or three times before in the house. There are just a few of them left now; they are eking out a very poor existence because their cases arose before the revision of the act took place, and they are not receiving revised pensions. Would it not be possible to do something for them? I brought the same question up last year late in the session, but nothing was done. This matter would come under the Department of National Defence, would it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wonder if something could not be done for these men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to discuss it with my colleague the Minister of National Defence. My department, of course, is concerned with the general administration of such pensions after they are awarded.


George Hugh Castleden: Would it be possible to deal by order in council with the men of whom I spoke a few moments ago? They are all over sixty-five years of age.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will give me a memorandum
Supply-Pensions and Health

covering all these cases, I shall be glad to take it up with the national defence department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and National Health.
227. Departmental administration, $119,590.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe I am in order, Mr. Chairman, in taking a moment or two to ask a question with reference to the submission that has been made to the minister on more than one occasion, I believe, by the Canadian Soldiers Non-Pensioned Widows' Association. Particulars of the cases of some eigfyty-four members of this association have been submitted to me by the Toronto branch of the association, and particulars have been forwarded to me by Mrs. Helen McHugh, president of the Toronto branch of the association. I shall give only one or two instances, because I do not want to hold up the item, and then I shall hand to the minister the particulars of these eighty-four cases.
I cite one as typical of the whole eighty-four, Mrs. Teresa Shanks. I will read what she says at the bottom of her submission, because it is an example of the whole eighty-four, and I trust that the minister during the recess will look into this matter. Mrs. Teresa Shanks says:
My husband enlisted with the 20th Battalion March 1, 1915 and was discharged medically unfit May 15, 1916. He again offered his services, giving up a good position and was accepted for the forestry corps April 27, 1917. He was discharged July 15, 1919 and suffered with chronic bronchitis and asthma until he died at the age of 42 years. He could only work at intervals and I worked for years to keep things going.
This is a soldier's widow, and the other eighty-three soldiers' widows whose submissions I have here are all on the same level. Their husbands received a pension while living, but apparently not of sufficient amount to entitle each widow to a pension after her husband died. I appeal to the minister to look into these cases during the recess and see if something cannot be done for these poor, deserving widows. In addition to these cases from Ontario, I have a submission from the Canadian Soldiers Non-Pensioned Widows' Association of Quebec, and I presume the minister has received submissions from branches in every province. I promised to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and now I have done so.


John Horne Blackmore: Let me associate myself with the hon. member for Davenport in his plea for the war widows.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Several years ago I spoke in the house on behalf of these war widows, and gradually we have been getting

a little more justice for them. Last year the amount of the pension was lowered to 50 per cent. These widows are getting older all the time and are having more difficulty in getting along. I know the minister has been very busy, but I think it might be a good idea if he would consider lowering it to 30 per cent next year. The total amount involved would not make very much difference to the Dominion of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just one word, Mr. Chairman. This matter has been brought to my attention by various delegations on several occasions in the last six months. There is no question that on broad humanitarian grounds all the applications contain a great degree of merit, but there is a serious difficulty, namely, that the principle of the Pension Act as it is to-day is not the principle of a service pension; it is to award a pension for disability incurred on or attributable to service, or in the case of dependents, where the husband died as a result of injuries incurred while on service. As the hon. member for St. Paul's mentioned a few minutes ago, last year we brought the percentage down to 50 per cent, thereby adding considerably to the pensions list of the dominion. It requires great consideration whether it would be advisable to reduce the percentage any further, because to do so might endanger some principles of the present Pension Act. I assure my hon. friend that the matter has been carefully considered in all its angles.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain the statutory ground for payment of pensions to men of the Canadian active service force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is referring to the fact that the order in council which was passed early in September, just after the outbreak of war, applied the Pension Act, as we have it now, to members of the Canadian active service force. That order in council was modified on May 21, 1940, by another order in council which entitled members of the Canadian active service force who were enlisting after that, date to pensions only in case of a disability actually incurred on service. That is to say, a man might be in Canada on service and incur disability outside of his duties. The principle is more or less that of the workmen's compensation act. If a man incurs disability outside of service duties, he is not entitled to recover, but if he suffers a disability while actually serving, he receives a pension therefor.


Howard Charles Green: The minister's answer shows that the men in the Canadian active service force serving in the present war must rely for their right of pension-

Supply-Pensions and Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Pardon me; that applies to service in Canada only.


Howard Charles Green: They must rely for their
pension on an order in council bringing into effect in their cases the present Pension Act. I suggest to the minister, with all the force I can, that the Pension Act should be amended and brought up to date, so that these new soldiers of ours will not have to depend on an order in council. They have the right to have their status set out either in the present Pension Act or in a new act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt my hon. friend for a second? Such a bill was actually prepared, and I intended to introduce it at this session, but we thought, after consideration, we should wait two or three months to get more experience with regard to casualties in the present war. The bill will be introduced during the next session.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But you are taking care of the present casualties?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: It is the inten^jpn of the government to bring in a new pension bill at the next session?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The bill is drafted now.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the department give serious consideration to this question of the rights of the widows, and also to two or three anomalies in the act about which complaints have been made over the last four or five years.
For example, as the minister knows, under section 67 of the present act no pension is payable in respect of a pensioner's child born after May 1, 1933. Presumably that provision was put in the act during the depression, as an economy measure. To my mind it is utterly unfair to the pensioner. There is no reason why he should be denied an allowance for a child born after that date, just as he receives one for a child born before that date. To a certain degree these younger children are being penalized.
Another defect of that same section, 67, is that it does not allow any payment in respect of a wife married after May 1, 1933. That condition should be remedied in a new act.
Further, there have been many complaints with regard to nervous and mental cases. As the minister knows, they are handicapped by section 11, subsection 1, paragraph (b). As I understand the present position, it is that the nerve specialists, psychiatrists, or whatever fancy name they are known by, have ruled that if a veteran goes out of his mind now, it must be because he was born to do so, and that his experience in the war had nothing to do with the matter. Nobody except, perhaps, these few specialists can see any sense in that ruling, and we have asked time and again that this particular section be amended by adding a clause at the end of paragraph (b) to exempt such cases from the section. I would ask the minister to bear that in mind when the Pension Act is being revised.
It might also help if the proposed act could be submitted to a committee of the returned soldier members of the house, at the next session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the intention to do so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Howard Charles Green: At the beginning of the war it was announced that no allowance would be paid for more than two children of a person enlisting. Would the minister tell us whether that provision still stands, and whether the same applies in the case of a pension; that is, if a man in the active service force is killed, will an allowance be paid" for only two children, although he may have four or five?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The first part of my hon. friend's question refers not to our department but to that of national defence. As far as pensions are concerned, there will be no limitation with regard to dependents.


Howard Charles Green: I may not be strictly in order in asking the first question, but could the minister tell us whether at this time the allowance is paid in respect of two children only, because if that is the case, I think it is a crime.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not believe the regulation has been modified, but I cannot speak with certainty.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister take that up with the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Supply-Pensions and Health


Howard Charles Green: It is absolutely unfair, with recruiting increasing at such a rate, that men who at the time of enlistment have more than two children should be debarred from an allowance for more than two.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I heard what the hon. member for Davenport said as to the speed with which widows are getting their pensions. That is most satisfactory, but I cannot say the same with respect to the speed with -which some of the mothers have been receiving their allowances. Possibly there are difficulties in the way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has nothing to do with this department.


Clarence Gillis: I have had considerable
experience with the Department of Pensions and National Health, and I find the staff most efficient. But there is a point regarding the war veterans' allowance which, I believe, might be cleared up without additional cost to the government. When a man reaches the age of sixty-


Thomas Vien: May I point out that
further down on the same page is an item, "war veterans' allowances," and the hon. member's remarks would be more appropriate when that is reached. I have given a great deal of latitude, and I should not like to cut out the remarks which the hon. member desires to make, but unless we draw the line somewhere there will be duplication of arguments when we come to item 226.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no objection to my hon. friend putting his question at this time. He may not be present later on when the item of war veterans' allowances is up, and if he will ask his question now I shall endeavour to answer it.


Clarence Gillis: When a veteran reaches the age of sixty, according to the regulations he can apply for and receive $40 a month or $480 a year, and in addition to this he is allowed to earn up to $20 a month. Altogether it works out at $15 a week. In view of the increase in the cost of living, and in order that a man may live the self-respecting life which most ex-service men desire, something more than $60 a month is needed. I suggest that a ruling be brought down that the recipient be allowed to earn the equivalent of the allowance, namely $480, making a total of $960 a year. The department would not be put to any additional cost, and this would give the man the privilege of earning a sum equal to the allowance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to bring the matter to the notice of the chairman of the war veterans' board who is a very competent officer.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know whether this is the right item, but can the minister say why a soldier's dependent who happens to be his mother is given $20 when his wife gets $35.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That comes under the Department of National Defence.


James Joseph McCann: I see there are appropriations for an architect, an office engineer and a draftsman. What are their duties in connection with public health?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are necessary for the maintenance of hospitals and institutions under the department.


James Joseph McCann: Is not that contrary to
government policy? According to government policy such work is usually done by the Department of Public Works. That is true of all other branches.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is done in consultation with the Department of Public Works.


James Joseph McCann: Why cannot their officials
be used?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has been found very effective to have our own architect do this work. Mr. George is a competent officer and has done efficient work.


James Joseph McCann: It looks like a duplication of services that should be done away with.


Howard Charles Green: What provision is made for pensions due to service in the present war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That comes under the war appropriations. I have not the exact estimate before me, but I shall be glad to get it during the recess.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I have had correspondence with a constituent who saw service in the forestry battalion in the last war. He is now sixty-four years of age. There is no provision for any pension for him. Is it possible to have him granted a pension on compassionate grounds?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That would depend on the interpretation of section 21, which is the only provision that covers compassionate grounds or meritorious services. It is sometimes difficult to get a

Supply-Pensions and Health
pension granted where service did not occur in an actual theatre of war, but I shall be glad to look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
222.	Pensions branch administration, $887,602.
Howard Charles Green: What is the number of
applications for pension during the last fiscal year compared with the numbers in the preceding two or three years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amount asked for from war appropriations is 8500,000 for pensions.


Howard Charles Green: How much has been used already for pensions in the present war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will get that at eight o'clock.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wish to say a word of appreciation with reference to the officers of the department with whom I have come in contact. They are efficient and obliging and are doing a great job.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
223.	Administration expenses, $459,630.
Howard Charles Green: The statement made by the hon. member for St. Paul's applies here also. The chairman of the commission and the staff are doing excellent work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
Direct payments to veterans and dependent*.
225.	European war pensions, $40,650,000.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Does the item for pensions advocates come under this?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That comes under item 231, veterans' bureau.


Clarence Gillis: I do not want to take up the time of the committee and the purpose of the question I am about to ask is to avoid that. The appropriation asked for this year is based upon the fixed obligations of the department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: It is not intended to amend the act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except in so far as is necessary by reason of the application of the Canadian Pension Act to those now serving in the Canadian forces.


Clarence Gillis: The question I have to ask deals exclusively with vetemns of the last war, and I will not take up the time of the committee just now, but I should like to know whether, if I send the minister a list of proposed amendments I have here, they will be taken into consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When the committee is set up next session I shall be glad to see that all suggestions from any hon. member are carefully considered.


Howard Charles Green: This item is for over
$40,000,000 and it should not be rushed through. How many applications were made for pension in the last fiscal year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before answering that, may I say that in regard to the present war, the amount paid up to June 30, 1940, was $10,692.


Howard Charles Green: How many men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are forty-two disability cases, forty-five widows, and two mothers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I endorse what has been said by other hon. members and extend my warmest appreciation to the staff of the pensions branch of the department. What I have to say, therefore, is not by way of criticism. I wish to appeal for a little further consideration for war veterans who were prisoners in Germany during the last war. I have in mind one man named George Stevens, No. 57727, who was in Germany for two and a half years. When we read of German treatment of war prisoners to-day we are not surprised that many soldiers who were prisoners of war in Germany in the last war are in the condition they are in now. I believe the department has gone the limit in trying to take care of the cases that come before them, but there are some which, I understand, have not received the consideration which the soldiers concerned expected, merely because the state of mind and body of these men cannot be properly diagnosed. With regard to this soldier George Stevens, I want to bring his name specially to the minister's attention, in order to see if anything can be done by way of compensation-I put it in that way. It is no fault of the department. I thank the department. It has been lenient and generous in considering this case and in its offer. However, the offer is not satisfactory and I would ask that something be done. This is what Doctor Prendergast said concerning George Stevens in a letter dated September 26, 1938:
I have examined him and have gone through his file. In 1929 the urine examined by Doctor Norwich showed albumen pus cells and cysts.

Supply-Pensions and Health

There seems to be no question that he suffered during his time as prisoner of war very considerable hardship and exposure over a period of 2J years.
That is the point I wish the minister to take into consideration. I should be glad if he would give this case his personal attention and regard it from a compassionate point of view.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to do so. As far as prisoners of war are concerned, 81 per cent of ex-prisoners of war who have applied, have entitlement to pension. As a matter of fact, more consideration has been given to those cases than is usual; their statements have been accepted without documentary confirmation. I shall be glad to see that this case comes to the attention of the pension commission.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: How many pensioners are drawing pensions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In answer to the question of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) as to the number of applicants for pension in the last year, there were in the year from April 1, 1939, to March 31, 1940, first hearings 3,771; second hearings 1,773.


Howard Charles Green: There must be something wrong with those figures because last year we were told that the number of applicants in the fiscal year 1938-39 was 10,109.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Between 1936 and 1939 the total was: first hearings 13,071, and for last year 3,771, making, 1936, a total since, of 16,842.
Then second hearings, 1936 to 1939, numbered 4,426; and last year 1,773, making a total of 6,199.


Howard Charles Green: But last year the then minister gave the number of applicants for pension in 1937-38 as 10,450. For 1938-39 he gave the number as 10,109. What is the corresponding figure for the year 1939-40?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The figures I have given are the exact figures for those who came up between April 1, 1939, and March 31, 1940: for first hearing, 3,771, and for second hearing, 1,773, or a total of 5,544.


Howard Charles Green: What were the first hearings the previous year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have only the combined total for the three years: 13,071 for first hearing and 4,426 for second hearing.


James Joseph McCann: I have been told of a
number of men who have been pensioners of (Mr. MacNicol.]
the last war but, who upon enlistment now, are graded as grade A. In that event do they continue to draw a pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that they draw their pension.


James Joseph McCann: That seems an anomaly. It is bad enough for a man who is grade A to have been drawing pension. Let me say that nobody wishes to see any returned man of the last war who is entitled to pension deprived of it. But if, upon enlistment now, with much better methods of determining his physical condtion, he is found to be grade A, that he should continue to draw a pension is not only an anomaly, but an injustice to the taxpayers of this country. What is the number of men who enlisted who were former pensioners and continue to be pensioners and who are of grade A now?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to get that information from the Department of National Defence.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson), there are 80,133 pensioners and 18,177 dependents, widows and orphan children. There is a total of disability pensioners, dependent pensioners and their relatives, of 223,885.


Howard Charles Green: What are the figures for
first and second hearings and the quorums for the last fiscal year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: First hearings-
Granted	 1,366
.Not granted	 2 405
Second hearings-	>771
Granted	 114
Not granted	''	1,659
1 773
Quorum decisions after second hearings-
Granted	 132
Not granted	 361
That is the total for all kinds of hearings.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the minister any information as to the number of pensions granted on compassionate grounds? I understand that came in only under the last act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under section 21, I presume my hon. friend means. I will get that information later.


Howard Charles Green: Regarding pensions to
widows, the suggestion was made to me by one association during the present session that section 32, subsection 2, should be

Supply-Pensions and Health
amended to provide that if a pensioner at any time received a 50 per cent pension, his widow should be entitled to pension automatically on his death. In other words, it meant extending slightly the rule made last year. I think there is a good deal of merit in the suggestion. For example, there are cases where a man might be getting 60 per cent pension for disability, and then it would be ruled an aggravation of a pre-war disability and the assessment cut to 40 per cent. There are border-line cases of that kind. I suggest that the minister consider extending the section to provide for such cases.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That suggestion could well be reviewed by the committee of the house when it is set up.


Howard Charles Green: Also we should review the fixing of a dead-line. Last session, despite our vigorous protests, the government fixed January 1, 1942, as the date after which no soldier can apply for pension without special permission.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same answer will apply.
Answering the question of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) as to number of pensions awarded under the compassionate section, I am informed there are 353.


Ernest George Hansell: In connection with the families of pensioners, do I understand that some assistance is given to a pensioner if he has children going to school?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, children up to the age of sixteen years.


Ernest George Hansell: Is it definite that no
assistance is given for children above that age?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it is not definite at all; it is frequently done if a recommendation is made. Generally speaking, I think it comes from the schoolteacher, or someone like that, who recommends an extension of the allowance.


Ernest George Hansell: There is sometimes an
allowance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Literally speaking, I think there would be thousands of cases of extensions beyond the age of sixteen.


Ernest George Hansell: What procedure must be followed in order to get an extension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The application should be made to the chairman of the pension commission, supported by a letter of endorsation if possible from the 95826-157J
school-teacher, who will testify to the applicant's ability to carry on and that the studies would be beneficial. Generally speaking, that is what is done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
Direct payments to veterans and dependents.
226.	War veterans' allowances, $8,000,000.
Howard Charles Green: What are the figures in connection with war veterans' allowances?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Those in force at March 31, 1939, numbered 20,010; awards during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1940, numbered 4,179, and there were 157 reinstatements, making a total of 24,346. Cancellations due to death, et cetera, from April 1, 1939, to March 31, 1940, numbered 1,135, giving the actual number in force as of March 31 of this year, 23,211.


Howard Charles Green: Is the cost keeping within the estimate made by the war veterans' allowance board some years ago?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Naturally the estimate had to be changed when the act was amended. As my hon. friend will see, the estimate is going up considerably this year, and will continue to go up for a number of years.


Howard Charles Green: Have any steps been taken to extend the war veterans' allowance to soldiers of the Canadian active service force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Howard Charles Green: Why has that not been done?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So far at least, it has been considered legislation for the soldiers of the great war. In fact, the suggestion of my hon. friend has never been considered as a matter of policy up to the present time.


Howard Charles Green: Will the War Veterans'
Allowance Act be reviewed at the next session, as well as the Pension Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It certainly will be open to review in regard to any of its provisions.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister see that the War Veterans' Allowance Act is referred to a special committee, along with the Pension Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Did the figures given by the minister show an increase or a decrease as compared with the previous year?
Supply-Pensions and Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: An increase.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why was that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because of the amendments that were made to the statute.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: And there is no comparison with the year before?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At March 31, 1939, the figure was 20,280. This year it is 23,548, an increase of some 3,000. The figures in dollars were $6,530,000 in 1938-39 and $7,627,000 in 1939-40. It will go up even further this year.


Mr. McNIVEN:: On January 1 the department introduced what I believe is known as class 18, under which veterans of the last war who were unable to pay for such services were entitled to medical, hospital and dental attention. In my limited experience I know of nothing that has been done by the department in recent years that has been more effective or provided greater relief than this step. I should like to ask the minister if he has under consideration, or if he will give consideration to, enlarging class 18 to include the purchase of spectacles for these men, all of whom are over fifty years of age. Time and again I have heard eye specialists advise that any man or woman over forty-five years years of age should have glasses as a protection to the eyesight. This would be a decided protection to these men; it would be of great assistance to them, and would aid in avoiding greater expense in the years to come.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That comes under the provision for treatment and care of patients, but I shall be very glad to see that the suggestion of my hon. friend is referred to the medical officers of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
Direct payments to veterans and dependent!.
227.	Unemployment assistance, $2,000,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is the number of
men drawing unemployment assistance now?
I understand this is assistance given to small pensioners?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. It has gone down quite substantially in recent months. The recipients in 1938-39 numbered 10,732. That number went down to 8,920 in 1939-40, and in June of this year it was down to 4,317.


Howard Charles Green: How is that decrease accounted for? Are these men getting employment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I presume that would be the explanation, and also an increasing number are going on the war veterans' allowance, as a result of various methods of qualification.


Howard Charles Green: That is, as they get older
they qualify for the allowance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: As the minister knows,
for the last three or four years the main problem has been who was responsbile for the fit front-line veteran who, although able to work, could not get a job. Up to the present time the federal government have refused to accept direct responsibility for these man although the Rattray commission recommended that this government should assume that responsibility. Do the government still take that stand, or have their hearts softened in the last year? After all, it would mean a great deal if the government would adopt a more lenient attitude toward these men. For one thing I think it would help a great deal in recruiting for the present war. Nobody wants to enlist, feeling that if he comes back and is not able to get work at all, although willing to work, the dominion government which took him into the army will accept no responsibility for him. I suggest to the minister that this is of vital importance this year, even more so than last year, and I should like to know the attitude of the government at the present time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The government is still of the opinion that was announced by my predecessor in regard to the provisional economic allowance. I further took up this question quite aggressively as soon as I took charge of the department; but with the extension of the benefits of the War Veterans' Allowance Act; with the employment of employable unemployed exservice men, if I may so call them, on various works and in the veterans' home guards at vulnerable points; with the solicitations we have sent contractors to employ these men as far as possible-with these various methods I believe we can absorb at least the great bulk of those who are unemployed and ready to work.


Howard Charles Green: That means the number to be helped now would be very small?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) [DOT] Yes.

Supply-Pensions and Health


Howard Charles Green: That is all the more reason for the government to do something about the matter. I would refer the minister to a statement of his own, which should be the very best authority in the land-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: This statement was made quite a long time before the election, too. I quote from the Vancouver press of July 17, 1939. The minister was speaking to the Army and Navy Veterans of British Columbia at a dinner in the Eden cafe; that may have acounted for the words he is reported to have said:
"The most difficult problem of all," he said, alluding to prematurely aged veterans, "is the plight of the physical fit who cannot be absorbed by industry."
He recommended extension of the provisions of the economic war veterans' allowance so that both fit and unfit could be taken care of by the state.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not remember that.


Howard Charles Green: There is the minister's own recommendation, made just a little over a year ago. Is he prepared to put that recommendation into effect, now that he is in a position actually to do so?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have already stated the policy of the government in regard to this question. I do not recall the quotation referred to by my hon. friend. I am not denying it, but I do not recall it.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister still of the same opinion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am of the opinion that the principle of a provisional economic allowance is not sound. I am of the further opinion, definitely, that the government should give every possible preference to ex-service men, so far as employment is concerned, and I am prepared to do everything I can in that direction.


Howard Charles Green: The minister recommended extending the war veterans' allowance. I think he should give serious consideration to his own suggestion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has been done. As a matter of fact, I referred that problem to the chairman of the board as soon as I took office in the department.


Howard Charles Green: What board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The war veterans' allowance board. It was
pointed out, however, that there were some inherent dangers, and 1 have great reliance upon the chairman's judgment.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has had long experience in soldier affairs, and he should have known the inherent dangers-and probably did-when he made this statement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member has said it was made during the election campaign.


Howard Charles Green: No, it was a long time before the election. The minister has said that the government is seeing to it that the soldier gets a preference in connection with work. I have had complaints from Vancouver within the last two or three weeks to the effect that in connection with the work on the new hospital being built in that city those who are not ex-soldiers and, in some instances, aliens are doing the work. It seems to me that when the government is making an extension to a hospital which will care for our soldiers, it should insert in the contract a provision that the men employed must be ex-service men, 100 per cent. Is there any reason why that cannot be done?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I had not heard of that until this moment.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why the government should not insist that the hospital be built by returned men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think, as a matter of fact, that is one of the clauses in the contract.


Howard Charles Green: That all employees shall be returned men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As far as possible.


Howard Charles Green: What does that mean? Has any percentage been laid down?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are some trades in which qualified exservice men cannot be found; but those are rare cases.


Howard Charles Green: Is any percentage stipulated?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Howard Charles Green: Just the words "as far as possible" which, in many instances, do not mean much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
Direct payments to veterans and dependents.
228.	Hospital and other allowances, $775,000.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Now that we have cooperation between the opposition and
Supply-Pensions and Health

government sides of the house, for purposes of carrying out the war effort, may I point out that I have received many bitter complaints to the effect that one must be of the Liberal persuasion before he can obtain a job. I do not know how true that is, but it is important that that sort of thing should not exist. I hope the minister will see to it that a good Tory may have as good a chance to get work as would a good Liberal. Some of these stories may have very little foundation, and I hesitate to say much about them. However, that suggestion has been made not only in connection with male employees but in connection with female employees as well.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the hon. member any information which would lead him to believe that that has happened in this department?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I will give the information to the minister privately.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you.


James Joseph McCann: I should like to speak about the matter of hospitalization of pensioners in hospitals in different communities. The practice has been adopted whereby pensioners who have to undergo treatment in the area adjacent to Toronto must be sent to the government hospital on Christie street. I have no quarrel with that policy; perhaps it is a proper one. But under the different conditions which obtain throughout the country I suggest to the minister that there are many local hospitals which could be used to advantage, rather than sending patients into certain designated hospitals in the larger urban centres.
For instance, pensioners who need hospital treatment in the Ottawa valley, except in cases of emergency, have to be sent to the Ottawa Civic hospital or the Ottawa General hospital. If that is not done, the bills for hospitalization and attendance are not paid. The reason is easily understandable, although the injustice still obtains. The reason is that there is a full-time staff of doctors to render attendance in the two Ottawa hospitals. My submission is that there are in the smaller sections of Canada hospitals in operation in which are to be found all the facilities necessary to treat these men. The medical men in those smaller communities should be given some consideration. After all, the line of treatment is very much standardized. There are doctors and the necessary institutions in towns of 8,000 and 10,000 people. For instance, in the towns of Pembroke, Perth and Renfrew there are first-class hospitals, with all

modern facilities necessary for good work. The men in those hospitals are as competent as the men practising medicine or surgery in Ottawa. When pensioners or war veterans have to be treated or hospitalized, they must be sent to Ottawa; otherwise the bills for surgical attendance or other medical services are not approved. In my opinion this matter could be easily remedied, and if a change were made it would only be a matter of equity and justice, so far as the institutions in the smaller towns are concerned. Further, it would be only fair to those men in the medical profession who are practising in those smaller communities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall see that the recommendation of the hon. member is discussed with the officers of the department.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Some of these men who have been giving good service for many years have been receiving the same salary, despite the fact that their work has greatly increased. I believe representations have been made to the department by some of them. These are excellent men, and I believe something should be done to remedy this condition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That question is under consideration at the present time.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I believe they are entitled to at least a couple of weeks' holidays in the summer time, but when they proceeded to take a vacation they had to get others to fill their places.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that the civil service regulations will not permit holidays to part-time employees.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Does the government own the Belcher hospital in Calgary, or is the building rented? If so, what is the rental?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is rented, but I do not know the amount.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Would the minister inform me?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: How many military hospitals are there in Canada available to veterans for treatment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are eight departmental hospitals, and we have contracts with 300 hospitals across Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Why is the vote cut?

Supply-Pensions and Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The officers of the department have stated that the amount would not be required.


Howard Charles Green: Why is there such a reduction? Are fewer people drawing allowances, or has there been a change in the rates?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No change in the rates. The smaller amount is accounted for by a decrease in the requirements for treatments.


Howard Charles Green: How much does the government expect to spend in the current year on hospital allowances for men in the new army?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That figure will have to be obtained from the Department of National Defence. I shall try to have the information by eight o'clock.


Frederick Davis Shaw: If the item carries at this time, am I prohibited from asking further questions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Pensions branch.
Direct payments to veterans and dependent*.
229.	Probational training allowances, $40,000.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item and tell us why it has been cut almost in half?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The expenditure last year was $29,585. My hon. friend will recall that this has been done pursuant to one of the recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission. The order in council was drawn up in 1937. It is largely an experimental project and has taken care of certain numbers in sheltered employment, special provision being made for training the men.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is this occupational therapy and so forth for disabled men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not necessarily. It is for anyone who saw service in an actual theatre of war.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is the minister able now to answer my question on item 238?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The rental payable for the Colonel Belcher hospital is $17,820. The present lease expires on April 1, 1941. It is a five-year lease.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is the government giving consideration to renewing the lease or to building a government-owned institution?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Representations have been made for the building of a new hospital in Calgary, but no decision has been arrived at by the department.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In view of the many complaints which have come to me during the past few months, and the complaints which I have heard over a number of years, I would urge the minister to bring every ounce of energy to bear to persuade the government to build an institution to replace the one now being used, which I believe is unsatisfactory as it stands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may answer now a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) before the recess. I have here the Canadian pension commission's decisions on applications for disability pensions from April 1, 1939, to March 31, 1940. The number granted was 3,433; not granted, 6,017; total, 9,450. The figures I gave before were divided into first and second hearings and quorum decisions. The figures, I think, are in the form in which my hon. friend wanted them to correspond with the figures of a year ago in the annual report.


Howard Charles Green: The total was 9,450?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: That compares with 10,109 the previous year and 10,450 the year before. So the numbers are dropping each year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Under this vote for probational training allowances, how many men took advantage of probational training in the fiscal year 1939-40?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I had better give the figures from the date of inception: May, 1937, commencements, 1,177; discontinued, 198; employed as trained, 796; employed otherwise, 20; completed as tourist guides, 56; not retained by employers, 82; on the strength on March, 1940, 25.


Howard Charles Green: The numbers have come down and the plan is pretty well run out?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.

Supply-Pensions and Health
Pensions board.
Service to veterans and dependents.
230.	Care of patients, $2,853,931.


Howard Charles Green: This is the vote covering hospitals, is it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Have the provisions of P.C. 91 regulating admission to hospitals been extended to soldiers of the present war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Under what conditions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under exactly the same conditions as for ex-service men of the great war. The order in council is P.C. 3005.


Howard Charles Green: Last year we had considerable discussion as to whether a Canadian who had served in the imperial forces could or could not take advantage of the new provisions for treatment known as class 18. Have they now that right? Last year they did not have it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Pre-war residents of Canada who are in receipt of payment of pension are entitled to treatment for non-pensionable disabilities under certain conditions, but the whole question of Canadians who are serving with the imperials in the present war is now receiving consideration. We appointed a departmental committee some time ago to go into the whole question. It would come up in the first place in connection with our air force serving overseas. It might also come up in connection with those who volunteered and were resident in Canada before the present war. The whole question will be reviewed, and very likely amendments to the Pension Act will be necessary, but a final determination has not been arrived at.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, the intention is that Canadians who serve in the imperial forces, with the air, army or navy, will be treated the same as if they had been in the Canadian forces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The question has not been finally determined. It is being actively considered and I trust that a decision will be reached in the very near future. The whole question has been con. sidered by a committee which has reported to the government, but the government has not finally determined the matter.


Howard Charles Green: There was a great deal of unfairness following the last war in the way these men were treated.
(Mr. Ian Mackenzie.]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I quite agree.


Howard Charles Green: These cases of Canadians who had served in the imperial forces not being able to get free treatment in hospitals, although they had lived in Canada before enlistment in the imperial forces, was one instance in which in my opinion there was injustice done, and we had hoped that since the last session that might have been remedied by extending P.C. 91 to cover these cases. Has it been done?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) * No.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why it should not be done now?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has not come to my attention yet, but I promise to look into the matter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is a reduction of over $500,000 in this item.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is actually an increase, because there is a revenue of $800,000 which accrues to this branch as a result of charging the war appropriation $3.25 per diem for patients of the Canadian active service force who are in our hospitals.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But the reduction as compared with a year ago is over $500,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The several items which have been increased are as follows: Salaries, $259,388; telephone, $1,000; equipment, $28,000; land and buildings, $15,000; materials and supplies, $84,340; making a total of $387,728. There is a deduction of $800,000, being estimated to revenue accruing to the department through charging the war appropriation a per diem allowance for Canadian active service force patients in departmental hospitals.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That hardly explains the point I have in mind. I do not think the minister dealt with the reduction of $503,000 odd as compared with the expenditure a year ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a revenue, which is not in the present vote but which we shall get from the war appropriation, of $800,000 through the Canadian active service force.


James Joseph McCann: That would indicate that there is actually an increase of $300,000 in the particular item for care of patients.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); That is correct.

Supply*-Pensions and Health


James Joseph McCann: Are any economies being put into effect from year to year, and, if so, what are they? Are a fewer or a greater number of patients likely to be treated this year? I have another question. The per capita per diem costs in civilian hospitals are pretty well known, and I would ask how costs in governmental hospitals compare with costs in civilian hospitals.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A comparison is somewhat difficult, because the department would not take into consideration capital investment, depreciation and various other factors, as would be done in any private hospital.
With reference to the work, of course it is bound to increase. There is an average hospital population from the Canadian active service force of, roughly speaking, a thousand, so the work has, naturally, greatly increased.


James Joseph McCann: But leaving that out, how does it compare with other years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tt is less.


James Joseph McCann: How much less?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will be difficult to estimate that with any exactness, but the work is less, apart from the new work which has been added as a result of class 18 treatment and the treatment of the Canadian active service force personnel.


James Joseph McCann: We do know this, that from year to year the number of pensioners is decreasing. What is the trend with reference to the physical disabilities that pensioners have, whether they are decreasing from year to year as time goes on and these pensioners become older? Is there an increase incident to disease, or is the figure decreasing, or is it stationary?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no increase in regard to pensioner cases, but there has been a very large increase in the number of treatments of class 18 cases, which are more or less a recent innovation, of a year's duration.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I spoke a little while ago, before the six o'clock recess, with respect to the medical officers in attendance at some of the hospitals, and their holidays. I thought they were entitled to some holidays. I was told that they were part-time men. It seems odd to me, if that is so, that when they are away they have to supply someone to take their places. How can they, under those circumstances, be on a part-time basis? In reality, these men-I mean some of these permanent consultants-are at the beck and 95826-158
call of these hospitals all the time. I thought I should bring to the attention of the minister the fact that, although they may be classified as part-time men, that is not, in reality their correct designation. I know from one man in particular that practically all his working hours are taken up with this work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have the right to practise, if they so desire. In further reply to my hon. friend, hospital admissions in 1915-16-going back to the very start-were 22,000; last year, 1938-39, 10,348; in 1939-40, 25,061. My hon. friend will see what a tremendous increase in hospital admissions has occurred, as a result of present conditions, during the last year.


James Joseph McCann: I would point out to the minister that that is what one might reasonably expect. From 1915 there was a drop.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The number fell to 7,000.


James Joseph McCann: It was practically cut in two, and had it not been for the fact that governmental hospitals are treating men of the Canadian active service force, no doubt the natural decrease would have continued, with corresponding reductions in the expenditures with reference to these hospitals.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently this treatment of class 18 applicants can be given only where the department has a contract with the hospital and where there is a medical officer who is paid a salary by the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Was there any increase last year in the number of hospitals with which the government has a contract, or in the number of doctors who are on salary from the department? This is important, because in the smaller centres many men are unable to get this treatment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; there has been a slight increase, not a substantial one. We try to meet, as far as we can, requests from remote localities where treatment facilities are difficult to obtain.


Howard Charles Green: With how many additional
hospitals has the government entered into a contract, and how many more doctors are there available for consultation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Probably about seven hospitals. Altogether there are thirty-three places where treatment under this clause can be given. I believe that represents an increase of seven over last year.

Supply-Pensions and Health


Howard Charles Green: Only thirty-three in the
whole of Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does the department pay
the expense of a man getting to a hospital, or does he have to find the money himself?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where he is indigent, we provide free treatment and pay his way home.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
Services to veterans and dependents.
232. Sheltered employment, $71,905.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: What does this
item cover?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is to cover equipment and other expenses in providing employment for returned soldiers in vetcraft shops.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it include the
blind?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It includes cost of transportation of blind and other totally disabled pensioners requiring the services of an escort, and also payments to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for services rendered to the blind veterans.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is a considerable
revenue, is there not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The figures are:
Expenditure	 $230,079
Revenue	 226,836
Net loss	 $ 3,243


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any increase in the number of men employed under the schemes; and will the minister explain where the schemes are?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At Toronto, Montreal and the Victoria Red Cross workship.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How many men
are employed? The minister did not give that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Average number in 1939: Toronto, 47; Montreal, 46; Victoria, 23.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Representatives
of several of these organizations call round to see people and claim to be under government supervision and that sort of thing. Is any brand put on the classes of stuff they make, [ Mr. Ian Mackenzie. ]
or is there any way whereby the ordinary public may know7 which are O.K. and which are not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The trade-mark is registered, and that is about the only protection there is so far as I know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
Services to veterans and dependents.
2SS. Employers' liability compensation, $50,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: In reference to this item, I assume it is the one under which manufacturers or employers are compensated for taking on their staffs men who are slightly unfit physically.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: About how many men are now employed by industry or employers under the scope of this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have only the records of the claims, which in 1939-40 numbered S02. As regards this vote, it is impossible to estimate ahead the exact amount of liability, and sometimes it is necessary, if the expenditure exceeds the vote appropriated by parliament, to have a governor general's warrant.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In my opinion it is for a very good purpose. I believe that, because of this increase of $10,000, more and more of these men will be employed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
Services to veterans and dependents.
231/. For the continuation or carrying out of projects or schemes commenced or recommended by the veterans' assistance commission and to authorize the employment or continuation in employment by the governor in council of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act, $70,000.
Howard Charles Green: This vote covers the main plan by which the government hoped to find wrork for the unemployed front-line man who is fit. In the last year the estimate for actual projects on which money was to be spent was $85,000, and this year it is cut to $15,000, the rest of this vote of $55,000 being for overhead. That does not seem at all reasonable. What projects have the government under operation at the present time, and-are any new projects in contemplation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On that question this vote really divides itself

Supply-Pensions and Health
into two parts. First, it deals with the staffs and honorary committees and secretaries in the various centres of Canada, those concerned with the problem of finding employment for ex-soldiers. That is their main duty. Second, it deals with projects begun in various centres, some of which have been closed, having been found to be uneconomic. We endeavour to keep the local staffs, what my hon. friend calls the overhead, so as to direct their activities almost exclusively to the question of finding employment and to correlate them with other agencies working on behalf of ex-service men. With regard to the vote itself, for the Canadian corps of commissionaires the sum of $5,000 is provided.


Howard Charles Green: For the coming year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. That is the reduced amount. For the Montreal honorary committee the amount is $6,000; the amputation placement service, $2,500; the work in Toronto, $1,500. That makes $15,000.	In many	places,	such	asVancouver, there are funds in the possession of the committee which were allocated to certain projects that have not yet been embarked upon,	and this	money	may	betaken from one	project to	another	so as	toenable the work	to be carried on	in other
directions during the coming year. Some of the centres that are not getting grants this year are still in possession of funds unexpended from last year.


Howard Charles Green: There are only four or five projects that are being carried on at the present time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The position really is that there is a sort of soldiers' employment agency operating in fifteen or sixteen centres?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will amount to exactly that at the end of the year.


Howard Charles Green: Have any new projects been started during the year?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); No.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Does the minister mean that other employment offices, such as the veterans' assistance committee, will be closed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. Those offices in some instances will be able to carry on in the present year, but their activities will be limited to finding employment for ex-service men and will not be directed to some of the projects which in the past have not proved successful.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask the minister whether he personally decided to reduce this item by more than one-half or was it on the advice of the consultative board on political economies, of which Mr. Towers, and Mr. Clark of the Department of Finance, are members?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was the result of personal investigation in conjunction with the officers of my department who have given a great deal of consideration to the whole scheme for several months, and it was entirely with my own approval. It did not come from any other department.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but 1 did not mention any department but referred to a board, of which Mr. Clark and Mr. Towers are members. They constitute the consultative committee which is supposed to give direction to various departments on every important matter. I do not say this by way of censure of the minister, but I should like to know whether that board has done anything.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So far as I know, that board had nothing whatever to do with these reductions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the board should be abolished, because the other day I asked a colleague of the hon. gentleman whether the board had given advice in regard to another matter and his answer was, no. What is the use of having boards if they are not consulted? I do not blame the minister for not consulting them, but these people constitute a board and are supposed to give a lead to the government, and the lead is all wrong. I congratulate the minister upon not having submitted that item to the board, but I regret the decrease just the same. All the returned men should be given some work. It is easy at times to employ them as guards on bridges, and in that event the department would not have anything to pay because it would be paid by the railways. I bring that to the minister's attention and I hope he will look into it.


Howard Charles Green: Under the Unemployment Insurance Act the government are setting up national employment agencies. Would it not be of more value to the returned men if the veterans' assistance offices were in some way or another tied in with these employment agencies? If some provision could be made along that line, the veterans would have far more chance of getting work. At present the veterans' assistance committees are pretty well running by themselves and there should be some tie-up with the new scheme. What have the government in mind?

Supply-Pensions and Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The government has taken action. A committee has been studying that point for the last three or four weeks, and it is intended that there shall be complete cooperation between these various agencies. In the past there has been no marked cooperation among the various agencies working in this direction; sometimes there has been conflict or lack of cooperation. It is intended to work out a definite scheme of cooperation, and that scheme is being studied by one of the various subcommittees which are dealing with demobilization, reestablishment and so forth.


Howard Charles Green: How many veterans' assistance committees are there in operation in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are committees in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Men along the Trent canal say that the veterans in that locality used to be put to work cutting weeds, but lately they have put other men on and the veterans are out of work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who is doing that?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would be under the Trent canal branch.


Thomas Vien: That does not come under this item.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was it done by the veterans' assistance honorary committees?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not know.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will write to me, I shall be glad to make inquiries.


James Alexander Marshall: The minister said that some of these projects had turned out to be unsatisfactory. What and where are they?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are varied, comprising about twenty or thirty. I will mention some: Canadian corps of commissionaires; Workshops Limited, Montreal; a small holdings scheme near Toronto, under the direction of the Toronto Veterans' Workshops Incorporated; Poppy fund of Toronto, Incorporated; Amputation placement service; a publicity campaign, Toronto, under the direction of the Toronto honorary committee; a small holdings scheme near 
Windsor, under the direction of the Windsor Veterans' Enterprises, Incorporated; Financial assistance to promote employment in St. Thomas, Ontario; a small holdings scheme near Winnipeg, under the direction of the Veterans' Land Settlement Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Veterans' Workshops, Limited, Regina, Saskatchewan; War veterans' industry committee, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Veterans' auto parking and protection corps, Vancouver, British Columbia; Veterans' night patrol service, Vancouver, British Columbia; Veterans' parking space and auto service, Vancouver, British Columbia; First aid grant, Vancouver, British Columbia; Veterans' guest guide service, Vancouver, British Columbia; Financial assistance, Canadian Red Cross, Vancouver, British Columbia; publicity campaign, Vancouver, British Columbia; probational training and repayment fund to provide tools, equipment and transportation to veterans on repayment. The whole scheme was designed to meet an acute economic condition resulting from the depression, and at the beginning I think it did meet the requirements of the situation, but as a continuing project I am afraid it will have to be closed up.


Howard Charles Green: Were ail the minister mentioned closed up?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, not all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
Services to veterans and dependents.
235. Grant to last post fund, $85,000.
Angus MacInnis: What control or supervision has the department over this fund?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The last post fund operates under dominion charter for the purpose of preventing burial in a pauper's grave of any Canadian ex-service man who dies in indigent circumstances in Canada or elsewhere, or burial in a pauper's grave in Canada of any imperial ex-service man. There is a grant of $85,000 this year, but the fund is also financed and supported by local and voluntary contributions.


Angus MacInnis: The reason why I asked -the question is that a complaint was made to me last spring over the telephone that in providing monuments for ex-service men only one or two monument companies supplied the stones. I do not know what could be done about the matter, but I think it is a bad

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
policy that this should be confined to a close corporation of favoured companies. It is creating a great deal of discontent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with my hon. friend if the facts are as he states. But this department does not control such matters; that is in the various local centres.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is there no check on the fund at all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We receive an audited statement once a year, and we have a member of the departmental Staff on the committee.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is it examined by the auditor general?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Pensions branch.
Services to veterans and dependents.
236. Grant to Canadian Legion, $9,000.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is this a straight grant without attachments?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have to spend twice this amount on administration in carrying out the objects of the Canadian Legion before they are entitled to receive this grant.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to express my
appreciation for assistance received from the Canadian Legion here and in Vancouver, in taking up matters on behalf of returned men.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marketing service.
30. Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $30,000, $100,000.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The last item in the minister's report, page 138 deals with the supervision of race-track betting. How does that come under agriculture?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I do not know why it is unless the
idea was to promote the raising of horses of the type that used to draw buggies.


James Alexander Marshall: On June 6, I outlined a plan concerning the disposition of surpluses, particularly agricultural surpluses. I should like to enlarge a little on that plan, because I believe it offers, in some degree, a solution of the problem of the distribution of certain surpluses in Canada. I believe the plan could
be applied to almost any commodity, such as fish or apples, potatoes or any other product. On June 6, I spoke briefly. This plan was inaugurated by the Department of Agriculture in the United States about fifteen months ago. It has the approval of Secretary Wallace. It was launched by the Department of Agriculture as part of an attack on the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty. It is a cooperative effort; farmers, retailers, businessmen and welfare officials cooperate to make it successful. They work on the principle that it is better to distribute surplus commodities among people who are underfed. It is true that the plan does not solve all the farmers' problems, but during the past fourteen or fifteen months it has increased the consumption of these products by needy families by at least fifty per cent. This increased consumption is largely in the field of dairy and agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, meats and poultry. Up to May 1, 1940, the department had been able to distribute surplus products to the extent of about $10,400,000 worth. The increase in the consumption of butter alone amounted to about $2,000,000; eggs, to about $1,900,000; flour, cornmeal and rice, to about $1,700,000; vegetables, to about $700,000, fresh and dried fruits, to about $1,700,000, and pork products, to about $2,500,000.
At the present time some 1,300,000 people are participating in this scheme and deriving benefit from it. My understanding, from the last bulletin issued by the Department of Agriculture, is that one thousand other communities have asked that this plan be put in operation in them. When it is fully working they expect to be able to get rid of surpluses to the extent of from $700 to $900 millions a month. This will directly benefit about four million consumers. In the case of butter we are told that it should increase the consumption by about 56,000,000 pounds; eggs, by
59.000.	000 dozen, and pork products, by
180.000.	000 pounds, so that it would help the farmers to the extent of about $25,000,000 a year. It would also help the smaller farmers, that is market gardeners, to the extent of about $40,000,000 a year. I believe that such a plan is worthy of consideration by the government at this time.
I have no doubt that the minister is well aware of the plan, but I bring it to the attention of hon. members in order that they may study it for themselves and see what merit it has. It is known as the food stamp plan and was inaugurated in March of 1939. I should like to quote from this bulletin issued by the
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing

United States department of agriculture because it outlines the scheme better than I could in my own words:
The mechanism for utilizing the normal channels of trade in bringing about the increased consumption of surplus food involves the use of food stamps.
In order to get a broad experience record in this new approach, various methods of operation were tried. Basically, however, they all adhered to the same general pattern.
Because the best available figures indicate that persons getting public assistance spend an average of about $1 a week per person for food, safeguards are provided in the plan to ensure the continued expenditure of that amount by those eligible persons who participate. Any food, therefore, that is made available to the relief families in addition- to what they are already able to get represents a net increase in their consumption. The safeguards are in the form of twenty-five cent orange-coloured stamps. Belief families participating in the plan may, on an entirely voluntary basis, purchase orange-coloured stamps at the rate of $1 a week for each member of the family as a minimum, or at the rate of $1.50 a week for each member of the family as a maximum. For each dollar's worth of orange-coloured stamps purchased, fifty cents worth of blue surplus stamps, each worth twenty-five cents, are given free to the family.
Both types of stamps can be used for food in any grocery store in the area in which the plan is operating.


Olof Hanson: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


James Alexander Marshall: I have already stated what I am reading from; if the hon. gentleman had listened, he could have heard. As a matter of fact, on two occasions I gave the source of this quotation. It is one of the bulletins issued by the department of agriculture of the United States.


Thomas Vien: I must state that we do not hear the hon. gentleman very clearly at this end of the chamber.


James Alexander Marshall: I am doing the best I can, but there is some noise in the chamber. As a general rule I can be heard at quite a distance.
The orange-coloured stamps can be used for any food usually purchased in grocery stores and also for such items as soap and starch, but cannot be used for tobacco or alcoholic beverages. The blue surplus food stamps can be used only for those food products declared by the secretary of agriculture to be in surplus and which are listed on the surplus commodity bulletin currently in effect.
I believe this plan has a great deal of merit to it. I think a year or so ago, when we had a surplus of butter, the minister used the plan to a small degree, and I am quite satisfied that he found it to work satisfactorily. I am sure the minister has looked into the plan, and perhaps he might state whether it could

be put into operation here. I think I know where the difficulty would lie. I realize, of course, that an expenditure of money is involved and that the minister would have to go to the Minister of Finance for funds with which to finance the project. But I contend that it is the minister's job to get rid of surpluses. He should bring this plan before the cabinet, and if he thinks it worthy of being tried he should not look at the financial consideration. I should like to hear if the minister is prepared to comment upon this plan to-night.


James Garfield Gardiner: As has been stated by the hon. member, a year or so ago we did apply the principle he has outlined in connection with a butter surplus which existed in Canada. That plan involved the expenditure of about a million dollars in distributing butter among persons who otherwise would not have been able to purchase it. In connection with that plan we selected two groups of people. The first group consisted of those who were on relief and who, under the relief schedules, were obtaining about half the amount of butter consumed by persons who have money with which to purchase it. We doubled the consumption of the first group by making donations of butter to them sufficient to bring their consumption up to the average. The second group consisted of these who were not on relief but who were getting along with either no butter or very little butter as a result of their effort to stay off relief. We also assisted them, through the Red Cross and other similar organizations by supplying them with butter up to the amount of the average consumption.
I think the results were quite favourable. Not only did we make it possible to have a considerable part of the surplus consumed, but whether or not the plan was responsible, for the first time in quite a number of years butter maintained its price level right through the summer months. That level was very low, around twenty-one or twenty-two cents a pound at Montreal. Nevertheless, it had been at that level, as I remember it, from August or September of the year before, and continued on that level right through the winter. Usually, if the price has been at a certain level during the winter months, it takes a drop of from three to five cents a pound in the months of May, June and July. During that summer, however, butter remained at the same level. Then came the war condition in the fall, which of course caused an increase in price of about six or seven cents a pound, and for a considerable time butter remained at about that level. We have also applied the

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
principle, in a little different manner, in connection with the distribution of apples and of cheese, fish and other food products among those in the drought areas who were unable to purchase them.
We did not use stamps in connection with any of these plans, as they did in the United States. In connection with the butter we did use certificates, but in giving away the other food products we simply delivered them to persons who, we knew, were receiving assistance or who would be denied an opportunity to consume those products because of conditions existing in those particular areas. In connection with cheese and fish in particular, in addition to applying the principle involved in this scheme in the United States we also attempted to use it more or less as a means of advertising good food products coming from one section of Canada into other sections in which the consumption was not up to the average. By delivering a good product we thought we would promote the consumption of that product in that section. However, conditions have been such since we made the distribution as to make it impossible for us to determine just how successful the advertising part of the scheme was, because persons in those sections of Canada have not been in a position to purchase freely since that time.
All I would wish to say with regard to the scheme is that in the United States it has been applied in rather a large way and, I think, has been very successful, particularly in areas where there are large urban centres to be supplied. Probably there would be a little more difficulty in applying such a plan to Canada, where our urban centres are much fewer in number.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How much butter was
imported during that period?


Mr. DUPUIS:: Ah!


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Never mind the "ah." We want to know.


James Garfield Gardiner: There would be very
little. There was probably a small amount, which would come in across the line from the United States, when there were towns on our side of the line contributory to areas on the other side. But importations during that period were very small.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Why is the grant being reduced from $150,000 to $50,000 this year, and under what headings do those reductions occur? I am referring to the item on page 77 of the estimates for marketing projects, including advertising.


James Garfield Gardiner: Advertising is a departmental activity which can be carried on to almost any amount we might care to expend. There might be a limit to the extent to which it could be carried on effectively, but there is very little limit to the amount of money one could spend in the advertising of food products. This year we were asked to cut our expenditures considerably, on account of the fact that we are engaged in war. This is one of the places where we could make a cut. There is no other reason for the limiting of the expenditure than that we wanted to lessen expenditures.


Manley Justin Edwards: Apropos of advertising curtailment, it seems to me that is false economy. For the first time in many years with regard to the products of primary industries, the government is faced with what might be called risks of ownership. Applying sound business principles to that situation, I think if we cast our eyes around, and see what prudent business firms and institutions are doing under such circumstances, we would find that instead of restricting and circumscribing their advertising appropriations, successful business firms, whether they be purveyors of chewing gum or automobiles, have increased their appropriations for advertising. The day has gone by when it is good enough simply to offer goods to the public. Goods have not only to be offered, but to be sold; you have to create a buyers' demand. The grocery store no longer sells your wife or my wife Kraft cheese, Maxwell House coffee, Buick automobiles or Ford automobiles. The owners of those products create in our wives' minds a buying desire for those particular commodities. How is that done? It is done by advertising, by pictures, by announcements, by competitions, by demonstrations and free samples, and even by plays over the radio, dramatizing and emphasizing the varied uses and superior qualities of what they have to sell.
This year the Dominion of Canada is faced, in so far as her natural products are concerned, with a greater problem than any she has been confronted with at any other time in her history. We are now right up against the. risk of ownership, of enormous quantities of these products. I am sure every thoughtful Canadian who has any interest in our primary, industries is asking himself, as I have asked myself, "what shall we do with these surplus products which are perforce on our doorsteps, in our bams, in our warehouses?" I believe that a good business man confronted with the same situation would call in the best advertising experts he could find, no matter what the cost. And instead of contracting his

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
expenditures for advertising, he would vote greater sums so as to create a greater desire, consumer demand or appetite, if you will, for the products he has to sell.
In the prairies we know well what the result of the department's progressive stand was in regard to the merchandising of apples last fall. In comparison with the value of the fruit sold, and the splendid consumer reaction created, by the advertising, I am sure the money spent at that time was well spent. Certainly it would be too bad if that appropriation were to be cut out this year. I say that because my observation tells me that Sunkist oranges do not advertise one year and stop advertising the next. Nor does Wrigley's spearmint gum follow that procedure. They advertise year in and year out.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And in increasing amounts.


Manley Justin Edwards: The same observation
applies to all those business firms and corporations manufacturing worth-while products. They are constantly creating consumer demand for those products. Instead of contracting our appropriations for advertising and merchandising the products of our greatest primary industry, agriculture, we should be increasing, and ever increasing our appropriations for that purpose. To me the problem of disposing of that surplus is one which must be faced by the government. Particularly is that true in regard to wheat. I do not believe that the bread-eating people of the world have ever yet been told the story or given a practical demonstration of the superior value of Canadian wheat. I suggest that the real reason for that is that there has never been an individual, firm or a corporation which has ever had the risk of ownership. Those individuals or corporations have been able to sell their wheat to some indefinable person, and that person has sold the option, thereby getting rid of the responsibility or the liability of actually selling the product itself.
We have a real liability in our granaries and storage warehouses. In those warehouses are the natural products of our fields, forests and mines. I am particularly concerned with agricultural products, and I submit that it would be short-sighted and unwise on our part to contract or to restrict our advertising appropriations at a time like this. Instead of the grant being reduced, I suggest that it ought to be doubled. Any sound business firm or individual, confronted with the same problem which now confronts us, in so far as our agricltural products are concerned, would call in the most competent, expert advertising advice available, and would increase the appropriations for advertising.

That is the policy, as I understand it, of outstandingly successful industrialists and manufacturers on the north American continent.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said the other night, wheat is not handled by the Department of Agriculture. That may seem strange, but it i3 true.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is a silly anomaly, anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has always been
handled by the Department of Trade and Commerce-and in fact it is scarcely proper to say that it is handled directly by that department. At the present time it is handled by what is known as the wheat board. Since 1936 the wheat board has had in England a man whose job it has been to try to dispose of Canadian wheat. He has had certain amounts of money provided by the wheat board with which to advertise and otherwise to try to sell Canadian wheat. Therefore any advertising that is done in connection with wheat, or m connection with the promotion of the sale of wheat is not done under this vote. It is done through the wheat board, and through a vote of money provided by the wheat board, as part of the operating expenses of that organization.
With regard to the sale of farm products within Canada, our position has not been the same since the war started as it was before the war. The amount of money available for advertising purposes before the war was double the amount provided this year. Speaking from memory, I would say that in some years within the last three or four the amount has been even higher than that.
Last year we provided for the sale of Canadian apples by processing some of them, and by assisting the dealers to sell apples in different parts of Canada in greater volume than they had been sold in previous years. But we did not take out of this vote money with which to promote the sale of apples. Since the war, for that kind of promotion we have had money available under the War Measures Act, and any sums we required for the sale of apples were secured not from this vote but from the vote under the War Measures Act, and moneys are still available to us out of that vote for the sale of surplus products which are in the position that apples were in last year and are in again this year. I would say that the same thing might apply to other farm products if conditions created by the war are such as to warrant our using moneys from these funds. This vote is to take care of the ordinary run of advertising, and it is just possible that the expenditure

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
might be less this year because of the fact that we have money available from other sources to handle products in which we might accumulate a surplus because of the war.


Ernest George Hansell: We have been talking a little about advertising, and I am lucky enough to have on my desk a fine display of the advertising of Canadian beef, "by the Department of Agriculture, the Hon. James G. Gardiner, minister." I am in agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards), who has spoken of the necessity of advertising our products. i believe it is a good thing to advertise them to the best possible advantage, and I want to compliment the minister on this picture. I have just had my dinner, but I feel hungry when I contemplate this fine roast beef garnished with carrots and greens, under the caption "Tender, juicy, good for you". But when I turn over the page I find that this advertisment appeared in Maclean's magazine. Maclean's is a Canadian magazine. Perhaps I need to learn a few things about the export and import of beef, but I am wondering whether such an advertisement would not produce more results if it appeared in some foreign magazine. It appears to me that the people of Canada for the most part eat Canadian beef anyway, and if we could have some advertising done in other countries I think it would be much better. I am going to ask the minister just how much advertising might have been done in other countries.
A year or a little more ago we received samples of the advertising displays for Canadian bread, and if I remember correctly, these displays appeared in the British papers. I was interested in them and thought I had some criticism to make at that time. I did think it must have cost a great deal of money to put these big display advertisements in the British papers. I am not begrudging the expenditure of money for advertising because it is generally accepted that it pays to advertise, but I am wondering how much we have advertised in the interests of our export market. Will the minister tell us something about that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Again, Mr. Chairman, while we have been advertising in the export market, this was done by the Department of Trade and Commerce. Speaking from memory, I believe that last year their vote was around $300,000; and the year before, about the same amount. I notice in the pictures that I have seen on the screen recently demonstrating Britain's war effort, that the buses passing up and down the streets of England carry advertisements of Canadian cheese, Canadian butter and other Canadian
products, but Canadian cheese particularly. That is a condition which has developed during recent years. Before that, there was the "Canada Calling" programme of advertising, which was started a few years ago and continued until the war broke out. I do not think as much money is being spent on advertising in England at the present time, largely because all food now imported into Britain is under the control of the food ministry, which takes in and distributes whatever food is required. Therefore there is not the same reason for advertising now as there was before the war started. In other countries there has not been so much done in the way of advertising, but a considerable effort has been made by our trade commissioners and in other ways to encourage the use of Canadian farm products in these other countries.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A few years ago Danish exporters spent a good deal of money on advertising in the British market their bacon, butter and other products. Since that market is now lost to them, are we making any effort to supply Britain with the commodities that were sold there before the war by Danish farmers?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are following the same policy that we followed prior to the war of trying to popularize our products in Great Britain by keeping on the British market at all times products of high grade, but as I said a moment ago, there is not the same prospect now of inducing the British to handle greater quantities of our products. The only approach we can make is through trade agreements with the British government whereby they take certain volumes of our cheese, bacon and other products for distribution amongst the people of Great Britain. We are following that up by keeping up constant contacts with the British food ministry by cable and otherwise to induce the use of more and more Canadian products as supplies from other countries are cut off.


George Hugh Castleden: If I might deal with advertising that is a little closer to home I would call the attention of the committee to what is apparently an abuse in connection with the administration of the bonus under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would come under the next item.


Mr. JAQUES:: Would the minister give me a little advice?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He would be glad to.


Norman Jaques: I am urged by the Minister of Finance to spend less and consume less
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing

in order to buy war bonds. The Minister of Agriculture urges me to spend more so that I shall consume more. Which am I to do?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would judge that my hon. friend comes from not very far away from Scotland, just to the south of Scotland. He will recall that the advertisement put out by my colleague to which he refers, and which I see every time I go out of the building says, "Save". That is not to say you are to stop consuming. We do a great many things with money besides buying food. What we are being advised by the finance department to do is to save money in order that we might be able to help with the war, not to stop eating so that we might be able to help with the war.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To come back to this question of distributing the butter, does the department contemplate any similar programme wdth reference to the distribution of apples, of which there is a surplus this year, to the one under which butter was distributed last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say with
regard to that is that the apple growers have been here, I believe, since July 29 waiting for me to get these estimates through so that I can meet them and we can discuss what we are going to do about apples. Last year we carried through a plan with regard to apples, not upon exactly the same basis as the arrangement for distributing butter, but it did cost the treasury some money. We are not sure how much it will cost, but somewhere around $2,000,000 was expended last year to carry on activities in connection with apples. Whether it will cost as much in the coming year, no one can tell at present. Some plan will be worked out to dispose of Canadian apples. There is a poorer crop to-day in some parts of Canada than there was last year. That may assist to some extent to lessen the problem of disposing of apples in some sections of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I imagine
that, with the present restriction on importations of citrus fruits, there is a tremendous potential market on the prairies for apples this year. This will create a market among people who are not in a postion to buy citrus fruits. It occurs to me that if there are difficulties in the way of shipping apples in the raw state, some method may be found of transporting them either in a processed state or in the form of juice. People are being educated to drink apple juice and are discovering what an excellent breakfast substitute it is for orange juice. The difficulty

at present, so far as western Canada is concerned, is the expense. I had a good illustration of that just recently. Since we came to Ottawa, my youngster developed quite a taste for apple juice, but on going back west my wife found that a tin of apple juice, which cost 8J cents in Ottawa, was selling at 22 cents out there. If these people can be enabled to use apple juice as a substitute for orange juice, they will provide an important market for the apple and its products.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most apples used on the prairies come, as the hon. member for Weyburn knows, from British Columbia. Those who are interested in selling British Columbia apples are in Ottawa at the present time, and are working with the officials of the department with one purpose in mind. Their desire and that of the departmental officials is to get the price down as much as possible, by negotiation with all parties to the transaction, to the farmer on the prairie. I think it will be realized that price this year will have a great deal to do with the volume of apples which will be consumed on the prairies. The discussion we have had in recent days is directed to that consideration. The effort is being made to reduce the price to as low a point as it can be got consistent with giving a return to the producer.
In so far as the juice is concerned, I believe I am within the mark when I say that Canadians last year probably drank one hundred times more apple juice than in any other year, at any rate in recent times. I have not the figures of the days when we used to drink hard cider.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Those days are gone.


James Garfield Gardiner: At the beginning of the year the process of producing apple juice was in a more or less experimental stage. I believe that prices on the prairie to-day are lower than they were when hon. members left their homes to come east. I understand also that the price of apple juice in the east is lower than it was at the beginning of this session. My officials inform me that practically all of the apple juice which has been produced this past year has been consumed, and they are waiting for the new crop so as to catch up with the demand. Therefore the job which has been put over this past year by producers of apple juice, by those who have been advertising it, and others, seems to have been fairly effective. I hope it will continue in that direction.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask about the freight rate on apple juice to the west? Also, what is the extent of reduction in

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
importations to Canada from the United States this year of agricultural and vegetable products?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps my hon. friend will wait a moment for the answer because the official here has not the information.


Thomas Vien: I desire to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that these questions have been discussed under item 28, fruit, vegetable and maple products, and that we are repeating the discussion which took place the other evening.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But this relates to the marketing of agricultural products, does it not?


Thomas Vien: No, the marketing of fruit, vegetable and maple products. Hon. members will remember that under item 28 there was quite an extensive discussion of this subject.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not want to overstep the rules. But one thing we are greatly interested in is the conservation of foreign exchange, and that is why I asked the question.


Thomas Vien: If the question is
directed to all agricultureal products I think it would be in order, but not if it is directed to apples or other fruit.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: My question was as to the reduction in the value of importations of agricultural and vegetable products to Canada from the United States this year as compared with last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The value of the fruits
and vegetables so coming into Canada is, I believe, about $20,000,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The reason why I asked about the freight rate is that it seems to me-and I would offer it as a constructive suggestion-that in order to keep our money in the country we should try to make the freight rates as cheap as we possibly can for such products as will supplant United States products in Canada, and so obtain as big a market as possible for our domestic products.


Norman Jaques: I have seen a statement that in Manitoba it takes four bushels of wheat to buy one box of Okanagan apples, and that in the Okanagan it takes four boxes of apples to buy one bushel of wheat. If that is true-and I believe it is-there seems to be room for improvement in the marketing of these two products.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
31. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $2,500,000.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What amount of money is outstanding under this item? The minister probably knows what I have reference to. I have been finding people all over my constituency who put in dug-outs last year and who have not got their money yet. No doubt other western members have had a similar experience. I know these people have been bombarding us, and I know we have been bombarding the minister or someone in the department with many cases of people who put in these dug-outs or some small irrigation project which had been authorized, and had them passed for payment last fall, but have not got their money yet. It is really a serious problem with some of these people. I know one man who put in ten dug-outs for himself and for a number of his neighbours by arrangement with them. He did it with a caterpillar tractor and had to go into debt with the oil company to get the fuel. The oil company, of course, have been riding him ever since; he rides us, and we ride the minister, and I do not know whom the minister rides, but certainly the money has not been forthcoming. How many of these accounts are still outstanding? Last year there was three and a quarter millions. What amount authorized is still owing?


James Garfield Gardiner: The overamount last year was partly explained by the hon. member himself. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1935 and during that year there were thousands of applications for dug-outs-I have forgotten the number. People applied for dug-outs and projects of one kind or another, but very few of them were dug during that year. In that year an arrangement was made that the farmer had to dig his own dug-out in order to get payment. The next year there was quite a large number of applications, and during a part of that season as well it was necessary for the individual farmer to dig his own dug-out in order to get payment. But in Manitoba, in the early part of the season, a plan was devised under which the municipalities gave some assistance. They obtained equipment and helped the farmers in that area to organize and dig dug-outs. The money which was to have gone to the farmer directly went in some instances to the municipal council and in others to the person who did the work for the farmer. That plan was followed and developed throughout the years. During the time of poor crops and very little feed there was not the tendency on

Supply-A griculture-M arketing
the part of farmers to go and dig as many as we hoped they would when we started the plan.
We followed, in the earlier months of the second plan, this method: We said to the farmers, "You dig the top five or six feet, and then a drag-line will come and dig the bottom six or seven feet which it is difficult to take out with horses not properly fed during the time that feed is scarce". That continued on through the drought years. Last year we had an accumulation of these applications made for dug-outs over the yeaTS, and that plan had become more and more developed. Last year groups of farmers got together in tens and scores, sometimes as many as a hundred, and saw to it that a drag-line was kept going by cooperation with the municipality or in some other way in order to go about and dig these dug-outs. You can dig a dug-out under that system every twenty-four hours by running the drag-line night and day and running horses to take from the top during the daylight, thus putting in about one dug-out every twenty-four hours. A number of machines going about doing that work accomplished a great deal last year. About $550,000 will be paid out of the moneys voted this year for the extra number of dug-outs dug last year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That will clean up all these accounts?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, all accounts with regard to dug-outs. There are some held over in connection with larger water projects, that is, dams, and the small irrigation projects.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How much of the total of $2,500,000 is to pay accounts now outstanding and how much of it is for new work?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 8800,000.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister says that there is no new work for this year. People in the northeastern part of the province have not been able to get any dug-outs this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: There were dug-outs that were started last year, having been authorized, and some dams authorized last year. They are being completed this year and these expenditures are being made all the way through, but we are unable to accept new ones this year in view of the fact that some are still being carried over.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In view of the large carryover of wheat, is it wise to cut the grant of this department? Members from Ontario have suggested that the people of western Canada should go in more extensively for

mixed farming. A great many have been doing so, but there is a problem with regard to water. Many people in my constituency are anxious to take up mixed farming, but so far they have not had any assurance of assistance in connection with dug-outs. The minister said that with the use of the diesel caterpillars they were able to construct dug-outs in thirty-six hours last fall. If assistance could be made available, it would be a great inducement to the farmers to go in for mixed farming.


Manley Justin Edwards: Is anything included for storage facilities in the Milk river district in southern Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is nothing for those particular projects. They would take up more money than there is in the entire vote this year.


Mr. QUELCH:: With regard to the survey work carried out last year on the Red Deer river for the purpose of finding a site for the proposed dam in connection with the water project there, can the minister give us any information at this time?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no new
developments since I explained the situation a year ago. We made some tests but found the cost would be very high. It would take more money to make a reasonable start than we have in the entire vote this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can we have an assurance that those accounts which have been outstanding since last fall will be paid shortly? Will the cheques be sent out shortly?


James Garfield Gardiner: As soon as I get the vote through the house and have it assented to, I shall start to make payments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister give a break-down of the money authorized last year for payment as between individual farmers and construction companies? In some instances construction companies carried on projects. Can the minister give the different amounts?


James Garfield Gardiner: As far as we are concerned, all our payments are to individual farmers. The farmer may assign money due him to someone whom he hired to do the job for him, either through negotiation with the municipality or otherwise, but our payments are made to the farmer. There may be an assignment from the farmer to someone else.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I had in mind large projects such as the Rough Bark creek project and others of that sort. That was

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
handled by a construction company. I am speaking not of dams but of some of the larger irrigation projects.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of money spent on individual projects, small projects, last year was $448,000 in round figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And the larger ones, handled by construction companies?


James Garfield Gardiner: Larger ones, $428,000; water storage, $597,000; surveys, $68,000, and water development administration, $41,000; or a total, including the small projects, of $1,584,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last year I drew the attention of the minister to the tremendous amounts shown in the auditor general's report for travelling expenses. I felt certain that there must be some mistake, that these travelling expenses could not be for individuals. I notice the same thing this year on page A68 of the auditor general's report, such as E. K. Phillips, $6,634.92; E. J. Stephen, $6,171.55; J. I. Strong, $7,428.05; J. E. Switzer, $6,052.86.


James Garfield Gardiner: Discussion which took place in the house last year brought out the point that these were the full expenses for each man's party; that is, they have a party that they operate, I think in one instance it turned out that there were thirteen persons whose expenses were chalked up against the chief of that party. We had that changed, but it will not show until the returns for next year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These ate
really survey parties?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand there has been a reduction in the amount per cubic yard paid for the construction of these dug-outs. Why was the reduction made?


James Garfield Gardiner: When we started this plan a few years ago we started at three cents a yard. That was one of the reasons why we did not get results in the early stages. We raised that to 4$ cents in the second year and got fairly good results at that rate. Later we raised it to six cents, I think, during the season when the crops were particularly poor, that is 1937. We continued at six cents until last year, and as a result of our experience last year we decided to go back to the 41 cent rate; we thought we had the inducement probably higher than it should have been. We also found that by putting in certain
types of equipment, we were paying too large a percentage of the cost of digging the dug-outs.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Have the municipalities that bought this up-to-date equipment found they could operate profitably on the 4J cent basis?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was never intended that anyone should be able to operate profitably in this. We had hoped that we were paying about half the cost, and when we pay 4i cents we think we are paying at least half the cost.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Has any work been done this year on the Vanguard project?


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt if there will be any more done than has been done. There has been some investigation and engineering work, but I doubt if there will be any construction work this year.


Ernest George Hansell: In regard to the proposed scheme in the vicinity of Carmangay, Alberta,
I understand that they approached the government some time ago; that engineers have been on the scene; that an organization has been brought into existence and that considerable negotiations have been going on with the department. Has any progress been made, and what may we expect with regard to this scheme?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not recognize this scheme from the description. I presume it is the Milk river scheme?


Ernest George Hansell: No; it is a local scheme in which municipalities in that particular district are interested. I think they take the water either from the Little Bow or the Old Man river; I am not certain.


James Garfield Gardiner: Unless it is the plan where they bring the water from the Bow river for ilO miles to the Canada Land and Irrigation project and distribute it from there, I am not familiar with the project.


Ernest George Hansell: It may be that; I cannot tell where they expect to get the water, but I know there has been a scheme under way for some time. I have been to one or two meetings and I know government officials have been in attendance at these meetings.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: I notice there is a $750,000 reduction in this vote. Why is that?


Thomas Vien: The question was put before and explanation given.


John Horne Blackmore: The explanation seems to me altogether inadequate. I do not think the small amount of explanation we have had

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
justifies a reduction of $750,000 in one of the most important projects in the interests of Canada's welfare. Could we not have some further explanation?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said at the beginning of the discussion of the estimates this evening and on each previous occasion that we have been discussing them, there was a desire this year to cut our general estimates down as low as possible while at the same time continuing the most necessaiy activities. In the first year of its operation, 1935, there was an amount of $750,000 in this vote. During that year there was expended $342,424. In the financial year 1936-37 the vote was $750,000 and expenditure $629,798. In 1937-38 the vote was $2,000,000, and expenditure, $1,852,999. In 1938-39 the vote was $3,500,000, and expenditure, $3,339,046, In 1939-40 the vote was $3,250,000, and expenditure, $3,317,573. There would have to be added to that the amount which will have to be taken out of this year's vote to pay accounts which were authorized and completed last year. This year the expenditure has been reduced to $2,500,000, which is a reduction of $750,000 from last year. Of that, $250,000 at least was an amount which was set aside last year to complete two large water storage projects which had been under consideration from the previous year, so that our reduction this year on what might be called prairie farm rehabilitation farm work generally is considerably less than $750,000, but the total amount voted this year is $2,500,000 as compared with $3,250,000 last year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then actually on new work taken on, there will be spent $1,700,000, since $800,000 of this money has been spent already?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, about $1,700,000.


Victor Quelch: Will there be any reduction in the distribution of grass seed in the drought areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be some
reduction in the amount that will go out, but we are keeping it up to the highest possible degree having regard to the money available.


Victor Quelch: Will all applications be
filled?


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt very much if
they will all be filled, although at the moment we are not in a position to say. I do not think all the applications are in.


Victor Quelch: I think it would be a great pity if any applications were turned down, because it so happens that at the present
I Mr. Blackmore.]
time we are having more rain than we have had in the past. Now is the time to plant grass seed. If we should wait to plant it until another dry spell comes along, we know there will be a heavy loss. It seems to me every effort should be made to fill all the applications at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: It seems to me that
there should have been an increased allotment for this activity, notwithstanding the fact that we are at war. There is no use in assuming that we are going to be at war forever; we should not let down in connection with these important activities. I have an idea that the money which has been allotted in the past has been very well spent. Has there been any question whether this money was wisely spent? Have we had full dollar value for every dollar spent? If so, were we wise in what we set out to do, and is the problem as great as formerly? I do not see vrhy we should be cutting down in these expenditures when at the same time the United States is carrying on work in connection with arresting and distributing water which is costing the people of that eountrj' in the neighbourhood of $6 per capita. Canada has not come anywhere near that yet, although her need must be just as great.
I am not satisfied with the reduction; I think there should have been an increase.
I feel this way about it. All the votes for this work have not been spent up to the present time; quite a bit of the money has been turned back to the consolidated revenue fund, I presume because the minister did not have the organization with which to spend the money. Evidently last year that organization came into full operation and began to do the sort of work he set out to do. Now, just when he has all his equipment ready, the expenditure is to be cut by three-quarters of a million dollars, which seems to me very unsound economy on the part of Canada. I do not feel that this represents wisdom at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give no other explanation of the fact that expenditures were not made in the earlier years than the explanation given by the hon. member for Lethbridge. This work was experimental in its nature as far as this country was concerned, although a great deal of it had been done across the line. It did take time to build up an organization to spend the money as we thought it should be spent. During the first few years we were not able to spend it all. Last year, as has been already indicated, the organization

provided partly by us and partly by the municipalities-reached the point where it was able to do very much more work than we had anticipated would be done,

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
with the result that some of the work done last year has to be paid for this year. I do not know that this is altogether bad, because at least wherever there was water the farmers have had the use of it this year, and if the dug-outs had not been constructed last year they would not have had the use of it.
Before sitting down, may I say that in the interval my officials have located the details concerning the Carmangay project, and I might give them now in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Maeleod. In our records it is known as the Castle river storage. This project consists of a proposed storage reservoir on the Castle river in township 6, range 2, west 5th, for the purpose of providing additional storage facilities for irrigation districts, taking water from the Old Man river. Storage such as this would be of benefit to the Lethbridge Northern, would permit of its extension into the Rocky Coulee-Barrons-Carmangay district, and would provide sufficient water for the proposed Maeleod irrigation district. Test borings were completed on the proposed dam-site, which indicate the foundation conditions to be satisfactory, and plans and cost estimates are now in process of preparation.


John Horne Blackmore: In order that members of the committee might have some idea of the extent of the activities carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, I should like to ask two or three questions. Would the minister make a statement as to how many dug-outs have been constructed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, both since its inception and during the year 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are as
follows:
Manitoba	 4.676
Saskatchewan	 4,767
Alberta	 502
9,945
That is the number constructed since the inception of this measure. During 1939 there were 4,586 dug-outs constructed, or almost half the total since the inception. These were distributed as follows:
Manitoba	 2,045
Saskatchewan	 2,303
Alberta	 238
4,586


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that the number approved for payment?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the number that were constructed and approved for payment.


John Horne Blackmore: How many dams have been constructed under this measure in the same two periods?


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are as
follows:
Manitoba	 238
Saskatchewan	 2,467
Alberta	 ?49
3,454
During 1939 we constructed 1,031 dams, as follows:
Manitoba	 52
Saskatchewan	 796
Alberta	 163
1,031


John Horne Blackmore: How many irrigation schemes were carried out?


James Garfield Gardiner: In Manitoba there were eleven schemes-one small project and ten individual projects. In Saskatchewan there were five neighbourhood projects, two community and municipal projects, and 564 individual projects, or a total of 571. In Alberta there were one neighbourhood project, twelve community and municipal projects, and 238 individual projects, or a total of 251. Those are the smaller projects. Then there are three types of large irrigation schemes. This list is quite considerable; I do not know whether the hon. member would like to have it all read.


John Horne Blackmore: I am asking these
questions because I do not believe the ordinary member of this house understands how important the work is that has been or is being done. I am not sure that it is realized throughout Canada how great is the need for this kind of work. If we realize how great was the need and the value, and how much has been done; if we appreciated the fact that the minister is just getting his machinery into operation, then we might realize what a short-sighted policy it apparently is to dismantle that machinery just at this time. If the minister does not feel that it wmuld take up too much time, I believe a recital of these facts would be quite impressive, especially to the people in the east. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act vitally affects such constituencies as mine.
For example, in connection with the irrigation projects in my constituency it is estimated that $400,000 in value was lost last year because the people were not able to get enough water at the right time. I contend that from the point of view of the economy of Canada we simply cannot afford to run the risk of such a loss as that. And that loss of $400,000 would have become a loss of probably a million and a half dollars, had it not been for the fact that the United States had stored

Supply-A griculture-Marke ting
water, and was good enough to give us 160 second feet of water for a number of weeks, during the critical period. We could have stored that water ourselves. As I understand it, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was designed to enable us to construct storage dams for water.
The minister has shown vision and great energy in building up the machine with which these storage dams could be constructed. Therefore I protest vigorously when any step is taken to impair the work he has been doing. That introduction having been given,
I believe the committee will excuse the minister if he takes time to give an extensive explanation of the work under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The record is fairly long, and I am not sure that hon. members would gain a clear impression if I were to read it through. Therefore, if there is no objection, I shall place it on the record.


Thomas Vien: Very well; unanimous
consent.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is as follows:
Large Irrigration Schemes
There are three types of expenditure on large irrigration projects under the P.F.R.A.-
(1)	Where assistance is given to an irrigration project already in operation.
(2)	Where storage facilities, and in some instances dykes or ditches, are created
enabling farmers to irrigrate their own land.
(3)	Where P.F.R.A. constructs both reservoir and irrigration works and controls the
irrigable lands.
(1) Where Assistance is given to an Irrigration Project Already in Operation.
Name of project	Location
Manitoba-Nil.
Saskatchewan-Nil.
Alberta
Wildhorse Storage Project	 23-2-3-4
Mountain view irrigation project	 2-28-4
Canada Land & Irrigation Co	
Sutherland dam
Canada Land & Irrigration Project. Eastern Irrigation district.
Cowoki dam
do
Rolling Hills project.. 14 & 15-12 13 & 14-3
Leavitt irrigration district	 2-28-4
Magrath irrigration
district	 5-23-4
Storage Irrigable
capacity area	Purpose
(ac. ft.) (acres)
4,500
4,000
7,050
3,600 Provides additional storage for 3,600 acres of existing irrigation.
.... Grant to repair existing canals and laterals completed in 1936.
....	Project consists of	repairs	to
existing structures completed in 1936.
8.000	Completed in 1936 at a cost of
$21,777.87 by Eastern Irrigation. Grant of $15,000 made by P.F.R.A.
2,280	Completed in 1936	at cost	of
$30,000 by Eastern Irrigation district. Grant	of $7,500
made by P.F.R.A.
25,000	P.F.R.A. grant of	$50,000	toEastern Irrigation	district	to
repair existing structures and provide new structures for 25,000 acres additional. Completed 1938.
7.000	Irrigation project begun in 1938,
Driggs lake reservoir dam, completed 1939, 2 miles of main canal, laterals and dis-tributory system to be constructed by farmers.
4,955 Repairs to main canal completed 1939.
(2) Where storage facilities, and in some instances dykes or ditches, are created enabling tarmers to irrigate their own land.
Manitoba-Nil.
Saskatchewan
Dunn & Watt	
11-1-8-3	....	305Dead lake	
8-14-11-2	2,600	3,900

Constructed in 1937. Provides irrigation along McEachern creek.
Rockfill crib on Souris river and diversion canal to Dead lake. Completed 1937.

Supply-Agriculture-M arlceting
Large Irrigration Schemes-Concluded
(2) Where storage facilities, and in some instances dykes or ditches, are created enabling farmers to irrigate their own land-Concluded
Storage Irrigable
Name of project Saskatchewan-Concluded Roughbark creek	Location 29-6-13-2	capacity (ac. ft.) 1,500	area (acres) 3,900Souris-Estevan 	8-14-11-2	2,600	3,900Moose Mountain lake. .	9-11-8-2	8,000	6,000Kisbey flats flood irrigation 	8-5-2	5,000	2,300Big Arm storage	30-25-25-2	5,200	5,000 to 8,000Moose Jaw creek flood irrigation 	4-10-18-2	2,180	2,250Last Mountain Lake...	Valeport	1,000Alberta Bartman Dam-East Berry creek 	24-11-4	3,000	1,000Bulkhead creek storage	28-8-4-4	1,130	800
Purpose
Reservoir completed 1937. Provides partial storage for Souris-Estevan project. Maintenance required in 1938 and 1939.
Provides for flood irrigation of hay lands in Souris valley. Completed 1939.
Earthfill dam. Provides storage for ICisbey flats project.
Flood irrigation on Moose Mountain creek near Kisbey, 100 per cent completed.
Provides storage for irrigation by pumping to adjacent lands. Completed 1938. Repairs to spillway 1939-$314.10.
Completed .1938. Provides flood irrigation by retarding spring run-off.
Project consists of a dyke and control structures in Qu'Ap-pelle valley near Valeport. The work was completed during the 1939 field season.
Earthfill dam commenced in 1937, and completed in 1938.
Storage reservoir for small irrigation projects near Medicine Hat. Earthfill dam completed 1939. Final payment not yet made.
(3) Where PF.R.A. constructs both reservoir and irrigation works and controls the irrigable lands.
Manitoba-Nil.
Saskatchewan
Cypress lake
Val Marie irrigation project	
West Val Marie-dam and spillway	
West Val Marie-irrigation project	
Eastern! irrigation project	
Eastend extension . ...
Downie lake storage project	
Maple Creek irrigation system	
Alberta-Nil.
6-24. 26 & 27	80,000	20,00015 & 22-4, 14-3	6,000	4,00012-5-15-3	2,000	3,41612-5-15-3	25-6-22-3	1,300	2,5006-21-3 & 5-20-3	70,000	2,8969-28-3	10,000	5,10011-26-3	10,000	3,000
Provides additional storage for projects along Frenchman river and Battle creek. Project completed 1939.
Irrigation project on Frenchman river. Completed 1936.
Irrigation project on Frenchman river. Completed during 1939 season.
Irrigation-contract let during 1939 season-50 per cent completed.
Irrigation project on the Frenchman river. Completed 1936.
Extension of irrigation facilities of Eastend irrigation district. Completed 1939.
Provides storage for irrigation adjacent to Maple Creek. Completed 1938.
Project consists of diversion weir at Gap creek headgates, main canals, laterals, etc.; 50 per cent completed.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: From what the minister has said I have gained the impression that it has not been possible to construct many dug-outs this year. I understand the administrative staff has been retained. Will it be possible to have surveys made in some municipalities, so that work will proceed next year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the survey work is being continued. The engineering staff is working on projects which may be carried out next year, if the money is voted for that purpose. That work is going on as usual.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Apropos of what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said, it would be well to remember that last year we voted $3,250,000, and that $800,000 more was spent under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. This would indicate that work to the value of $4,050,000 was done. The amount for the new year is only $1,700,000. Therefore it would appear that they will be able to do less than half of the work done last year. Certainly that would be a considerable curtailment of the work done by this branch.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was some carryover last year from the previous year. I am not in a position to say how much, but there was some.
Mr. BLAiCKMORE:	How many community pastures have been constructed? Remember, we are dealing with the land where the buffalo roamed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, that is so; we are dealing with the land where the buffalo roamed, one of the most romantic areas on the American continent. We are dealing with an area, which should be a magnificent asset to Canada, an area which, unless wisely managed, will become a tragic liability to this country. Indeed, it threatened not many years ago to become such a liability. No member of the committee wishes to see that land deteriorate into a colossal liability because of the failure to expend a few million dollars.
I should like to hear of the experiences which the minister has had in connection with community pastures. That area about which I have spoken is rich in soil and splendid in climate. It has produced abundantly, but was not so long ago almost a great dust bowl. The minister has succeeded in recovering a good deal of the land, and in starting to make it rich, as it once was. Would he give hon. members some idea of what he has done?


Agar Rodney Adamson: What about the deer and the antelope?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the Saskatchewan area thirty-nine pastures have been completed. They total 756,380 acres, at a total cost of $819,429.17. In Manitoba there is one pasture completed, comprising 62,720 acres, at a cost of $57,763.24. There are ten others under construction, with an acreage of 288,140 acres, and at a total estimated cost of $157,295.81. This makes a total of more than
1,000,000 acres put under pasture.
These are sub-marginal lands in those two provinces, which, during recent years, have been found to be invaluable as wheat-producing lands. In some instances they have been pastured down to a point where they are of little value for the pasturing of cattle. That, was the condition until three years ago, when we started to take those lands out of cultivation, and to fence them, for two purposes- the first being to provide reserve pasture. We have one pasture in southern Saskatchewan which, I think, speaking from memory, is about 110,000 acres in extent. For the last two years that pasture has not been used. This year hay is being put upon it for the people in southwestern Saskatchewan whose crops have been eaten by grasshoppers. Instead of shipping in hay over long distances we shall be supplying the hay in the neighbourhood of where it is required. The second purpose is to allow cattle and horses to run on that land during winter months, when feed is short. The purpose of fencing the pasturage was not that of keeping stock in during the summer months, but to prevent stock from getting into it in those months, and retaining the grass therein so that it could grow back to the natural buffalo grass which grew on those plains when they were first inhabited by the white man. We have found from experience that they grow back to grass very quickly, and particularly in a season when there is comparatively high rainfall.
A further purpose is that of providing community pasture in areas where farmers are farming round about. It is the intention that they may make use of those lands on which to run their live Stock in the summer months. The live stock are fed in the winter on whatever feed is grown on the land round about in the summer. We have been successful in making it possible for quite a considerable number of people to farm to advantage in areas where during recent years they have been on relief during a considerable part of the time.


John Horne Blackmore: I am well pleased with the report made by the minister thus far. Ever since I have been in the house I have

Supply-A griculture-M arketing
supported increased allotments of money to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. In my judgment the introduction of that measure was probably the greatest thing which the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and his administration did. It is a great tribute to the wisdom, judgment and public spiritedness of. the present Minister of Agriculture that he has seen fit to go forward with the scheme. It is a great tribute to his party that it saw fit to support him in his efforts to develop the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme. We have frequently seen it happen that when one party comes into office it proceeds to wreck what has been done by the previous party. The present administration, however, was wise enough to go forward with this great project.
To get some idea of how great this area is that is being dealt with under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, one needs only to remember that 420 municipalities are involved. It takes in practically the whole of the Palliser triangle. That area starts just south of Morden, Manitoba. From that point it extends northwest to Lloydminster, on the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan. The line runs southwest from there to Cochrane, just west of Calgary, and then southerly to a point where the Alberta, British Columbia and United States borders meet.
Within those lines lies a veritable new empire. I have said that it consists of 420 municipalities, fifty-three of which are in Mani-tobo, 253 in Saskatchewan, and 114 in Alberta. There are 60.000.000 acres of land involved. It must surely be recognized that we can afford to spend a little time talking about this great land where the buffalo roamed. I hope hon. members will not feel that I am unjustifiably delaying the committee when at this time I ask a few questions. I do not think very much time has been spent up to the present in parliament on this great asset. In addition to pasturage, I would ask the minister to give the committee an idea of what work he is doing with respect to live stock. I understand that he has taken into consideration the development of a live stock policy in connection with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Probably the committee is already impressed with the magnitude and variety of the work which the minister has but briefly outlined thus far, just nibbled around the outside, so to speak.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is my hon. friend speaking of the Palliser triangle?


John Horne Blackmore: It is not the Palliser
triangle 'but it comes very close to being that. It is that area which Palliser foresaw
and reported would not be suitable for settlement, and to a very great extent his forecast has been proved accurate. By the application of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the principles which the minister has been introducing we are going to be able to rescue from ruin that great area and make it into a fruitful field instead of a barren desert.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Will it be put back into grazing land?


John Horne Blackmore: A good deal of it, yes, as the minister has so well indicated, so that instead of its being a shifting sea of waves of sand and becoming mainly uninhabitable, it will be turned from a semi-desert into a great and fruitful inland empire where many, many happy millions of people can live to produce and consume. That, I think, is the vision which the minister has, and I have been greatly pleased with the degree to which he has been able to work out his vision. I would ask him now what his ideas are with regard to live stock.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the area where
pastures have been constructed we have placed ninety-eight breeding sires, fifty-eight of them Herefords, twenty-five Short-horns and five Angus. Ten of these have been disposed of, and there are now eighty-eight in these pastures. The objective is to raise the standard of cattle in these pasture areas. Practically all the farmers in these areas have their breeding stock in these pastures, and we have enlarged upon our policy of supplying pure-bred sires by placing pure-bred sires in these pastures. There are managers in charge of the pastures. The farmers pay the operating costs of the pastures, and the manager who is placed there at their request takes charge of the stock during the summer months.


Victor Quelch: Are they all paying their way?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there has been a slight profit on the whole this last year. There may be one or two which are not quite paying their way but the others are more than doing so. There has been a profit on the whole operation during the past season.


Victor Quelch: Reference has been made to community pastures in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Are we to understand that no new pastures have been constructed in Alberta because the federal and provincial governments have not been able to come to an understanding as to where the administration shall reside?


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been no pastures set up in Alberta partly because we

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
have not been able to reach an agreement with the government of Alberta. I do not know whether that is because they feel that the policy under which they are operating is more situable to the area or whether there may be some other reason, but up to the moment we have not reached an agreement as to the operation of pastures in Alberta. We did have a draft agreement drawn two years ago, I think, and it was sent back to the Alberta government for signature. It has not been accepted by Alberta, but it was the basis of the agreement we made with Manitoba, and we are constructing pastures in Manitoba on the basis of that agreement.


Victor Quelch: Is it not a fact that in June of 1936 or 1937 an agreement was arrived at between the representatives of the government of Alberta and the federal government, and signed at Regina, under which the administration was to have been left in the hands of the province? Later on in the year a similar agreement was made between Saskatchewan and the federal government Then, apparently, Saskatchewan came to the conclusion that it was not competent to deal with the situation and the provincial government asked the federal government to take over the whole administration. The federal government then apparently decided to go back on the agreement which they had with Alberta and told the government of Alberta that they would have to agree to a similar agreement to the one made with Saskatchewan. I ask the minister, had not an agreement previously been arrived at between Alberta and the federal government under which the administration would have been -left in the hands of the provincial government?
We can understand why Alberta was not ready to turn over the administration to the federal government. The situation in Alberta was altogether different from that in Saskatchewan because in Alberta there are special areas where a great deal of work had already been done and a great deal of experience gained, and they felt that in turning the administration over to the federal government they would be turning it over to an administration which had had no experience in handling that job whereas Alberta had been doing it for a number of years. Saskatchewan had had no experience in dealing with the problem. Therefore there was a certain amount of justification for the government of Alberta taking the attitude which they did.
I think-I am not saying this in any objectionable way-that the Minister of Agriculture had been led to believe that after the next provincial election there would be a change of government in Alberta, and perhaps

he was waiting for it to take place. They had their provincial election and the minister knows that we have the same government in the province. Therefore negotiations will still have to be carried on between the same provincial government and the federal government. Are any such negotiations taking place or is the thing just drifting along?
Personally I believe in community pastures. I think a great deal of good can be done in that way. Alberta is handicapped for funds and cannot go ahead with these projects as Saskatchewan and Manitoba can. Everything should be done to open up the question again and make it possible for community pastures to be established in Alberta.
As the minister knows, the constituency of Acadia is an arid district with a great deal of *land that will never be suitable for certain farming operations. Either that land will have to be irrigated or community pastures will have to be built, thereby making it possible for farmers to carry stock. The other alternative would be to go back to large scale grazing, ranching as we knew it in the olden days. We cannot carry on as we are doing at the present time. We are just marking time. We must have either large scale pasturage or irrigation or go back to ranching. Can the minister say whether any attempt is being made to open up this question again or is the thing just drifting? What is holding it up? I should like to know.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I were to tell the whole story it would be rather a long one, but I think I can shorten it up by saying that there was no agreement made in the spring of 1936. There was a proposal made, I myself made it, to the committee meeting in the spring of 1936. in the month of May I think, and the suggestion was that a considerable part of the activity be carried on under the direction of the provinces. I was present at the meeting and made that proposal to the committee, and the proposal was agreed to by the committee at that time. We tried to operate under it during the greater part of that summer, but if we had not changed it towards the end of the season there would have been very little money spent during that particular season.
As was indicated in the figures I read a few moments ago, as it turned out only a proportion of the money voted that year was expended even after we changed the policy. I believe it was in the month of August that we called a second meeting of the committee and the second proposal was made. Again, the proposal was made to the committee by myself as Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that the money had been voted by

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
the federal parliament and was to be expended by the federal government, and the suggestion was that we were quite prepared to take charge of the operations and go ahead in order to get this money expended in the way we thought it ought to be. The province of Alberta accepted the position in relation to some of the water expenditures and the regrassing proposals. The province of Manitoba also accepted the position immediately in connection with water expenditures and regrassing. The province of Saskatchewan accepted all three proposals, that is in connection with water, pastures, and regrassing.
We carried on under that arrangement during that season. Towards the middle of the next season our friends in Alberta made certain proposals to have expenditures made by the province, and, as a result of the discussions, sent the minister in charge to confer with us about possible expenditures in that province. As I said a moment ago, we came to an agreement with the minister; the arrangement was fully agreed to as between the minister and myself here, but he said he would have to take it back to Alberta and have it discussed there. We have had nothing further from the province of Alberta in relation to that proposal.


Victor Quelch: W'hat was that proposal?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should say in the
beginning that they did not desire us to go into the special areas with a pasture scheme, but in the areas south of the pasture areas they might be prepared, it was suggested, to accept a rental proposal instead of turning over to the federal government the lands on which these projects were to be constructed. An agreement was drawn up, I believe upon the basis of a twenty-one year lease on the lands to be given to the government here, and then we would fence those lands and proceed with the pasture programme on the same basis, otherwise, as we had proceeded in Saskatchewan.


Victor Quelch: That would be in the
constituency of Medicine Hat?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be from
the south end of the special areas right down to the United States boundary line and west to the mountains.
That has not been taken up further. There have been no more discussions with regard to it. In relation to the remarks that were made by my hon. friend with regard to an election, all this was, I believe, a year and a half before the election. During all that time the proposal has been open to the present government of Alberta. I am afraid that the contentions of my hon. friend with regard to
the results in Alberta are not the conclusions which some of my political opponents hold with regard to my attitude in Alberta.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Has the establishment
of these pastures been effective in stopping soil drifting?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course there is no soil drifting in the pastures themselves-those that have been regrassed, in any event. On some of them it has been just a matter of encouraging the grass to grow which was there naturally; that is, if it had never been broken up.
The soil drifting experiments have been carried on upon light lands which were under cultivation for a considerable number of years, and the plan being followed there is regrassing or the sowing of rye grass or rye on those lands which are sandy, thus holding them down as against wind erosion. Of course, as long as we can produce a growth of rye on them, they do not drift. When they start to drift they destroy the lands round them for a considerable area on either side of the sandy areas.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is that method effective in stopping sand erosion and drifting over a great part of the area?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those areas on which we have conducted these experiments are lands which have been abandoned because of the fact that the top soil had drifted pretty well off it. Those lands have really been taken out of cultivation and some of them fenced by us in order to prevent live stock from going in and eating the growth off that land.
That is only a limited way of controlling soil drifting in certain areas. Strip farming has been encouraged in some districts; that is, farming an area a few rods wide this year, and leaving in summer-fallow the part in between; the next year, putting crop on the summer-fallowed strip and leaving in summer-fallow the strip which was cropped the previous year. By this means the sweep of the wind does not get at the strip, particularly if it is run north and south so that the prevailing winds do not blow the length of the strip, but rather crosswise. We have been encouraging that sort of farming and it has been helpful in stopping soil drifting.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister thinks that by carrying out this system soil drifting will be effectively stopped? Have these experiments been completely successful? I am asking this because I motored over that country during a sand-storm. While I come from the east, I was very much depressed by the sand erosion, not having seen before its
Supply-Agriculture-M arketing

effects in that country, and I wondered if it could be stopped, and if these experiments have been successful.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think there is only one thing that will successfully stop drifting, and that is plenty of rain over that large area. But different methods have been followed which tend to prevent drifting. For example, the growth of Russian thistle in that country has assisted in stopping soil drifting in very dry years. It is a dry season plant, and grows fairly thickly even in periods of drought. The growth of Russian thistle on lands which will not bear a crop in the comparatively dry years is in itself an assistance to stopping soil drifting. I believe that the plant was first brought in as a weed from Russia by someone in Montana. It has now covered almost the whole prairie area of the west, merely by rolling along and scattering its seeds. It does not grow to any extent in wet seasons, but in dry years it covers the whole country, sometimes by an act of nature, sometimes through the act of man. But this tends to prevent soil drifting.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: Just before the hon. member for Lethbridge speaks, I want to express the delight of everybody that the lion of Lethbridge has turned into a lamb. When I came in the house he was making a fierce speech; but he gradually mellowed; finally his remarks were most insinuating, and I am sure he was satisfied with the answer he got from the minister.
May I ask the minister if the reduction of three-quarters of a million dollars was recommended by the board of national economy, of political economy, of which Mr. Graham Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Clark, of the Department of Finance, and Mr. Barton, deputy minister of agriculture, were members?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The recommendation was made finally by myself after considerable discussion. There was no discussion with the economic committee with regard to it. The discussions took place entirely in the treasury board, in council and elsewhere.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have great pleasure in congratulating the minister. I have already congratulated one of his colleagues upon not paying any attention to that board, and I am very glad that the minister has not done so. I am asking each one of his colleagues if any of them ever asked the advice of that board, and, if not, why such board was constituted.
I regret the reduction. I do not believe that too much can be done for the farmers.

They must be assisted, and the farmers of Quebec should receive the same as those of the prairies. If they had half as much as is given the farmers of the prairies they would be satisfied. I regret that hon. members representing the prairie provinces do not express their appreciation of the government for making an exception of the people there and treating their constituents so lavishly.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member for Temiscouata had been in the house he would have known that I commended the minister for the work he has been doing. Indeed, I have done so on several occasions. Let me tell him that I have never asked that any privilege be given the farmers of western Canada which is not given the farmers of the east. All the people of Canada are entitled to a square deal and only a square deal and they are entitled to a completely square deal. I would suggest that it would be a good thing for the minister to keep on in an effort to establish community pastures in Alberta. Alberta will come to an understanding with him because Alberta used to be a land of great ranches. It would be valuable to have these community pastures established. I suggested the other day that it would be a good thing to find out where the grazing regions are so as to enable people raising stock to use them. The minister is on the right track when he speaks of establishing community pastures. I understand he makes grazing surveys.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: What is being done in that direction?


James Garfield Gardiner: The surveys made in connection with grazing activities have been carried on over a period of time. The total area surveyed to March 31, 1940, was 2,243,788 acres. The number of areas surveyed was forty. These surveys have been adopted for the purpose of determining to what extent the carrying capacity of the areas could be increased by regrassing, water development and control of grazing. Members from the east will probably be a little surprised when I say that in the prairie section we have been in the habit of figuring that it would take thirty acres of natural grass land in certain areas to keep one head of stock. In an area where they are accustomed to graze one to the acre, or sometimes two or three, the number of acres I have mentioned seems comparatively large, but it was in areas like that that ranching was carried on in the early days. Studies are being made of the extent to which grazing can be increased by the

S u-pply-A griculture-M arketing
regrassing of land and sowing grass of different kinds from those that were originally on the land.


John Horne Blackmore: I am thoroughly displeased that there has been this reduction. We should have an addition of $750,000 instead of a reduction, because this area is too large to be trifled with. There are 900,000 people in the area; it cannot be neglected, because virtually all of these people are in a rather precarious position from year to year. Sometimes there is a good year and many times a bad year, and if there is a series of bad years people might be ruined. If, therefore, iwe can do anything to help their lot we should do it. My annoyance arises from the fact that the minister's efforts have been curtailed just when he got his machinery set up. He says he recommended the reduction but I have an idea that he was teased into it. I do not think he did it voluntarily. Can the minister give us an idea of the success that has been achieved in reclaiming soil drifting areas? I understand he has been adopting measures such as planting trees, and so on, special kinds of tillage and matters of that sort. Is there anything in addition to what the minister has already told us that he would consider of value?


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to one of the members representing Toronto I referred to reclamation projects. There are sixteen and the total area is 11,410 acres. The soil management is making special studies under drifting conditions, and these are being carried on by five experimental farms covering 8,000 acres, fifty-two district experimental stations and sixteen reclamation projects, or a total of 11,410 acres. We have a soil research laboratory at Swift Current which performs essential analytical work as regards soil fertility, soil drifting control, and soil mixture conservation. We have district experimental sub-stations of which there are fifty-two. Fifty-two were in operation in 1939, and they have been instrumental in securing the widespread adoption of suitable cropping and cultural practices for the control of soil drifting.
We have a soil classification. In areas covered iby soil surveys in the prairies, through cooperation between the provinces and the dominion, such surveys were conducted in Manitoba over 10,900,000 acres; in Saskatchewan, 66,570,000 acres, and in Alberta, 23,786,000 acres, making a total of 101,000,000 acres. In northern Alberta land classification surveys1 have been conducted by the province covering 24,000,000 acres. The regrassing has
been instrumental in treating 95,210 acres of land subject to drifting, and tree planting operations have been carried on also, 10,000,000 free trees having been supplied. Of this number, approximately 4,500,000 have been used for experiments and demonstration and the remainder have been distributed among the farmers. There are 204 agricultural improvement associations with experimental farms in Brandon, Indian Head, Swift Current, Scott and Lethbridge, which serve as supervisory organizations to conduct these activities in connection with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. From 1935 to 1939 inclusive, 569,000 pounds of forage crop seeds, mostly crested wheat grass, were distributed in 32,900 parcels of about ten pounds each to members of agricultural improvement associations throughout the three prairie provinces, the purpose being to promote regrassing.


Victor Quelch: How successful has it been?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been very successful.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not wish to be put in the category of those who tease the minister, but I would ask this question: As the pasturage increases in this area and as ranching increases, is the population likely to decrease? In other words, if it becomes or is restored to being a cattle country, is it likely that it will not support the same population as at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it were returned to grazing country, it would not support anything like the population that is there at present. As hon. members well know, a pastoral area always maintains a much smaller population -than a mixed farming area. The plan we have in mind is not one of returning the country to a grazing area, but one -under which the lighter lands will be used for grazing and the heavier lands for mixed farming. The heavier lands will be used in the summer to produce the feed for live stock during the winter, just as in eastern Canada. The stock will be run on the lighter lands during the summer.


Ernest George Hansell: I also wish to voice my sentiments with regard to the reduction in this item. The item should have been increased rather than decreased. The minister is perhaps a brave man in assuming responsibility for its reduction. The explanation he gave us -to-night, that in the past we have not used the entire appropriation, is not because there has -been no need of rehabilitation, not because the department has had no applications; for I know of several applications that have gone in, I know several projects that

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
have been surveyed and a large amount- of work and expense put into them, and which eventually were not carried out. Therefore the reason why appropriations have not been used in the past is not lack of necessity.
The discussion to-night has been informative, and we appreciate the attention the committee is giving to this matter, because hon. members should recognize the tremendous importance of rehabilitation of this vast area which the hon. member for Lethbridge has described. The government of Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative or Social Credit does not make any difference, is more or less responsible for rehabilitation of these dried-out areas. I say that because people [DOT] were encouraged in the early days to go into these sections. People, some of them with a lot of money, went in there and invested their money there. They built fine homes. I have travelled through some of those parts; part of the dried-out area is in my constituency. Very often one passes an exceptionally fine house, apparently well built; but the windows are all out now; the chimney is broken down; the barns are filled with sand and sagging over, and the people have gone. Railroads went into this country and people were encouraged to go there and invest their money. They went there expecting to make a home, not merely to make a stake and get away. Some of these people are still there, still trying to exist.
We pay a good deal of money to railway companies and shipping companies by way of assistance and subsidies because those concerns are necessaiy to Canada's economy. Therefore it is not out of the way that we should expect that a greater amount of money be appropriated for this rehabilitation work. Not only did people go in there and invest their money, but many of them, I think I can say practically all, are to-day head over heels in debt. That is not altogether because we have had dry seasons; many factors enter into the condition. In the past, financial institutions and mortgage companies have had their fair share of any wealth that has come out of those lands. Many of the people are still there, still struggling, and, therefore, if we view this whole question from the point of view of fairness and justice, I believe the full appropriation should be used and indeed it should be increased over the years until that vast area is made what it ought to be.


John Horne Blackmore: As a hint of the
soundness of what the hon. member for Macleod has just said, I would call two or three matters to the attention of the committee. This area we are talking about is the land where No. 1 hard wheat and No. 1
[Mr. Hnnsell.1
northern are particularly raised. It is probably as fine land as there is on earth for that purpose. Most of the great empires of the past have been built in areas that were semi-arid. Take, for example, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia; the soil in such regions is rich because its virtue has not been leached out. Thus, when water is applied, it becomes extremely productive. Our own drought area is susceptible of just such development. As an example of its richness, take crop district No. 3 in Saskatchewan between the Soo line and Shaunavon, a triangle in the centre of southern Saskatchewan. In 1914 that area produced an average of less than two bushels to the acre, but in 1915 it produced thirty-one bushels to the acre, indicating the possibilities of this country if given a chance. The area as a whole has a remarkable climate. It is warm enough, cold enough and equable enough to raise successfully most grains, meats, wools, furs; to produce eggs and dairy products, and, above all, to nurture a virile, efficient, high-souled people of many millions. There is a fair rainfall, although comparatively low. It has moderately long cool nights which, they tell me, are just what is required to produce that high protein content wheat which is so desirable. The soil is amply productive and has shown a fine record of production. In 1920 it yielded field crops worth $397,777,968 and a total production of $479,118,359. Five years later, in 1925, the value of field crops was $497,125,398 and the total production, $570,929,749. In 1930, when troubles began to come its way, the respective figures were $158,376,333 and $226,032,797. In 1935 field crops amounted to $152,260,360 and total production, $211,200,548. This gives sufficient indication of the great possibilities of that area. Much of the low value noticeable in 1930 and 1935 was due to low prices, but a good deal was due also to low production owing to drought conditions and other mishaps to the crops. This district has a great productive capacity, but that capacity can be greatly improved.
I believe it would be of interest to the committee to know that it is estimated that in the mountain streams of the west, which flow into the area known as the Palliser triangle, there are 11,000,000 acre feet of water. In the prairie streams there are another 3,000,000 acre feet, and in other miscellaneous sources an additional 2,000,000 acre feet, making a total of 16,000,000 acTe feet of water capable of being rescued, at least in some measure, and used for the improvement of conditions in that area. The amount of that water which can be made available for storage or irrigation is 5,964,130 acre feet. The amount of storage we now have either in

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
operation or under construction is only 860,210 acre feet. I do not know if anything could be more emphatic than those figures. Let me repeat them. The amount of water available for storage or irrigation is estimated to be 5,964,130 acre feet. Of that amount we are now able to store, or will be able to store, only 860,210 acre feet. This indicates what a tremendous percentage of our water resources we are allowing to go to waste. Certainly that is not good national housekeeping in the light of what is being done in the United States. Our irrigable lands total 3,434,320 acres. The amount of land under existing canals is only 824,790 acres, again indicating how we have neglected the great possibilities of our drought areas. Land now actually receiving water totals only 450,000 acres. These figures are taken from works by Mr. Benjamin Russell, who is responsible for engineering under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the Regina district.
Although this country has fallen upon evil days, yet there is hope. There have been bad times before, for example in 1890 and from 1917 to 1921, but the area has shown great recuperative power. As I pointed out the other night, money advanced for seed, to the extent of 84,385,000, before 1928, has been practically all paid off, indicating the_ great recuperative power of this land. I believe it is in the interests of our Canadian economy as a whole to restore it to a condition in which it can produce as evidently it was designed to be able to produce. This again is evidence that we should not be now curtailing expenditures under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
May I once again commend the minister for the work he has done. I am afraid I have delayed the committee to-night, and probably I have annoyed the minister by having him recite so many of these facts. But I hope we have succeeded in showing the committee and the country that he has spent this money wisely and that he has had fine vision and great energy in working toward the development of the drought area by means of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Certainly I do not believe the minister ought to consent to having this appropriation cut down. I believe it should be increased, not only to the extent of the 8750,000 cut off -this year but to the extent of an additional 8750,000 which should be added next year. There will be those who will ask, "Well, what are we going to do in order to get the money?" I am not going to discuss that matter. In my judgment the whole question is whether we have in this country the material necessary to effect the required construction. Have we the material with which to build the dams and
canals? If we have, why not do it? Have we the man-power; have we the machinery? Unquestionably we have. Have we the food, clothing and shelter with which to support the people engaged in this work? I do not think there can be any question whether we have all that. If we have; if it is physically possible for us to do whatever we wish with respect to the rehabilitation of the great drought area, why is it not done? I say it is the business of this parliament and of this government to see that what is physically possible is rendered financially possible, and -that the rehabilitation of that great area is proceeded with.
I wish now to say a word or two about my particular area. In the Lethbridge federal riding we are fortunate in having three rivers which provide an ample supply of water and which lend themselves to storage. For something in the neighbourhood of twenty years they have been contemplating a great series of storage reservoirs. The extent of those reservoirs has been pretty well worked out, together with their location, the amount of water that can be stored, and the area of land that can be brought under irrigation. This matter of storing the water is particularly interesting at the present time. In my constituency there are two rivers, the St. Mary river and the Milk river, which flow into Canada from the United States. In the case of the Milk river it then flows back into the United States.
There is rather an interesting story in that connection, although I hesitate to delay the committee further by telling it. Back about 1880 or 1890 the United States began to consider using those waters. Then Canada developed an interest in using them on the Canadian side, and since that time there has been a sort of friendly rivalry between the two countries as to which would be able to use those waters first. Agreements were reached between the two countries in 1909, 1915 and later, to the effect that the waters would be divided equally between them. Up to the present time the United States have been very fair; they have not taken advantage of Canada, but now a big dam, called the Fresno dam, has been constructed on the Milk river at Havre, Montana, which will be large enough to store not only the United States share of the run-off waters of the Milk river, but also the Canadian share. A good many people in my constituency are greatly worried for fear the United States proposes to store all of the water, then develop projects which will use that water, and so greatly build up the industry and population of that district. Then they might possibly move for a reallocation of the waters, which would result in our

Supply-Agriculture

country losing a considerable portion of its share. If any such thing should occur, I do not believe this administration would ever live it down; I believe future generations would look back upon us with a great deal of reproach.
I think a great deal of consideration should be given this matter. We have means of storing water on the Canadian side; it is possible to build a great dam at Spring Coulee, on the St. Mary river. The possibility of that dam has been well investigated. It would contain somewhere in the neighbourhood of 270,000,000 acre feet. If that dam were' constructed to store that water, then we could easily say that we on the Canadian side were doing our share to take care of the water that is ours. There is an understanding among nations, handed down over a great many years, that the first nation to give water beneficial use has a prior claim to that water. If the United States establishes a right to that water by beneficial use before Canada establishes claim to its share by the same method, there is danger that the agreement may be reopened and a great deal of water lost to this country. We cannot afford to lose any of that water. We have not any more water in western Canada than we need. As I said a short time ago, there are only
16,000,000 acre feet of water possibly available, and of that amount only about 5,500,000 acre feet can be stored. In the Lethbridge federal constituency practically all that water which flows in the three rivers, namely the St. Mary, the Belly and the Waterton, can be stored. If we do not store that water we are neglecting a great resource in western Canada, not only for this but for future generations.
I commend the project to the minister and ask him to discuss it earnestly with members of the cabinet, to ascertain whether or not it could be found advisable even in a time of war to take measures to protect Canada's interest in this important resource of run-off water, and the natural flow of water we may possibly lose. I suggest we should commence to build the Lethbridge-southeastern water conservation project without further delay. I suggest that to that end Canada at once begin work on the St. Mary river dam.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. CRERAR:: I rise, Mr. Chairman, not to take part in the discussion on this item, but to make a suggestion to hon. members that we might continue until twelve o'clock. The Minister of Agriculture, as the committee knows, is in charge of another department. He finds many demands upon his time, and if possible would like to have these items

passed through committee to-night. Therefore, if there is no objection, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day. Then I would put the motion we have put on previous evenings, namely, that the house do not adjourn at eleven o'clock. In any event we would not go beyond twelve o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved;
That the house do not adjourn at eleven
0	clock.
Grote Stirling: I think those with whom I am associated are ready to agree to this proposition. I believe it will be agreed that this is the hottest day we have had in the house, and if the minister would go one step farther and promise that in this hour we shall make some real progress we would support the motion with happiness. It would be agreed that we would not sit beyond twelve o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we are to continue to sit for another hour, we must remember that while most of us have been sitting, a number of the staff are standing. Some of those men look almost exhausted.
1	would suggest that we dispense with the services of the staff from now on, if we are going to sit.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Special.
32. Prairie Farm Assistance Act, $250,000.
George Hugh Castleden: There is a point to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) before he leaves the chamber. I refer to his statement made this evening. I would draw his attention to a statement as reported at page 2425 of Hansard of August 3.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member
cannot discuss in committee what has taken place at this session before the house.


George Hugh Castleden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
May I at this time draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to an apparent abuse under the administration of the bonus

Supply-Agriculture
scheme carried on under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act? Two farmers in the minister's constituency have written informing me that their township was one concerning which there was continuous discussion as to whether or not it would come under the bonus scheme. Several inspections were made. Finally they were told it would go through, only to be told later that it would not. My information is that they were shown a telegram dated March 25-rather a significant date-saying that advice had been received from Ottawa to the effect thait the bonus would be allowed. This is the telegram from Regina, addressed to Hector Mackay at Melville, Saskatchewan, and signed by A. R. Maokie:
Just advised from Ottawa township 23 range 5 awarded bonus one dollar acre. Cheques will be forwarded earliest possible moment.
Those farmers have not yet received the bonus. The information 1 have obtained from the Department of Agriculture is that this township was approved; that later the comptroller of the treasury was not satisfied that the act provided for certain allowances for dockage, and that, as a result, the bonus was stopped. Why was word sent out that these cheques would be issued before the treasury board had finally passed them? On what date did the department at Ottawa notify Mr. Mackie in Regina as to the awarding of the bonus for township 23, range 5, west of the second meridian?


James Garfield Gardiner: The information which the hon. member for Aorkton has given the committee is, I believe, approximately correct. That is,
I understand information was sent to that particular area, along with some others. I believe one area was mentioned the other night where a letter went out on March 26. Of course letters were going out every day, and wires were sent every day from December until the end of March in connection with different townships in that area.
As a matter of fact, I know a wire went out on March 25 suggesting that payment would be made in that particular township. Later on, as has been stated, returns in connection with that township were checked by the auditors, and they questioned the possibility of making payments. The results of their check showed that the yield in that township was 12-04 bushels to the acre. That was just 4/100ths of a bushel over twelve. A re-check was made on the district, and I am informed that payments have not yet been made in the township. I do not think it is absolutely certain whether they will or will not be made. The check has gone so far as to indicate that with the average dockage 95826-1591
allowed by the elevators in connection with the grain in that particular area there is a possibility that they are slightly under twelve, instead of being slightly over. If they are under, they will be paid, when the final check is made. If it is found that they are over twelve bushels to the acre, they will not be paid. I would hope a decision would be made within the next few days or a week.


George Hugh Castleden: It is regrettable that they should be informed that cheques would be forwarded, and then told later on that they would not be.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe all the letters which went out to these townships at the time it was thought the matter had been finally determined were sent out indicating that payment (would be made. In this instance payments have not yet been made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why was word
sent to Hector Mackay?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is the solicitor for that municipality, and is a lawyer in the town of Melville.


James Alexander Marshall: It was my intention to go fully into the matter of the administration of the act, but owing to the lateness of the session, I shall confine my remarks to a couple of short questions. First, what records in connection with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are kept in Ottawa? The reason why I ask that question is this: I wrote the minister a considerable time ago; as a matter of fact,
I wrote three times to the department, and I received an answer only two or three days ago.
I wrote again with respect to township 40, range 14, but I have not yet received a reply.
I am wondering just what records are kept at Ottawa and whether it would not be more advantageous to write and take up these problems with Regina.


James Garfield Gardiner: In most instances it would be more advantageous and an answer would be received more quickly by writing to Regina. There are some townships which get into the position such as my hon. friend has described, and where to receive a final reply it would be necessary to take the matter up with Ottawa. But almost final information could be got at Regina at almost any time with regard to any township.


James Alexander Marshall: We who live in Alberta find it difficult to take matters up with Regina. Often there are questions we should like to discuss personally with Mr. Mackie in Regina but it is out of the question to travel that fax. Would the minister consider setting up in
Supply-Agriculture

Alberta in one of our cities, say Calgary or Edmonton, an office for handling this work in Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: The best we could do, if we are to keep the costs within reason, would be to establish a district office which could not do anything more than the man does who is now in charge of that district, and who happens to be resident, I think, at Lethbridge, with probably a stenographer to answer correspondence. He in turn would have to write to Regina to get finality because all the records are kept there and the final recommendations are made from Regina. Those recommendations are considered in Ottawa and finally passed upon.


James Alexander Marshall: I really believe it would be an economy to establish an office in Alberta, with a very small staff. Then with Mr. Mackie going back and forth between Regina and the office in Alberta, the work could be handled satisfactorily.
I was also going to suggest to the minister, although this has to do with the administration of the act, that he use the secretaries of the municipalities a little more than is contemplated at the present time. These secretaries are going to be called upon to do the preliminary work in connection with the administration of the act, and upon them will rest the responsibility of suggesting to the municipal council whether townships be recommended for the bonus. All that information will be centralized in the various municipal offices and I believe that a considerable amount of money could be saved if the minister would use the services of the municipal secretaries to a greater degree or else relieve them entirely of responsibility. They gather from year to year a tremendous amount of information which would be of special value to the board in its operations.


Ernest George Hansell: I must admit I am still in the dark as to how the act functions with regard to the eligibility of a township to receive the bonus. The minister spoke on that for a moment or two the other day, but I really have not grasped it yet. It is the only question I have to ask him, and I should appreciate it if he would take one minute to tell us exactly what the procedure is in arriving at a decision whether or not certain townships are eligible. I have this difficulty as member for my constituency, that a delegation of farmers will come along and say to me, "Mr. Hansell, we have not got our bonus yet." I will ask them what they have done so far and they will say perhaps, "We have signed all the affidavits, and made our calculations, and we think we are 
eligible." I do not know what to reply to them; in some instances it eventually turns out that they are not eligible. Just what is the procedure from beginning to end?


James Garfield Gardiner: The act as amended this year states that the municipality must make application direct to the federal government if _ they consider any of their townships eligible for payment of the bonus under the act, under either section 3 or section 4. If it is the desire of the province that we should consider any of the townships in the province under section 4-that is the crop failure clause-we should have an application from the province indicating that in Alberta there are over ninety townships with less than five bushels to the acre; in Saskatchewan it is over 171 townships; and in Manitoba, over fifty-four. We already have a statement from Saskatchewan claiming there are more than 171 townships in the province with less than five bushels to the acre. We have no claim from either of the other provinces up to date. When a province makes that claim under section 4 we have our inspectors go out and check the list of townships which have been indicated to us as having under five bushels to the acre, and if we find them to be under five bushels to the acre, we then declare the area a crop failure area, if there are more than ninety in Alberta, more than 171 in Saskatchewan, or more than fifty-four in Manitoba.
Then we proceed to examine into other townships in respect of which we have had claims from either the municipality or the province that they consider the yield to be under five bushels to the acre. If we find them to be under five bushels, we pay under section 4.
If it is suggested to us by the municipalities that the crop yield is under twelve bushels to the acre, under section 3 we allocate in their proper categories these townships so indicated to us by the municipality as being under twelve bushels to the acre; if the average price of wheat be lower than SO cents a bushel from August 1 until November 1, then in November we make a decision whether we will declare this an emergency year, and if it is declared an emergency year we pay according to the different schedules of section 3-$2 in the case of four bushels down; $1.50 in the case of eight bushels down to four bushels; and $1 in the case of twelve bushels down to eight bushels. That, roughly, is the procedure.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the breakdown of this $250,000?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The expenditure last
year was a little in excess of that j but on the basis of what we expect, the expenditures this year are as follows: field staff, S64,500; office staff, $48,000; travelling and field expenses, $SS,500; telephones, telegrams and postage, $25,000; rent, $2,000; supplies and materials, $2,000; freight and express, $1,000; printing and stationery, $13,000; miscellaneous, $6,000.


James Alexander Marshall: Have any instructions gone to the various municipalities in these provinces with regard to the regulations under the new measure?


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulations as they were last year will be known to the municipal bodies, but will have to be amended to conform to the amendments which were made to the legislation a few days ago, and these will be sent out immediately they are agreed to by council.


James Alexander Marshall: As I understand it, the municipal councils are now responsible for reporting to Regina the various townships in their areas which will come under this act.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but they do not require to have the regulations in order ^ to make that representation. The representation is merely that the crop is under twelve bushels to the acre, with an indication of what they believe it to be in those townships.


James Alexander Marshall: But the responsibility last year was upon the provincial government, and it now rests, under the new measure, upon the municipal authorities, does it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and this year we are making the date much later. We have not determined it exactly. Last year it was August 15. This year it will be moved to a later date, and the municipalities will be instructed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
S3. Science service building-to close out contracts, $44,437.
Douglas King Hazen: In connection with this item, where are these buildings located, what are the names of the contractors to whom the payments will be made, and what amount was received by each contractor?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first one is: animal house at Hull, $500; then, animal house, Lethbridge, $5,937.


Douglas King Hazen: And the name of the contractor?


James Garfield Gardiner: Botanical laboratory,
Ottawa, $25,000; entomological laboratory, Winnipeg, $6,000; entomological laboratory, Fredericton, $7,000.


Douglas King Hazen: I asked for the names of the
contractors.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not here the names of the different contractors. But these are merely the amounts to close out the contracts. The contracts are under way, and we do not intend to complete the buildings this year because of the cut in expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
Si. To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,000,000.
Mr. SOPER:: It is with hesitation that 1 take a minute or two to-night, but I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying something regarding this item.
I do not want to criticize the Minister of Agriculture; rather I would compliment him on doing more than I think has ever before been done for the dairy industry in eastern Canada in the matter of the cheese act and the bonus on cheese, whereby he has given us one cent on 93, and two cents on 94. This proceeding has raised considerably the grade of our cheese, and I am sure that it will help us to hold the market for cheese after this war is over.
As regards the factory improvement act, I believe it is one of the best things which has ever been done. We are getting rid in this country of many of our smaller and poorer cheese factories and are having one factory where we had about four before.
I would ask the minister to go just a little further and do something to educate the fanner regarding the grade of his milk. I do not ask the minister to expend any more money. I think the work can be done through the agricultural representatives of the department.
If that were attended to, I think we should have a nearly perfect set-up in the cheese industry in eastern Canada.
There are several other matters I should like to mention, but I know the minister is anxious to get along with his estimates. I would merely remind him that the dairy farmers are the hardest worked farmers in Canada. They work 365 days in the year. If some other of our farmers worked that hard, they would not always be asking for help.


George Taylor Fulford: I merely want to endorse what the hon. member for Lanark has said. I happen to have the honour of representing
Supply-Agriculture

one of the premier dairy counties of Canada. When the new cheese bonus went into effect last year it was stated that it would not mean more than $2,500 to my county, but if I remember correctly, as a result of this splendid legislation over $32,000 was left with the farmers of the county of Leeds.
_ I wish to commend the minister for increasing the grant by $250,000. I know it is money well spent, and surely it is little enough in the way of a bonus to these farmers who are the most honest, most industrious and least complaining citizens of Canada-I refer to the farmers of eastern Canada and especially to those of eastern Ontario.
May I conclude with the suggestion that, in giving out the bonus, a small part of it should be left with the cheese-maker who has succeeded through hard work in producing cheese of premium quality. To-day the cheese of eastern Canada is second to none in the world.


Douglas King Hazen: Of the $750,000 which was
expended last year to provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, how much was spent in New Brunswick and to whom was the money paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the names
of the factories here, but the amount spent in New Brunswick was $634.90. The average amount paid per factory was $52.91. There would be approximately twelve factories.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
35. To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $300,000.
Douglas King Hazen: What amount for the replacement of maple production equipment was spent in New Brunswick, and to whom was it paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is a special arrangement with the province of Quebec onfy. It is a three-way arrangement. There was some difficulty experienced-no doubt the same was experienced in New Brunswick-in connection with equipment. The United States are importing a considerable amount of maple sugar and maple syrup from the province of Quebec, and they objected to the lead content of the sugar and syrup. Finally it was found out that this lead content was due to the fact that the sugar and syrup were made in equipment which had some sort of lead covering to prevent the rusting of the buckets, vats and other equipment. In order to have that equipment changed, an arrangement was entered into under which the Quebec government pay one-third of the cost and the federal government and the farmer each absorb 
another one-third. It is estimated that at this rate it will take about ten years to replace all the equipment they have in the province of Quebec and this is our share of the expenditure for one year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
36. To provide assistance to the provinces for the reestablishment of settlers, $200,000.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to take a few minutes in connection with this item. I do not wish to worry hon. members at this late hour on this very hot night, but the item is being reduced from $400,000 to $200,000. My desk-mate has taken me to task for having painted such a gloomy picture of Saskatchewan, since he has seen this beautiful illustrated booklet, "Saskatchewan, Holiday Land". I am proud of my province. It is beautiful, and we are grateful to the people of all parts of Canada for the generous assistance they have given us during these difficult times. While we have been talking a good deal, I do not think we have concluded for a moment that the agricultural problem prevails only in western Canada.
I was talking to a real estate agent in Ontario a short time ago. He had a list of 299 farms that were being offered for sale, and he said that in some instances the prices asked for the farms would not replace the buildings on those farms. I know that members from all parts of Canada have real problems, and I appreciate the sympathetic consideration which has been given to those of us who have brought forward problems from Saskatchewan.
. The discussion this evening has brought to our attention the stark reality in connection with the drought in that province. According to the information contained in Professor Britnell's "Wheat Economy", there has been a migration of 45,000 people to northern Saskatchewan in consequence of the drought and they are being resettled on the northern lands as a part of the national resettlement scheme. Economies are being made this year, but I submit that a reduction from $400,000 to $200,000 should not result in a reduction in the food allowances given these people. With a possibility of a large surplus of most farm products, I can understand the wisdom of cutting down on capital expenditures which would result in increasing the production of commodities of which we already have a surplus. But I wish the minister would assure us that this reduction of $200,000 in the estimate will not result in a corresponding reduction in the allowances given the northern settlers. Can we have an assurance in that regard?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: None of the food allowance is paid out of this vote. If it is paid in that section of Saskatchewan it is paid under the labour vote, which provides a certain percentage of the payment on food allowances for work done to establish these people by helping them in breaking some of their land, giving them work in those particular areas. That part of the assistance is given through this vote. Fifty per cent of the amount is paid out of this vote and 50 per cent by the provinces, the two making up the total expended for the purpose of assisting these people to establish themselves. They may use what they earn to purchase some of the food, and they may use some of the live stock they are provided with to help to obtain food for themselves, but direct grants for food are not obtained under this vote.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As I recollect, when we were discussing the northern settlers in connection with the labour estimates the Minister of Agriculture reminded me that I was out of order at that time on the ground that northern settlers reestablishment did not come under the Labour department.


James Garfield Gardiner: All of the activities in connection with resettlement of the people come under this department. Constant reference was made at that time to the resettlement plan. That is provided for under this vote, but any assistance given by way of what is generally called relief-food relief and clothing relief-is given under the other vote.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The same inspector who supervises activities in connection with the breaking and clearing of land approves the food allowances. I understand that the same sort of requisitions are given.


James Garfield Gardiner: The inspectors do both jobs. Instead of our appointing men to go over the same ground, we ask the provincial inspector to do our work. The province pays half and we pay half, and the same inspector inspects the whole thing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is it not a fact that the requisitions for food are provided out of the funds set aside for the northern settlers reestablishment branch?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I understand that none of that money comes out of this vote; it comes out of the vote of the Department of Labour, although it is handled by the same branch of the provincial government.


James Alexander Marshall: I regret exceedingly that this vote has been so much reduced. I have come in contact personally with this work as carried on from year to year during the last few years and I know what a great benefit
it has been. I regret, therefore, that it has been cut in half. I should like to see it restored. How many families were rehabilitated under this scheme last year, and how much was spent out of the vote for the purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has always been intended that over a period of time this vote should gradually disappear. It started in 1932 and amounted to 8600,000 at one time. It was then under the Department of Labour and was subsequently transferred to the Department of Agriculture, in 1936 or 1937, and has been operated under this department since that time. The understanding reached with the different provinces, from New Brunswick in the east to British Columbia, was that over a period of time the vote would disappear. This year we are paying to Alberta $25,000, the sum they asked for, and to the others, with the exception of Saskatchewan, we are paying approximately what was requested. Saskatchewan asked for something more than we are giving them. As for the number of families assisted, these are the figures. Alberta: In breaking land for needy settlers^ 123 families, the amount expended being $5,375.75; number of acres, 1,186; clearing land for needy settlers, eight families, $280, 70 acres cleared. Household articles-nothing spent last year. Building materials, twenty-two families assisted, $640.57. Work, stock, et cetera, two families assisted, $312.50. Contracts for bridge and culvert materials, twenty-three families assisted. That is, they were taking out materials for bridges and culverts. The amount was $2.397 59. Moving settlers to desirable land, two families, the amount being $148.60. This makes a total of $8,877.81 spent in Alberta last year.


Douglas King Hazen: What provinces received
money from the $400,000 expended last year to provide assistance for the reestablishment of settlers, and how much each?


James Garfield Gardiner: New Brunswick .. Saskatchewan ....
Alberta	
British Columbia .

And there was an amount of $30,000 unallocated that was not used.
Item agreed to.


Mr. RYAN:: Is it intended to close the estimates right now? I should like to have permission to say a few words.


Thomas Vien: The item is now passed and closed. There is nothing before the committee. Does the hon. member wish to speak on this item?
Supply-Agriculture


Robert Ryan: Not exactly on this item, but I cannot say what I want to say except under this heading.


Thomas Vien: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


Robert Ryan: Since this house opened on May 16 I have sat very patiently listening to the many speeches made. I wish to congratulate hon. members from western Canada upon the manner in which they uphold the interests of that part of the country. At times it has appeared to me as if some hon. members thought the whole of Canada is at the western extremity of the great lakes and no other part is of any importance. I do not say that in the way of criticism; I want to give credit to those hon. members for blowing the horn of the west. But I should like hon. members to understand that the province of Quebec is an important agricultural province. I am sorry that it was necessary for the government this year to decrease the amount spent by the Department of Agriculture. I do not know whether that decrease affects my province or not, but I know that my province could stand certain subsidies from the government to enable it to develop agriculture.
I have for some years tried to interest this government as well as the provincial government in the establishment of the beet sugar industry in the province of Quebec. Two years ago, after a great deal of work not only by myself but by representatives of western Canada, Ontario and Quebec, the then Minister of Finance submitted the whole matter of the sugar industry to the tariff board. I understand that the tariff board was to bring in its report this year, giving the whole history of the sugar industry, and I am disappointed that that was not done. We must realize that the refining of cane sugar is not an industry, but beet sugar production is an industry. The beet sugar manufacturer takes the beets from the farmer, cuts them up, extracts the sugar and refines it. The cane sugar refiner just takes the raw sugar from other countries and refines it.
In the Montreal Star of to-day I find that in 1939-1 assume it is the calendar year-the production in the sugar refining industry increased considerably; the production of cane sugar increased 86,000,000 pounds to a total of 98/,266,491 pounds, while the beet sugar production increased by 26,306,496 pounds to a total of 169,320,343. Granulated sugar comprised about 85 per cent of the total production. Hon. members will note that the beet sugar increase was about equivalent to the production of one beet sugar mill of 1,200 tons' capacity per day for 100 days, but there was cane sugar refined to an amount [The Chairman.]
tha,t would require three beet sugar factories to produce. I am not criticizing the bringing in of this cane sugar because it is absolutely necessary at the present time to bring it in, but I am in favour of greater development of the beet sugar industry, especially in my province. There are beet sugar factories in Alberta, in Ontario and one in course of construction in Manitoba, and Quebec should be started on the way.
Hon. members may say, why not do it? For the simple reason that there has never been sufficient money in the production of beet sugar to interest outside capital to come in. I would have a difficult time in Montreal getting capital to develop beet sugar production with the two cane sugar refineries there.
There are two ways whereby this government could help to develop the industry. One is by putting a processing tax on all cane sugar refined. That would interest capital in the production of beet sugar in this country. If the government did not want to do that, the other way would be to lend sufficient money at a low rate of interest to build beet sugar factories in locations where they would be a success. I believe the day will come when that will have to be done. I't is ridiculous that the output of cane sugar should be permitted to increase. Only about 15 per cent of the sugar requirements of Canada are produced from beet sugar.
There is a great deal I should like to say regarding the development of the beet sugar industry,^ but it is not my intention to take up the time of this committee at this session because I prefer to see that report of the tariff board submitted to the house, because it will probably contain the same material that I wish to present. I am sure that report is going to be very interesting and that if the house gets that report, something will be done to increase the development of the beet sugar industry in Canada.
I listened to the hon. member for Lethbridge, the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for Provencher regarding the development of the beet sugar industry, and I can corroborate every word said by the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Medicine Hat, and they did not say half as much as they might have said, but they indicated the importance of this industry. I contend that this country can get out of the hole only by the industrial development of agriculture. I know of several industries that could be established in my province if the capital could be obtained, industries that would use only agricultural raw materials. This is a matter of great importance to the development of

Unemployed, Miners-Nova Scotia
Canada. I shall not take any more time to-night, but I want to be on record concerning this matter. I regret very much that the report of the tariff board was not submitted to the house this session. I hope next session that report will be brought before the house.
I do not want in any way to obstruct the business of the house, but I considered it absolutely necessary to mention this matter. The minister explained the reason why action was not taken; I am sure he regrets as much as I do that the estimates had to be cut down, but this has been found necessary because of the war. Personally I would not consider it necessary. I believe we could spend all the money we must in order to win this war, but I do not think we should reduce expenditures for the development of Canada. However, I do not desire to criticize, and nothing I have said to-night is offered as criticism. I only hope that in the near future something may be done for the industrial development of agriculture.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Tuesday, August 6, 1940