1944-07-18

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Queens) presented the second report of special committee on social security, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Justice -and perhaps, as he is not in his seat at the moment, he may take this as a notice, and also the Minister of Labour, whose parliamentary assistant is in his seat now and would perhaps take this as a notice-to the desirability of investigating a report which appears in nearly all the newspapers this morning and refers to * mobilization matters in the province of Quebec, and also, I think, touches upon the question of the defence of Canada regulations. This is the statement which I read in the-Canadian press:
Quebec Election

Mr. Dumoulin, member of the legislative assembly for Montmorency for the last five years-
And who is Liberal candidate.
-was quoted as saying


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Dumoulin said:
Go to all parishes of this county and you will see that young men are as numerous everywhere as before the war. I have done everything possible in order that you may forget that there is a war on and that we have got mobilization.
I should like the ministers to investigate that, because it seems to me that, first of all, it is an interference with the mobilization regulations, and secondly, a breach of the defence of Canada regulations.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is a question which should not be asked on the orders of the day.


Gordon Graydon: Surely if this question cannot be asked in this house no question can be asked. As leader of the opposition I have the right to ask the government to investigate so serious a statement as this, because four years ago. a prominent .man of the same province was interned' for a similar sort of statement. Perhaps this has not been correctly reported, and I am asking only for an investigation, not that anything be done before inquiry is made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly call your attention to citation 298, Beauchesne, third edition.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Well, now-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would be very grateful if the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) would behave himself.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister said you would have that job only during good behaviour, too.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The rule States:
Questions asked orally on the orders of the day being called must not be prefaced toy the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or preambles of any kind.
I think the rules of this house should be observed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Leader of the opposition has some leeway.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The leader of the opposition and everybody else must abide by the rules of this house.


Gordon Graydon: The government must
submit to proper inquiry.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a matter that was brought to his attention yesterday by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) with regard to a soldier's wife and family in Toronto, who received notice that they were to be evicted yesterday. Postponement of the proceedings was procured. The Prime Minister advised that the matter would receive consideration at an early meeting of the cabinet. Is the Prime Minister in a position now to advise what course is 'being taken by the government to assure housing facilities, particularly for the wives and families of soldiers who are evicted and are unable to secure other housing acc ommodati on ?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am not able to give my hon. friend at the moment the information he is asking for.



TRANSPORT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved the third reading of bill No. 101, to amend the Transport Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms service.
IS. Central experimental farm, $633,787.
Mr. SENN:: What is the reason for the increases this year?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The increases are: salaries, $2,640; cost of living bonus and other items, $3,662; equipment, $2,065; supplies and materials, $2,185; feed, $1,535; travelling expenses, $2,340. That makes a total of $14,427.


Mark Cecil Senn: As a rule the experimental farms are given up to experiments, but there

Supply-Agriculture
are some farms that are used for purposes of illustration to demonstrate to the farmers how they should carry on. I know it is difficult for an experimental farm to pay its own way, but I would like to know to what extent the central experimental farm accomplishes this. In other words, what is the income from the sale of different lines of produce from the farm. We have the cost of running the farm, but is there any way of separating experimental activities from other work that is done? If so, how do they come out in separating one from the other?


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt very much whether it is possible to separate them entirely. I have here the expenditures on the different activities. Most of these are experimental. Take this particular item of feed. There is an increase of $1,535 and I would assume that has something to do with the experience which farmers have had on all farms in the last year. Crops were poorer than usual and there has been an increase in the purchase of feed. That feed would be entirely used up in carrying on experiments in connection with live stock. In some years they may have a small surplus which is sold-fruit, vegetables, poultry and other commodities. These things are used in experimental work but there may be some products that are sold, though that is not the intention behind the work of the farm. It is not intended that the farm should be operated to make a profit.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand that.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have losses if you do certain things on a farm, and you make a profit if you do certain other things, but I am afraid I have not the figures here. When the officials come we may be able to give that.


Mark Cecil Senn: Could the minister not give us the total sales of farm products from the * central experimental farm last year? I understand that a certain number of cattle and hogs were sold.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure that I have the figures here at the moment.


Mark Cecil Senn: They operate on a rather large scale.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid I shall have to ask the committee to wait until the officials come; I do not think I have them here. Let the item stand.
Item stands.
Experimental farms service.
Vi. Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $1,396,776.


Mr. STIRLING:: I should like information as to what has been accomplished at the
central experimental farm and the farm at Summerland with regard to the substance which it is hoped will be of benefit in dealing with the codling moth. It is known at the present time as D.D.T.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think we can best utilize the time until the officials come by giving the committee a recital of what is being done in connection with a number of experiments on plants having to do with rubber, dandelion and that kind of thing, at the different farms. I have a review of it here. Questions were asked when I was before the committee last and I think if I put this on Hansard it will probably take up the time until my officials are here and I can answer these questions in detail.
Rubber. We have ten acres at Ottawa, and there are six hundred acres in Peterborough county, this larger area being financed by the Department of Munitions and Supply. We also have plots on almost every experimental farm across Canada. Some of these have been successful and others have not.
Dandelions. Six acres are being grown at Ottawa, and we also have plots on most of the experimental farms across Canada. In some cases we have obtained good stands, while in other cases the stands have been very poor, Some plots of dandelions were seeded in 1942 and the material was harvested and turned over to the national research council for [DOT] rubber extraction. Research has also been done as to species and strains, and the rubber evaluation is being done jointly by the science service of the Department of Agriculture and the national research council.
Wool research laboratory. This has been anticipated for a number of years as a field laboratory, not in any way to study uses, as that is being done by the national research council. The purpose of this field laboratory will be to study the evaluation of fibre in the fleeces, both before and after shearing, as a basis for our breeding work with Corriedales, Romnolets, and our high class imported Rambouillets. All these sheep are located in south western Saskatchewan and southern Alberta.
It has been agreed by the national research council, the Canadian national wool growers, and the Department of Agriculture, that Lethbridge is probably the most logical place for the location of this laboratory. The establishment of this laboratory will make possible a more intensive study of wool as a basis for breeding than has been possible in the extensive grading of fleeces in the wool growers' warehouse at Weston, Ontario, where fleeces are studied annually by a special wool
Supply-Agriculture

committee consisting of representatives of the national research council and dominion experimental farms.
Linseed varieties of flax. The standard varieties suited to western Canada are Bison and Redwing, both of which are susceptible to rust which has become more prevalent in recent years. A new rust-resistant strain has been registered under the name Royal, which is as heavy in yield as Bison and Redwing and is sufficient in resistance to rust so that the disease^ does not materially reduce the yield.
Some newer and even more promising strains of linseed flax are being produced at the central experimental farm to meet western conditions, and it is hoped that at least one of these may be multiplied in the near future to either take the place of Royal or to supplement it in rust areas.
Kapok. At the request of the national research council in 1942, a considerable tonnage of milkweed pods was collected with the aid of school children, largely in Carleton county, Ontario. These pods were matured and the floss was extracted by a small hand machine originated by the experimental farms service and the science service. This floss was turned over to the national research council for study as to its value to replace kapok in life belts and fliers' buoyant suits, and similar purposes. In every test it showed buoyancy and water-resisting qualities quite equal to that of first 'class kapok.
It is of interest to. note that the United States had similar results, and in order to guarantee an adequate supply of kapok substitute they entered into a contract with Doctor Boris Berkman of Chicago, who originated a special machine somewhat similar to a cotton gin for separating the milkweed floss from the seed. It is understood that the contract which the United States naval department entered into with Doctor Berkman called for 1,000,000 pounds of floss in 1943, 2,000,000 pounds in 1944, and 3,000,000 pounds in 1945.
The Department of Munitions and Supply at Ottawa have not signified any desire that the Dominion Department of Agriculture produce this material in quantity.
Rust-resistant grains. The cereal division at the central experimental farm, Ottawa, and through its staff at the dominion rust research laboratory, Winnipeg, is continuing to study the possibility of producing rust-resistant grains of all kinds, of superior quality and higher yields than those already discovered.
Two very promising new varieties of oats are in process of being multiplied for distribution, and these should be superior to Vanguard, which is a stem rust-resistant variety, and to Efban, which is a leaf rust-resistant

variety. These new varieties combine resistance to both forms of rust.
The experimental farm at Brandon is specializing in the development of new rust-resistant barleys, and already two new varieties that are exceedingly promising are being multiplied.
The experimental station at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, has developed a variety particularly adapted to the drought areas, namely Prospect barley, which is now so widely used in south western Saskatchewan and south eastern Alberta.
Sawfly-resistant wheats. The experimental station at Swift Current has for many years been studying the possibility of developing a high quality wheat which is of a solid stem character, hence not susceptible to loss from the sawfly.
Remarkable progress has been made, and two strains have been developed with quality comparable to that of marquis wheat but which will have very definite resistance to sawfly damage.
It is probable that in 1945 there may be some considerable volume of these two strains available for distribution. The staff engaged in rust-resistant laboratory work and plant breeding at Winnipeg consists of Mr. C. H. Goulden, agricultural scientist, Mr. J. N. Welsh, agricultural scientist, and Mr. R. F. Peterson, agricultural scientist, as well as junior assistants and seasonal student assistants. Work is being carried on right across the country in connection with these different products. Questions were asked about them at the time my estimates were before the committee previously, and I give this information now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As I have to go to the banking and commerce committee, may I ask the minister whether there has been any extension of the research in regard to potato plant diseases in New Brunswick? I regret to -see that the amount to be voted for these branch farms and illustration stations again has been reduced. I assume, of course, that this is due to the stress of war expenditures, but it seems to me a bit ineffective to cut down the work and have just a skeleton operation. I refer to the question of poultry at the Fredericton station, where they have a poultryman in charge. He is a full-time man, and under ordinary circumstances I think has an assistant. Since the farm foreman has been superannuated I believe the poultryman has temporarily taken over the farm management, and the assistant is now carrying on, but he has only three hundred hens, and of course that is ridiculous having regard to the

Supply-Agriculture
size of the division, the housing capacity and so on. I wonder just why this work has been cut down to these skeleton proportions, though the cost remains approximately the same. It seems to me the staff and the quantum of the stock in hand could be'kept up if they are going to maintain the division in operation. The minister may not have this information before him at the moment, but perhaps at a later stage he will put on the record just what is the position.


Mr. PERLEY:: Like the hon. member for
York-Sunbury, I have to go to the banking and commerce committee, but I should likg to say a word on this item. At page 97 of the report of the department, reference is made to the work carried on at some of the branch -stations, including Indian Head, with which I am particularly concerned. The minister has covered part of the ground I was going to ask him about, with respect to rust-resistant oats and other grain, but I notice quite a reduction in this item. I hope there will not be any reduction in the amount devoted to experimental work at these branch stations. In Saskatchewan we have two or three of these stations doing very excellent work, particularly the one at Indian Head. I was there last year and saw some of the grain with which they were experimenting, and I want to tell the minister I regret to see the decrease in this item. I hope that will not mean that the work of these experimental stations will be affected.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is
that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle wants a sort of break-down of the reduction in the cost of operating our branch farms, particularly at Indian Head?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position is that we have reduced the cost in our estimates this year by $8,010 in total salaries, $14,240 in wages and $38,251 in buildings and lands. The net reduction amounts to $37,438. Practically all those amounts were capital expenditures made last year under supplementary estimates. That is, the $38,000 in connection with buildings and lands was capital expenditure, and these other items cover wages which were occasioned by the fact that we were carrying on certain building activities. I understand there is no reduction in the actual work being done at any of these farms, including the one to which the hon. member for York-Sunbury referred a few moments ago. I -believe that at the Fredericton farm the same work is being carried on this year as was carried on last year.


Mr. GRAHAM:: A few days ago I happened to notice in one of the eastern newspapers an article outlining the great contribution to Canadian agriculture made by Doctor Newman, of the central experimental farm. . Of course I would not want to take away any of the credit due Doctor Newman, but I am sure he would be the first to say that credit also should be given to the staff of the branch farms. I have another reason for speaking this morning. I am extremely proud of the work being carried on at the Swift Current experimental station. As has been so often said in this house, it is an outstanding example of the use that can be made of the dominion experimental station set-up. I know of no farm in Canada that has contributed more to agriculture in the way of research work and the development of proper agricultural methods than has the experimental station at Swift Current.
As I said, I noticed in the article to which I referred that Doctor Newman was incorrectly mentioned as the originator of the sawfly-resistant wheat referred to this morning by the minister. I am sure he would approve my placing on record a brief history of just what occurred in connection with that very important development. Last year, 1943,
I believe the cost of sawfly damage in western Canada was approximately $30,000,000, and that is by no means the limit to which that particular pest could damage our western crops. So that you will see the importance of developing a sawfly-resistant wheat in order to overcome one of the hazards which confront the western farmer. The two strains the minister has mentioned had their origin in 1926. Mr. Kemp, now the assistant superintendent at the experimental station, who has made other valuable contributions to agriculture, happened to notice that certain varieties of wheat with solid stems were not damaged by the sawfly pest. This caused him to think there might be some possibility of a solution to the sawfly problem in the development of a hard-stemmed wheat. He began to experiment in the hope that a hardstemmed wheat might solve the difficulty. In 1937 a slightly more extensive programme was outlined to breed varieties that would be resistant not only to sawfli-es but also to stem rust. I think we in parliament should pay tribute to the men who accomplish these miracles, who find out the laws which govern these things, and do a work which is so beneficial to mankind.
In ordinary hollow-stemmed wheat the sawfly deposits its egg inside the stem when the plant is in the boot stage. The egg hatches and the
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to support what the hon. member for Swift Current
(Mr. Graham) has just said with respect to a matter I have mentioned on former occasions -the pay we are giving to the men who are doing experimental work in agriculture in Canada. These men have certainly not been given the pay to which they are entitled, and as a result we have lost to the United States, where they find better remuneration for their services, some of our best men engaged in experimental work. These men, as the hon. member for Swift Current has said, have rendered a real service to agriculture in Canada. The development of rust-resistant wheat in western Canada, for example, was one of the things they accomplished in a very short period of time, some three years. It was a development which meant millions of dollars to agriculture in Canada and to the Canadian economy as a whole. I strongly support the idea that the minister give serious consideration to seeing that the men engaged in this type of work are given better salaries and more honours than they have been given in the past.
The minister has mentioned certain experiments which are being carried on in Canada with respect to cereals, rubber and other agricultural products. Are experiments being made with a view to developing alfalfa of a variety which will have better seed setting properties than our present varieties have? I believe some work has been done along this line; perhaps the minister will give us particulars and indicate stating how far the experiments have gone. At present it is quite a gamble to grow alfalfa seed in Canada. In some years the seed will set, and then for two years there will be no seed. The production also varies tremendously from season to season. The development of a better variety of alfalfa is of tremendous importance not only to the areas where the seed is being produced but to the whole of Canada, because alfalfa is one of our main fodder crops in the feeding of live stock.
Mr. SE'NN: I would like to emphasize what the hon. member for Melfort, (Mr. Wright) has said about alfalfa. For years alfalfa has been one of our main fodder crops in Ontario, and I believe it has extended now to the western provinces. But unfortunately in the last few years there seems to be less alfalfa grown. There are a number of reasons for that. One, as the hon. member for' Melfort has stated, is the uncertainty of getting a crop of seed. One year you will have a good crop of seed and the next year the seed will not set at all. Experimental work should be undertaken to ascertain if possible why there-
Supply-Agriculture

is so much uncertainty. I think experiments should be conducted to see if the reason for that cannot be found. .
Again, alfalfa as a pasture crop is bad for bloating cattle. I notice in one of the reports of the Department of Agriculture a reference to certain experiments made in that connection on experimental farms, and to the good results obtained from a certain treatment of the cattle. In Ontario every year there is a great loss of cattle from bloating when, they have fed on alfalfa pasture, particularly the second cutting. Something should be done to see if that cannot be prevented.
There is another matter in regard to alfalfa which is important. Experiments have been conducted from time to time in the use of alfalfa and other legumes for silage. I believe experiments are being conducted at the central experimental farm in regard to using alfalfa for silage rather than corn. Will the minister make a statement on that? More attention should' be paid to the development of this crop than has been given to it in the past.


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Melfort, and which he asked on a previous occasion, I would answer in this way. We are carrying on experiments at the experimental farm at Ottawa, also at Saskatoon and Swift Current, in .connection with alfalfa. These experiments are for the purpose of trying to produce varieties in which the seed will set to better advantage than in some of the varieties now being used. The hon. member for Haldimand also referred to this matter. The experiments up to date would suggest that probably the quality of the soil upon which the alfalfa is being produced has much to do with the setting of the seed. The experiments are not completed but are being continued and we are getting results which should be helpful. Any information that we gain from time to time is made available to farmers.


Percy Ellis Wright: Are these experiments in the production of alfalfa seed being made at the illustration stations in northern Saskatchewan in the alfalfa seed producing areas? It seems to me that that would be the logical place. What have been the results obtained?


James Garfield Gardiner: The experiments are being carried on at the illustration stations indicated, and the laboratory work is done at the agricultural college at Saskatoon.


Mark Cecil Senn: Have any experiments been made with regard to bloating in cattle as a result of eating alfalfa?


James Garfield Gardiner: Another question asked by the hon. member for Haldimand was with

regard to the use of alfalfa for ensilage. The experiments indicate that there is a higher protein content in ensilage from alfalfa than in ensilage from corn. Ensilage from alfalfa can be produced to better advantage if molasses is available. At present it is not available, but even without molasses the ensilage from alfalfa has a higher protein content.
With respect to bloating, the experiments that have been carried on indicate that there is no great danger from bloating if the stock are handled in the proper way, and are placed on the alfalfa when it is in its proper stage of development.


Mark Cecil Senn: I think that has something to do with it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have fed cattle on clover and alfalfa in the west, and I found that if the cattle were shut off from water in the early part of the day they would bloat if allowed on clover with a heavy dew on it. The only time I have lost cattle on clover is through their not getting to water in the early part of the day. The experiments that are being conducted show that it is largely a matter of handling the cattle, rather than anything having to do with the alfalfa or clover itself.


Percy Ellis Wright: At what illustration stations in northern Saskatchewan are experiments being carried on to develop a better seed setting variety of alfalfa?


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of it is being carried on at the experimental station at White Fox, which I think is on the north side of the Saskatchewan river, just across from Nipawin.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I am always greatly interested in the estimates for experimental farms and for agriculture generally. I was particularly impressed to-day by the remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current, and I want to follow for a few minutes along somewhat the same lines, because I have often felt, as I believe we all have, that in the hurly-burly of the present day we pay very little heed to the men and women of ability and vision who laid so well the local foundations of many parts of this dominion; men and women whose philosophy of life consisted of deeds of service rather than of words.
With this introduction I want to make a few remarks regarding some men who took a leading part in the founding of experimental farms in western Canada. I have in mind three men particularly, only one of

Supply-Agriculture
whom is still living. That one is Mr. A. C. Fraser, of Brandon. Born at White Lake in the county of Renfrew, Ontario, Mr. Fraser, although now in his ninety-fifth year, is just about as mentally alert as any hon. member of This house. I had the pleasure of visiting with him a few months ago, and I may say that I do not think there is any hon. member who can give a better appraisal of the qualities of the members of our cabinet than can Mr. Fraser, although he has seen only one of them, the Prime Minister. I want to say in passing that the Minister of Agriculture, whose estimates are being considered to-day, seems to be a special favourite of this old gentleman. I have heard in my day, in this parliament and out of it, some very fine speakers, but rarely have I heard one endowed with as great a gift of eloquence as Mr. Fraser possessed in his palmy days, making him one of the outstanding speakers of Canada. He was mayor of Brandon in the early years, and recalls with much satisfaction the urge he made to have experimental farms established in western Canada and his insistence that one of those farms be located at Brandon. That farm is now recognized as one of the most [DOT] iseful and beautiful in western Canada.
A second pioneer to whom I wish to refer in connection with Brandon experimental farm is the late Senator W. D. Perley, whose son so ably represents the constituency of Qu'Appelle, which adjoins my own. The late Senator Perley was born in New Brunswick, but came as a young man to northwestern Canada, settling near what is now known as Indian Head. His work was soon recognized in the fact that he was elected to represent Indian Head riding in the Northwest Council, corresponding to the provincial legislature before Saskatchewan became a province. He was afterwards elected to the federal parliament, and served here until called to the senate. It was during his membership in the House of Commons that Mr. Perley was chosen as one to select those experimental farms, and the fine judgment he showed on that occasion is evident in the splendid locations of various farms in northwestern. Canada.
Then there is another who, more than anyone else, contributed to the .development of the Brandon farm. I refer to one whose name will be recalled and revered by some of the older staff of the agriculture department, the late Doctor S. A. Bedford, who also took an active part in selecting its location. Like so many contributors to the upbuilding of Canada, Doctor Bedford was born in England but came to this country when quite a young man. He remained for a time in Ontario, but in the spring of 1877 set out for
the 'west. He ultimately took up land in the constituency so ably represented to-day by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) and the experimental, farm at his home town, Morden, remains one of the finest to be found in all Canada. Doctor Bedford, in addition to superintending farming operations, surveyed large tracts of country for the dominion government and acted in an advisory capacity for several land companies. These duties necessitated his going farther west, and he took up residence in what is now Moosomin, Saskatchewan. At that time Moosomin was not even included in any electoral division. Doctor Bedford was requested to lay out such a division, and he wTas elected by acclamation as its first member and served for two terms in the Northwest Council. He later was appointed first superintendent of the Brandon experimental farm, and he converted that ordinary prairie piece of land into what is now a thing of beauty and a joy forever. His son. Mr. H. B. Bedford, is one of the leading residents and most respected citizens of Brandon.
I had the privilege a few years ago of attending a function in Doctor Bedford's memory, held at the entrance to a beautiful shaded driveway leading from the highway to the farm buildings. The occasion was marked by the unveiling at the entrance of that driveway of a substantial bronze plaque, on which are inscribed these words:
"Bedford Drive, named in honour of Doctor S. A. Bedford, the First Superintendent of Brandon Experimental Farm 1888 to 1906."
It was a quiet function, but it was a sincere tribute by his friends to the memoiy of a sterling man. There before us were the fruits of his labour-the fertile fields sloping southwards to the Assiniboia river, the herds of pure bred cattle, the poultry houses and the colonies of bees, the trees, the shrubberies, the lawns, a landscape of rare scenic beauty. In looking over these grounds I have felt that the ppet Kipling and Doctor Bedford had much in common. One expressed his thoughts in words, the other in deeds:
Our country is a garden that is full of stately views
Of borders, beds and shrubberies, and lawns and avenues,
With statues on the terraces, and peacocks strutting by,
But tile Glory of the Garden lies in more than meets the eye.
I make no apology, Mr. Chairman, for taking up a little of the time of this house to pay my tribute to these three noble men, Mr. A. C. Fraser, the late Senator Perley and the late Doctor Bedford-not perhaps that they are more deserving than hundreds of others of the pioneers of western Canada, but

Supply-Agriculture

because their duties, being of a public nature, came more directly under the public eye. These are the type of men, scoffers notwithstanding, who have built up this country and made it what it is to-day, the type of men whom doubtless the poet had in mind when, after referring to the material greatness of the west he issued this appealing call:
Bring us men to match our mountains, Bring us men to match our plains.
Bring us men to match our prairies And new eras in their brains.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to support
the hon. members for Swift Current and Brandon in what they have said as to the value of experimental substations. I will give a concrete example. Over seven years ago a substation was set up in our district and I was told then by somebody who pretended to know that it was an outstanding waste of money. This person was running a small store and not making a success of it and he said that the farmers of the district knew all there was to know about their farms. However, the farmers were willing to learn and a substation was set up. A young man was put in charge of it and it was established on a firm basis. I may say that he resigned from his position to join the air force and made the supreme sacrifice, so that that farm is now a memorial to him. There is a field day every year and the farmers and their wives as well as city folks come to see what is done on the farm. They see what can be produced on the three types of soil to be found on the farm. They see the value of fertilizer in the growth of small fruits suitable to the different types of soil. They see what can be done with wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and grasses, and what can be done by cultivation and the proper use of fertilizers. Vegetables of all kinds are grown on the farm, including soya beans. Even the fertilizer is shown five years afterwards in a field of pasture. Now the farmers are benefiting by the work done on this experimental substation and the station has paid for itself many times over. Attend that field day and you will find that even a federal member cannot get in a word edgeways when he tries to say something or to get something explained to him. The farmers are interested in the work and the young man in charge is doing a splendid job. Not only that; he goes all over the community, to district fairs, and so on, giving advice to the farmers regarding the crops on their farms and telling them what their soil is best suited for. If any hon. members would like to see what can be done by the farmers at the head of the lakes I would 'be glad to take them out. I would say to the hon.

member for Brant particularly that the farmers of that district, as I said the other day, were able to raise 140 bushels of ajax oats to the acre, and I would like to see the farmers of any other part of Ontario who can do that. The man employed by the government on that experimental substation is Mr. Knight. He is doing a great job and is held in high respect by the farmers in the community. I would pay a tribute to the Minister of Agriculture for his wisdom in putting in that district a substation that is paying for itself many times over.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The
minister said that there was a plant in Chicago which was separating the seeds from the fluff that is used as a substitute for kapok. Have we a plant of that kind in Canada, or has it been decided that we cannot have one?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have no plant here.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do we ship our material there?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we ship it there.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is
shipped there now?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does
that come back to Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They use it in the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. We have supplies of kapok here.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I agree with the hon.
member for Melfort that we are losing our best men to the United States and to private concerns. We are not only losing our best experimental men in the Department of Agriculture, but those in the national research branch are also leaving. Doctor Gallay, one of our best research men in agricultural products, has resigned, I understand, from the research council and has secured a job in private industry.
Is the cost of the pilot plant for dehydration included in this estimate for experimental farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The operating expenses of the pilot plant established in Ottawa are to be found this year in the vote under horticulture.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is the plant completed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It is under the supplementary vote.

Supply-Agriculture


Heber Harold Hatfield: What was the cost?


James Garfield Gardiner: About $68,000. The
member for Haldimand asked a question with regard to item 13. When this vote carries we will revert to that item'.


John George Diefenbaker: What disposition
has been made of the land and property formerly comprised within the Rosthern experimental farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was sold to an organization of Mennonites at the price of $20,000.


John George Diefenbaker: How many acres are there?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe it is 630.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it sold for cash or on a crop payment basis?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was $5,000 down, but I am speaking from memory. If that is not correct I will correct it on the record. The payments were to be made over a short period of time, $5,000 a year for three years.


John George Diefenbaker: Who were the
purchasers?


James Garfield Gardiner: An organization of
Mennonites. The name of the organization is the Mennonite youth society.


Percy Ellis Wright: When was the sale made?


James Garfield Gardiner: About a year ago.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How much land is under rental at the exiperimental farm at Ottawa, and what is the cost?


James Garfield Gardiner: About $1,600.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Per annum?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. FAIR:: I wish to join with others who harve spoken in support of better pay for our research workers. Agriculture and agricultural research have been neglected in the past. In future something definite must be done if we are to retain the services of our best workers. Their salaries must be increased, and I hope the minister will give heed to what has been said in this regard.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like again to refer to what has taken place in the sale of this farm at Rosthern, Saskatchewan, to a group of Mennonites, at a time when we have a veterans' board in Canada endeavouring to obtain suitable land for veterans returning from the present war. It seems to me that this farm, which was a valuable piece of
100-313i
property situated in a reasonably good area, instead of being disposed of to any group of individuals, should have been retained for the soldiers returning from this war. The matter of the disposal of agricultural land to various groups in this country has been protested continuously for the last three years, in Manitoba and other parts of western Canada. The government are setting a very bad example in disposing of farm land at this time when it will be required for soldier settlers returning from the war.


Grote Stirling: Could the minister make a statement now with regard to the experimental' work on the substance which is being used to cope with the codling moth?


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably I should say something in reply to what has just been said by the hon. member for Melfort with regard to the experimental farm at Rosthern. The farm has been sold to an organization of Mennonites which exists in that community. It is not sold in the ordinary sense. It is not to be utilized in the ordinary sense that a farm is utilized when sold by private individuals to Mennonites. I think what is in the mind of the hon. member for Melfort is that in certain sections of the west there is some opposition to organizations coming in and buying up land and settling people on it. That opposition has been expressed by quite a number of organizations, as has been stated; but this organization is an organization of Mennonites associated with the Mennonite colony close to Rosthern, located around that farm. There is no doubt that the farm lands will be farmed, but their main object in wanting the property was to make it the site of a summer school that they operate for their own people, in which they do give instructions on matters having to do with farming. Therefore it was thought that these people, who live in the community where the farm was operated for so long, could perhaps do as good service in connection with it as could be done by anyone else to whom we might have sold it, and it was sold to them.


John George Diefenbaker: Was anyone else given an opportunity to bid on it, and were bids received?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we called for bids several times, and speaking from memory, $15,000 or $16,000 was the highest bid received.


John George Diefenbaker: The buildings on the farm must be worth over $30,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure about the $30,000, but they would be worth much more when they were constructed than the sale price would indicate. The value of those
Supply-Agriculture

buildings as part of an ordinary farm, would be very low in comparison with the actual
cost.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the farm not have been suitable for breaking up into farms for veterans under the Veterans' Land Act? It seems to me that you are paying that much or more for property of that nature.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is less than a section. It probably could have been sold to two veterans, but it could not have been sold for anything like the amount of money under the terms of the act, unless the veterans could get the money from somewhere else. It could only foe divided into two. It is less than a section of land, and you could not make more than two farms out of it.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Representations have been made to the department with respect to the establishment of a beef herd on the Nappan farm, having special reference to the utilizing of the marsh lands, pasturage, hay and grains. Has the department decided on a policy with regard to the establishing of such a beef herd? They have on that farm two herds of dairy cattle, and I believe they are operated with success. The experimental farm at Nappan is one of the original experimental farms in Canada. It has given splendid service to agriculturists in the maritime provinces. Several other farms are now' specializing on particular work. I think it is agreed by those interested in agriculture that the area at the head of the bay of Fundy is the best adapted, at least in eastern Canada, to the growing of live stock, particularly beef cattle. In former years most farmers had large herds of beef cattle and utilized the crop from the marshlands for hay and pasturage. But those marsh lands have deteriorated through action of the tides and lack of drainage. We are awaiting a declaration of policy from the federal and provincial governments on the reclamation of this land. I should like to hear from the minister now or at a later date the policy of the department with respect to the restoration of these marsh lands. I know' that some work is being done, such as the rebuilding of dikes destroyed in 1943. That is appreciated by those directly concerned, but it does not cover the main problem of the reclaiming of the marshlands and the utilizing of tens of thousands of acres that now do not grow crops but which might be giving the highest yield per acre of any land in eastern Canada. I should like to know w'hen we may expect a statement from the minister as to the policy regarding the marsh lands.

There is one other matter about which I should like to get information, namely, the establishment of a much-needed animal disease research laboratory in the maritime provinces. I understand that representations have been made to the department to this end. Such a laboratory should be based on the experimental farm at Nappan or located in the central part of the maritime provinces. It is much needed for control of diseases and pests in all kinds of live stock-cattle, sheep, horses, foxes, and poultry in the maritimes. I should like to have a pronouncement from the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as the marsh lands are concerned, they have been discussed a number of times in the house during the nine years that I have been here. As the hon. member knows, I have been very sympathetic toward getting whatever could be done to recondition those lands and get them back into use in a manner similar to that of many years ago. We have carried on some experiments in connection with it. Last year we had a vote of 810,000 * for that purpose, and (he money has been expended for the purposes for which it was voted. This year we are bringing down in the supplementary estimates another amount. At the moment I am not in a position to state how much will be voted finally, but we are asking for an increased amount for experimental work. This year that work will have to do largely with the finding of equipment suitable to put that land back into condition, and of course at the present, time it is difficult to get such equipment. Some of it is of the kind used in levelling land generally; a great deal of that work is being done in connection with war activities, which makes the equipment difficult to obtain. Nevertheless whatever work can be done this year is being done. In addition we are carrying on, in cooperation with the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, repair work in connection with the damage done last year, as I understand it, by an extra high tide, which made considerable repairs to the dikes necessary. That work is being carried on; $25,000 has been appropriated for that purpose. Up to date that is the extent of the work. The operations we are carrying on in an experimental way are for the purpose of assisting us to determine what final policy will be adopted. As hon. members from that section know, we have a committee working in the matter, making reports and giving us some advice as to what might be done in connection with these properties. These matters are under consideration at the present time.

Supply-Agriculture
.Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):	What about
the animal diseases laboratory?


James Garfield Gardiner: Representations have
been made in that regard, but at present we have nothing in the estimates to take care of it.


Percy Chapman Black: I am sure the people of the maritime provinces appreciate what the department is doing to preserve some of these areas that were recently subjected to damage by the breaking of the dike. We also appreciate the attitude of the minister, as I have said repeatedly. We appreciate what has been done by Doctor Barton, and especially by Doctor Archibald, who has charge of the experimental farms. For years he has been advocating a policy of reclaiming the marsh lands, and very' successful experiments have been carried on at the experimental farm at Nappan under his direction, and under the immediate supervision of the superintendent, Mr. W. W. Baird. But the marsh owners for years have been waiting for a declaration of policy with respect to the whole marsh land area. We appreciate the vote of $10,000 last year for surveys in this connection; no doubt that is necessary, but a great deal of work can be done without very much in the way of surveys. It is obvious to anyone and it is desirable that this work should get under way without delay, because at best it will take several years to bring this land into a proper state of production.
I am particularly pleased with the minister's reference to the experimentation in regard to machinery for use on marshlands. The age of hand work is past; these lands must be reclaimed and kept drained by the use of machinery. Fifty, a hundred and three hundred years ago this work was done almost entirely by manual labour. To-day, however, we must rely upon special machinery, and I recognize the desirability of carrying on experiments to determine the different types of machinery required for different kinds of work, in order that these very fertile lands in the bay of Fundy district may be brought into production.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to make a statement in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Yale with regard to the codling moth.
The codling moth is becoming an increasingly serious pest in all the apple growing regions of Canada. It is now the most important orchard pest in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, where eventual elimination of the industry is threatened unless effective economic control is soon developed. Two very promising projects are being pursued at
the Vernon laboratory. These involve the destruction of the moths by toxic sprays, and the control of overwintering larvae by special dormant applications to the tree trunks of sprays consisting of oil solutions of dinitro-cresol. In general spray practice particular emphasis is being placed on the use of arsenical substitutes. In the warmer parts of Ontario there are two broods of codling moth and the insect is the most serious source of loss to apple growers; pears, too, are affected. Present investigations include improvement of the spray programme, adoption of supplementary measures, and the development of biological control, chiefly by parasites. Until a few years ago the codling moth was not of importance in Nova Scotia orchards. It has increased since then and is locally a severe pest. Both there and in Quebec investigations are in progress to establish improved control practices.


Mr. WOOD:: I am sorry I did not take part in the discussion when the matter of alfalfa was brought to the attention of the minister by the hon. member for Haldimand, but I should like to say that in my opinion this is one of the most important matters to be discussed this morning in connection with agriculture in my section of the country. Alfalfa has become one of the most impor-tants crops in Canada. I well remember that in my youth it was a common thing to get seed from the second crop of alfalfa, and there was seldom if ever a failure.


Mark Cecil Senn: Hear, hear.


George Ernest Wood: I am glad that statement meets with the approval of the hon. member. I am inclined to the view that we are having difficulty to-day because we have followed the recommendation of the department and changed the variety of alfalfa we were growing. Formerly we grew what was known as Ontario Variegated, and we were advised to change to the Grimm variety. The old Ontario Variegated had its disadvantages, of course. One was that it was a coarse, deep-rooted variety which was hard to plough. To-day, however, with tractors to do the ploughing, that disadvantage is not so important. It also grew perhaps somewhat coarser, provided you did not cut it in time, but I have never had the same success since I have been growing the Grimm variety. I am rather inclined to believe that while experiments undoubtedly are necessary, they do not always bring about improvements. I think it was Charles Dickens who had Sam Weller say, when he married the second time, that changes are not always improvements. I have not seen any of the Ontario
Supply-Agriculture

Variegated alfalfa for a number of years, and I was wondering if the experimental farms still have that variety and whether the possibility of seed production has been increased. It may be that conditions have changed, and that for this reason we do not get equally good results. It may be that the change of varieties is not responsible. I think the weather conditions have some effect. Speaking as a practical farmer, while I know that the experimental farms do highly technical work, it has been my experience that they often learn from the ordinary dirt farmer certain things which have proven valuable to those farmers. I believe we should try to get a variety of alfalfa which would give us an assurance of seed production such as we used to get. My recommendation would be that the experimental farms continue investigations of the recommended varieties, and those we discarded some years ago.


Percy Chapman Black: Would the minister reply to my inquiry with respect to the establishment of a beef hex'd at Nappan, with special reference to hay and pasturage that can be grown on marsh land?


James Garfield Gardiner: This matter is under consideration, but there has been no definite decision reached with regard to it.
The question of the hon. member for Haldi-mand as to item 13 was with respect to a break-down of sales and production on the different farms. All I can give is the allotment last year for the different divisions and the returns therefrom. They are as follows:
Division	Allotment	Returns from salesAnimal husbandry	. . $73,575	$38,000Bee 	1.000Cereals	.. 77.895	Xo salesFarm superintendent....	.. 44,855	No salesFibre 	Xo salesField husbandry 	. . 74,895	Xo salesForage 	Xo salesHorticulture	.. 113.120	3,000Poultry 	.. 75,975	8,000Tobacco 	1,000Cooperative assistance ..	.. 34.970	Xo salesUnallotted	.. 710	Xo sales


Mr. TUSTIN:: Two or three years ago there was considerable experimentation in connection with a new type of tomato. I refer to the Jahnru. At that time we thought we had something really worth while and new, for canning purposes. In the last year or two I have heard nothing about this tomato, and I am wondering if the department is still conducting experiments.
Is there an illustration plot in the county of Prince Edward? If not, will the minister give 
consideration to the establishment of one at that point? In 1943 the county of Prince Edward produced and processed thirty-two per cent of all tomatoes processed in Canada-an outstanding feat for a county of that size. They should have some encouragement through the establishment of an illustration plot.


James Garfield Gardiner: The tomato to which reference has been made, and concerning which we conducted experiments some time ago-I believe there was some discussion of it on the floor of the house-has been abandoned. Experiments have been dropped, largely because it is believed that better varieties have been developed both here and at the Vinelands station in the Niagara peninsula. Persons are being advised to use the other varieties, rather than the one with which we were experimenting.
The hon. member referred to another point. I believe there is under consideration, and probably will be under discussion when our supplementary estimates are before the committee, the possibility of establishing a station in that area. It would not particularly have to be in Prince Edward county, but would be in that vicinity, and would be of assistance to the people in that area. We shall probably have an estimate for this purpose. If we do not, I shall give reasons why not.


George James Tustin: Can the minister give any further information as to why experiments with the Jahnru tomato were discontinued? Was it because of the keeping qualities after canning? This was really a firm tomato, and I should like to know the reason for abandoning the experiment.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were abandoned for very much the same reasons as were outlined by the hon. member for Swift Current a little while ago, when he talked about results obtained from sowing the same kind of seed in an effort to get a sawfly-resistant wheat. This tomato did not produce true to type. I believe the discussion in the house on a former occasion resulted from difficulties many people who had tried to grow it had experienced. It will be recalled that there was a suggestion at that time that we should pay for some of the losses, because the seed had been distributed. The experiments have been completed to a point of being able to prove that it would not produce according to type. Having found that out we thought it best not to proceed further.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

S apply-Agricult ure
Production service-Health of animals-
16. Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $1,848,648.
Mr. BURTON:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note a slight increase in the estimate, but I would be more pleased if it were still greater.
A number of us have been worried for some time in connection with veterinary services for agriculture. In years gone by we have suffered from low live stock prices, with the result that there were many times when it was difficult for the farmer to pay for veterinary services required for his animals. Consequently many of the young men who would have followed the veterinary profession did not do so. They either went somewhere else, or engaged in some other type of occupation. The result is that in many parts of western Canada with which I have been familiar for a long time the veterinary services at our disposal are strictly limited. In fact one could travel in some areas hundreds of miles where there are thousands upon thousands of live stock but no facilities for veterinary services. This condition has a bearing upon the future health of the human population.
The veterinaries working under the Department of Agriculture are to be complimented on the efficient service which they have given in the years gone by. We are indeed blessed that that service has been kept up to the extent that it has been through succeeding administrations. The dominion veterinarians, commonly referred to in many parts of the country as the dominion vets, have always been looked upon as men who knew their business and attended to their business. But to-day in many parts of the country the only veterinaries are those who are working for the Department of Agriculture. They have their own work to do, and the result is that the people generally cannot get veterinary service for their live stock.
On page 62 of the estimates, under health of animals, a break-down is given of the veterinary service, showing veterinary inspectors, associate chief veterinary inspectors and so on. I would ask the minister what is the average age of the men in this service, how many of them are in line for retirement within a short time, and what steps is the department taking to have young men trained to fit into these positions that will be becoming vacant-because I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that at least in my part of the country there is very little opportunity to replace these men from among the profession.
I would also ask a question which I believe is related to this vote. It really comes under
the Meat and Canned Foods Act. Many of us appreciate the splendid service which the department has given in the inspection of meats at the slaughtering plants and packing houses. Beef and pork coming through these plants are properly inspected, but while we are spending a considerable amount of money to see that meat is properly inspected, I believe that we are doing only half the job. While beef and pork are inspected, there is no proper inspection of poultry going through these packing plants. They have the poultry there, feathered but not drawn, and they are graded, and that is all the inspection of poultry that takes place. Coming down to the city here on a long trip one often meets people and discusses things with them. This last winter I had the opportunity of talking to a man who has been working for a number of years in a packing plant where they handle an enormous amount of poultry. Knowing what we have to contend with both as raisers and consumers of poultry, and particularly to see that diseased birds are not consumed, I asked this man what sort of inspection took place in this packing plant. He told me that all they could go by was this, that if a bird measured up to certain qualifications as being a finished bird, you usually could judge that that bird was not diseased. I said, and he agreed with me, that that was not an absolutely safe bet, that sometimes you would find a bird which, although apparently well finished, would be too much diseased to be safe for human consumption. He told me that the only safeguard which the consumers had was to buy high-grade poultry. I asked him what they did with the rest of the birds at the packing plant. He just grinned and said, "We put them into cold storage and later on we sell them out to some of the cheaper restaurants."
Any man who is familiar with poultry will know the number of diseases that are to be found in the ordinary flocks of poultry if they are not well taken care of, and even in some of the best taken care of flocks. While we inspect beef and pork passing through the slaughtering houses and packing plants, we allow diseased birds to be put into cold storage and later sold to the public. That is doing only half the job when it comes to inspecting the health of animals in its relation to the health of human beings.
We are indeed concerned that steps should be taken to continue to give us the efficient veterinary services that we have had under the Department of Agriculture, and also that steps be taken to ensure that young men will be trained to prepare themselves to carry on this important work.
Supply-Agriculture



' COMMONS

Mr. BENCE:: I should like to concur in what has been said by the hon. member for Humboldt with respect to the extension of these services. I have not the practical knowledge of the subject that he has, but I do know that there are large sections of Saskatchewan which are not serviced and cannot possibly be serviced under present conditions. The day of the private veterinary is through in this country, and I feel that the only way to meet the situation and to extend the service is to encourage young men to go into this type of work and to have positions open to them in large areas such as we have in Saskatchewan where veterinaries are badly needed. I suggest to the minister that the scale of remuneration provided for these men, in view of the training they have to undergo and the terrific amount of work they are called upon to do, is not as high as it should be, and must be increased if the administration expects to attract men into this type of work.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Ernest Wood: I should like some information as to the general set-up of the health of animals branch. Having been in personal contact with the department for twenty-three years, I am prepared to say that I believe this is one of the most efficient branches of the agricultural service that we have, and one which has contributed a great deal to the general welfare and well-being not only of live stock but of individuals. The maintenance of good healthy live stock will promote better conditions of health in human beings. If the department is to retain the confidence of those who are most closely associated with it, the live stock producers of this country, it is essential that nothing that is necessary to make the department successful be overlooked. It is perhaps a delicate subject, but I have sometimes wondered whether, in the appointments by the civil service commission to the health of animals branch, veterinary workers who have had a great deal of experience in more subordinate positions are always chosen. For instance, when such a position as that of chief veterinary inspector becomes vacant, I am not sure that every effort is made to get the man best qualified to give direction to those whose business it is to give directions under his control. A certain amount of latitude must of course be allowed to those responsible for making the selection of these officers, but it is well that officials of the department, and in particular the health of
fMr. Burton.]
animals branch, should know that the type of farmer who is interested in the branch is the pure bred live stock farmer, who repre*-sents in large measure the very best element of the farmers,, the men who are sincerely interested not . only in maintaining production but in producing something which will improve the quality of live stock and the health of animals. These men take considerable interest in appointments affecting this branch, and sometimes they wonder whether the principle of merit is ignored, in that men who have had experience and have been giving direction are occasionally displaced by junior officers with less experience. The farmer keeps a pretty close eye upon the administration of this particular branch.
I do not know that it is up to me to offer any recommendations as to what the civil service commission should do with regard to making these appointments, but we believe that merit should be the title to any promotion, and it has been somewhat difficult for some of us to understand why some men who have filled subordinate positions should be pitchforked over the heads of others who have taken a responsible part in the administration of the branch and the carrying on of its work. I am inclined to think that sometimes a man can be so faithful in a position which calls for hard work that he is kept in that subordinate position because it is a hard job and is not allowed to reap the reward of his efforts and attain a position which would give him some of the credit and reward to which his work entitles him.
I hope I have made myself clear. I am not finding particular fault with the type of men who have been administering the branch, because we have had some splendid men in this particular department. All I want the department to know is that the farmer is interested in the work of the branch and looks with some surprise at some of the things which have been done. I understand that the civil service commission can easily give an answer, but that answer will not satisfy the average farmer. Maybe we are the silent partners in this business, but we observe what is going on. We trust the civil service commission to make appointments, but I am not sure that they are always wise in appointments they make.


Mr. REID:: The hon. member for Brant has drawn to the attention of the minister the health of animals, particularly cows; but I wonder whether it has been drawn to the minister's attention that protection should be given to animals against the human race. At least it was news to me this year when I read

Supply-Agriculture
a statement made by Doctor W. R. Gunn, who said in Victoria before the agriculture committee of the legislature:
It's not always the cow that's to blame when human being are infected with undulant fever or septic sore throat and other ailments common in dairying districts and among people who drink their milk raw.
Doctor W. R. Gunn, 11.C. live stock commissioner, told the agriculture committee of the legislature to-day that humans are too prone to blame the cow for prevalance of the infection known among humans as undulant fever and among dairy animals as Bang's disease. . . .
"It is possible that human beings may carry the organism of undulant fever around in their blood and if they come in contact with cows, infect them," he said.
"We know that has been the case with tuberculosis. We had one case of a sanitarium herd which we did everything to clean up but we got no results until we traced the T.B. to one of the dairy workers. Similarly with septic sore throat.
"That is definitely a human organism and if some dirty human comes in contact with a herd, the cows get it and are consequently blamed when it is transmitted to other humans."
That is most interesting, especially in view of the fact that we have a farm population of some three million people, with a permanent hired man population of 64,130. Has the minister had that brought to his attention, and if so, have representations in this regard been made by his department to the health branch?


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Mark Cecil Senn: No, Mr. Chairman. I thought the minister might be. waiting to answer the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.
I was much interested in what the hon. member for Brant had to say with regard to promotions and appointments. Certainly they should be made according to merit. I do not know however of any appointments which have been made without a certain amount of merit to them, although I think sometimes the principle could be followed a little more closely than it has been in the past.
I recall very well how pleased a number of hon. members in this chamber were, I think it was in 1935, when the United States-Canada agreement was completed, and what was said about the lowering of the tariff on cream and milk which was to enter the United States. I understand that this branch undertakes at all times to. inspect the herds and apply the tuberculin test to any herd whose cream or milk they contemplate sending to the United States. I should like to know if that is being done, and if so, how many applications have been made for that type of inspection so that permits may be granted to send milk and cream to the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: A number of matters have been spoken of. The first is the question of promotions within the department, particularly promotions which are related to the health of animals branch. I have only to say that the same practice is followed in respect of promotions in the health of animals branch as is followed throughout the department and elsewhere in the service. The matter of seniority has something to do with it. That is, provided the qualifications are the same, seniority of course would count. The particular positions which were discussed by the hon. member for Brant are positions to which both of those qualifications apply. On one occasion when the gentleman in question was under consideration it was a matter of appointing the man who had seniority in the department as well as considering qualifications which were at least equal to those of others who were available for the position. For the position under consideration at present, the same study will be given to qualifications as was given on previous occasions and selections will be made accordingly.
The hon. member for Humboldt this morning raised a question as to the possibility of filling positions in the department as a result of graduations of veterinarians from different colleges in Canada. I can answer his question best by saying that we have now in the employ of the department 383 veterinarians, though we should have a few more. Our staffs are not fully manned at present because there are great demands upon them in consequence of the increased production of hogs and the present arrangements made in connection with the marketing of beef and so forth. That all requires more men than we have had in the past, and we could use more if they were available. Generally, we require about 25 men each year to take care of replacements. I think this fully answers the questions asked as to how many men go out each year, how many come in, how many we have on the staff and so on. We have only two veterinarian colleges in Canada, one at Guelph, and the other at Oka in the province of Quebec, and from these a year ago there were 41 graduations. This year there will be 19 and next year we expect there will be more; that is, we anticipate a larger number, but of course the students still have to go through their courses.
These figures on the average would probably take care of our requirements if there were no other demands to be met. I pointed out this morning that live stock is worth more now than before the war. There is much more of it and there is a greater demand for



BCVI9ED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
veterinarian services than there was a few years ago, and that may have some bearing on the question of salaries, though not so much as might appear on the surface. The salaries of all civil servants are compared right through the service from time to time by the civil service commission. As a matter of fact it is impossible for me to get anyone put on in the Department of Agriculture anywhere, even outside the civil service as that is generally understood. It is difficult to get any man engaged in the department without referring the matter to the civil service commission.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Can you not get temporaries?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not even temporaries.
The general rule is that they must be submitted to the civil *ervice commission, not on the question whether they will be hired or not but on the question of qualifications as compared with others receiving comparable salary for a similar position. Comparisons must be made with salaries paid in other parts of the civil service, and of course there is the further consideration as to whether a man is going to a job that will last only three or four months, for which there is no superannuation, or whether he is going to take on work that will be permanent, carrying superannuation at the end of a certain period. All these factors must be considered, but an attempt is made to keep the services given in one department paid on a level comparable with the services in another and throughout the department in question. On that basis the salaries paid to veterinarians are possibly the same as salaries paid to others for comparable work, and while I would be most anxious to see those in my department paid higher salaries than at present, I would suggest that in order to get them paid higher salaries it would probably be necessary to have higher salaries paid throughout the other services.


Joseph William Burton: They do however benefit from the cost of living bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. This morning certain persons were mentioned, I believe, by the hon. member for Swift Current. One of those mentioned in the group of three would be a person who would have received an increase had it not been for the war. There is however a general regulation at present whereby increases are not given except under restricted circumstances. But cost of living bonuses are paid, and while salaries have not gone up, the bonus in some cases is paid on a basis which gives a higher return than is indicated by the mere salary itself. The position is related to

the other question we were discussing, whether veterinarians can keep themselves in employment in different parts of the country in peace time. The condition was different in peace time from the present condition, as the member for Humboldt understands. For a time the price of live stock was low, and a person would think many times before sending a considerable distance for a veterinarian, but today the situation is different. If veterinarians were available in certain areas they would undoubtedly be called much more often than the farmers can get them at the present time. The situation that exists to-day has its effect on salaries. Salaries are not as high as they might have been. In other words, men were quite satisfied to take a job in the department at a salary rather than try to practise outside. All these factors are considered, but the chief factor is the relationship between officials in the department and between those in the department and officials in other departments.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is the cost of living bonus written into the salaries of civil servants as it is into the wages of those working in industry?
Mr. GAR-DINER: It is not written into the salaries. Every time I am asked for an explanation of increases I have given the increase resulting from salary, which means that there is a legal increase that does take place in some cases, and in addition to that there is the increase that comes about as a result of the cost of living bonus.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why is the cost of living bonus not included in the salaries of civil servants just as it is in wages paid in industry?


James Garfield Gardiner: The theory is that the whole matter is to be considered at the end of the war in relation to conditions then existing.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is an important branch of the department. The minister has made an interesting statement with regard to veterinary inspectors, of whom he says there are 383 in the department. Looking over the annual report of the department I see on page 106 a statement with reference to orders in council that have been passed establishing restricted areas in connection with bovine tuberculosis. In Saskatchewan twenty-two new municipalities came in within the period covered by this report. There are 300 odd municipalities in that province and I would like the minister to make a statement as to the number that have come in. I notice from this report that certain municipalities are withdrawing from the restricted areas. Why would that be? On the following page there is a table of the per-

Supply-Agriculture
centage of inspected slaughterings in each province to the total for all Canada. It shows that Saskatchewan has almost the lowest of any, only 6-26 per cent of the slaughterings of cattle. Could the minister give us an idea of the comparative health of animals in each province? May we take this percentage of inspected slaughterings in the annual report as an indication of the health of animals in western Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the last question, the experience has been that the number of reactors to tuberculosis in western Canada is lower than the number in eastern Canada. That, of course, would be due to different conditions which I do not think I need to enumerate to the committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: Has climate anything to do with it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Climate may have, but I would think that one thing that has as much to do with it as anything else is the fact that we have not had live stock there as long as other places, and our foundation stock when it was taken out there was probably checked. We have not had live stock there as long as they have had them in other sections. Then, the way in which live stock is housed has something to do with it as well. Quite a number of considerations enter into it, but the fact is there is less tuberculosis on the prairie provinces than in the other provinces.
With regard to the other question, as to tuberculosis areas going in and out, I understand that there are no districts that have ever been organized as anti-tuberculosis areas that have disorganized and gone out. There are districts in which we did have tuberculosis free herds, accredited herds, and those have been disorganized in some cases because the whole district has come under the tuberculosis act. I understand that when once a district comes under the act there is no way in which it can disorganize.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Is it not compulsory under the act to have further inspection at certain periods?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is quite true. The district has to be rechecked every so often in order to keep it in good standing; but there is a possibility that if the district were not checked over a period of years the herds in that area would not be in good standing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My understanding is that the act compels that check within a certain period. If inspectors are not available, what happens to the district?


James Garfield Gardiner: If inspectors were not available and it was found impossible to carry
on the inspection for a period of time, people would refuse to accept stock out of that area as being free from tuberculosis. I may have some figures in regard to that. That, if it happened, would be the responsibility of the department, and perhaps a responsibility that the department could not discharge, because of the difficulty for the time being of getting veterinarians in to do the job.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What would happen then?


Mark Cecil Senn: What happens when cattle are sold for export? Is there not a special provision in cases of the kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they come from an area that is in good standing, they are permitted to go direct. If the district is not in good standing, they must be checked within thirty days of the time they come to the boundary line.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister give us the number of areas or rural municipalities that are in the restricted area, and also the number of inspectors that are operating in Saskatchewan out of the 383?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are fifty-five
municipalities in Saskatchewan. The numbers and names are here.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is not very many out of some three hundred municipalities.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not so many.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many inspectors are there in the area?


James Garfield Gardiner: These are the certified districts; some others have been inspected but not yet certified.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am seeking information, and I am not yet clear on it. Let us presume that a district in British Columbia is in an accredited area and inspectors are not available. What happens to that district? What happens to a district that wants to continue in the area but cannot get inspectors within the period?


James Garfield Gardiner: All that happens is this. I know it is an inconvenience to some people, but anyone who wishes to ship cattle out of that area into an anti-tuberculosis area or into the United States would have to have his cattle tested by a veterinarian somewhere within thirty days of the time that they are shipped.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sambury):: What is the position in New-Brunswiek; is it entirely within the line?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: New Brunswick is all in. All the maritimes are in.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is very interesting, and I am glad to hear it. How many inspectors are available in New Brunswick? How many veterinarians are there on the staff in New Brunswick? I think there used to be one at McAdam, on the border, and one at Fredericton, but I am not sure.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should have said, all the maritimes with the exception of Cape Breton.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is not yet clear to me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a minute until I get this information.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I started it; let me finish it. I am not quarrelling with this matter, but I cannot see why a certain area in British Columbia that is accredited but cannot get inspectors should be penalized when shipping out or elsewhere. I mat be mistaken, but I think I am correct and that it is happening in British Columbia to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: You would not be
penalized other than to this extent: no one would accept your cattle unless they had been inspected, and you would have to have them inspected within thirty days of the time they are shipped out. Suppose, as an example, you are living on the edge of any of those districts or areas. You are not allowed to buy cattle from your first neighbour just across the road and bring them into the area without test. Anyone who brings them in there has to have them tested within thirty days of the time they are brought in, and that, is the restriction which compels anyone in a district which has not been checked up to date to have them checked individually if he desires to ship any out within that period of time.


Mark Cecil Senn: How often have these cattle to be tested in a restricted area? Is it once a year, or once every two years? When do they lose their accredited standing?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they are below one-half of one per cent. They are certified for a three year period, sometimes it is six years, sometimes it is longer. The periods are three, six and nine years. There are nine veterinarians in New Brunswick.


Mr. STOKES:: What are the new areas in Ontario? I understand that several places have been petitioning to be accredited, but have not yet received it.


James Garfield Gardiner: At the beginning of the war we were pressing forward the checking of

the districts in Ontario. The reason for that was that we had a good trade developing between this country and the United States, and we were most anxious that all the districts out of which shipments were going should be checked as soon as possible. We were working back gradually from the United States boundary line into the north country, to try and get the situation cleaned up. After the war came on, for a short time we almost discontinued the policy, but finally took the position that it should be continued wherever necessary in order to round out a district. We made an exception of some of the areas in Ontario from which breeding stock in particular was being exported to the United States; we tried to cover those districts as quickly as possible. Then we were trying to round out counties or, in the west, municipalities which were hedged in by others, where difficulties would arise because you could not move cattle back and forth across the boundary lines. We have been trying to round out those areas in order to remove that difficulty as much as possible. We have followed the practice of taking them in the order in which applications are received and put through.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the first move have to come from the locality?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. A petition comes in from the district, which must be signed by two-thirds of the people concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words there is a sort of local option. Has the government ever given consideration to making it compulsory? It is such a good thing it seems to me it should be compulsory.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose we might have that when we get to the time when most of the country is covered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
that is asking too much.


James Garfield Gardiner: At the moment I think it is.


Mr. McNEVTN:: I should like to refer particularly to the county of Haliburton, which I think could be classed as one of the areas described by the minister. It is surrounded by accredited areas, such as Peterborough, Victoria on the south and Ontario on the west. These are all accredited districts. The county of Haliburton is a stocker producing county with a comparatively small cattle population. Very few cattle are finished and sent to market from this county. In the fall of the year conditions become congested, and I am sure the local veterinaries and any assistants they are able to secure have more work than they can

Supply-Agriculture
handle. Would it be possible to have that small area included now, in order to round out the district? I cannot give the exact cattle population-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is eight thousand. The matter is under consideration, but we are not working in there yet.


Mr. WHITE:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter having to do with the sale of hogs in Ontario; I do not know whether or not the same conditions exist in other provinces. Since the system of rail grading of hogs has been in force in Ontario the packing companies have been deducting one-half of one per cent of the value of the hogs as condemnation insurance, to compensate for hogs condemned as unfit for human consumption by the inspectors of the health of animals branch. In 1942-43 something tike two million hogs were marketed in Ontario, and under this condemnation insurance the packing companies deducted something over 8200,000, yet I understand that in the same period only about three thousand hogs were condemned which, at $25 a head, \yould amount to $75,000. In addition, parts of these condemned hogs were used, so they were not a total loss. I should like to know from the minister if his department has any check or control over the packing companies who deduct this very large sum of money from the returns of the farmers, and whether the packing companies make any accounting in connection with it.


James Garfield Gardiner: This matter was discussed when my estimates were last before the committee. I do not know how we got to it, but just the same it was discussed. As I stated then, this is not a fund set up by the department, and it has no relationship to the rail grading of hogs. It has been in existence since about 1907, or in any case since early in the century.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There must be some authority for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was an arrangement entered into by some representatives of the producers, perhaps by swine breeding associations, and the packing plants under which the packers are permitted to take one-half of one per cent of the value of the hogs delivered. There is an impression, I believe, that a fund was created. No fund has been created. The packer simply deducts one-half of one per cent of the value of the hogs he buys, and whenever there are any losses he pays them. The question that arises from time to time is whether he deducts more
than he actually pays out. It has been suggested that the department should take some responsibility in the matter and require an accounting in connection with that fund So far no action of that kind has been taken.
I am not certain in my own mind as to whether it would be a proper thing for the department to do. I understand an investigation was held some two years ago by a number of counties in Ontario, and my understanding is that it was generally considered by those who carried on that investigation that the fee was reasonably taking care of the losses, which were paid by the packing houses. That is my memory of the finding, that no one was making any considerable amount of money out of it.


Mark Cecil Senn: It applies to cattle too, does it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it does. So far as we can make out from the investigations that have been held, the one-half of one per cent pretty well takes care of the losses. Some people argue that they have sent in stock for a long time and had this one-half of one per cent taken off their returns, but they have had no losses and they want to know what has become of their money. That is the argument made from time to time in connection with any form of insurance. A person who never has a fire never draws anything, and in this case the man who never happens to have a hog condemned does not receive anything in return. However, that was the theory when it was started; that when you dumped the hogs of four or five or a dozen farmers into one car and two of them happened to be condemned as a result of some ' disease, the one farmer should not take the whole loss.


George Stanley White: The minister said this system of deducting one-half of one per cent came into effect some time around 1907. He will remember, however, that before the system of rail grading came into operation, when a drover bought and took delivery of hogs, they were then the property of the drover and he was responsible for making delivery to the packing house and therefore responsible for anything that happened in transit. I understand that this fund does not compensate for any injury or damage to hogs while in transit from the farms to the packing houses. It is used only for the purpose of covering hogs that are condemned by the inspectors as unfit for human consumption after they are slaughtered. Will the minister say whether or not that is correct?-because I took from his remarks of only a moment ago that it covered hogs damaged in transit.
Supply-Agriculture


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what he did say.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course there is a difference in the marketing as compared with forty years ago. I think probably the hon. member is right when he says that all the hogs, or nearly all of them at that time, were taken in by drovers, and it was most difficult to follow the hogs back to the original owners. That difficulty does not exist to-day, because, the hogs are marked and they can be followed back to the owners.


Mark Cecil Senn: They are mostly trucked.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and it is possible that a change in plan could be made, or a new method of payment could be set up. However I am just saying that what has happened up to date is as I have pointed out. There is just the possibility that someone-whether it be a meeting of producers and packers, or whether it should be done through the department-could devise a plan under which hogs could be followed back. I am not just sure where that would get you. I am not sure whether the people who are asking for this think that a man should take the loss on his own hogs. I should think however that that would be questionable, because if one were to put 50 hogs in one group in a car, and for some reason one or two of those hogs were killed, and they happened to belong to one man, I cannot see any reason why that man should carry the loss and the others should be allowed to go free.


George Stanley White: Has the minister ever looked into the legality of this procedure of the packing companies making deductions? The minister said his department has nothing to do with it. I am asking him if the packers have any legal right to make those deductions.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think we are probably confusing two things. First of all there is the matter of insurance on hogs killed in transit. I am assuming the reference here has been to diseased hogs which have been taken into plants and destroyed because of their having been diseased.


George Stanley White: I think that is the whole point. I am advised by people who certainly know what they are talking about that under the present system when a farmer sells his hogs they remain his property until they reach the packing house, and that if those hogs are damaged or injured in a railway car or truck or other vehicle he must suffer the loss because they are his hogs until they reach the packing plant. This one-half of one per cent which is deducted by the packing

companies has nothing to do with compensation for hogs damaged in transit; it is for the purpose of paying for hogs condemned by inspectors from the minister's department. Would the minister comment upon that?


George Ernest Wood: Mr. Chairman, if I might say-


George Stanley White: Just a moment; let the minister answer.


George Ernest Wood: May I not add something? This compensation was originally recommended by the swine breeders association of Canada. I am just drawing attention to that fact, because I happen to know it. This recommendation, like many others which have been made to. the department, can be traced back. Despite the fact that hog grading was condemned by many farmers, it was recommended by those who were most interested in the breeding of swine, and those people were in the swine breeders association. There is a long story there which I believe the people would find most interesting.


George Stanley White: Would the minister give me an answer to my question?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Before the minister
answers, may I point out that we are discussing item 16, which deals with the health of animals. I doubt very much if this discussion is in order. Of course I am just giving my own impression.


George Stanley White: It is my submission that this is the one item under which the matter to which I have referred could be discused. The hogs which are condemned would, I should think, come under the health of animals branch. The minister has indicated that he is willing to have the discussion take place on this item.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point has been raised as a matter of health. When we began the discussion I thought it would be related to marketing, but I believe it may properly be discussed here.
The fund which has been mentioned is not in fact a fund. The packers simply pay less for all the hogs which come in. They pay one-half of one per cent less for all hogs coming in. The diseased hog is bought at its full value, and the farmer is paid the same for that hog as for any other. Then the hog is condemned, and the matter becomes one of health inspection and that particular animal is lost. That is the principle on which it operates. The farmer who owned the hog in the first instance is paid on exactly the same basis as is every other farmer.

Supply-Agriculture


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it has no legal sanction. It is just a custom which has grown into something approaching a law. As I understand it, the theory among the farmers is that the packers make a profit out of it, and that they are not rendered accountable to anybody. I do not think that is a proper situation. With regard to transportation, these hogs are transported by common carriers who must have some responsibility. What is the position in Ontario where the hogs are carried by truckers? Do they not have to insure?


Mark Cecil Senn: They are required to.


Olof Hanson: With
respect to accidents on railway cars, there must be times when the railway companies will have legal responsibility. The matter ought to be reviewed.


James Garfield Gardiner: They do have responsibility. The position is just as has been outlined. The hogs are insured against accident, and that was where I was confusing the matter in the earlier discussion. Those hogs are insured against accident, but my understanding on the other question is that each time an investigation has been made it has been proven that the packer does not get enough money to cover the loss.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is purely a matter of fact, of course.


James Garfield Gardiner: If that is the position, then I assume the packers would be just as anxious as anybody else to have some other arrangement. However my officials inform me that on each occasion the matter has been checked it has been found that the amount of money taken in has not entirely covered the loss sustained.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: I believe reference has been made to Bang's disease during the discussion on these items. Have the minister and his department given serious consideration to this difficulty with which cattle raisers are confronted? It affects beef herds as well as dairy herds. It is estimated by the federal Department of Agriculture in Washington that the cattle raisers of the United States suffered a loss of between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 through the inroads of Bang's disease in their herds in 1942. It seems to me that there are two. definite factors in connection with this incurable disease with which cattle are afflicted. First there is the effect on humans through the consumption of milk not pasteurized, produced by cattle with Bang's disease, and second there is the terrific loss occasioned by this disease which must be
borne by the farmers. I submit, Mr. Chairman, and I have some knowledge of the importance of this matter, that Bang's disease as it affects the cattle industry is even more important on the one hand, and more dangerous on the other, than even tuberculosis in cattle. I would strongly recommend to the minister and his departmental heads that a sum of money be set aside in the estimates for the control and study of Bang's disease in cattle, and that veterinary inspectors be employed' throughout Canada to investigate this disease and if possible recommend to cattle raisers the precautions that may be taken in order to curtail its inroads.
Bang's disease is not only one of the most insidious diseases with which cattle may be infected, but it is also one of the most easily transmitted diseases. A cat moving from one barn to another may transmit Bang's disease from an infected herd to a herd that is clean, or a truck from the stockyard going into a farmer's yard will carry the infection of Bang's disease into an otherwise clean herd. Up to the present time there has been only one control of Bang's disease, and that is the slaughtering of the cattle. Whether it be a pure-forcd dairy herd, a highly priced herd, or just the ordinary herd, the only way in which to eliminate the disease in that herd is to have the herd slaughtered, and then to have a very thorough cleaning of the bams and the barnyard and also of the pasture fields where the infection of this disease lingers. In Great Britain, where they have a milder climate, one of the first questions asked by an intending .purchaser of a farm is, " Has there been Bang's disease on this farm?" Because the infection carries over into the pasture fields as well as from one barn or one barnyard to another.
This disease is important because of the terrific loss it occasions to the farmer, and because of the danger to human life, to consumers particularly of unpasteurized milk. I am given to understand, and I believe this is correct, that many pure-bred herds of cattle are infected with Bangs' disease. No restrictions or control under the Department of Agriculture are exercised through the health of animals branch with respect to an animal being sold from one herd into another. There is no obligation, except that of integrity and fairness, upon a cattle owner to advise a purchaser of cattle that his herd is infected with Bang's disease. The result is, and I think I am correct in saying this, that at least fifty per cent of the herds in Ontario are infected with Bang's disease.
Supply-Agriculture


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a serious statement, if it is true.


William Alexander Fraser: My experience in the three years since I have made a study of this disease is that at least in the territory with which I am familiar approximately fifty per cent of the herds are infected with Bang's disease. That may or may not be known to the cattle raisers because it is an insidious disease and it may have been present with a herd for several years before the owner of the herd becomes aware of it.
May I say this in reference to the statement made by the minister. Where the milk is pasteurized the danger of humans contracting undulamt fever is eliminated because the germ from Bang's disease is killed by the pasteurization. The germ, however, not only affects humans through the consumption of unpasteurized milk, but affects also the breeding and the crop of calves from one year to another. A cattle raiser will lose perhaps one, two and sometimes three years in the breeding of his Stock through the infection of Bang's disease.


Gordon Graydon: To say nothing of the
flow of milk.


William Alexander Fraser: Quite so. He loses his milk production as well as his cows. Two of the leading dairymen in Ontario were talking to me just a few weeks ago about Bang's disease. I could put their names on the record if that were desired. One of them in particular, the owner of one of the most highly-prized jersey herds in Ontario, told me that he had fought this disease for ten years and ultimately slaughtered his herd. He also stated that in view of what he had learned as he went along he would have been better off if he had slaughtered his herd ten years ago and started all over again.
I am glad that this matter has been mentioned in the house by the hon. member for New Westminster. The matter has also been brought up in the past from the point of view of the health of human beings by the hon. member for Renfrew South. Time and again the subject has been brought up in this house, and it seems to me that from the point of view of cattle raisers in Canada the minister would be well advised not only to have his officials give more attention to the study of Bang's disease, but also to provide a sum of money in his estimates that would make it possible to have a veterinary inspection of all our herds, particularly in eastern Canada. I say eastern Canada for this reason, that it has been found that Bang's disease is an in-
side disease. As a matter of fact, only one and a half to two per cent of the cattle exported from our prairie provinces and from the plains of the United States in 1942 and 1943 were infected with Bang's disease. Apparently, from the facts we have learned, Bang's disease is an inside disease. It develops much more pro-lifically in herds that are stall fed, or stall fed part of the season, and particularly it has been our experience that the disease has developed in herds that have been stabled in banked Or underground bams. I submit therefore that it is much more important to have the investigation started in Ontario than perhaps in any other part of the dominion. I trust that the minister will put a sufficient sum of money in his estimates to provide for a veterinary inspection, and let us know to begin with what percentage of the herds of Ontario are really infected with Bang's disease.
I do not wish to discuss the matter further, but it does seem to me, from my own experience and that of my neighbours and of the people with whom I have come in contact, owners of pure-bred herds and owners of the ordinary herds, that Bang's disease is one of the most devastating diseases with which our beef and dairy cattle are afflicted, I sincerely trust, as I know he will, that the minister will take full cognizance of this plague, because it is really a plague with which the cattle raisers of Canada have to contend.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am very glad that the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, has brought this matter up again. I think every time the estimates of this particular department have been presented in the last number of years I have asked the minister what advances have been made in the treatment of this disease. What the hon. member says is undoubtedly true, that it is perhaps the most insidious and most destructive disease affecting cattle in the older settled provinces to-day; and I do not believe the hon. member's statement that fifty per cent of the herds in provinces like Ontario are affected is any too high.


William Alexander Fraser: At one time or another.


Mark Cecil Senn: I know that in a great many instances when cattle have been slaughtered threre has been no compensation from the government. The presence of the disease is often concealed when it would be very much better for the man himself and for the cattle industry if it were made known.


William Alexander Fraser: And it is transmitted.

Supply-A griculture


Mark Cecil Senn: It is transmitted from one herd to another through sales, and, as the hon. member says, it can be sent on a man's feet or a calf's feet from one herd to another. It destroys the efficiency of the herd. Nine times out of ten, where the disease has existed for a considerable length of time, the man has to get rid of his herd entirely, and even then he cannot be sure that he is free of the disease for a certain length of time. I understand, of course, that we have some kind of test. I believe certain discoveries have been made in the agricultural college at Guelph, whereby one can tell when a herd is free from the disease or when it has the disease. I understand that when cattle are shipped to the United States in many cases they have to undergo this blood test, and if they are found to be free of disease their entry is permitted.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of the remarks which have been made: by the hon. member for Northumberland. It is high time that the department did something to curb the disease or to make a study of it in order that it may be curbed in the near future. I do not think there is any doubt that its ravages and the losses it occasions are far greater than those suffered from tuberculosis or any other communicable disease to which cattle are subject.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been some check kept, of course, and some investigations made with regard to the matter. Tests are made at the laboratory at Hull, and blood is sent to that laboratory from all over Ontario. The tests which were made in 1942 showed that 1-7 of those coming in were reactors; that is, the percentage of animals for which the blood was sent in for checking amounted to only 1-7 of reactors.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would not those very largely . be from cattle which were destined for shipment to the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: I assume they would be, and I was just going to give some other figures. We have some Bang's disease statistics which I think, in view of some of the statements made, should be put on the record. They are brought up to January 25, 1944. Total herds under test in Canada, 2,660. By provinces: Prince Edward Island, 8; Nova Scotia, 300: New Brunswick, 9; Quebec, 192; Ontario, 2,105; Manitoba, 4; Saskatchewan, 18; Alberta, 7; British Columbia, 17. Of those herds, 1,776 are those which are now called listed herds, that is they are free of Bang's disease. For Ontario the figures are
1,559 out of 2,105. The number of cattle represented in that check is 74,763 head, of which 58,940 were in Ontario. The average number of animals in a herd was 28. The percentage of infection in cattle was 2-8, and in the herds 16 per cent; that is 16 per cent of the herds had reactors, infected animals, in them. Infected herds clear after first test, 62 per cent, after second test 15 per cent, after third and subsequent tests 23 per cent. Time required to complete the report tests at research station, three to four days. That is the record of the checks up to date.


William Alexander Fraser: In the light of the figures which the minister has just submitted I would like to make this comment. I assume figures have been compiled from the different tests which have been made, but actual experiences proves this. First, the minister has given the percentage of cattle in a herd which have been infected.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the percentage of herds that have infected cattle in them.


William Alexander Fraser: I submit that even that does not give the true picture, and I suggest this to the minister. If one cow in a stable has . Bang's disease, and there are 25 head in that stable, you can figure that within twelve or fifteen months twenty cattle will have it, because it is a most contagious disease. While the minister's figures are enlightening as statistics, they not only do not give the true picture but certainly Should not be submitted to minimize the conditions.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; they are submitted to give the facts. The hon. member said, fifty per cent of the herds are infected; this shows 16 per cent only of those checked, and 84 per cent have none.


William Alexander Fraser: Those figures were taken as the minister submitted them, but I repeat, and it is an astounding fact, that when you bring to light the herds which are infected, herds which were infected say in 1939 and have grown out of it as far as the actual effect on the breeding of stock is concerned, still remain carriers and can infect any herd directly or indirectly. These figures in themselves do not reflect the practical effect of the infection in herds.
Another thing: as the minister has said, the department has carried on experiments in the station at Hull in connection with the inoculation of calves. All that is in an experimental stage, and my experience with the department has been that not enough attention has been given to it, not enough money
Supply-Agricul ture

has been spent to be effective and in order that the departmental officials can advise cattle-raisers what they should do.
As I said a minute ago, there is nothing certain about inoculation. It has been tried in calves from four to six, four to eight and four to ten months. With the new serum which I believe the department has developed, they are advising the inoculation of heifers or animals up to twenty-four months and thirty months. In New York state, I believe the minister will agree with me, they have adopted the policy of inoculation of cattle- not only their calves and heifers but their breeding stock. I think that policy has been adopted within the last twelve months, but the import of the whole thing is that we should recognize the devastation that is being caused, the terrific monetary loss, the national loss of food as well as the menace to human beings. In my opinion the investigation of Bang's disease is the most important item in this connection. It is causing greater loss of time and production and greater monetary loss than infection from tuberculosis or any other disease.


Mark Cecil Senn: I do not wish to magnify the difficulties nor do I wish to paint too dark a picture, but I am afraid the statistics the minister has given-


James Garfield Gardiner: By way of correction, I did not read the statistics to prove anything except that fifty per cent is a high figure. I do not want anyone to suggest that I am not just as anxious to eradicate Bang's disease as any other member who is speaking here.


Mark Cecil Senn: I would not suggest that for a moment. Perhaps the figure which the hon. member for Northumberland and I quoted is too high. On the other hand, the minister did quote statistics, and I do not think they give a true picture, because I fear that a great many of the herds that were worst affected did not appear in it. There seems to be an inclination, on the part of a man who has a herd in which there is Bang's disease to keep it quiet and try to work at it himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the' herds I have taken in have been put under the supervision of the department to clean them up.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I offer a suggestion? If the minister wrants a true picture there are certain counties, I understand, where they are testing herds for tuberculosis to bring them under the restricted areas plan. Would it be too difficult at the same time


James Garfield Gardiner: You cannot do them ac the same time.


Mark Cecil Senn: Then you might do them when you came back. At any rate, it would be a good thing if some area were gone over, such as a county for tuberculosis, going into everyone's herd and finding out how many there are.


James Garfield Gardiner: The main reason we are not doing that is that the facts are as they have been brought out in connection with tuberculosis. We have not enough men now to do the work. The chief reason for not doing what is being suggested is that we have not the man-power at the moment to do it and have not had for some time. We are cleaning up tuberculosis, and one difficulty is that you cannot do the two operations at the same time. You have to double up on the work.


William Alexander Fraser: Could you not make the blood test at the same time?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand not.
Mr. FRASER (Northumberland)!: I submit that the blood test could be taken at the same time for both diseases.


Gordon Graydon: Bang's disease or contagious abortion in cattle is a vital problem that cannot be too strongly impressed upon the people. In the years I have sat in the house, time after time, this question has come up. In our own dairy herd at home years ago we had a plague of Bang's disease and I think I know personally something of what has been described this afternoon by the hon. member for Northumberland, so far as its effects are concerned. It is one of the most dangerous and damaging of all diseases among cattle, not only from the standpoint of loss of production and of calves but also from the resulting scourge of undulant fever, which is induced among human beings by drinking milk of that type. In connection with tests for Bang's disease, as the minister knows, the blood tests are taken and are then sent to the animal diseases research institute in Hull, Quebec. As the hon. member for Haldimand has said, there are also facilities at Guelph agricultural college for tests in connection with Bang's disease, and if I remember rightly in the laboratories at Queen's park facilities are also provided for that purpose. I do not normally cite individual instances, and I do not do so on this occasion except by way of illustrating a situation. But here is the situation that exists, and it is one that should

Supply-Agriculture
come before the committee. I have brought it to the minister's attention before and I do not want him to think that in bringing it up again here my object is unduly to embarrass him.
In one particular herd, that of Mr. Greenwood, at Woodbridge, which is not far from my own home, three tests were made for Bang's disease. This gentleman has an excellent herd of cattle, pure bred, registered and accredited. These tests were all negative, but a fourth test was made in which one cow showed positive. Shortly after that a test of this cow was made at Guelph agricultural college and perhaps at some other place, although I am not sure about that. At any rate, it was made and showed negative. Of course the herd as a whole was then incapable of being listed as Bang's-disease free. Mr. Greenwood's contention was that' at the animal research institute in Hull some error may have been made in the testing. That may or may not be so, but in his mind that was a possibility. Because of the fact that there was a conflict between the tests, the department still holds that in that particular instance the positive test must be the one that governs., I understand from the department that sometimes these tests show at one time positive and at another time negative, but it is hard for the breeder to understand this if the tests are properly made.


William Alexander Fraser: It is
generally negative and then positive.


Gordon Graydon: I had no object in giving precedence to one over the other.


William Alexander Fraser: But it is
generally that way.


Gordon Graydon: In any event, in this particular instance I know that four cattle were sold out of the herd and allowed by the department to go into other herds which were already listed, although this herd had never been listed owing to the fact that it had not had a negative reaction in each instance. I bring this to the minister's attention again, not because I wish to be merely critical, but because these are things which it is very difficult for the minister or the department or members of parliament to explain to breeders. Here is a single cow in the whole herd showing a positive reaction just once in all these tests and because of that the herd cannot get certification. I suggest to the minister that that instance may be illustrative of others. It may look like going pretty far, and it is a situation which would easily work a good deal of hardship and inconvenience to a bona fide breeder who is attempting to maintain a herd which is a credit to himself and of great assistance to production. I cite this case merely to seek some relief and as an illustration in the hope that the experience gained from it may be utilized to advantage by other breeders who from time to time have like problems.


Robert Fair: This question has been brought up on several occasions, particularly by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. I brought it up a couple of years ago, and I am not sure that we are making the necessary headway with it. I think it is realized that prevention is better and cheaper than cure.
I have an item here which may be of interest. It was taken from the Western Producer of March 9 of this year. It is headed:	"Hopeful of Controlling Bang's
Through Vaccine," and reads as follows:
Two Alberta cattlemen, Dean W. L. Carlyle of Calgary, and Sam Henderson of Lacombe, returned recently from a conference on Bang's disease control, held at Denver, Colorado. They represented Alberta cattle associations, and carried instructions to learn the new methods being tried out in the United States for control of this disease.
The men stated that 97-4 per cent of the pure bred cattle breeders in Colorado were practising calfhood vaccination to control the disease, and that of 500,000 head vaccinated in the last three years, only seven later developed Bang's.
"They are only in the experimental stage, but the outlook for controlling this disease is distinctly hopeful," said Dean Carlyle on his return. "I hope we can get cooperative action of the same kind in Canada."
We have followed the lead of the United States in several other matters, and if they are able to give us a lead in this I do not think we should be slow in following it. I also believe we should not be slow in following some new cures that have been suggested in Canada. If some of the old ones do not give the results then it would be wise to start out on something new. During the year 1943 how many cattle were slaughtered in Canada because of Bang's disease? What amount was paid as compensation by the government, and what is the loss to the owners of the cattle that were slaughtered? I ask these questions because when we get the destruction in dollars and cents it sometimes impresses itself on our minds more than anything else.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly the
question raised by the hon. member for Northumberland. He has suggested that we ought to be doing the same thing for Bang's disease as we are doing for tuberculosis. As a matter of fact we are not. We are not paying for cattle slaughtered on account of Bang's disease. We do not control their slaughter or pay for
Supply-Agriculture

their slaughter. He suggested that we should be doing that the same as we are for tuberculosis. In most of the states they are paying for the slaughter of cattle that have Bang's disease, the same as we do for tuberculosis. They may not be paying for them on the same basis, but they are paying for them. The question has been raised, and what I have said with regard to it is that our main difficulty at the moment is man-power with which to handle it. We are facing a difficult problem now with tuberculosis and our men are more than fully employed with that. We are not able to get along with it as rapidly as we would like to. We figure it would take at least fifty additional men to do the work that we think we ought to be doing now. Our main difficulty is to get more men to handle this problem along with the problem we are dealing with.


Robert Fair: I take it that as soon as men
are available something drastic will be done to curtail this disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even with the information we have we are not able to enter upon a plan at the moment such as we have for tuberculosis. A great many farmers are very careful about it themselves. Most of the breeders will not admit animals to their farms until they have been tested. Farmers shipping cattle from one part of Canada to another insist upon tests being made. When we bought the cattle in the west in 1937 as a result of the drought, all the female cattle that passed through the pasture at Carberry were tested for Bang's disease and tuberculosis. We have a complete record of those cattle. They were not the best of the cattle, and I would think that their record would probably be as high, at least as high, as it would be for the general cattle population over that area. The actual number of reactors was very low. We have been making checks wherever it is possible to make them, and we have been making them as fully as we can with the staffs available. But we have not undertaken to pay for the slaughter of cattle on account of Bang's disease as we have on account of tuberculosis.


Robert Fair: Would the minister give the percentage for Alberta as he did for Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not give the percentage for Ontario; I gave the percentage for all Canada. I hesitate to give the percentage for the different provinces, for this reason. In Manitoba there were only seven herds tested. I would take it from the figure here that the person who asked to have the test made knew that there was some Bang's in the herd, because the percentage is very high. Alberta

only had twelve. I would assume the same thing with regard to Alberta. The percentage is very high there; but when you take the percentage from Prince Edward Island across the country of all the cattle the average percentage is 2-7. I think it would give a wrong impression to put out the figure for Alberta and Manitoba, because it is unreasonably high.


Gordon Graydon: The minister said that he thought the breeders knew there was Bang's in their herds when they asked to have them tested. I think that is the wrong inference to draw. I am inclined to think that the opposite is the fact; that certain herds had been tested locally before they were submitted to the department for certification, and that little if any Bang's disease had shown up.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would depend entirely on the individual. I recall the first year I was here the question came up as to whether we were going to mark animals that, were positive. I had a strong representation from the cattle breeders objecting to marking them. Hon. members who were here at the time will recall that we had intended to put a big "B" on their cheek so that any one walking into the stable could see that the animal had been tested and was positive for Bang's disease. There was objection to that, and we finally put the "B" in the ear of the animal. We had objection from the breeders and others who said that if a man walks into our barns and sees a big "B" on the animal we will not be able to sell anything.


Gordon Graydon: You are using the ear now?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the present time we are marking them in the ear with a "B", and anyone who wishes to look over the animals can see that they have been tested and that certain ones have reacted positively for Bang's. The marking is there. That was the question at that time. It has come along from there to where it is at the present time, that nobody questions the marking, and we have an agitation in this house for having them all tested. I think every one would be tested if we had enough men and enough money to go out and test all the herds in the country. With regard to assisting in killing the animals by paying for their slaughter, I am informed by the officials that if we were to undertake to do that, the statement made by the hon. member for Haldimand and the hon. member for Northumberland would be borne out. At least we think the result would be that more animals would be slaughtered for Bang's disease than are now

Supply-Agriculture
slaughtered for tuberculosis. That emphasizes the problem that will have to be dealt with as soon as we can get the necessary man-power.


Mr. BRYCE:: I should like to revert to
the matter referred to by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask one further question in connection with Bang's disease. Has the minister had any complaints in regard to errors in testing at the Hull laboratories?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should have dealt
with that point when I was speaking. I would not say it is a common thing, but it does sometimes happen that an animal gives a positive result at one time and a negative result at another, and may continue to do' so. You may check that animal one day and get a negative result; another time the result will be positive. I think I am correct in saying that in some cases after a very considerable number of tests they have agreed that probably the animal will continue negative. However, if we are to apply the principle that once an animal tests positive something must be done about it, I do not see how we can pass up any animal that once gives a positive result. I am told, too, though I do not fully understand these matters as I am sure most hon. members do not understand them, that when the blood of these animals is sent in for test there is the possibility of doubt in some cases. A person who is very strict may say that the result is positive; another person may consider it doubtful, and perhaps someone else would even say it was negative, though I am not sure of that. In any case there might be at least two opinions on the case. I understand there have been instances where blood of the same animal has been sent to two places, with slightly different reports from each. However, every care is taken to avoid anything of that kind by having all cases dealt with in exactly the same way at all the stations. If the blood is sent to two official stations, th'e report from each should be the same, though of course the personal element enters into all these things to a degree. Where there was doubt about an animal the only way to clear up that herd and make absolutely certain of it would be to kill or get rid of the animal. That would put the herd back in position, and that is the argument for the government paying part, of the loss. A farmer would be more likely to get rid of such an animal immediately with the government paying part.of the loss than he would be if nothing were paid.	1


Gordon Graydon: If I understand the minister correctly, it is possible that where there has been only one positive reaction followed by a number of negative results, the animal might be declared free of disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that once it is definitely classed as positive the department does not retest it. If there is any doubt about it, however; if it is a borderline case and the individual concerned expresses doubt, it may be retested.


Gordon Graydon: It seems to me that is
pretty arbitrary.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: I
think this question has been covered pretty well, but it seemed to me the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, put the percenr tage rather high when he said fifty per cent of the herds were infected. As a matter of fact I believe that seventy-five per cent of the cattle in Ontario, either beef cattle or dairy cattle, belong to herds tested and free from Bang's disease and tuberculosis. I doubt very much if a man would buy one of these better breeders and put it in with his herd unless it had been tested for both tuberculosis and Bang's disease. I also doubt whether a man could sell one of the better breeders in the United States, even if it came from an area free from tuberculosis, without an individual test being made. The unfortunate thing is that these tests are not one hundred per cent accurate, that an animal may test positive one time and negative another. That is true in connection with tuberculosis; some of the most advanced cases gave a negative result when the blood was tested, so that these tests are not absolutely conclusive. Many of the herds which become infected with Bang's disease build up their own immunities within a short time. Those cattle may go on and be fairly successful herds of breeders, but they will be carriers and in most cases will react to the blood test. It seems to me one of the things to which the department should give a great deal of attention is the inoculation of cattle with the serum used for protection against Bang's disease. My information is that if cattle are inoculated at a certain stage, perhaps before they are twelve or fifteen months old, they are made practically immune to the ravages of Bang's disease. If that is true it would seem to be the logical way to eliminate this disease.


William Scottie Bryce: Coming back to the matter of condemnation insurance, the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough was not quite sure of his figures. On two previous occasions I
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Over what period?


William Scottie Bryce: That is only for one year, 1943. In that year we paid the packing companies of Canada over $500,000 more than was required to carry the condemnation insurance. When I spoke previously I appealed to the minister to have this matter handled by the government in order that we might have some control over it. On the last occasion this matter was discussed the minister told, me that payment of this condemnation insurance was not compulsory. That is correct; I can go to the packer with my live stock and say I do not want him to take off that insurance. He will reply, "Well, you can take your stock somewhere else." That is the position; it is not compulsory, but you cannot sell your stock unless you agree to this deduction. To-day that condemnation insurance takes care of other things than loss through tuberculosis, though on the statement the reason given is for tuberculosis insurance. When I ship my cattle or hogs by common carrier the law of the land requires that they have insurance to take care of them. From the moment the animal enters the truck or the railway car until it comes out again, I have to pay for insurance to cover it. But when you have a cow spread on the killing floor, or a cow breaking its leg on the killing floor, surely that is not the responsibility of the farmer. Yet he is paying for it through condemnation insurance.
I do not wish to dwell on the point; the minister knows my views in the matter. I should like to see it handled by his department or by a board of live stock commissioners. I went back in the records as far as I could trace, to 1906 and 1907, and never in any one year did it take more than half of one per cent to carry that condemnation insurance. And in forty years, a few thousand dollars each year would have been a very handy sum to be used by breeders' associations in their

efforts to get better bulls, or better sires of one kind or another. Some might say that it was too small an amount to divide among the farmers, but there were many things for which it could have been used.
While I am on my feet may I touch upon compensation for animal slaughtering? I understand this involves T.B. insurance; is that correct? We have heard about T.B. insurance, and T.B. free areas. Condemnation insurance was begun away back in 1906. because many tubercular cattle were reaching the plants. The Department of Agriculture in those early days-I do not know how early-established T.B. free areas. Those T.B. free areas were established through a two-thirds vote, and when they came in all herds were tested. Retests were made within sixty days and in every twelve months following. In that way T.B. free areas were established. At that time the rate set was two-thirds of the value of the animal. That rate was all right when one could buy a cow for $60 or $70, and received $38 for the condemned animal. That amount was placed on the purchase price of another animal. I come from an area which is to-day established as a T.B. free area, and on a cow condemned for T.B. one receives $38, or the same amount to-day as he did ten or twenty yearn ago. Yet to-day one must pay about $200 to replace the animal. The minister will realize just how unfair that is.


James Garfield Gardiner: I raised the question myself six or seven years ago, when cows were worth about $20 a head. However at that time we continued to pay on the same basis. I doubt very much if it would be advisable to go up and down, or to follow values at all times.


Joseph William Burton: That would have been a good time to eradicate tuberculosis, would it not?


William Scottie Bryce: I am pleased that the minister is interested in this matter, and I am sure he will see at once the injustice of the present practice. No man will ever turn down the offer of cleaning up his herd, to see that there is no T.B. in it; yet he will receive only $38 for an animal worth anywhere from $175 to $200.
In the fall of 1942 in the Red River valley we put a thousand cows into the packing plant for T.B. Look at the loss we took on those cows. If too small an amount is paid it will act as a hindrance to the eradication of T.B. I would ask the minister to give me the assurance that I could go back to Selkirk and tell the people there that he is sympathetic, and that he is going to try to do something. It is most unfair to pay only $38 for

Supply-Agriculture
an animal which within a few weeks must be replaced in the herd at about $175. It is out of all reason. The test is still being carried on, and it would appear that the department does not intend to pay any more in future, because the amount appearing in the estimates is even smaller than it has been.


James Garfield Gardiner: What we pay is not necessarily all that the farmer receives for the animal. The regulation is that on cattle we pay 66f per cent of the value of the animal, with a limitation of $60 on the value of grades. This means that we might pay $40. On purebred cattle we pay two-thirds, with a limitation of $150 on the value. That means we may pay $100. But in addition to that, the fact that an animal is condemned does not mean that the farmer cannot sell it. He may send the animal to the abattoir, and it will be paid for on some basis. It may be paid for only as tankage. That would be so if none of the animal is fit for human consumption. It may be paid for on the basis of cutting out a small gland in the neck. That may be the only part of the animal which shows contamination. All the rest of the animal would be paid for. That is, a farmer may receive almost full value for the cow as a meat animal. The simple statement, therefore, that the farmer gets only what the government pays, is scarcely in accordance with the facts. For example, to give an exact case, I know of one animal which within the last two years reached the market after being condemned for tuberculosis. The person who sold that animal got over $100 for it. In that instance, while upon inspection the animal reacted for TB., there was only a small gland in the neck which was affected, and that was the only part which had to be destroyed. So on that basis the figures given by the hon. member do not cover the whole returns.
Reference has been made to what is sometimes called tuberculosis contamination in hogs. Perhaps the highest figure in the whole list of things for which hogs are condemned comes opposite tuberculosis. But the list covers a page and a half of different things for which hogs may be condemned.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, but -19 of one per cent covers all the others.


James Garfield Gardiner: One of the bigger groups is contamination. In connection with swine there were 122,865, only portions of which were contaminated. Coming to tuberculosis, we find that 4,726 carcasses were condemned but the number of carcasses of which only portions were condemned was 2,684,386.
You cannot just take the value of the hogs that come in and then take the condemnation figure, and then say that you have a comparison there from which you can draw conclusions. It would not be possible to do that. That is why those who are asking for some change in policy or that some report be made from time to time suggest that there ought to be an investigation made. That is why investigations have been made from time to time. If you just say that so many hogs came on to the market; that so many hogs were destroyed because they were condemned, and that one half of one per cent of the value of the hogs is taken by the packing plants, one could arrive at the conclusion that the packing plants were getting too much. But you cannot do it in that way, and I am afraid that that is what the hon. member was doing.
I am not saying that the packers are not getting more than they are entitled to, because I have no reason for saying one thing more than another. I am simply saying that any investigations which have been made have tended to indicate that the fund just about covers the amount.


William Scottie Bryce: I agree in the main with what the minister has said. But take a hog that has a little T.B. in the neck. There is half of one per cent collected for that. The farmer gets the full price for his hog but the packer sells the full hog.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that that is all considered when the investigations are made. They take into consideration what the packer got for his hogs and what he paid out.


William Scottie Bryce: I have taken these things into consideration too. Talk about making a T.B. free area; I have gone through all that. You do get the odd cow which makes beef but they are very few and far between.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is really the other way around.


William Scottie Bryce: I was accused of sitting on boards around Winnipeg, but if you had said that I had been in the packing plant, as 1 have been, finding out things, you would have been nearer the point. When we had that TB. free area I followed the cattle through the packing plant. When an animal goes into the tank you get only the hide, you have to pay for the killing, and you would think these fellows were carpenters the way they charge you for killing an animal.


Mr. WARD:: I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Selkirk says about the condemnation insurance being too high, but he is entirely wrong when he says that it is
Supply-Agriculture

compulsory. It is not compulsory. I know a great many shippers who have never paid condemnation insurance. If you sell your stock outright to the drover the drover takes the responsibility, but if you ship your stock on a commission basis you are perfectly free to designate whether you want to pay condemnation insurance or not.
I should like to say a word in regard to the treatment we have received from the department with respect to T.B. tested animals. Some years ago I had my herd of pure-bred cattle subjected to the test. I had eleven reactors. I considered them worth about $6,000 and I received in the final analysis a little over $200 apiece for these animals. That does not sound very much like the $38 that my hon. friend spoke about a few minutes ago.


William Scottie Bryce: Were the hon. member's cattle pure-bred Aberdeen Angus?


William John Ward: Yes.


William Scottie Bryce: I am just a poor man, mine were grades.


William John Ward: I should like to point this out, that of the eleven head, only one went to the tank. All the rest were slaughtered and the meat was used for domestic purposes. I am inclined to think my hon. friend has overdrawn the picture considerably. I spent a day in his district just two and a half weeks ago and I saw a very nice herd of dairy cattle, Holsteins. The owner of this herd was talking about selling them. I asked him what he thought his herd was worth and he said, "I would be glad if I could get $125 apiece." He had some lovely cows. Again that does not sound very much like the $175 or $200 that the hon. member was speaking of. I am inclined to think some of our hon. friends in the C.C.F. would make a little more progress if they were not quite so extravagant, in their statements. They seem to think that they must overdraw the picture all the time; that they must stretch their imaginations in presenting a case. Some of us are not impressed by these extravagant statements. I believe that we can make a little better progress if we keep our feet on the ground and just be a little conservative in the statements we make.


Mark Cecil Senn: It is always well to be conservative.' .


William John Ward: I agree with my hon. friend, but I am surprised that he has not had more influence upon hon. gentlemen of the C.C.F. They do cooperate with his party at times, 
but he does not seem to have influenced them in presenting a more reasonable case before the house.


William Scottie Bryce: I would draw to the attention of my hon. friend the member for Dauphin, when he talks about misquoting, that last night he said that he quoted me from Hansard, which was an untruthful statement. He said that I took 280 days to put 300 pounds on a steer. The way I felt when he was speaking was, "where ignorance is bliss "tis folly to be wise," and I held my tongue, but I am correcting him now. I said, and it will be found in Hansard, that I would take 180 days to put 300 pounds on the back of a steer, and you have to be a good feeder to do it-irrespective of what you do yith your Aberdeen Angus. So do not talk about overdrawing the picture.


George Henry Stokes: I thought, Mr. Chairman, we were discussing this item in a non-political manner, but the discussion seems to be getting a little out of hand. I do not wish to prolong it. I just want to say to the hon. member for Selkirk that when he first started to speak he quoted the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough as having been mixed up in his figures. The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough was giving the figures for Ontario, and I think the figures were secured from the hog breeders' association. They showed an average collected of $250,000 a year and only about 3.000 head condemned which would bring it to about $75,000. That leaves a large balance running from $175,000 to $200,000. We must remember that fully 15 to 20 per cent of all the parts condemned are recoverable in by-products by the abattoir. To me this seems to be the only class of insurance for which no accounting has to be given, and I should like to hear a word from the minister on that.


Mark Cecil Senn: While awaiting the minister's answer-


James Garfield Gardiner: An answer to what?


Mark Cecil Senn: The bon. member for Hastings South wanted the minister to clear up some point. We have had a long discussion of contagious diseases of one kind or another. The discussion has been very interesting and I think it might be of some benefit to the live stock industry.
There is another disease which is quite rampant in the province of Ontario, and possibly in the west, known as shipping fever or hemorrhagic septicaemia. The ravages of that disease are quite apparent. We in Ontario buy a: lot of cattle for feeding purposes, and hardly ever a carload comes

Supply*-Agriculture
into the neighbourhood but has to be immediately looked after or some are lost through this disease of hemorrhagic septicaemia. I have no doubt whatever that the department is aware of this disease and knows what is going on, and I should like the minister to make a short statement as to what is being done by the department to overcome the disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: The department of course is aware of the disease and has been keeping in as close touch as possible with it from time to time. The organism producing this disease is widely distributed through nature and only becomes pathogenic through exciting influences. Serious losses occur in shipments owing to shipping poorly fed, weakened animals. Losses could be prevented if only animals with normal resistance to disease were shipped and given adequate rest and feeding en route. Vaccination is harmful unless practised a week or ten days before cattle leave the farm. Serum is of value after a movement but it is too expensive to be used in that way. This disease may affect all domestic animals including poultry. It is a disease of the soil and the germs are not normally disease-producing. It is not a suitable disease to include with those for which this act provides compulsory notice and action. The germs are always present in the soil of stockyards and places where live stock are or have been handled. Germs are present in the bodies of healthy cattle, but do not produce disease unless the normal resisting powers are lowered through exposure to sudden changes of temperature and bad feeding methods and care and to fatigue. The department has issued a leaflet giving the best preventive measures, and that can be secured by anyone 'who is interested in it for the purpose.
'Mr. SENN: Some of the ideas which were advanced by the minister seem to me to be peculiar to say the least. I know that for years past, while the Toronto exhibition was going on-it is closed for the duration of the war- some of the best-nourished cattle in the country contracted the disease by going to the exhibition. In fact, in the last three or four years before the exhibition closed no good breeder would dream of sending his cattle to the exhibition without having them vaccinated ahead of time. So that I cannot see or think that it is only dangerous to poorly fed or poorly nourished cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what was stated a moment ago.


Mark Cecil Senn: I think if the minister reads the first part of his statement he will see that- is what it says.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it gives a number of things. It says that the germs are present in the bodies of healthy cattle, but do not produce disease unless the normal resisting powers are. lowered [DOT] through exposure to sudden changes of temperature and bad feeding methods and care and to fatigue. That is, the fact that an animal is fat and well fed does not prevent it from being tired, as when it is on its way from one fair to another. As a matter of fact, the way they shoot them around between fairs is the kind of thing which would fatigue them.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am not going to pursue the matter any farther. I am glad that yie minister and the department have the matter in hand, and I know they will do everything they can to see proper provision is made.
I asked the minister another question early in the afternoon which, since he was taken up with other matters, he did not think to answer. I asked how many herds had been inspected by this department and given a tuberculin test, so that permits could be granted to send milk and cream to the United States under the existing treaty.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only one last year. As a matter of fact, it is not being shipped at present-which is the main reason.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that this discussion has been completed there is another matter I should like to bring up. I dislike putting forward individual cases unless a principle is involved. I refer to the case of a representative of this department in Saskatoon and Prince Albert, Doctor Turnbull, who commenced his duties with the government under the health of animals branch a long period prior to the war. In March or April of 1943, having applied for leave of absence in order to enlist for overseas service, and that leave of absence having been refused, he tendered his resignation. In or about the beginning of the present year, following an accident, he was discharged from the air force, in which he was serving, and then made application for reinstatement in the position which he had previously held. The minister showed every consideration to this man in his application, but after a very considerable delay the civil service commission decided that under the law he was not entitled to reinstatement in the position he occupied at the time of his resignation in order to enlist.
In my opinion a very important, principle is at stake in connection with this matter. Similar cases have occurred in one or other departments; and I believe that the government must give the lead to the end that civil servants and government employees who
Supply-Agriculture

enlist for service shall be reinstated when their service has terminated. Otherwise private employers may take the attitude that if the government will not follow out that principle they themselves should not be required to do so.
As I say, I know the attitude taken by the minister in this connection: it was fair, and there is no criticism coming to him. I should like a statement from him in regard to this case; for if the law to-day is as was stated by the civil service commission, civil servants who patriotically finding themselves refused leave of absence, and of necessity resign their positions in order to get into militaiy service, will be penalized because of their desire to serve. The minister took a great interest in this case and did everything he possibly could in order to ensure that this man after service should obtain reinstatement. I ask him to make a statement on the matter and inform us what measures are being taken by his or other government departments to ensure that there shall be a change in the civil service regulations, so that men in similar circumstances-and there are a very considerable number of them-will obtain reinstatement when the war is over or upon their discharge from the armed services.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that in this ease the department had recommended that he be put back. As a matter of fact, he is back working.


John George Diefenbaker: But only in a temporary position.


James Garfield Gardiner: He has been put on for the time being at the bottom of the class, whereas the salary had advanced before he enlisted. The department has recommended that he be put on at least as high up the scale as he was when he enlisted, and I have no hesitation in saying that so far as I am concerned as minister that is where he is going.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for what he says because I realized that was his attitude. Will a change be asked for by this and other departments of government in connection with-


James Garfield Gardiner: I have nothing to do with other departments.


John George Diefenbaker: May I finish the question. Will a change in the law be demanded by the Department of Agriculture in the civil service regulations to ensure that this sort of thing shall not be permitted in the future?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can assure my hon. friend that every pressure which the department and I can put on will be used. I think this is a case in which there should be no quibbling at all. My opinion is that any man who went overseas from a job with this government ought to come back to it, if he is capable of doing so, with at least the same salary as he had before he enlisted. I intend to insist upon that so far as this man is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
17. Compensation for animals slaughtered, $372,620.
Mark Cecil Senn: What is the explanation of this item in comparison with the former one?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the item under
which compensation comes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
19. Plant products-Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $18,900 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $558,345.
James Ewen Matthews: I wonder if I might refer to the men who produce these seeds, feeds and so on. I have in mind the men engaged for years on steady service at the experimental farms but who are not considered eligible for the civil service. They are doing hard work outside the walls of offices, while their associates do the more comfortable work inside; but whereas one group of men comes within the civil service, the other is not considered eligible. I have before me a statement with regard to the men engaged on the Brandon experimental farm about which I spoke this morning. On that staff is one man who has given thirty-five years of unbroken service with neither holidays nor sick leave, to which he was not entitled. Another has given twenty-two years; another, nineteen years; two have given sixteen years; one, fifteen; one, fourteen; one thirteen; two others, six years, and two others, five years. Putting it briefly, these men have given the best of their lives to this work, and I think it is an unwarranted discrimination that they are not admitted to the same benefits of the civil service as their associates enjoy. I do not think it is really the fault of anyone in particular; it is one of those things that have been allowed to drag along. But it does not savour of fair play or even of common sense. I know these men personally and I can assure the committee that they do not want something for nothing. They are the type of men who have always given an honest day's work for an honest day's

Supply-Agriculture
pay. I suggest that even now some amendment might be made whereby these men would be entitled to the benefits of the civil service. It is late in the day, but some retroactive step might be taken. Their eligibility should date after two or three years of continuous service. I am not speaking of men who are there only in the summer months but of men who are devoting their lives to this work. I suggest to the minister-and I believe I have his undivided sympathy-that, if possible, something be done to make these men eligible.


Mr. WINKLER:: In support of what the hon. member has said, in my experience of the work at Morden, there is a considerable number of those who have not received consideration for years, such as civil service employees enjoy, and it is more a matter of oversight than anything else. There is a principle involved, and I suggest that a checkup be made of those employees who have been steadily engaged for years but who have not received the benefits that accrue to civil service employees. Something should be done to ascertain how many men have been overlooked.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope, Mr. Chairman, you are not going to permit everyone in whose district there is an experimental farm to raise this question. We discussed experimental farms earlier.


Percy Ellis Wright: A few words with regard to fertilizers. The other day Doctor James, President of McGill university, stated that to-day, among the various technical advances made in Canada since the war started, was increased production of chemical fertilizers. He stated that these fertilizers were being produced at the present time at a fraction of their former cost. I do not know whether that statement is correct, but if it is, that reduction in cost has not been passed on to the farmers in the price they are paying for fertilizer.


James Garfield Gardiner: What was the
statement?


Percy Ellis Wright: That fertilizer was being produced in Canada at a fraction of what it cost to produce before the war started. He said that there had been technical developments whereby chemical fertilizer was being produced more cheaply than formerly. If * that is so, why has not the reduction in cost been passed on to consumers? Further, with regard to fertilizers, I believe the minister put certain figures on Hansard in answer to a Question of mine regarding an increase in the production of fertilizers. At that time he
said that the requirements were being supplied in full before fertilizer was exported. I am afraid I have to disagree on that, for certainly the requirements of western Canada were not met in full last spring. I have received several inquiries with regard to fertilizer, and complaints were made that farmers could not obtain fertilizer last spring. Certainly our exports have increased tremendously in chemical fertilizers. I think our own consumers should be considered before this fertilizer is exported.


James Garfield Gardiner: An answer was put on Hansard earlier in the session with regard to the matter which has been referred to by the hon. member for Melfort. However, I would point out that the ingredient of fertilizer which was referred to as being produced at greatly reduced cost is ammonium nitrate. It is produced in the plant at Calgary, but that production is for war purposes. Only a very small proportion of it is being utilized in Canada for fertilizer. Of course, when the war is over it will be possible to take that product and use it for fertilizer purposes, and there should be a reduced cost in connection with it in so far as fertilizer purposes are concerned at that time. At least, I think there should be. I am not familiar at the moment with the volume that is being produced now and with the volume that would be produced then to satisfy any demands that there may be for the use of it as fertilizer, but there should be some reduction in the cost of it, although that would not show in fertilizer to any great extent up to the present.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I am in order I should like to ask a few questions in connection with bulbs. I presume it comes under the item of seed. Have any plans been made in connection with the production of bulbs in Canada? I refer particularly to daffodils and tulips. As I understand it, at the present time bulbs are produced in two provinces in Canada. Everybody knows we used to import a tremendous quantity of bulbs from Holland. That has been cut off and we have a wonderful opportunity to build up that industry. I noticed yesterday that it is reported that 200,000 acres had been flooded in Holland. I presume the crop is entirely lost for years. We in British Columbia, particularly in the Fraser valley and on Vancouver island to a certain extent, grow bulbs and ship several carloads east every year. This is an industry which takes quite a few years to get into. It is an expensive industry to get started. I think we have an ideal chance on the small farms in the Fraser valley to get started so that the soldiers coming back will have something to go into.
Supply-Agriculture

That is particularly true of the seven hundred Jap farms that we have taken over. Only certain places are suitable for this crop; the soil conditions have to be favourable. That is the reason why the industry is confined to One area: in the Fraser valley, Bradner district which was pioneered by an Englishman. We are rather proud of the fact that we have built up such an industry there. We are shipping several carloads to eastern Canada. Is the Department of Agriculture taking any steps to build up this industry? I believe it is an opportunity to build up something for the future without competing with anything. There is a future market for these bulbs. We all realize that generally we have to compete with world markets in anything we produce. In this particular line I understand there will be a market in Canada for many years to come for anything that we can possibly produce within Canada. What steps are being taken, if any, by the Department of Agriculture to further this industry?


James Garfield Gardiner: When the hon. member rose to speak he asked whether this was the proper item under which to discuss this matter. I would say that it is not. There is no provision here for anything like that. When we come to horticulture under which it does come that would be the proper place to discuss it. It might come under experimental farms. There would probably be an opportunity to discuss it under item 26 which deals with grant to Canadian horticultural council. I have not the information before me at the moment, but I shall try to have it here this evening.


Heber Harold Hatfield: With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Melfort on surplus fertilizer produced in Canada, I understand that there was a great surplus of ammonium nitrate produced in Ontario and Calgary which was exported to the United States for fertilizer purposes. I refer to a great surplus over and above war requirements


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; while it is quite true that there is ammonium nitrate used for fertilizer purposes, it is part of an exchange which we make between the United States and Canada in order to get potash back from there which we require in order to make our fertilizer mixtures here. There have been some price reductions in connection with it which would have some bearing on the question raised by the hon. member for Melfort; but the main factor in connection with it is the fact that wre do make exchanges of the ingredients of fertilizer between this country and the United States. There has been an arrangement which involves the sending of considerable quantities.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understand it was sold cheaper in the United States than in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told not; I am not familiar with that.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would I be in order in discussing the marketing of grass seeds and clover seeds under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think all matters of marketing come Under items 22 to 28. There is nothing in it that deals with grass seeds that I can see.


Mark Cecil Senn: What about the special products board item? I should like to touch on the question of the marketing and growing of seeds which I think was not too well handled last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be under this branch here.


Mark Cecil Senn: I do not wish to criticize particularly the department about the matter, but the special products board a little late in the season undertook to deal with all exports of grass seeds and clover seeds of all kinds. I think that was due to an arrangement made with the British food board or some other British board. Unfortunately the special products board did not take action until such time as a considerable portion of the alsike seed had been harvested and marketed in the district from which I come. The result was that a good deal of confusion was created within the trade. Unfortunately the price which they offered for export seed was not in accord with the ceiling prices in Canada. The ceiling prices in Canada were higher than the amount they were offering for export seed. The result of the whole thing was that the initial purchasers, the men who buy from the farmers and clean the seed initially, had to buy on the export basis. The price set for alsike, red clover and alfalfa was lower than the domestic price ceiling, some of which had been purchased and a good deal of which was in the hands of the farmers themselves. There was a good deal of dissatisfaction in the district over the fact that after the order came from the special products board that all seeds to be exported would have to go through their hands, the price was lower than the farmers could get otherwise. It was true that participation certificates were issued, but in the case of red clover at least I do not think these participation certificates will ever be realized.
I made some mention of this matter before, and I do not wish to elaborate it at any length now, but if the same conditions are to prevail this year and if export seed is to be



IS, 1944

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agricull ure
marketed by; the special products board they should set a price very soon. Alsike seed is being harvested at the present time in my particular section, and within two or three weeks at the outside some of it will be placed on the market. The dealers will not know what to pay unless the special products board sets the price in time. Unless that is done they will not know what to do. They want to know also whether participation certificates will be issued this year. They will want to know what the grades are to be. I understand that from time to time there is an advisory committee within the seed department which changes the grade to some extent so that the crop can be handled to the best advantage.
I know the dealers themselves are very much exercised over the situation. They are willing to cooperate with the department, not only toi see that the farmers get the best possible deal but to see that the seed is properly handled and distributed throughout the country. I am afraid we. in Ontario again will have to depend very largely upon the western crop for our alfalfa seed, for I do not think there will be enough of it grown' in Ontario to provide for domestic consumption. I believe something should be done to see that we are protected to the extent of getting only alfalfa seed of good quality from the west, instead of the seed that has come down to us sometimes, when I am afraid we got only the skimmings of the crop. The farmers of Ontario should be put in a position that will enable them to grow alfalfa as they have grown it in days gone by. I am not offering any criticism of the department; I am merely pointing out that we would like to have arrangements made sufficiently in advance so that the crop may be harvested and marketed to the best advantage.
James Garfield Gardiner: This matter would
properly come under the special products board, which made the deals, but my memory is. that the item went through without discussion on a previous occasion.


Mark Cecil Senn: No; I spoke of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure that I
answered then.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister said that he was not familiar with the circumstances.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I should place on Hansard a statement in regard to it, and I have here a list giving the sales of alfalfa seed. The seed export office did not purchase this alfalfa from exporters; it was purchased under the directive of the seeds administrator
and delivered to the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, who paid for the seed and in turn invoiced the office, as instructed by the seeds administrator. The special products board are the sole exporters from Canada of alsike, alfalfa, red clover and also alsike and white mixture. Under interallied agreements Canada has undertaken to export to the United1 Kingdom or other allies all the surplus of these seeds that can be spared over domestic requirements, and I may add that all the regulations made by order in council were for the purpose of assuring that we would have seed in Canada. We were trying to prevent so much seed from being exported that we would be left short. The special products board has established what is known as the seed export office, located at Lindsay, Ontario. This office, in order to maintain the quality and reputation of Canadian seeds abroad, purchases from qualified1 and experienced exporters who have heretofore been in the business and who are properly equipped to process and uniformly blend these seeds for the export market. The prices being paid exporters for these seeds, for top quality, by the special products board are as follows:
Per 100
pounds*
Alfalfa	 $31
Alsike	 24
Medium red	clover	
27Alsike and	white	mixture	
27
* FAS Halifax, bags extra.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister give also the ceiling prices for domestic consumption, so that we may have a comparison?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course these prices are lower than the ceiling prices in order to maintain a supply of seeds in Canada. The prices I have just read are comparable with wholesale prices, while the retail ceiling prices are as follows:
Alfalfa	 $37
Alsike	 29
Red clover	 34
Sweet clover, white	blossom	
14Sweet clover, yellow	blossom	
15


Mark Cecil Senn: Five cents a pound is a pretty good retail spread, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Part of that is covered by participation certificates, on which payments have been made within the last week.


Mark Cecil Senn: To alsike growers?


James Garfield Gardiner: On alsike and clover.


Mark Cecil Senn: Could the minister say in what amount?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not the amount here.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am afraid it is critically small.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure as to the amount. These prices have been named by the board, and are lower than what are considered to foe fair wholesale carload prices for No. 1 seed this year in the domestic market; I am referring to the export prices I read a few moments ago. The prices were placed on this basis in order to permit seedsmen to accumulate stocks for domestic distribution under the established retail ceilings and also to prevent wholesalers from selling to the seed export office seed that would be required for Canadian needs. Lower grades are purchased at appropriate reductions in price, depending upon purity, germination and weed seed content. Producers disposing of these clover seeds to an authorized seed dealer in the condition, set forth by the board will receive from the seed dealer participation certificates on behalf of the special products board, entitling them to share proportionately in any export profits made by the board. All growers of each kind of seed participate in export profits. The seed export office has purchased to date and sold to the United Kingdom from the crop of 1943 the following:
Pounds
Alsike and alsike	and white		678,300
Red clover	 60.000
Alfalfa	 352,000


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
21. Grants to agricultural organizations, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $33,500.
George Ernest Wood: Included in this item is a grant of $18,000 to the Canadian national live stock records. I do not see why this association should receive so much, because it also collects fees from breeders of pure bred stock for registering that stock, and in my opinion those fees should meet the cost of administration, although I will admit that a large proportion of the fee goes back to the various organizations concerned. I would remind the minister that we have in Canada the Holstein-Friesian association which maintains its own offices and staff. It also charges a fee for registration; it does not have the advantage of free postage, as do the Canadian national livte stock records; yet it has been able to administer an institution that has become extremely wealthy and is giving splendid service. That is one question I should like the minister to answer.
Then I understand that the idea of the Canadian national live stock records is to

maintain records of all pure-bred live stock in Canada; I believe they keep all the records with the exception of those kept by the Holstein-Friesian association, including the records of the horse breeders. There is one regulation which, I believe, has irritated the horse breeders. The horse breeders are obliged to register their horses with the New York Jockey Club. Not only do they have to register in the Canadian national live stock records, but also must register with the New York Jockey Club. Then, if they are going to race their horses they are compelled to register with the Incorporated Racing Association. That seems to be a rather elaborate procedure to go through.
I am not objecting so much to that, if that is considered necessary by the racing associations. What I am objecting to is that horses should be allowed to come from the United States and race on our tracks in Canada, when they do not have to register in the Canadian national live stock records. It seems to me that if our breeders are obliged to register in New York state there should be a reciprocal arrangement whereby they are forced to register in Canada, if they wish to race their horses here.
The difficulty is that the race-horse breeders in Canada find that there is a lack of scrutiny with respect of horses coming to this country. Unless we have some check on them by way of registration we can have no indication as to whether they are registered, even under the New York Jockey Club regulations. The result is that, to use a slang expression, ringers are put on the race tracks, and our breeders must compete against these unscrupulous methods of doing business. Unfortunately we are not giving enough attention to the matter, or protecting our own breeders.
To my mind it is important that we assert ourselves, and that we give the necessary protection to our breeders. True, I will admit that the breeding of race-horses has not become extensive; but it is a hobby enjoyed by certain men. They like to breed that type of live stock. My purpose in raising the question is to point out that, after all, in the main, horse-racing is supposed to be a rich man's game. Fortunately, there are some honest-to-goodness dirt farmers who still like to breed fast race-horses, and I do not think they should be discouraged. It is on their behalf I am speaking, because if one were to go through the records of all types of live stock breeding, and particularly in Canada, he would find that the finest, the very best live stock is produced by the honest-to-goodness dirt farmer.

Supply-Agriculture
True, we welcome the wealthy man who enters the game as a hobby. They have been able to make their contribution by bringing together certain families of animals, and producing good results. But even those men find they have to go back to the honest-to-goodness dirt farmer to get the very best results. Let me tell the committee that there is something in the quality of a man's mind that finds its expression in the proper mating together of animals, to bring about certain desired results.
I have in mind a man who happened to be a neighbour of mine, and liked to breed fancy race-horses. At one time he had an opportunity to purchase a sire for the sum of S50. A wealthy man had paid 850,000 for the same sire, but did not use him or mate him with the proper mares to get results. But because this dirt farmer understood the particular virtues of that stallion, and could analyse his qualities and mate him with the proper females, in a few years he was in a position to produce one of the best and greatest money-making race-horses on the Canadian circuit. Then he found out that because he was making so much money the stewards of the Canadian racing association * found some excuse to put him off the tracks.
I am not blaming the federal department for that because, after all, the racing association is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. But I do point out that that is a matter which should be looked into as early as possible, and that the racing association should be under the control of a commission. There should be far more jurisdiction over it than there is at the present time.
The whole thing follows out a certain scheme and philosophy. I feel that I am here to protect the interests of the honest-to-goodness dirt farmer. If it were not out of order I should like at this point to analyse some of the results of breeding, as they are set out in the national live stock records. I could show from those records that the greatest cows in Canada to-day were the result of careful mating under the control of honest-to-goodness dirt farmers. If one will analyse the records of performance as they are set out in the Dairy Journal he would find that while some wealthy people own cattle which they milk four times a day, and produce certain records, the average farmer who cannot afford to milk four times a day obtains very good results. As one goes down the list he will find that it is the honest-to-goodness dirt farmer, the farmer who has the cows which milk only twice a day, who has the better record. His record is even better than those fellows who milk four times a day.
I see the hon. member for Haldimand smiling. Well, he has a neighbour in his constituency, an honest-to-goodness dirt farmer, who produced the first 30,000-pound cow in Canada. That was Jemima of Riverside. I could give the committee the history of many other cows, such as Paulina Calantha Posch, whose progeny were the foundation of many Holstein herds to-day. The same blood was the foundation of that great farm, Hudson Heights, owned by Mr. T. B. Macaulay, who sold some of these high-priced cows. Paulina Calantha Posch was a cow bred by an ordinary dirt fanner in my own county, which I have the honour to represent.
Then there were other sires like Prince Calanthus Abberkerk, which was owned by an Oxford county farmer. Those were some of the greatest animals on record in Canada, and were selections made by honest-to-goodness dirt farmers.
We cannot afford to neglect some of these things which give encouragement to ordinary farmers. I am quite prepared to admit that the raising of race-horses is a game for the rich man. There are very few ordinary farmers who can afford to take the risk of going into that line of business. But I say that when a man has the desire and the foresight to go into it, nothing should be put in his way to discourage him. There should be no regulation or reciprocal arrangement which would make it more difficult for him to develop that kind of business, or any development connected with agriculture.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I cannot see why this vote for the Canadian national live stock records is necessary, although I believe it has been given them for some years. They charge fees sufficient to cover the keeping of records, and I do not see why such records should be kept outside the Department of Agriculture. In my view they should be kept by the department. I understand that the Canadian national live stock records have a fixed surplus of over half a million dollars. Why should we be granting them $18,000 each year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know just what I should, or what I can say, in reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Brant. As he said, the matter he was discussing is to a large extent under the control of the provincial government. In addition to that, this Canadian national live stock records association is not a branch of the department. True, we give them a grant of $18,000, as the result of an arrangement entered into many years ago. I believe it was entered into before any of us were members of the house. The records of all breeds but the Holstein are kept by this
.">012
Sup ply-Aijricu 11 u rc

association. The question of whether we should discontinue this grant has never been discussed since I have come into the department, I know of no reason why the grant should be discontinued. The records are well kept. Those: of us who deal with them from time to time find a high degree of satisfaction in dealing with them. I know of no reason whjr we should discontinue the grant, but if any hon. members have any reasons why we should, I shall be glad to hear them.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why should they get a grant when they receive sufficient to keep the records? Why should these records not be kept by the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that there is no profit. The only answer would be that if they do not get the $18,000 they would have to charge more. That might be the proper way to do it.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How did they build up a surplus of half a million dollars?


James Garfield Gardiner: The breed associations may have a surplus, but I understand that this particular organization has no surplus.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service- -
22. Marketing service administration, $106,090.
Mark Cecil Senn: There is one increase, which is largely due to a new appointment, that of agricultural commissioner. That is the only addition to the staff. What are the duties of the commissioner?


James Garfield Gardiner: The commissioner is Mr. J. G. Robertson. It will be remembered that a few years ago we appointed an agricultural commissioner, who was sent to London. Unfortunately he lost his life in the sinking of a ship in 1940 or 1941, and the vacancy was not filled until this last year. Mr. Robertson is now in London.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to know what work the marketing service carries on at the present time. We have two marketing services, one under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the other under the ' Department of Agriculture. What work is the latter carrying on?


James Garfield Gardiner: The marketing service of this department was set up as a new service in 1936, the year that I took over the department. Prior to that the department was organized into branches associated with different farm products. In 1936 we organized the department into four divisions, as they are indicated in these estimates; science service, production service, marketing service,

and special. The terms used to designate these services indicate pretty well what they are. Under science service, scientific investigations are carried on into farming, and the experimental farms sendee then tries to carry out some of the suggestions made. The production service is concerned with promoting production of the best kinds of farm products, and the marketing service is interested in the marketing of these products. Under marketing service we find such items as agricultural economics, dairy products, subsidies for cold storage warehouses, fruits and vegetable products, live stock and live stock products, and the marketing of agricultural products generally.
Our chief objective in setting up the marketing service was to give first emphasis to the necessity of finding markets for farm products. As the hon. member has stated, there is a service in the Department of Trade and Commerce which attempts to take care of marketing generally, but it was thought at that time, and experience has proved that it was a proper thought, that special emphasis should be placed upon the necessity of finding markets for farm products. It will be recalled that from 1931 to 1935 or 1936, in fact almost down to the beginning of the war, there were piling up in Canada very considerable surpluses of farm products which we found difficulty in marketing. When we found difficulty in marketing any particular product our farmers had to go out of production of that product, and the result was that in many lines of farm production from 1934 to 1936 we were down pretty close to the bottom. We made an inquiry at that time, which was fully discussed in the house and outside. We sent a delegation to Great Britain to examine the whole marketing position in Great Britain and on the continent, and they came back and made a report. That report was not acceptable to everybody. It will be recalled that at the time it was questioned whether any further copies should be printed, and the printing was finally stopped after an almost complete distribution of the report had been made all over Canada If anybody wants to know the history of marketing I recommend ^ reading of that report, some copies of which can still be found roundabout. That report gives a true picture of the conditions that existed then in the British market and on the European continent. It gives a true picture of the marketing of farm products back over a considerable period of time.

Supply-Agriculture
The report recommended that certain things be done, and we have done many of these things, particularly since the war began. As a result we have been able to market a very much greater volume of our farm products than any of us ever had thought might have been marketed from the farms of this country. The whole experience in connection with that service from the time it was set up has indicated that we certainly need in Canada, and I think in the Department of Agriculture, an organization that is intent upon finding markets for farm products both at home and abroad, and that we should proceed to spend, not less money upon it, but more in order to make sure that these markets are found and made available to our farmers.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I think the minister is
right.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Before we took recess I was saying that the minister was probably right in setting up this marketing service for the Department of Agriculture, but I do not understand why he has increased the estimate on marketing and decreased the estimate on production, at a time when there is a great demand for supplies and most agricultural products are being rationed.
I should think that now we need a larger estimate for production and a smaller estimate for marketing. No doubt we shall need an increased estimate for marketing services after the war, but at this time it looks to me as though, when the marketing service of the Department of Agriculture opens up any market, the wartime prices and trade board comes along and blocks it. When we had a market for our certified seed potatoes in the United States the export board banned the export of seed, and the result was that a large quantity of certified seed was left in Canada, especially in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and had to be sold at a much lower price, for table stock. Some of this seed was even dumped at the end of the season. During the months of January, February and March we were refused export permits. I believe this was caused by the wartime prices and trade board, and I should like to see more cooperation between the two boards and the department. It looks to me as though in the last two years the wartime prices and trade board
has been opposing everything which the marketing branch of the Department of Agriculture has tried to do.
Mr. S'ENN: I am somewhat in agreement with the hon. member who has just spoken about this matter of marketing at this time. The minister made quite a statement at six o'clock, saying that the marketing services had been set up in their present form about 1936 or 1937, when he first came into the department. I am free to admit that they did very good work up to the time of the war. However, the minister referred to a report which is commonly known as the Shaw report and gave it credit for the increased marketing which has been experienced since that time. In my opinion any increase which has occurred in the marketing of farm products, particularly in Great Britain and other foreign parts, has been due to the war itself and its needs and not to any report which was issued prior to the war by any official of the department.
I doubt very much the necessity of having such a large marketing service at the present time, particularly when one takes into consideration the number of boards which are marketing a large part of our production. We have the wheat board marketing our wheat, the meat board marketing our meat products of all kinds, the dairy products board looking after the marketing of dairy products, the special products board concerned with the marketing of other products. Just why the minister is so anxious to keep the department at its full strength at this time is difficult to understand. 1 doubt very much the advisability of having so large a department. I think I know what the minister will say, that a number of officials who are in the marketing service here go to make up the boards which are handling these products as they are shipped to other countries. That is very true. But once more I am going to criticize these boards for having no producer representation. I believe we would get along much better and the boards would have to a much greater extent the confidence of the producers if the producers were represented upon them.
I do not intend to pursue the matter farther. The ministers may have information which I have not to support the necessity of keeping up such a large marketing service when we have so many boards organized for the purpose of marketing our products abroad, and when there is so large a demand for those products that, as the hon. member who just sat down remarked, we cannot fill the demands.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one point in connection with a matter which has been raised to which I think some attention should be given. It was suggested that we had this

Supply-Agriculture

marketing report back in 1936 and that the increase which has come in connection with the marketing of farm, products is largely as a result of the war. I would instance just one farm product to indicate the extent to which that is a fact. With regard to cheese, Canadian production in 1907 was 204 million pounds and our exports to Britain were 190 million pounds. Coming down to 1934, we produced 99 million pounds and exported 58 million pounds. In 1935 we produced 100 million pounds and exported 52 million pounds; that is the low point of our exports over the whole reported period. In 1936 we had these investigations made of which I spoke and started trying to encourage in the latter part of that season the production and export of cheese. By 1937 we were producing 130 million pounds and exported 80 million pounds; in 1938 we produced 123 million pounds and exported 75,950,000 pounds; in 1938 we exported 90,945,000 pounds. Before the war started we had increased our exports to Great Britain from 52 million to 90 million pounds, and I think that was largely the result of the activities which were taken at that time, not only on this side but in Britain. We put in Great Britain, the representative of the department who was spoken of earlier, when we were asked why we had voted an extra salary this year for agricultural appointments, and we gave him some staff with which to promote the sale of cheese and other farm products in Great Britain, with the results I have just indicated, before the war started. It is true that in 1942 we had got our production of cheese up to within one million pounds of what it was in 1907. The increase in production continued through the war period, until in 1942 we produced between two hundred and three million pounds and we exported between 140 million and 150 million pounds to Great Britain. We were down in 1943 as compared with 1942 and we are up again this year as compared with last year. It is most important to promote not only marketing but production, and we are doing both. We are promoting the production of cheese at present, influencing that production to some extent by our action in connection with subsidies on milk and1 other dairy products.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Bonuses.


James Garfield Gardiner: Cheese production is going up under that system at the present time. Of course, in the earlier years there was no bonus; it was merely a matter of assuring the farmer that there was a market for the product and a certain return for it and he produced the cheese.


Olof Hanson: The
demand must have fallen off in Britain. Was there a question about the quality of our cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was
some question, I believe.


James Garfield Gardiner: A question arose toward the end of the last war with regard to our willingness to supply cheese at a price. Perhaps I should give the figures which are here before me. In 1907 we produced in Canada 204 million pounds and in that year imports into the United Kingdom from Canada amounted to 190 million pounds and imports from New Zealand to 21 million pounds. Coming to the year I mentioned, 1935, our production had gone to 100 million pounds and our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to 52 million pounds, while New Zealand's exports to the United Kingdom had risen to 197 million pounds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the reason for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were two or three reasons, and one of the reasons explained in the report we were discussing is this. You could go to London in 1936 and walk down the Strand; you could see on every bus, and displayed prominently on buildings the sign, "Eat New Zealand Cheese".


Richard Burpee Hanson: Sales promotion.


James Garfield Gardiner: But there was no Canadian sign anywhere in London at that time. We inaugurated an advertising policy partly through our own department and partly by reason of the good will of the Department of Trade and Commerce, with the result that our cheese was advertised in the same way as New Zealand cheese was being displayed, and then we went on and urged our people to produce cheese in order to meet the demand being thus created.


Mark Cecil Senn: Can the minister give figures showing the prices realized per pound for cheese at the various times he has indicated?


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1907 the price was 13-91 cents; in 1935, 11-62 cents; in 1936, 13-44 cents; in 1937, 14-67 cents; in 1938, 15-26 cents. That is the last year for which I have prices here, but since that time they have gone up gradually, from sixteen cents the following year, until now the actual price is twenty cents which, with other premiums and other forms of assistance, is brought up to around twenty-five or twenty-six cents.

Supply-Agriculture


Heber Harold Hatfield: How are the extra costs accounted for? They should be in these estimates. I am referring to extra costs resulting from the war.


James Garfield Gardiner: The cost of the dairy board is in the war expenditures.


Joseph William Burton: Glancing over this estimate here, especially the details given at page 65, I have come to the conclusion that this is about one of the best paid branches the minister has under his jurisdiction. I would not object to that but for a number of reasons. First of all, consider what the hon. member for Haldimand stated a little while ago. We have in operation a number of other boards which no doubt are carrying on some of the work that this branch of the department in other years would be expected to do. But over and above that, my reason for rising at this time is that earlier in the day, when we were discussing another branch of the department, the health of animals, the minister gave us what I thought at that time was a reasonable and logical explanation of the manner in which the salaries were adjusted. Glancing over this, however, and comparing it with the health of animals branch, I find that there are some discrepancies. For instance, the director of marketing service receives $8,500, but when you turn to the health of animals branch you find that the highest figure is $4,320. It may be said that the director of marketing service is a rather more responsible person, being more or less the head of that branch. Well, drop that for the moment and take the agricultural commissioner. There the figure is $5,280, and when you look at the health of animals branch the first person in charge gets $4,320.


James Garfield Gardiner: You should compare
them with the director of production and the director of experimental farms. The salaries are more nearly the same.


Joseph William Burton: But I submit that even taking that into consideration, when we were dealing with the health of animals, it was pointed out on a number of occasions in this session that the health of animals has a bearing on the health and welfare of human beings as well. I do not see therefore why we should have one class of men underpaid, while those in another branch are receiving a fairly reasonable remuneration. Mind you, I am not complaining, or suggesting that these persons should not be receiving what they are. I am simply pointing out that we have a number of other boards that are taking away from them a certain amount of responsibility in the work in detail and still we leave others, who are to safeguard not only the health of animals but the health of our population to some extent, in an underpaid class. It does not seem fair. While I was more or less reconciled to the statement the minister made this afternoon, as to why they could not pay those in the health of animals branch more than they were receiving, after examining this item I am not quite so satisfied.


James Garfield Gardiner: To keep the record straight, there are of course certain things that cannot be fully calculated here. I am not certain whether these items are entirely included in the salary, but take the director of experimental farms. He lives in a house on the farm, and anyone will agree that there are some advantages in having that government house available to him.


Gordon Graydon: You are fortunate to have a house of any kind in Ottawa.


James Garfield Gardiner: His remuneration is
$7,500, which is not as low as some mentioned by my hon. friend. He is comparable with the director of marketing. Then you go on to the director of production, whose salary is something over $6,000. At the top of page 62 of the estimates there appears the item: "Director of production services, $6,300". He is a new man recently appointed. He succeeded the person who was superannuated and takes on the lowest range of salary when he begins. Then over on the page we are dealing with appears this item: "Director of marketing services, $8,500." The occupant of that position is Mr. A. M. Shaw whom we induced to leave the position as dean of the agricultural college to come to Ottawa to take this position.


Joseph William Burton: I am not saying that these people are getting too much.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand, but I wish to keep the record straight with regard to the heads of the division and with regard to the comparison which was made a few moments ago with the heads of branches in the division of marketing services. So far as the staffs are concerned I think it will be found that generally, as I said this afternoon, these salaries are arranged' by the civil service commission in a manner Which is intended to give the same value to the different positions which entail similar work.


Thomas Reid: Can the minister give any
information to the committee as to the possibility of a market for eggs in Great Britain for the future? Most of the provinces have
Supply-Agriculture

considerably increased their flocks. While it is true that most of the provinces produce more eggs and poultry than British Columbia, still the fact remains that we as a province specialize in the production of eggs. Although the grain comes to us from the prairies, nevertheless the fact remains that the climate is such tha,t the production per head of poultry is higher in British Columbia than in any other province.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member leave that until we come to live stock and live stock products?


Thomas Reid: It has to do with marketing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Live stock and live
stock products includes marketing. I have not the information at the moment, but I shall have it when the item comes up.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is this agricultural commissioner a new position; is it a new appointment on the marketing service?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it is the position that I dealt with this afternoon. It is the position which William Allen, who lost his life crossing the Atlantic in 1941, occupied. We left it vacant until this year. One of the reasons for that was that during the war and up until very recently we thought the position could be left vacant. But now as we think we are approaching the end of the war we thought it advisable to have a man in London and this man is in London.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Who is he?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. J. G. Robertson.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was surprised to hear certain members of the committee suggesting that there should be a cut in the grant for marketing service. I know that at the presenttime there is a market for most of our agricultural products, but I think we all agree it is largely due to the war. This grant should be maintained so that the markets which we now have may be retained and provision made for taking care of surpluses which we are likely to have in Canada after the war. Certainly I should not like to see this marketing service branch curtailed in any way, because we are going to need it and its service in the post-war years. However, I believe that we should have all agricultural products under the Minister of Agriculture, particularly the marketing of them. At the present time our wheat is marketed through the Department of Trade and Commerce. Has any move been made by the government to concentrate the marketing of all agricultural products in the [Mr. Reid.l
Department of Agriculture rather than in two departments, trade and commerce and agriculture, as they are at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a discussion with regard to that matter which spread itself, I think, over about twenty years or longer. Just at the beginning of the war the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was appointed, and I think the last time the matter was discussed here I intimated to the house that I thought two heads were probably better than one and that we would get along very well together; therefore we have not had any discussion on it since.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I was not asking for any cut in the marketing services. I was wondering why there was a cut in the production branch and an increase in the marketing services in war time. I think the marketing services should be increased, not decreased, but I think this is the wrong time to do it. In normal times I believe that seventy-five per cent of our estimates on agriculture should be spent on marketing. I believe that production will take care of itself in normal times.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to be clear on the position which the Department of Trade and Commerce occupies with the Department of Agriculture in marketing problems overseas. I think it is true that this famous Shaw report did make mention of the activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce over there and, to say the least, it was not flattering. Since this new agricultural commissioner has been appointed to look after marketing over in Britain to a certain extent, has the Department of Trade and Commerce a representative over there, and, if so, how is the work of the agricultural commissioner in Britain defined in relation to the work being done by the trade commissioner of the Department of Trade and Commerce?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been a representative of the agricultural department in London for a long time. I am not sure of the exact date but I think it was 1922. It was during the time, at any rate, that Mr. Motherwell was here as Minister of Agriculture. Shortly after he became Minister of Agriculture he appointed a representative of the Department of Agriculture to London. At a later date, I think it was when Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister, the agricultural representative was placed under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that position remained in that relationship until Mr. Wilson passed away. In 1936 or 1937 the present position of agricultural commissioner was set up and we sent a man to Britain. One of the reasons

Supply-Agriculture
for that is that under this service all the grading is done by the marketing branch here. All the activities related to grading farm products such as cheese, butter and hogs and everything else excepting grain comes under this marketing branch.
With regard to some of the comment that was made a few moments ago may I say that the greater part of the staffs who are in the marketing branch were in some of the branches of the department before. When the branches were rearranged to constitute the divisions many of those having to do with grading were there then; they are there now. Speaking from memory, I believe six representatives of the department were in the different ports in Britain. There was one in Liverpool, one in London, one in Glasgow and so on. These persons were all placed under the direction of the commissioner who was sent over there. ' These men, located at the different ports, checked the commodities that were sent over, checked the grade and the condition of the commodity when it arrived. These men all operate now under this commissioner and have done so ever since he was sent over in 1936 or 1937. During the war, of course, that work probably has not been as important as it was before, with this exception. We are able to keep a check on the great quantities of bacon, for example, that we are sending to Britain. While there is not so much emphasis on the actual grade of the bacon going over, or even on the grade of the cheese, still we get continuous reports in that connection and try to keep our products up to standard. That is the work being done at the present time.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member for Haldi-mand asked one of the questions I intended to ask, and the minister has partly answered it. I have in my hand the report of his department, and on page 116 reference is made to the fact that Colonel Robertson was appointed as successor to Doctor William Allen. It goes on to say that Colonel Robertson's duty is to maintain close supervision and inspection of the quality and condition of Canadian agricultural products arriving in Britain. I believe the minister should give us a more detailed report in connection with Colonel Robertson. How are these goods arriving; what disposition is being made of them, and so on? Only a line or two of this report is devoted to this matter. I also have before me a report which was tabled in the house with respect to the production, export and domestic disappearance of certain agricultural products such as beef, pork, butter, cheese, eggs, apples, wheat, oats, barley and so on, and giving a comparison as
between 1939 and 1943. This table contains the reference to cheese mentioned by the minister a moment ago, showing an increase in production of 38,000,000 pounds as between those two years. It is also interesting to note that the domestic disappearance has remained fairly constant, the difference being only one per cent on the basis of the percentage of production, while exports have increased by more than 30,000,000 pounds. With respect to beef it is interesting to note that the production in 1939 amounted to 714,000,000 pounds, while in 1943 it jumped to 916,869,000 pounds. On the other hand the domestic disappearance of beef was seven per cent greater in 1943 than in 1939, while the situation is just the opposite in regard to pork. I suppose that results from the fact that more pork was exported. In 1939 we produced 679,968,000 pounds of pork, and in 1943 our production was 1,173,268,000 pounds. The percentage of exports jumped from 28-7 per cent in 1939 to 50-2 per cent in 1943. This is an interesting table, and I would ask the minister to give us a more detailed report from Colonel Robertson as to what is happening over there and what will be the effect on our future exports of agricultural products.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course it is not as easy now to get reports from the other side as it was before the war, and probably not as much can be gained from such reports, even though the amounts being shipped now are so much greater than those sent in peace time. Realizing, however, the necessity and importance of having such reports, we have sent for Colonel Robertson and I believe he is on his way back now. We want a complete review of the situation over there from him personally, in order that we may prepare for what will have to be done when the war ends. We have sent for him with that purpose in mind. At the moment I am afraid I have not a report from Colonel Robertson which would enable me to reply to what has been said.
Much of the information we have with regard to marketing over there does come from Colonel Robertson; and while I do not have a written report in regard to pork products I can say that we have exceeded our fondest hopes in connection with the marketing of pork products in Britain. Prior to the war, as I have said on former occasions, we hoped that we might get our exports to Britain up to something in the neighbourhood of 300,000,000 pounds a year, and that is what we were driving at. We were sending approximately that amount at the time war started. Last year, as hon. members know, we sent 675.000,000 pounds, and during the first six
Supply-Agriculture

months of this year we have sent 464,000,000 pounds. In other words, during the first six months of 1944 we have sent one and a half times as much as we had hoped to be able to send in the whole year before the war.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is all meat products?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is bacon and ham. At the time war started we had no hopes at all of being able to send any considerable quantity of beef to Britain. We sent from five or six thousand head of cattle a year to a high of thirty-eight thousand head, during the four or five years before the outbreak of war. In the early part of the war, as is indicated by the figtires just quoted, we were attempting to send over the greatest possible quantities of two products, bacon and cheese, and we did decrease our domestic consumption of cheese some years by denying our own people any cheese during the summer months. For two years, I think it was, all the cheese produced during the summer months was delivered to Britain, and the only cheese available for consumption in Canada' was that which we persuaded the cheese factories to make during the winter months.
As far as beef was concerned, during the first two years of the war we were selling all our surplus beef on the hoof to the United States. One year we sold in that market something like 200,000 head of cattle weighing 700 pounds or over. In 1942, however, as a result of taking so much pork off the market, we were eating all the beef available for consumption in Canada, and therefore discontinued shipping cattle to- the United States. During 1943, as a result of our urgings and also as a result of the fact that the farmers knew they had a market, the production of cattle increased materially. However, as hon. members know, it takes from two to three years to bring about an increase in the production of cattle, and that increased production just began to come on the market in the late fall of 1943. As a result we have sent to Britain, according to the latest report I have, some 55,000,000 pounds of beef, practically all of which has gone over since January 1 of this year, although a few hundred thousand pounds were sent in the last two or three months of 1943. That 55,000,000 pounds of beef represents something like 120,000 or 130,000 head of cattle. A considerable part of it has been in the form of boneless beef, which I think weighs out at something like 375 or 385 pounds a head. The carcasses sent over frozen would weigh between 450 and 500 pounds. If that is figured out it will be found that now' we are sending practiieally as many 
cattle to Great Britain in the form of beef as we were sending to the United States and Britain combined just before the war. That beef is being shipped in frozen form. Before the war we did not ship any quantity of beef in any form other than on the hoof. Hon. members will recall that in each session before the war I was questioned with respect to experiments I was carrying on. We were select-ting twenty-five head of wrhat we called baby beef each week, and shipping it to the Smith-field market.
We took it from as far west as Saskatoon and Calgary, shipping it in refrigerated cars from there to the wharves at Montreal and Saint John. Then we shipped it to the Smith-field market. We were able to land it there in about ten days' time. In Great Britain, of course, they consider beef ten days old as fresh beef. They believe in hanging it for ten days, before consuming it as fresh beef. Under proper conditions we are able to get it over there under ten days, and sell it on the Smithfield market. Our experience was that that beef topped the market, continuously, during the period of time we were carrying on those experiments. They were brought to an end by the war. It was impossible to ship that type of beef after the war started, and we did not have a sufficient volume of it in any event to make it worth while sending it. It cost us money to try that experiment.


Mark Cecil Senn: It was baby beef.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Now we have an opportunity to demonstrate to the British that we have beef in Canada that can be sold, and if we can set up a market for Canadian frozen beef there is the possibility that when the war is over we may have a market in Great Britain for that product. We are working on it at the present time and, as I told the house the other day, we have an agreement extending over 1944 and 1945 under which the British are prepared to take all the beef in this condition we can send to them. They are providing us with the shipping with which to take it over.


Ernest Edward Perley: Could the minister give us an estimate of what he thinks they will take in 1944, under the new contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say is that we have covered a little better than six months of the contract, up to date, and we have sent over 55,000,000 pounds. That is more than half of what we have contracted to send in two years; I mean the minimum amount we have contracted to send in two years. If the marketing continues at the same pace we

Supply-Agriculture
should send them about four times that amount, or somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000,000 pounds.


Ernest Edward Perley: The report I have in my hand says that last year we sent 44,000,000 pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where to?


Ernest Edward Perley: To Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. There would not be 44,000,000 pounds last year. There is something wrong with that figure. That could not be millions of pounds.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes; to be exact, it is 44,122,042 pounds. That is what the report says.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount shipped last year was 15,000,000 pounds to all countries.


Mark Cecil Senn: Mr. Chairman, the minister told the house yesterday or the day before, and repeated it tonight, about the contract for beef entered into. I suppose, with the British ministry of food. Will he tell the committee whether that contract was negotiated through his department or through the Department of Trade and Commerce?


James Garfield Gardiner: Through my department.


Mark Cecil Senn: Was it negotiated in Great Briain, or in New York with the British food board1?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was really negotiated in Ottawa between representatives of the British food board who are in this City, and representatives of the Department of Agriculture. But there were communications back and forth before an agreement was finally reached.


Mark Cecil Senn: The Department of Trade and Commerce did not enter into it at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason has been explained to the house before. I believe the Prime Minister on one occasion back in 1936 or 1937 stated clearly to the house the relationships existing between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. He confined activities in connection with actual marketing in Canada to the Department of Agriculture. In all these contracts we deliver these products to the British at a Canadian port. In other words, all our bacon is delivered to the British at Saint John and Montreal-most of it at Saint John -and the British take the responsibility for it, from there on.
Of course that is not the condition in peace time. We are then under some responsibility to deliver the product in a certain form to
Great Britain. But in this period of war the British take delivery of it at a port in our country, and from there on it is their product; it is not ours.


Mark Cecil Senn: The point I am trying to arrive at is this. I am trying to find out, if possible, whether the Department of Agriculture, through its trade commissioner or some other official, is taking over negotiating for the marketing of Canadian farm products on the British market. I should like to know just what these boards have to do with the matter. They certainly have something to do with it. Does the Department of Trade and Commerce enter into the negotiations at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; they are all carried out through-


Mark Cecil Senn: Then that means that the Department of Agriculture has taken over the marketing of agricultural products in Great Britain, at least for the period of the war?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it means exactly what I said, that right from the beginning of the war we have negotiated contracts, one of the reasons being that the two things are closely associated, namely, greater production and the shipping of production to Great Britain, and the other being that which I have just mentioned, namely, that we are delivering to Great Britain in Canada. These contracts have been made. The first was for bacon under the bacon board. The second was for cheese, under the dairy board. And the beef contract is made under the bacon board, now called the meat board. The beef contract is negotiated through the food board, with the advice of the meat board.


Mark Cecil Senn: What about wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: The wheat is all handled by the wheat board.


Mark Cecil Senn: And that is under the Department of Trade and Commerce?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it is under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


George James Tustin: I was interested in the figures given a few minutes ago by the minister, when he went back to 1907. He gave us figures showing quantities of cheese exported from Canada to Great Britain, and the amount of cheese brought from New Zealand to Great Britain. In about thirty years those figures have almost reversed themselves. I believe there must have been some good reason for that, and I think the minister almost put his finger on the pulse of the trouble when he said that one could go down the Strand and see the products
Supply-Agriculture

of New Zealand and Australia advertised everywhere, but he could not see where the goods of Canada were advertised anywhere.
I remember being in London a few years ago; I may tell the committee that I searched all over the city of London to find Canadian goods, and the only place I saw the name of Canada was on Canada House. Yet we expect to maintain trade in a country, without even letting them know that there is a country such as Canada!
I walked down many of those streets and saw brilliantly lighted stores. One would see advertised in the windows of those stores, as far as the eye could reach, the products of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. But there was no such thing as that, so far as Canada was concerned. I am glad to note that an agricultural commissioner has been sent to London; in my view that is a step in the right direction. May I say I do not think the minister should allow this country ever to slip back to where we were in the last number of years. We should not allow the buyers of cheese, or the commission houses, to buy cheese f.o.b. Montreal for the old country market. We should see to it that our cheese is put in London, and that there is always a supply of Canadian cheese on hand over there to supply the market.
The fact that we did not do that was the reason why we lost our cheese market in the old country a few years ago. The simple fact was that New Zealand had in London warehouses filled with cheese at all times. When a storekeeper or merchant wanted cheese he simply telephoned to the commission house or wholesaler, and a supply of New Zealand cheese was delivered to him. But on many, many occasions there was no such supply of Canadian cheese.
I remember well an experience I had in a large hotel in London. I was having my dinner. The menu was presented to me, and on it I saw "Canadian cheese". I went out of my way to say to the waiter, "Is this Canadian cheese?" "Yes, sir", was the reply. The cheese was brought in to me and was served very nicely. It was cut in long narrow slabs and wrapped in cellophane. I tasted the cheese and immediately called the waiter and said, "I thought I asked you for Canadian cheese". "That is Canadian cheese", he said.
I said, "Send me the head waiter". The head waiter came and I said to him, "I asked for Canadian cheese which you are advertising on your menu, and this is what I got". He said, "That is Canadian cheese". I said, "Now I have a real complaint. Will you send in the manager". Presently the manager came in and I said, "You have Canadian cheese adver-

tised on your menu. I asked your waiter if you had it and he told me that you had, and this is what I got. Then I sent for the head waiter and complained that this was not Canadian cheese. I tell you that I am a Canadian and I know that this is not Canadian cheese". The manager said, "No, this is New Zealand cheese". I said, "Why do you serve me New Zealand cheese when I asked for Canadian cheese?" and he replied, "We cannot get a supply of Canadian cheese in London at all times and we are forced to buy from the supply which is always with us".
It may seem to be a little premature, but I believe that now is the time, when we have got our exports of cheese into the British market up to around 200,000,000 pounds a year, when we should lay a foundation for the post-war period. I think we should arrange to have in London a warehouse full of Canadian products at all times, so that our trade commissioner there can furnish a supply whenever there is a demand for it. But if we go back to the conditions of the old days we shall find in a very few years that we have lost that market. There is no doubt that we can hold that market if we look after it properly. We have the quality. We make the best cheese that is made in this world; there is no argument about that. But we must see to it that the supply is there when the demand is made for our products. We must see to it that our products are properly graded and that nothing but the best grades are sent to the British market. If we do not do that we cannot expect to compete in the markets of the world. New Zealand cheese, for example, can be produced more cheaply than Canadian cheese. It may be that the government of Canada should take up a little of the spread in order to see that the market for our Canadian cheese is maintained. The same thing applies to bacon. I had the privilege of eating bacon three times each day for four days when I was in Denmark and, Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared as a Canadian to admit that Danish bacon is equal in quality to [DOT] our first grade Canadian bacon. It is perhaps true that I was not furnished with the best grade bacon in Denmark, for the best grade of Danish bacon was sent to the British market. Just the reverse of that took place in the old days. We used to keep our first grade of bacon for consumption at home and send our inferior bacon to the British market, and then we wonder why we lost that market.
While, as I said a few moments ago, this may seem to be a little premature I believe that this is the time when our agriculture

Supply-Agriculture
commissioner in London should start to lay the foundation so that Canada will maintain her place in the British market when this war is over.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the special products board come under the minister's department and, in particular, is it comprised within the terms of marketing under this item?	'


James Garfield Gardiner: The special products board comes under the war vote. We discussed it fully when the war vote was before the house about a month and a half ago.


John George Diefenbaker: It does not come under this?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I do not know whether my question comes under this item, but could the minister tell us what steps are being taken to market the new dehydrated products, all kinds of fruits and vegetables? Such of these products as have been sent to Great Britain have registered extremely well with the people over there. Would the minister make a statement on that.


James Garfield Gardiner: That discussion would
come under item 26. We shall have the information here then.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
23.	Agricultural economics, $105,056.
William Scottie Bryce: Is the minister in a position now to make a statement on the progress that is being made with the survey into the cost of producing milk on the prairies?


James Garfield Gardiner: Two studies have been carried on in this field. The Alberta project is now in its fourth year and in the final stages of completion. This study is being carried on in cooperation with the Alberta department of agriculture, the public utility commissioner's office and the university of Alberta. Data have been collected in the Edmonton, Red Deer, Wetaskiwin, Calgary and Lethbridge districts. In the year 1941-42, among the Edmonton district wholemilk shippers, costs of production per pound of butterfat averaged 59-1 cents; receipts averaged 63 cents. In the Coaldale district, whole-milk shippers costs averaged 40-8 cents per pound, and receipts were 45-7 cents. In the Rosemary area, shippers of cheese milk had costs averaging 28-8 cents and receipts of 43-9 cents per pound.
In Manitoba a similar study is under way. Excellent cooperation has been established
with the Manitoba department of agriculture and the farmers in the Winnipeg milkshed. It is anticipated that results of the first year's records will be available early in the new fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
24.	Dairy products, $388,988.
Percy Ellis Wright: Would the minister give
us a statement with regard to the position of dairy butter in Canada; what the storage is; what the production has been over the past three months as compared with that of last year, and what the disappearance has been?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have here a statement covering the months of January to May inclusive for each of the years 1938 to 1944, which I think will make a comparative statement as to the general position this year as compared with other years.
I do not think, as regards the stocks of creamery butter, I should attempt to give all the figures for each year; I will take 1939, the last year before the war, when on January 1 the stocks were 44,616,000 pounds; in 1942 they were 44,194.000 pounds, or approximately the same, and in 1944, 46,038,000 pounds. In the last year they are about two million pounds higher than in either of the other years, or one and one-half million pounds higher than in the first named year and almost two million pounds higher than they were in 1942. In 1943, the year we are likely to compare with this year when we are making comparisons, we had stocks of 23 million pounds on January 1. The figures in pounds by months for the last three years are:
1942	1943	1944Pounds	Pounds	PoundsJanuary 1...	. 44,194,000	23,052,000	46,038.000February 1..	. 33,000,000	15,000,000	33,000,000March 1....	. 21,000,000	12,000,000	19,000,000April 1	. 11,000,000	9.000,000	11,000,000May 1	. 6,500,000	11,300,000	9,283,000
As to production, taking these same figures again-and I may say that if I went back to 1940 you would get about the same figures until you come down to totals:
1942	1943	1944Pounds	Pounds	PoundsJanuary 1.... 10.718,000 13,149,000	11,037,000February 1...	9,000,000	11.900,000	10,900,000March 1	
11,700,000	15,500,000	14,000,000April 1	
16,800,000	23,000,000	19,800,000
The important factors there are these, that stocks are lower in 1943 until you get down to the month of May than they were in either 1942 or 1944. The production was higher in

Supply-Agriculture

1943 than it was in either of the other years, with the result that you get these increased stocks at the first of May, 1943.
And now so far as domestic disappearance is concerned :
1942	1943	1944Pounds	Pounds	Pounds
January 1.... 21.000.000 February 1.. . 20,000.000
March 1	 22,200,000
April 1	 21,500,000
21.000.	000 23,900,000
14.000.	000	23,800,000
17.900.000	22,500,000
21.600.000	21,600,000
That preitty well gives the position.


Percy Ellis Wright: What is the reason for the decrease of consumption in 1943 as compared with 1942?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is when the rationing restrictions were put on.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What are the figures of the exports of butter in those years?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were no exports of butter during those particular years, with the exception of last year when we sent about seven million pounds to Britain. There will be some slight exports across the United States boundary line which do not amount to very much'-just in localities.


Mark Cecil Senn: When this item was up last year there was some discussion about paying that subsidy on dairy butter. It is paid on the factory butter but not, I understand, on dairy butter. I hold in my hand a copy of the report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization of last year. One of the recommendations they made with respect to the marketing of farm products is, "That consideration be given to paying a bonus on marketed dairy butter." The minister's figures this evening are fairly large; they indicate quite a substantial production of dairy butter. Has any consideration been given or any plan worked out whereby those who make dairy butter would receive a bonus of some ten cents a pound butterfat which producers of the other butter are receiving?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it will be recalled by hon. members that a year ago we had a discussion of this particular matter. At the moment I do not remember the exact figures, but there had been considerable talk about difficulties in handling dairy butter. Provision was made to handle it, but we found very little of it available; indeed1 I must say that I have not heard anything about dairy butter since we discussed' it here last time, which would indicate that there is not much interest taken in it through the country.


George James Tustin: The minister will remember that under the war appropriation bill I brought up a certain situation with regard to milk being sent to cheese factories and being frozen in the factories, and it could not be taken out of the cheese factory and shipped to any other point. I sent the minister a schedule showing the difference between three cheese factories and a condensery plant. At that time I was able to show that there was a difference of almost two hundred dollars per year in the returns from a herd of eleven cows paid to a man sending to a condensery plant and to a man sending to a certain cheese factory.
I have also in the past urged the minister to give consideration to the control of all milk used for processing, and I have contended that the same price should be paid for all processing milk and that this milk should be sent to the point at which it is most urgently needed. Last year of course we all realized that it was necessary to have the milk going to the cheese factories in order to manufacture and ship the amount of cheese we had agreed to send to the old country. But late last fall many cheese factories in the country decided to remain open in the winter months and in many cases it has been the habit of farmers to ship their milk to cheese factories in the summer and to ship to the condensery plant in the fall and winter months because of the difference in price; and of course in the past there has been very little market for milk in cheese factories. I would ask the minister whether he has given consideration to the suggestions I have offered to him in the past, and whether it will be the policy of the agricultural food board, which controls this matter, to keep milk frozen in cheese factories this winter if the cheese factories decide to remain open, or whether the producer will have the privilege of taking his milk from the cheese factory late in the fall and sending it wherever he decides.


Thomas Reid: What do they do in the condensery?


George James Tustin: Condense it, or it goes into powdered milk.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position of course was pretty well set out- in the subsidies arranged in the spring. We arranged to pay higher subsidies for certain kinds of milk for use in the winter months as against the summer. We did not pay higher subsidies on milk going into cheese in winter as compared with the summer.


George James Tustin: But you increased condensery milk fifteen cents a hundred.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming to that. That indicated our policy. We want all the milk put into cheese we can possibly get into it in the summer months, and we are paying as high a subsidy on milk going into cheese in the summer as in the winter. On the milk that goes into canning we are paying just double as much, thirty cents in the winter as against fifteen cents in the summer, which would indicate that if we are to have canned milk we want it in the winter as much as possible, and we want milk to go into cheese as much as possible in the summer. If the cheese factories close in the winter time we shall probably not urge them very much to keep open, and milk that was previously going to cheese factories will go to canning factories.


George James Tustin: It will make it that much worse this winter if the cheese factories decide to keep open, for the simple reason that the bonus being paid to the condensery plant will be fifteen cents a hundred more than that paid to the cheese factory, and there will be all the more reason for the farmer to want to send milk to the condensery in the winter months. The question I asked was this. After the summer season of cheese production is over, if the factory decides to remain open in the winter will the producer still have to ship his milk to the cheese factory; will he still be frozen there in the winter as he was last winter, or will he have the privilege of shipping to some other point?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not like to say in advance wThat will happen in connection with any particular cheese factory. It will depend on the demand for cheese at that time both in Britain and here, but generally the policy which was indicated when the subsidies were set was this. We have thirty cents a hundred on milk going into cheese, and this winter it is only twenty cents, which indicates that we are not so anxious to have milk go into cheese this winter as last winter. On the other hand we have paid twenty cents on milk going into cheese this summer as against nothing a year ago. We are more anxious to have milk go into cheese in the summer months this year than did go into cheese a year ago, but we are less anxious to have milk go into cheese in the winter months this year than last year.


George James Tustin: I do not know whether I am making myself quite clear-


James Garfield Gardiner: You are making yourself clear, but I will not say anything as to whether in any particular plant we shall not ask them to make cheese next winter if they stay open.


George James Tustin: But the point is this. The spread will be fifteen cents a hundred greater
100-316i
in the winter months going into the condensery than into the cheese factories-fifteen cents more than it is at the present time. The point I want the minister to answer is this. With the spread increased fifteen cents a hundred, is the farmer who is unfortunate enough to be shipping to a cheese factory and who is frozen there, being unable to ship anywhere else, to be compelled in the face of the greater spread in price to send his milk to the cheese factory in the winter while his neighbour is able to get fifty or sixty cents more for his milk by sending it to the condensery plant? The spread will be increased instead of being reduced during the winter months.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am suggesting that we are not very likely to be compelling people to put milk into cheese factories in the winter, but I will not say that in no case will that be done.


George James Tustin: That is what happened last winter.


James Garfield Gardiner: It depends on the circumstances.


George James Tustin: You did it last winter.


James Garfield Gardiner: We were short of cheese last winter. We hope to get it in the summer time this year.


Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister propose increasing the bonus to milk producers in Saskatchewan which was taken off last May? It was reduced fifteen cents a hundred or so. Will it be increased, and will that apply again?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bonus on milk was announced last spring for the whole year. On fluid milk it was twenty-five cents a hundred from May 1 to September 30, and fifty-five cents a hundred except in certain districts where it has been previously established at twenty-five cents. That was the position a year ago-cheese nothing and thirty cents; butter, eight and ten cents; for the coming year it is thirty-five cents a hundred for fluid milk in the summer months and fifty-five cents in the winter except in certain districts where it was continued at twenty-five cents, and those are set right across the country. Cheese milk is twenty cents a hundred throughout the year. The subsidy on butter fat is ten cents in the summer and ten cents in the winter. On concentrated milk the subsidy is fifteen cents a hundred in the summer and thirty cents in the winter. That is the same right across the country; it does not matter whether it is in the east or the west.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Has the minister a tabulation for fluid milk production for the last couple of years?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member want fluid milk as distinct from milk that goes into cheese and butter?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: If the minister has it segregated.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid I have not it here.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: You would not have it separate from cheese, butter production and condensed milk?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have seen the figures indicating the amount of milk that would be required to cover all production of cheese plus butter, plus fluid milk, plus canned milk, and then the fluid milk by itself, but I am afraid I have not it here and I could not make a guess on it; it is very difficult.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Could we not have it without too much trouble?


James Garfield Gardiner: If you put a question on the order paper I shall get it made up and put. on Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
25.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $97,142.
William Scottie Bryce: How does this subsidy work? Is it available to cooperatives or only to the big cold storage warehouses?


James Garfield Gardiner: The subsidies are made available to any kind of organization that applies for it and meets the conditions of the law. The subsidies have been available for many years. I have forgotten the year when they were put on, but I think it was in 1922 or 1923. The act provides that anyone who wishes to build a cold storage' plant, provided that it is going to make a reasonable percentage of the plant available to the general public, may apply for assistance and the government will undertake to pay thirty per cent of the cost, half of the thirty per cent the first year and the other half spread over four years. Cash payments are made to cover thirty per cent of the cost of putting up the cold storage, and the money is available to any kind of organization that desires to build cold storages, including cooperatives.


William Scottie Bryce: What are the interest
charges?


James Garfield Gardiner: The act was passed in 1907, much earlier than I thought.


William Scottie Bryce: W'hat interest is charged on the money lent by the government?
	.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is actual cash
payments.


William Scottie Bryce: What percentage must be made available to the public?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is different in different places. It must be a public cold storage, a cold storage in which the public can place products. It may be apple growers in some places; it may be people who want to put in meat or eggs or anything they desire to place in a cold storage. The organization have to make reports to the government and satisfy the government that they are allowing the public reasonable space.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Has the government any control over the rates?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there is control over the rates.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Are there two cold storages in Winnipeg?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; two large ones, I think.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Owned by the same company?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are three cold storages in Winnipeg. There is the Winnipeg cold storage, the Manitoba cold storage and the North Star.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What was the total amount paid to the Trenton cold storage? There is nothing for this year, but they were paid a certain amount last year and then paid supplementary amounts.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount voted for the Trenton cold storage in 1943-44 was $23,123.40.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the total that has been paid to the Trenton cold storage since the beginning?


James Garfield Gardiner: Is not that the one that did not start to take advantage of the subsidy until last year?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No; they had it before that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The act was passed much earlier than that but I am not sure that they took advantage of it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They had it in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, and perhaps before that.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been two of these cold storages. There was the original one to which I think the hon. member is referring. Recently they asked for an increase

Supply-Agriculture
in the capacity and for grants on the increased capacity. I think that started just this year; the $23,000 I have just read is, I think, a payment in the second.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: For 1943?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What is the amount paid to the Moncton cold storage up to date?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a new one, the Moncton Cold and General Storage Limited, of Moncton, New Brunswick, $18,837.75.


Percy Ellis Wright: Must a percentage of the storage be made available in the form of individual lockers where individuals can store their products, or must it be bulk storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is both ways, as a matter of fact. By far the greater part of it is in the form of bulk storage. I do not think all the storages have the lacker system, but with regard to those that have the locker system fifteen per cent is the amount that must be supplied.


George Henry Stokes: Are all the cheese factories in Ontario and Quebec now equipped with cold storage facilities?


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish the hon. member would leave that until we get to the cheese and cheese factories in item 32. I shall have the information here then. I have not it at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-*
26.	Fruit, vegetable, and maple products and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian horticultural council, $540,700.
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I have the information I was asking for?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are thirteen
dehydration plants across Canada for vegetables, and then we have some dehydration being carried on in apples in Nova Scotia, the maritime provinces, and in British Columbia; but the thirteen plants are dehydrating in vegetables some 6-7 thousand dried tons of dehydrated products which are going to Britain. I do not think anyone can estimate the amount that will be going after the war is over. There are differences of opinion with regard to that. Some claim that dehydration of certain products will take the place of shipments in the fresh form; others claim that we shall go back to the shipment in the fresh form. I do not think anyone can finally determine what will take place when the war is over.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What has been the minister's experience in connection with what has been sent to Britain already? Does it appear that there will be a large demand?


James Garfield Gardiner: Up to date it has all
gone to the armed forces, and of course from that we cannot judge what the British may think of it when the war is over. Vegetables can be produced quite easily in Britain and elsewhere, and we may find some difficulty in marketing the dehydrated product.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What we have sent
over may have gone to the armed forces, but I know that at least a few sample tins have gone to civilians, with very happy results. I am just wondering whether any such reaction has come to the attention of the minister. I know the people over there are extremely interested in the possibility of getting these things. This affects our apple crop, for instance. A number of these small tins of dehydrated apples which sell at nineteen or twenty-one cents have reached civilians in Britain, and I have had practically love letters from them asking if there was any hope of getting more. They were enthusiastic about this product.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was referring to dehydrated vegetables. There is no doubt that dehydrated apples have met with considerable success in the markets they have reached. We have sent over a very considerable quantity for civilian use.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Any other fruits?


James Garfield Gardiner: No other fruits are
going over in any quantity. Vegetables and apples are the only two products being dehydrated.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to point out to the minister that the price of new domestic potatoes on the Montreal market this morning was $1>
per seventy-five pound bag, which is well below the cost of production, and I am told that the price will go to eighty cents tomorrow. New potatoes are selling on the Toronto market at $1.25 a bag, which is also below the cost of production. Market conditions are just the opposite to those which prevailed at this time last year, and I was wondering if any assistance could be given to producers of new potatoes. We all know that the yield of new potatoes is only about half that of mature potatoes, and the cost of production is very much higher.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sup-ply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Marketing service-
27. Live stock and live stock products, $572,007.
Thomas Reid: Is this the item under which
the minister wanted me to discuss the matter of poultry and eggs?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Reid: We have increased our flocks
of poultry in British Columbia very considerably, and the latest information I have is that the eggs are beginning to accumulate so that last week, in any event, storage space was at a premium. The producers are perturbed. Those who specialize in poultry-and British Columbia is a province which does specialize in poultry-are wondering if steps are being taken looking to the continuation of the market for poultry products, particularly eggs, following the cessation of hostilities. Great quantities of eggs in dried form have gone from Canada to Great Britain, which has provided a good market for our poultry producers. However, it has also brought many new men into the poultry industry, as well as encouraged those already in it to increase their flocks. You can talk all you like about a new era, a new philosophy or a new government, but I believe the Canadian people have about reached the limit in their consumption of eggs. We are the greatest egg eaters in the world, per capita, and if we are looking for markets in order that our poultry industry may continue there is no use in talking about what may be done here by some new government in some new era. Markets will have to be found for the surplus. We in British Columbia want to know whether steps are being taken looking to a continuation of the present market, because it is my belief and the belief of the poultrymen of my province that following the cessation of hostilities eggs will no longer go forward in powdered form. Anyone who has ever tasted a powdered egg will never eat another one if he can got a fresh egg. Has any thought or study been given to the matter by the minister or the departmental officials, and is the minister in a position to make any statement which would encourage the poultry producers to look for a continuance of the present market for at least another year or two?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the last few years our egg exports have been as follows:
Dozen
1939		 1.274,000
1940		 10,979,000
1941		 16,276,000
1942		 29,289,000
The contract for 1943 was for 36,000,000 dozen, and the new contract for 1944 is for

75,000,000 dozen. These figures indicate the truth of the statement of the hon. member for New Westminster that there has been a marked increase in the production of eggs and their export to Great Britain. It is true that in the early part of the war we exported these eggs in the shell, but now they are being exported as dehydrated eggs, or egg powder.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are they for the army or for civilians?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are being marketed both to civilians and to the army. They are put up in cases for distribution over there. As far as the future is concerned, of course we are trying in every possible way to assure the British market for our products. If dehydrated eggs are to go to Britain after the war, then I understand that our product holds a very high place on that market. It is accepted by the British people as a good product. If fresh eggs are to go, then of course by properly grading our eggs we can put them on that market in as good condition as any other eggs sent there. The question of whether or not we are to be able to supply the market will depend upon the supplies that can be obtained elsewhere and the cost. We hope to be able to supply that market, and are doing everything possible to satisfy the British that we can supply it with a good product.


Thomas Reid: Have discussions been carried on with the British authorities?


James Garfield Gardiner: Discussions are going forward all the time in connection with all these products, and we are attempting to make contracts that will carry us as far forward as possible. At present the contract is for two years, which may or may not take us beyond the war. We hope to be able to keep these contracts negotiated for at least, a year in advance of the current year. I do not think there will be much difficulty in doing that but there may be difficulty in getting contracts for longer than two years.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister say whether the price realized for powdered eggs in Britain to-day is on a level with the price of fresh eggs in Canada? Can you buy fresh eggs here, powder them, send them over there and realize your cost, or is the government losing money under present circumstances?


James Garfield Gardiner: The board price is
354 cents a dozen at Montreal. We buy eggs for that market at that price. They may go higher on this market.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does the price you realize for powdered eggs in Great Britain justify your paying that price here?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it is based upon that particular price. That price is based upon what we get in Great Britain.


Thomas Reid: Is the price the same throughout the twelve months of the year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, throughout the
year. There is no subsidy paid with regard to eggs.


George James Tustin: How many eggs have we been able to furnish Great Britain so far this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the last year it was 36,000,000 dozen, and in the present year we are contracting for 75,000,000 dozen.


George James Tustin: How far have we progressed in connection with furnishing the 75,000,000
dozen?


James Garfield Gardiner: We believe we shall be able to fill the contract this year.


Percy Ellis Wright: Last week the minister tabled a new agreement with Great Britain with respect to beef for 1944 and 1945. If I remember correctly, he said that under that agreement the floor price for red and blue label beef would be twenty-five cents under the present ceiling price. Is this price a guaranteed price to the packers, or is it a guaranteed price to the producers? What I mean is this: Will the producer be able to ship beef to the board, and the board take it over at the packing plant, kill that beef and have it credited, and the producer be paid on the basis of the grade, or is it just a guarantee to the packer that for any beef which he has within those grades he will receive twenty-five cents under the present ceiling price? I want to know how the government proposes to see that a fair price is carried back to the farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is exactly the same kind of agreement as we have with regard to hogs. We have not gone into the slaughtering business, and I do not think we intend to do so. We are buying the beef at any plant that can freeze it. It is not only a case of slaughtering it, the beef has to be frozen, and we buy the beef at the plant where it can be frozen, and have it shipped to Great Britain. The price we pay for that beef is twenty-five cents below the ceiling at the present time, and continues there until we have purchased the very considerable amounts mentioned.
The result of that is that a floor can be figured on what cattle w'ould sell at, at different points across Canada. In relation to that the department will do just what we have done in connection with hogs. We will keep a
check at all times on what is being paid on those markets. So far as hogs are concerned, we have had no reason to complain up to date, although we have been carrying on now for four or five years in connection with these contracts.
We think we shall have the same experience in connection with beef. As a matter of fact, cattle have been selling recently at above what would be called the price when beef is related to twenty-five cents below ceiling.


William Scottie Bryce: Is that the thin end of the wedge for the rail grading of beef?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the thin end of the wedge for the rail grading of beef. That is not the intention of it at all, and probably it may not result in that. But I would say this, that in connection with the rail grading of beef, I doubt very much if anyone would undertake it until such time as the farmers are pretty well satisfied that they should have it. That has been the practice.


William Scottie Bryce: That is what you said about hogs.


James Garfield Gardiner: A large percentage were asking for it, before they got it in connection with hogs. Probably that is not true around Winnipeg, but in most other places it was.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will there be a board set up this session to supervise the floor prices of agricultural products?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a bill which has passed the department, and which is now before some others who have to look into these matters. I expect it to be completed in a day or two.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will potatoes be included in that bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be the possibility of any farm product being included in it, as it is now drafted.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I hope so.


Thomas Reid: The minister said that the meat board had found that so far as pork was concerned this ceiling price had worked out satisfactorily. I can agree with him on that. However, in connection with beef it has not worked out so satisfactorily. There has been greater variation in the price of beef to the consumer than there has been in the price of pork.
The minister said that his department was prepared to keep an eye on prices, and to see that prices of beef do not vary too widely, in accordance with floor prices. What action does the minister propose to take if the price
Supply-Agriculture

should drop below the floor, as it has on several occasions in the past two years? At those times the government have not taken any action; they have simply let the thing drag until it righted itself. The beef producers have at times accepted prices which were considerably below the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact we discussed this whole question when the war estimates were before the committee. On that. occasion, after some considerable discussion with the hon. member for Lethbridge, who is not in his seat to-night, I stated to him that I did not think conditions existing in the last two years could be righted until such time as we had an agreement similar to the one I announced the other day.
The reason why there was more variation in prices was that we did not have an agreement of this kind, and we did not have a floor of the kind this agreement provides. The floor last year was a varying floor, and anticipated or made necessary varying prices. It started out at a quarter of a cent below the ceiling, and on August 20 or 27, I believe it was, dropped half a cent. Then it ran along for another month or so at that level, and dropped again. Finally, after three drops it went down to two and a quarter cents below the ceiling. Then, in the middle of December it started to rise again, and came up three-quarters of a cent. It then ran along until February, I believe it was, and came up another three-quarters of a cent. Then, finally, on May 27 it came up to the quarter of a cent below the ceiling again.
In other words, it was argued1 by people interested in the feeder lot handling of cattle that we should have a lower price in the fall, so that they could buy their cattle low, put them in feeder lots and 6011 them higher in the spring. We argued that that was not the proper way to handle cattle in war time, and that we should have a flat floor throughout the season. We said that we should have a floor on blue and1 red which would be fairly close to the ceiling, a floor on cows which would be a little farther away from the ceiling, and a floor on unfinished cattle which could be taken in and fed. Those would be plain cattle and other cattle which were not really fit for market, which could be taken in and fed up to the other grades, and sold when they were properly prepared for market.
That is provided for in This agreement, There is a flat floor on red and blue brand beef. There is a flat floor on cow beef, and a flat floor on plain and commercial grades below the cow beef standard. The result is 
that we think there will not be variation, just as there is not variation in hogs under this contract.


William Scottie Bryce: What will you do when the heavy run comes along in the fall, when there are all kinds of cattle from which to pick and choose? When you have a heavy run on the market you can pick out the good steers, and put them into blue and red beef. But if you take over a half-finished animal, where can you put him?


James Garfield Gardiner: If you have a halffinished animal you can sell it as a feeder.


William Scottie Bryce: The packers will outbid you on that animal, and will take it and bone it. The man who is going to feed the steer will need that spread.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have sufficient
spread, if it is the kind of animal my hon. friend is talking about. If it is an animal which is not properly fed or is not finished for the market, then of course both the packers and other people can buy it at wider spread than they can buy finished beef. We shall be in the market all the time for finished beef. We shall take all the finished beef that can be frozen and sent to Britain at any season of the year. That is the difference between conditions now and in peace time. In peace time when a rush of cattle came on the market in the fall there was no market for a certain percentage of them. As a result, feeders came and bought the cattle at one cent below the actual cattle price, based on beef, and they fed these cattle until they reached the red and blue class and then sold them at the beginning of the year as red and blue label beef. At the present time we can guarantee a market for all the finished beef, and there is only one difficulty in the way, but I must admit that it is a real difficulty. We must be able to get it through the plants that can freeze it. We have huge deliveries of hogs just as we have huge deliveries of cattle in the fall of the year, and there may be some difficulties unless the farmers will assist us by distributing their marketings over as long a period as possible rather than rushing them on to the market all at one time. We are hopeful that we shall be able to persuade them to assist us in the way I have suggested.


William Scottie Bryce: Are you going to have somebody on the market to buy these cattle in competition with the packers?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; we are not buying cattle but beef, just as we are not buying hogs but bacon and ham.

Supply-Agriculture


Mark Cecil Senn: You are buying only the two grades of beef?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; we will buy cow beef as well.


William Scottie Bryce: I thought the minister said he was going to protect the market.


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly.


William Scottie Bryce: If the farmer does not get the price he wants he turns his cattle over to the abattoir where they are dressed on a rail-grade basis and then the government buys them. That is the way you protect the farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not any brief for the packing plants, but I have not found them as crooked as some people think they are in our dealings with them. I quite agree that the packing plants want to make some money. Most people do. I find that even the C.C.F. when they are talking, usually talk about money, whether they can make enough to get by on. I have no doubt that the packing plants desire to make some money. On the other hand, we have found in our dealings with them during the war period that we have been able to maintain a flat price, or as near to a flat price as one can obtain under any system, from one end of the year to the other for hogs through the fact that we have made a deal with Britain under which we sell the surplus product to them and get delivery from the packing plants of the bacon. We have figured out the relationship between the price at which we sell to Britain and the price which the packing plants pay for the hogs; and we have been satisfied, as I believe the farmers themselves doing the marketing have been satisfied, that they are getting the best returns possible from their hogs in relation to the price at which the bacon and ham are sold.
We are satisfied that the same thing will happen in connection with beef. We are offering to buy not only the red and blue beef but cow beef at all times at a price which is three-quarters of a cent below the ceiling. We are also offering to buy the beef from the canners and the cutters and. that which is put into boneless beef at one cent and a quarter under the ceiling. We will buy that at all times unless somebody else is prepared to pay more for it. The only way in which the trade will get that beef is to pay more than we are prepared to pay for it. If any packer does not pay enough for the cattle, some other packer will compete with him and the competition will go on between them. They can establish a proper price level for all the cattle that the farmers deliver on that market.
We are hopeful that the farmers will cooperate in this. It is much better for the farmers to keep cattle that are not properly fed back in the farming districts rather than send them into Winnipeg, where feeders near Winnipeg will take them out, feed them up and then put them back on the market. We think it is better for the farmers to keep their cattle back in the farming districts until they are finished. That will help in handling the cattle both in the stockyards and through the plants in the rush seasons of the year.


Robert Fair: I was very glad to hear the minister make the announcement that he did on Friday last, but I am sorry that the farmer or producer is not protected. As I have said before, a year ago, before the agriculture committee we were given to understand that protection would be given to the farmer, but so far I do not see anything of that kind being done because prices paid by the packers are not always what they should be. Under this programme the packer is guaranteed his price and his profits; but the farmer, when he brings his cattle on the market, is still at the mercy of the packer. The farmers are not organized as the packers are. I realize that that is the fault of the farmers themselves. For that reason the announcement of the minister is very much in favour of the packers. I should be very glad to see the government go on the market and buy live cattle rather than allow prices to go down to where they have gone on several occasions in past years. If what I suggest were done, instead of it being left to the packers to set the prices, the farmers would be guaranteed something worth while under the announcement made by the minister.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have just one comment to make. I was surprised to hear the minister state that the government was prepared to buy not only red and blue label beef but also cows and other unfinished cattle which were perhaps not of good conformation. We have been trying our best to provide the best bacon possible for the British market because we want to keep up the reputation of our bacon in England. I am afraid that if we start shipping inferior quality of beef to that market we are going to lose the market which we might otherwise gain and keep. I was sorry to hear the minister state that he is prepared to buy poor quality beef and even boneless and send it to Britain, because everyone knows that the poorer qualities of cattle will not produce the first-rate beef which the Britisher enjoys. A beef type of animal of good conformation puts his flesh on the parts where the high price cuts come from; but the poorer
Supply-Agriculture

qualities, some of our dairy cattle, do not dc that, and the beef is naturally not as good. I hope that the minister will reconsider and not send too much poor quality beef into the British market.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister made a statement in answering the hon. member for Selkirk on which I wish he would elaborate. He said, "I have not found packing plants quite as crooked as some people think they are." What did he mean by "quite as crooked"?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say quite as
crooked. I said that I did not find them crooked as some people think they are.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I am glad to hear the minister qualify his statement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
28. 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 $15,000, $25,000.
Heber Harold Hatfield: Is wheat starch being manufactured in western Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think so except perhaps in very small quantities.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understood that some milling company at Fort William had turned one of its flour mills into a wheat starch factory.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not heard of it, but it may be so.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is anything being done to help the man or boy who wishes to learn the cheese business? Does the government help them at all? I know that at the present time Ontario is very short of cheese-makers. Just to-day I had a letter from a cheese-maker saying that he was very short of help and unable even to get tires for his car to take down and have fixed the milk cans which came in. I took the matter up with the controller and perhaps something will be done.
I know these people are short of help. Is anything being done?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that anything is being done other than what is done under regulations in connection wfith selective service, which gives some of them an opportunity of having postponements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
29. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act an 1 water storage, $2,000,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: On one or two former occasions I intimated that I should like to say a word or two in reference to this vote when it came before the committee, because in the last couple of years I have had the pleasure and profit of examining a goodly portion of the work which has been done by the prairie farm rehabilitation board. I am glad to say that to my mind one of the best pieces of legislation passed through this house at any time-I have no notion at the moment, by which government-was the legislation which pertains to the prairie farm rehabilitation board. Last summer I looked over quite a number of the dugouts which have been made by the board, one or two of the very small irrigation projects, and a number of stock-watering dams. The board deserves unstinted praise for the work it has achieved. I am not passing any comment upon the cost; I am speaking only about the work which has been done, to which I just referred. The last figures I could obtain are as of 1943, and show that altogether in 1943 alone there have been completed over a thousand projects, divided into three divisions, dugouts, stockwatering dams and small irrigation projects. When the minister replies to what I have to say I should like him to tell us whether the department plans to quadruple or increase by five, six, eight or ten times the amount of this vote as soon as it can possibly do so. As a business man I cannot figure why the vote has not been larger and larger every year; the results obtained from what has been done have been so splendid. They are self-liquidating projects, and since they have achieved a great deal, why not greatly multiply the vote?
I found the board's work in two of the provinces. I did not see any of it in Manitoba, because I was not in the southwest part of the province, where I believe they have control. In Saskatchewan they have done good work and have planned more good work, but I should like to know from the minister why any delay has occurred in carrying out the plans which the prairie farm rehabilitation board have made for southern Alberta. Every dollar spent in carrying out the projects planned for southern Alberta would be self-liquidating and give ample returns. I believe the board have prepared plans for building a dam on the St. Mary river at Spring Coulee. Why not bring in a vote and proceed with it? The minister knows better than any other hon. member that unless the dam at Spring Coulee is proceeded with we stand in jeopardy of losing our allotted flow from the St. Mary river. We cannot forever let it run to waste when our cousins to the south can use it. Therefore I should like the minister, at some

Supply-Agriculture
time, not now but at some later session if he is then in control of the department, to bring in a vote to provide for the building of a dam at Spring Coulee on the St. Mary river, so that southern Alberta can obtain the water for much needed irrigation works.
I cannot understand why the vote now being asked for is so small. Two million dollars will not go very far, and if you examine the table on page 69 of the estimates you will observe that the money is distributed under quite a number of headings, such as salaries and wages, cost of living bonus, equipment-I assume that "equipment" refers to machinery and so forth to be used by men working under the prairie farm administration board-freight, express and cartage, miscellaneous, printing and stationery, rents, telephones, telegrams and postage, travelling expenses. The only money I see which is directly allocated to building works is S621.000 under the heading "buildings and lands"; perhaps also $113,000 under "supplies and materials." Together they amount to only $734,000. I should like the minister to tell the committee why, when the results have been so splendid, a much larger amount is not asked for.
Is any of this vote to be used in connection with the water requirements of Regina? I noticed in the paper a few days ago, as probably the minister also did, a statement by the city superintendent of waterworks, Mr. J. W. D. Farrell, in which he tells in a few words the situation. He pointed out that they obtained their water from three sources- Mound springs, Mallory springs, and Boggy creek-and stated that the capacity of those three sources of supply amount to five and one-half million gallons a day. The population of Regina at present is around sixty thousand. Including the immediate suburbs, part of which are comprised, I believe, in the constituency of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I do not think I shall be far out in surmising that Regina has to supply approximately sixty-five thousand people with water. That provides for a comparatively small gallonage per capita for a city of that size. Perhaps a year or more ago we had a fire in Toronto, not a fire of any particular size, at Lyons' Furniture company's store on Yonge street.
It took 750,000 gallons of water to subdue that fire, and it was only a medium one. What would Regina do if it required 750,000 gallons to put out a fire? And it might have three or four fires of that extent. I appeal to the minister not to be afraid to give that city and the adjacent city of Moose Jaw fair play. I am afraid he is too timid, too humble in asking for fair play for his province, asking for that to which it is entitled. It would be a disaster if the waterworks of Regina were called upon to put up a million and a half or two million gallons in one day to subdue a fire, and that would not be a particularly large fire. Are we fair in placing that city in jeopardy like that, particularly when we have the engineers under the prairie farm rehabilitation board to assist. I will not cover what I said before, but knowing from investigation the position in those cities from the point of view of water supply I once again ask the minister to press for whatever sized vote is necessary to provide adequate protection for those two cities.
In Toronto I have seen water mains burst, and I have no doubt other hon. members here have been in that city when some water mains have given way. The hon. member for York South is likely familiar with the bursting of a large water main that goes up Bathurst street. What causes such things is a weakness in the water main. Well, what would happen in Regina if during a fire of any magnitude, a twelve, or fifteen or twenty-inch water main burst? The amount of water that would be lost from that main before the situation could be got under control might mean disaster. A few days ago the minister read the statement of the superintendent of the Regina water department in which it is pointed out that their maximum apparently is 5,500,000 gallons a day, when a city of that size, using the same amount of water per person as is used in Ottawa, would require over 7,000,000 gallons a day without any allowance for extra demand for great fires. I am sure the minister would have the support of the house as well as the country if he asked for whatever amount might be required to ensure that the capital of his own province as well as the adjacent city of Moose Jaw be given that protection which is their right. The people of the country placed that capital -where it is and they started its growth and the growth of the other city, but neither of those centres can properly develop under these circumstances. Regina has a population of 60,000 whereas it should have from 80,000 to 100,000. If it were guaranteed a water supply I am sure its industry would expand. The industry that I was in for many years, the radiator and boiler industry, requires a great deal of water. Could anyone start such an industry in Regina or Moose Jaw? It is an industry that consumes a large volume of water. If I wanted to start such a plant in Regina one of my first acts would be to visit the city hall to ascertain how much water I could have, how many thousand gallons per
Supply-Agriculture

day; but what would they tell me, when they are now delivering per capita so much less than eastern cities?
I do not wish to labour the subject, but I suggest that the minister is not putting enough emphasis on the water situation in those two cities. Again I say he is too humble, not vigorous enough in this matter, although he has plenty of vigour when he gets his dander up. I want to see him get his dander up. I want him to get his back up and ask for whatever is fair in order t-o place those two cities in a satisfactory position of defence against what I hope will never happen but what might happen. The matter comes under this vote, and if it does, then $2,000,000 is a mere bagatelle. The minister should ask for $20,000,000. It would create business. He need not ask for it all in one year, but he should ask for sufficient to make an adequate start in order to give those western cities and the adjacent municipalities a chance to go forward and provide a defence against any possible contingency.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is an important item, and I notice there is no increase this year. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has pleaded with the minister to consider assistance for the city of Regina, and I presume he includes Moose Jaw. Recently the hon. member has received a telegram from the mayors of those cities asking him to bring the matter to the attention, I presume, of the Minister of Agriculture or some other member of the government, and asking also that he solicit the support of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross).


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would rather have the minister's support.


Ernest Edward Perley: I happened to see a copy of the telegram askng him to try to get their support for a project of this kind, and he has brought it to-night forcibly to the attention of the minister. The hon. gentleman has spoken many times in this house on matters pertaining to water power and development, water supply and other projects in Saskatchewan, and he has made a point of touring the district in the last two or three years, so that he knows the situation as well as any hon. member coming from that province does. We all appreciate his efforts, and there is no doubt about it that, from reading the press, the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta appreciate the interest the hon. member has taken in these matters. The bill setting up this branch of the department was passed1 in 1934.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was 1935.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is the eighth year of the operation of the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The date is April 17, 1935.


Ernest Edward Perley: At any rate, the idea was to provide a water supply to certain parts of Saskatchewan and the west. Since that time and under the direction of the present minister this department has developed and taken on many other projects of one kind and another. I notice from the report that there are four or five cultural activities, water developments, small individual projects, community projects and larger projects. Then there is land utilization and land settlement. The hon. member who has just spoken referred to some of them. I notice that large water projects to the number of fifty-eight were provided for in the irrigation scheme. The minister should explain the different branches of this work of water development. For instance, he should deal with community pastures and give us a detailed statement with respect to each one, what they did last year and what they proposed to do this year.
I notice that on page 69 of the estimates there is a column on the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, but there is no list of the employees such as there is in the other branches of the department. You can get a detailed statement of the employees this year and last year for the other branches of the department, but there is no list of the employees of these projects. Reviewing the details of the item we find that three items alone, salaries, wages, cost of living bonus and other payments including travelling expenses amount to $1,012,000. These three items alone amount to more than half of the total vote. I think the minister should give us a list of the employees and inspectors in each one of those branches or projects that I have mentioned. He should tell us whether the employees have increased in numbers this year. He should give us the total number of employees and whether there has been an increase in the last six months, and, if so, in what Way. I have covered four or five of the different projects undertaken at one time instead of taking each one individually. I think the minister should give us a more detailed statement than we have in the estimate or in the report on last year's work.
Mr. EDV/ARDS: While the minister is looking up the information for the hon. member for Qu'Aippelle, may I say that I for one have listened with the greatest interest to what the hon. member for Davenport had

Supply-Agriculture
to say with regard to water in the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina. I should like to remind the hon. member that we have an abundant supply of most excellent water in my home city.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know that.


Mr. EDWARDS:: In addition to that we have so far an unlimited supply of natural gas and coal. All this goes to show our most advantageous position for the manufacture of radiators. I should like here and now to extend the most cordial invitation to my hon. friend and to his associates to come to my home city of Calgary and establish a radiator plant there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is a fine city, none better anywhere.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the latter part of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle I would call his attention to the fact that on or about February 28, 1944, I answered a question asked by Mr. Douglas of Weyburn, giving the names and addresses of the fieldmen in Saskatchewan. The question was made an order for return, and I do not think he would expect me to go over it again. It can be looked up under that date. I have them here in my hand. There is a long list of them.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is there any increase in the last two months?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just the engineers that are taken on for the season. We make up our engineering staffs that go out with some rod men and others who are necessary to the making up of those engineering staffs to do the inspection work.
On the question of the vote, the vote is $2,000,000. I would, of course, call the attention of the hon. member for Davenport to the fact that when I came to Ottawa the limitation on that vote was $1,000,000 a year. It was a vote of $4,750,000 which was to be expended as follows: not more than $750,000 the first year and not more than $1,000,000 a year in the succeeding years. As the act then stood it came to an end at the end of five years. It was an act for the purpose of taking care of what was looked upon as a temporary condition brought about by drought, and was to be utilized for that purpose. When I came to Ottawa I insisted that this was a job which would take at least twenty years and could not be done in less time than that no matter how much money was provided, and that no system under which you provided only $1,000,000 a year could possibly take care of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Could you not ask for more?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did ask for more. As a matter of fact, the first year I had quite a time in getting the bill through this house, largely because of opposition coming from directly opposite; but I asked to have the vote under the bill enlarged and made so that I could spend any amount of money that I could persuade the house to vote for me in any session. I finally got it through. As a matter of fact I had to bring it back the second time before I could get it through the house in the form desired. I did not get it entirely changed the first year. I managed to get the amount out the first year, I think, or the dates out, or vice versa. But I had to come back the second time in order to get it enlarged to the extent it is now. As a result of those activities we got the amount increased year by year, until finally in 1938-39 it was up to $3,500,000, but the second $500,000 was voted only on condition that it was expended on some particular project, one of them being the project that had to do with supplying water to Moose Jaw and another in the form of supplying stationary water at Saskatoon. But it took considerable discussion in the house to get those votes agreed to. In two years before the war we got up to $3,500,000. It was cut by a quarter of a million in the year before the war, that is 1939-40, the reason being that about half of the amount of money that was set up for conservation of water supply in those larger projects was not voted in the second year; only the amount that had not been expended in the preceding year was allowed in the second year. When the war started that vote was cut. In 1939-40 it was cut to $3,250,000; in 1940-41 it was cut to $2,500,000; in 1941-42, we retained the same amount. In 1942-43 it was cut to $2,000,000, and in 1943-44, it was $2,000,000, making a total of $19,684,420.69. But I repeat that even now it is twice as large as could possibly be spent under the act as it stood when I came to Ottawa in 1935. I say that in order to impress upon the committee that this act was set up for the purpose of doing a particular job. When it was set up by the previous government in 1935 it had no relationship whatsoever to problems such as that which confronts the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw.
It was only after getting a special vote of something like $500,000 in the first instance and another $100,000 later on, that we wore able to do anything in connection with the Moose Jaw situation; and it will be noted that this was taken care of by the special phraseology of the item put in the year in
Sup-ply-Agriculture

which the extra $500,000 was included. That is, the only authority we have for spending that money is contained in the wording of the vote itself. It is not in the act, and never was in it. So that there is no provision under this act for doing the sort of thing that has been suggested. That does not mean that kind of thing should not be done, but some change would have to be made in the legislation as it was then drafted and as it remains to-day in order to take care of the cost of the project suggested. In addition, in regard to matters like the Milk river project and another project which has -been discussed by the hon. member for Davenport on previous occasions, namely the irrigation project up in the neighbourhood of Hanna and extending down from lake Sullivan-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Out from Taber toward Medicine Hat.


James Garfield Gardiner: The project proposed up near Hanna involves taking water out of one river, siphoning it under another and filling up Sullivan lake, which is not really' a lake at all as a rule but just a great flat which is dry most of the time, having water in it only occasionally. That was known originally as the Pearce project, but since then it has been looked into on a much smaller scale than the original Pearce project. We have done engineering work in connection with both those projects and have reports on our files relating to them. Then we have done further investigational work in connection with the project near Medicine Hat, upon which we have very full reports. It is the declared intention of the reports that have been made, and of any comments that have been issued in regard to those reports during the last two sessions, that they are projects which should be given consideration following the war, as rehabilitation measures and projects in which manpower may be employed for a very considerable period of time.
Of course those projects will involve very considerable expenditures of money. This $20,000,000 proposed by the hon. member for Davenport would not touch them. Those projects would involve the expenditure of at least $111,000,000, taking them all into consideration. Such projects as that at Milk river, which may cost from $12,000,000 to $20,000,000, depending upon what you do, and the-Regina-Moose Jaw project, which may cost another $20,000,000 or $25,000,000, I believe are in addition to the $111,000,000 I mentioned a moment ago. As I recall it, they would not be included in that figure. This will give some idea of the amount of money 
involved in all these matters, and what will be required to bring them to completion. I think it is quite proper that hon. members as well as ministers of the government and others should be considering the possibility of developing some of those projects at the end of the war. I think it is a good thing to discuss them in this house from time to time, because they have great possibilities, not only in connection with the employment they will afford in their construction, which after all is not the most important thing, but in connection with the number of people who will be able to maintain themselves in that area for all time to come; in other words, the people who will give themselves employment by taking up land which to-day cannot be occupied, building homes and making their living.
All these matters have been under consideration, and we have spent some of this money in order to put engineers at work on them to develop information that will be available to anyone who at some future time may desire to enter upon the construction of any of those works. In connection with some of them we have fairly complete information which certainly would make it possible for any minister in any government, provincial or federal, to sit down and consider what might be done toward developing a particular work. It is true that there are certain administration costs under this item, which amount to $105,000. The amount allotted for cultural experiments and research is $375,000; for land utilization, $525,000, and for water development and storage, $995,000, making a total of $2,000,000.
The suggestion was made that the $621,000 shown for buildings and lands, on page 69 of the estimates, would be practically all that would be involved in these works; but the greater part of the money covered by the first two items under this vote, $391,745 and $326,041, making a total of approximately $717,000. is accounted for by work carried on by engineers and employees of the department. That is, we put up the fences around the pastures. We employ foremen to do the work, and they employ men in the neighbourhood to build the fences and do the cultural work in relation to the pastures, place water upon them and so on. Many other things are done, such as re-grassing lands in order to stop blowing. That work is done by local men under the instruction of experts from the experimental farms. Work of that kind comes under the $717,000 shown in those two items to which I referred a moment ago. Headquarters administration amounts to $105,000 out of a total of $2,000,000. The remainder of

Suppl y-Agricul ture
the money is used to send out engineering parties that do the actual work of surveying on the ground, laying out projects, or in the employment of people to carry on the actual work in that connection, or in paying contractors who do work in connection with the building of dams, the digging of ditches for irrigation and other associated work.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has suggested that I might indicate what use is made of this money and how it is divided up. I think that may be done best by saying that the first item is $105,000 for headquarters administration. This covers salaries and expenses of administrative staffs at Ottawa and Regina; the expenses of advisory committee meetings, and economic and entomological surveys. The next item, $375,000, covers cultural experiments in research, including cooperative assistance to the prairie provinces in soil survey research, assistance to agricultural improvement associations, soil moisture and soil drifting conservation projects, grazing surveys and publication of experimental data. The next item is for $525,000-


Ernest Edward Perley: What page is the minister
quoting from?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not quoting from
any page of the estimates; I am taking this information out of a book I have here.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is rather hard to follow
when we do not have it before us.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am putting on Hansard this explanation of the expenditures.


Ernest Edward Perley: These are the expenditures making up the $2,000,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The next item is
$525,000 for land utilization, including the acquisition of land for all projects, what might be called purchases, whether for pastures, for irrigation projects or for land that will be flooded after dams are built; construction, management and operation of community pastures, and reserve grazing areas; management and operation of irrigation projects, and reestablishment of farmers. That is, we encourage farmers to leave suibmarginal lands, and to go on better lands. That is what is known as a resettlement plan. Under this item we assist farmers in moving from submarginal to other lands. The final item is $995,000 for water development. That includes the construction of many projects such as dugouts, stock watering dams and flood irrigation schemes on both farming and range lands. It includes the construction of large storage and irrigation projects, and water development surveys.
As I said a moment ago, these are surveys we are making in connection with the Milk river, and in connection with the project at Medicine Hat, and other projects in the vicinity of Hanna. Those come under this item having to do with water development and survey. Those are the items on which the money is expended.
Mr. PERLEY; The minister has now given a break-down of the $2,000,000, showing the cost in connection with community pastures, land settlement and so on. When he takes the four items of salaries, wages, travelling expenses and supplies and materials, totalling $1,120,000, does he think that is a fair proportion of the total amount spent on the project? Salaries, wages and travelling expenses total a huge amount.


James Garfield Gardiner: Wages are paid on the actual work. For example, this item of $621,000 covers very much the same thing as the $717,000 farther up on the list, with the exception that some salaries are included in the upper item. But those salaries would be a very small proportion of the total $717,000. The hon. member will notice that there is an item there of $326,000 for wages. That is taken up in the construction of such works as pastures, for example. A foreman goes out and hires farmers living in a community to go on the job and build a fence around, for instance, 50,000 acres of land. In some cases it would be 100.000 acres of land. Those fences are constructed and then, in addition to that, they provide water supplies. _ It may be a matter of putting up a windmill, or it may be a matter of digging dugouts, or it may be a matter of putting in dams. However, it would be something necessary to the conservation of a water supply for the watering of stock on the pastures.
That is all included in wages, but it is all actual work being done for the purpose of carrying out the intentions of the act. One could go through the different items, and say that is what happens in connection with them. Expenditures are not made only on the hiring of people to go round the country to run up expense accounts. There are a certain number who have to have expense accounts, but they are not the big items.


Ernest Edward Perley: What number of dugouts
have been supplied this year since April 1? Also, what number of survey parties have been working during the summer?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were 1,307 built last year, with the same vote we have this year, and over 1,400 the year before. I am informed that the vote was practically exhausted by the middle of July, and that
Supply-Agriculture

means there would be a similar number constructed this year. The same was adopted last year as was adopted this year, and my information is that they would be out of money by the middle of the month. We were asked to supply them with another $30,000, which we obtained by taking it out of some other item in the vote, and transferring it to that item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did the minister say there were 1,400 last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: 1,307 last year and over 1,400 the year before.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The figures sent me showed 1,004.


Percy Chapman Black: I was surprised to hear the minister say that he had difficulty in getting some of his estimates for prairie farm rehabilitation through, because of opposition from this part of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was some years ago, before you came.


Percy Chapman Black: Since I have been here I have commended the work being done under this vote. That also applies to the hearings before the committee on rehabilitation and reconstruction. I heard only two criticisms with respect to the matter, and one of them was that the amount of overhead was unduly high. The minister has explained that it is not fifty per cent. The fact is, however, that the details show some very large overhead expenditures. Eor instance, there are travelling expenses amounting to $185,260 and another item of $22,000 for printing and stationery. Those appear fairly high. That is one criticism which has been made.
The other criticism is that a similar vote has not been made applicable to eastern Canada. This act was first passed in 1935. Grants were made, and have been made every year since then. This year we now have another vote of $2,000,000 before the committee. I understand the total appropriations have amounted to about $20,000,000. Perhaps the minister would give us the exact figure.
My complaint is that we have not had like expenditures in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the head of the bay of Pundy, as I have pointed out repeatedly since 1940. We have greater need for expenditures of this kind, namely expenditures for reclaiming, restoring and draining marsh lands, than have the people in the west. In the east we would be protecting and draining lands which had previously been in a good state of cultivation, while in the west the expenditures, which I approve, are being made for improvements which were never before enjoyed.

The minister told us this morning, when we were dealing with beef cattle herds and experimental farms, that he expected to have a supplementary estimate in order that work on the marsh lands might be carried on. I am sorry we have not had a statement from the minister informing us just what that appropriation will be to improve the marsh lands in the east.
I do not wish to delay the committee by going into this matter again, but it appears to me remarkable that large expenditures should be made for the west, year after year, with the general approval of the committee; yet despite the greater need in the east there have been no appropriations for our marshlands in the east.
Again I express my appreciation to the minister and his officials for the recommendation they have made. I understand that recommendations have been made in the last two years to the treasury board for an estimate of $250,000 or $300,000, and that those estimates were not approved. I hope that the minister will have greater success this year, and that this or a larger amount will be approved.
The minister has pointed out that prairie farm rehabilitation in the west is a longterm project. I believe he said it would take a twenty year programme. That length of time should not be required to reclaim these marsh lands in the east; but at least five years will be required, perhaps longer. That shows how necessary it is that the appropriation be made now, and some of the work started at once.
The minister pointed out earlier to-day that it was the purpose of the department to make experiments with special machinery adapted to the handling of marsh mud. That is very necessary. To-day that work cannot be done except by machinery, and it is essential that special machinery be devised for the handling of marsh mud. I look forward with much interest to the appropriation that will be made when the supplementary estimates come down, to deal with the needs of the marsh lands.


Mr. QUELCH:: Last year a report was tabled in the house dealing with a number of recent surveys made in connection with the William Pearce project. This report referred to a number of schemes under the heading of 1 and 2, A and B power development schemes. The report also dealt with an old survey that was made back in 1922. I understand that a number of engineers are working around Buffalo lake to-day. Can the minister say in

Supply-Agriculture
connection with what scheme these engineers are working? Are they completing an existing survey or surveying for a new scheme?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is part of the old scheme. We are trying to bring the information up to date as near as we can covering a large part of the project.


Victor Quelch: Are they making a detailed survey to complete the old scheme?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are going into detail so far as the construction part is concerned, but they are not covering large areas of land for ditching and so forth. But for the main projects they are going right into detail.


Victor Quelch: There has been a certain amount of controversy regarding the diversion of water from the North Saskatchewan river. This spring I received a letter from Mr. E. K. Phillips, dealing in part with this question, and making certain recommendations. I quote from his letter:
Whether the potential irrigable lands in Saskatchewan are irrigated from an extension of canals taking water from the streams in Alberta or whether they are irrigated by means of diversions in Saskatchewan, some 2,000,000 acre feet of water is required from the North Saskatchewan and Clearwater rivers and since such a diversion does not adversely affect conditions on the North Saskatchewan river, there should be no opposition to the proposed diversion.
_ The fact that opposition has developed would indicate that the proposed development of the Saskatchewan drainage basin is not properly understood and would show the necessity of a board of engineers to properly advise the governments as to the most economical use of the streams.
Is anything being done in regard to the appointment of a board of engineers in order that this kind of friction will not develop in the future? I have received several resolutions from boards of trade urging that a board of engineers representing the three prairie provinces be appointed for the purpose of advising on the best possible use of these waters.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have authority under the act to make surveys of that kind, and we have the best engineers we can find. As a matter of fact, very recently the Alberta government offered our chief engineer enough to take him away from us. I imagine that they are going to use his services on similar work in Alberta. I think the engineers we have on the work are doing just as good a job as any board of engineers could do.


Victor Quelch: I do not think that is the point. What is wanted is a board of engineers representing the three provinces to decide on
the allocation of the waters as between the provinces so as to avoid any charges on the part of Saskatchewan, let us say, that Alberta is getting more than its share of the water, and similarly with the other provinces. Perhaps I had better read a resolution I have received which was adopted by the Craigmyle board of trade:
Whereas it is desirable that the federal government should continue and intensify the survey being made under the direction of ' P.F.R.A. officials to determine w-estern Canada's irrigation and power development possibilities:
And whereas it is necessary that there should be some organization charged with the duty of assembling such data as may be necessary to determine the feasibility of the projects and their economic practicability:
Therefore be it resolved that the Craigmyle and district board of trade request the federal Department of Mines and Natural Resources to set up an interprovincial water board or commission for the prairie provinces, whose duty it would be, among others, to assemble all the available stream flow data of western rivers and establish such new stations as may be required to get a complete record of the river discharge throughout the whole western drainage area, and to determine the most feasible and economical water power and irrigation projects that would make the best use of all the available' drainage water, with the object of advising the various governments concerned of the possibilities of the area;
Be it further resolved that the personnel of such board include a representative from each of the three prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The idea is to avoid friction that might otherwise develop between the provinces over one province getting more than its share of the water.


James Garfield Gardiner: There would have to be a board of that kind. The information we are gathering will be available to such a board if construction were to start.


Victor Quelch: The sooner the board is established, the better because otherwise the hopes of one province might be unduly raised as to the amount of water it might get, and then the board might say later that it was not entitled to that much water. That would lead to an unpleasant situation.


Percy Chapman Black: What have been the total expenditures under the P.F.R.A. from 1935 down to the present, plus the 82,000,000 in this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total expenditure so far has been 818,088,525.84.


Percy Chapman Black: And this vote of $2,000,000 is to be added to that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: When the war estimates were up I asked the minister what
Privilege-Mr. Jaques

research was being done in connection with chemurgy. We in the cities arc very much interested. There are other uses for farm crops besides eating them. First, I should like to say that this 82.000,000 is a very small amount of money for the purpose of this vote, farm rehabilitation. It looks to me as if the thing is being done by pieces and that a great deal of money is being wasted. I think we can accomplish a great deal more by undertaking a real big project, as was suggested by my colleague the hon. member for Davenport. I notice that in the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce there is an item of $325,000 for research in connection with the utilization of farm crops. It is most important that the national research council and the Department of Agriculture should work together in close harmony, because most of the work that is proposed to be done is being done for one purpose, namely, the growing of wheat, barley, oats and other crops. But for what other purposes can the crops on these lands be utilized besides eating them?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member is discussing the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There is no item of that kind in my estimates.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, July 19, 1944