1945-10-10

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, October 10, 1945.
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Administrator, will proceed to the Senate Chamber on Thursday, the 11th October, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PRIVILEGE-MR. COLDWELL COMMITTEES OP THE HOUSE-PROVISION OF STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING QUORUM

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw to the attention of the house a matter which I think affects the privileges of the house and the rules of the house.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, presented the first report of the special committee on veterans affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
This committee consists of sixty members. I learned accidentally this morning that twenty-four members attended the meeting of the committee at which the business reported was transacted.
Standing order 65 governs the procedure of select special committees. Paragraph 3 of standing order 65 says:
A majority of the members of a special committee shall be a quorum, unless the house has otherwise ordered.
The house had not so ordered; therefore the presence of thirty-one members was required to transact business. Only twenty-four were present.
The notes on the standing order in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, I think, are quite clear, and indicate that no valid business could be transacted under the circumstances; hence no reports should have been submitted to this house yesterday.

Standing Committees
la this respect, Mr. Speaker, we have followed the interpretatioa of a similar standing order in the British House of Commons; for on July 3, 1907, Mr. A. J. Balfour raised the question of the validity of work done by a committee without a quorum. Mr. Speaker then said this, in part:
It is rather difficult to deal with hypothetical cases but on the assumption that the committee met and proceeded without a quorum, I should be of the opinion that the committee, properly speaking, was never constituted and did not meet, and that none of the work done could be accepted as being the work of that particular committee.
This is an important committee. Its need is urgent. I am not asking the house or you, Mr. Speaker, to rescind the motion of yesterday. I am merely raising the question that these rules which protect minorities in this house should be observed when organizing the work of all other special committees of this house and that care should be exercised by those submitting such reports that the rule for our protection has been complied with. I wish to draw it to your attention so that this may not occur again.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am quite in agreement with the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. But over a number of years-and I have been in the house for more than fifteen years-for the purpose of organizing in our various committees we have proceeded possibly with a certain amount of disregard of some of the basic rules. It was the intention yesterday to ask the house to validate the routine proceedings of the committee, consisting, as my hon. friend rightly said, of twenty-four members. I think that, to put the matter beyond dispute, to-morrow morning, when that committee meets with, I believe, the quorum now recognized by the house, we had better repeat the proceedings which were gone over yesterday and have everything perfectly in order. I think the point raised by my hon. friend is well taken, but we were anxious to get ahead with the business of a most important committee, and I believe that if we were wrong in law we were right in equity.
Mr. COLD WE'LL: I did not wish to delay the committee.



STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	I move that the report of
the special committee appointed to prepare
and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, which I presented yesterday, be concurred in. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked me yesterday to hold it over until to-day.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the standing committee on printing, viz., Messieurs Adamson, Arsenault, Aylesworth, Baker, Beaudry, Bertrand (Prescott), Bertrand (Terrebonne), Boivin, Bradette. Bradshaw, Brunelle, Campbell, Castleden, Church, Clark, Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville). Dubois, Emmerson. Fontaine, Fraser, Gibson (Hamilton West), Golding, Halle, Hansell, Healy, Henderson, Hlynka, Kidd, Kuhl, Lacombe, Lalonde, Lapalme, Lapointe. Lennard, MacLean, MacNaught, Maloney, McCuaig, MeCubbin, McCullough (Assiniboia), McDonald (Parry Sound), McGregor, McLure, McMaster, Nicholson, Robinson (Simcoe East), Ross (St. Paul's), Sinclair (Vancouver North), Sinnott, Strum (Mrs.), Tustin, Viau. White (Hastings-Peter-borough). Winters, will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint _ their honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and Messieurs Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Bruce, Cardiff, Castleden, Cloutier, Dion, Douglas, Eudes, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gauthier (Nipissing), Gourd, Gingues, Herridge, Henderson, Howe, Jaques, Kidd. Knight, Lapalme, Leger, Marrier, Marshall. Matthews (Brandon), McGarry, Mellraith, McKay, Menary, Mitchell, Mullins, Nixon, Pearkes, Probe. Reid, Richard (Ottawa East), Ross (St. Paul's), Skey, Smith (York North), Stephenson. White (Middlesex East), Winkler, Winters. Zaplitny, a committee to assist his honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, so far as the
Questions
[Stage Direction]
interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	In purchasing raw cane sugar during this war, did the sugar administration use a brokerage firm as an agent?
2.	If so, is the deputy sugar administrator connected with such firm?
3.	What commission was allowed such firm?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	No.
2	and 3. Answered by 1.
Note-The sugar administration has never used any brokerage houses. Canadian brokerage houses are, however, employed and paid by the sellers of sugar exported to Canada.


HOUSING ACT-LENDING INSTITUTIONS
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	How many lending institutions in Nova Scotia have made application to be listed under the National Housing Act?
2.	What are the names and addresses of firms, companies or corporations which have been approved?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Three. (Three other companies made preliminary enquiries but have not followed them up with applications for approval. One of these companies subsequently amalgamated with a company which has been approved.)
2.	Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company, Halifax, N.S.
Nova Scotia Savings, Loan and Building Society, 92-94 Granville Street, Halifax, N.S.
General Trust and Executor Corporation, Barrington at Prince, Halifax, N.S.
In addition the following companies, whose head offices are not in Nova Scotia, have made loans in that province under the National Housing Act, 1944:
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Montreal, Quebec; The Canada Life Assurance Company, Toronto, Ontario.


SASKATCHEWAN IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	What has been done with respect to proceeding with the irrigation project in the Duncairn, Swift Current. Waldeck, Rush Lake, Herbert, Morse, Hodgeville area?
2.	What estimated time will be required to somplete this work?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Construction of irrigation works has been completed in the Duncairn, Swift Current, Waldeck and Rush Lake localities. Those of Duncairn and Swift Current were in operation in 1945. Water may be delivered to the farm lateral systems in the Waldeck and Rush Lake localities in 1946. The main supply channel has been constructed to the edge of the Herbert and Morse localities; construction of a pump station and a few miles of canal is required before water may be delivered to farm lateral systems of Herbert and Morse. The main canal supplying the Hodgeville locality is constructed as far as High Field reservoir; construction of a pump station and several miles of canal is required to supply water to farm lateral systems in the Hodgeville locality.
2.	Construction in the Herbert and Morse localities would require six months for completion after commencement; that in the Hodgeville locality would require twelve months.


SHELBURNE HARBOUR NAVAL BASE
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	What was the total cost of the construction of the naval base at Shelburne Harbour, Nova Scotia?
2.	Was the work done under contract or on a cost plus basis?
3.	What are the, (a) names of firms employed in construction; (b) nature of work done by each; (c) amount paid to each?
4.	Is the base used at present time and, if so, for what purpose?
5.	Are any naval personnel stationed there at the present time, and, if so, how many?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Total amount expended to 31 August, 1945, 84,029,751.10.
2.	Both.
3.	(a), (b), (c).
(1)	Acadia Construction Co. Ltd., works and building, base generally, marine railway, drydock, 13,202,919.31.
(2)	M. A. Condon & Son (through Department of Public Works), main wharf and approach boom, defence buildings, fencing, 8344,424.10.
(3)	James N. Kenney, wharf sub-station, heating and power lines, etc., $103,832.89.
(4)	Horton Steel Works, fuel oil storage tanks, $20,002.00.
(5)	National Iron Corp. Ltd., pipe and fittings for water supply, $32,656.62.
(6)	Supreme Power Supplies, transformers for building No. 25, $2,192.

Questions
Note.-Work on the naval base was also done by the Departments of Public Works, Transport, National Defence for Air and Army and by the Canadian National Railways, particulars of which are as follows:
(1)	The Department of Public Works, dredging and crane, grading and levelling, boom, defence grounds, $238,124.05.
(2)	The Department of Transport, naval share of power, naval share reconstructing Sand Point road, $54,264.39.
(3)	Department of National Defence (Air), fire alarm system, $2,265.11.
(4)	Department of National Defence (Army), naval share,' Diesel generator, $2,538.50.
(5)	Canadian National Railways, railway sidings and spurs, $26,532.13.
Total amount, $4,029,751.10.
4.	Shelburne is still in use as a refitting base and for storage of naval equipment and ammunition. Prior to the end of hostilities with Japan a number of ships allocated for service with the Royal Canadian Navy Pacific fleet were sent there for refit. These refits are being completed, and the ships are included among those which it is proposed to retain. Certain ships being declared surplus will, by arrangements with the War Assets Corporation, be sent to Shelburne to be winterized and will then be laid up in that port.
5.	As at 28 September, 1945, there were 1,162 naval personnel stationed at Shelburne, Nova Scotia exclusive of naval personnel in ships based on Shelburne.


Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	On whose recommendation and on what date was the site for the naval base at Shelburne Harbour, Nova Scotia, selected?
2.	From what persons was the land purchased and how much was paid to each?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	Shelburne was originally recommended for the location of a defended harbour and small advance base by a special sub-committee of naval staff appointed to consider requirements for bases and fleet anchorages. This report was delivered to naval staff 25 June, 1940.
The war committee of the cabinet approved the establishment of a naval base at Shelburne on 17 July, 1940.
The actual site occupied on the harbour was selected following an investigation by experienced naval officers and engineers of the Department of Public Works. All possibilities were considered and the location now occupied selected as being the most suitable for naval development. The site was actually selected in September, 1940.
2.	The following is a list of persons from whom land was purchased or expropriated and the amount paid to each of them:
Name	Amount
1.	Howard Firth et al (Adam Firth
Estate)	   $2,239	50
2.	Henry Ebson Goodick (Wm. Hill
Estate)	 161	00
3.	Abigail Coffin, Ellen J. McGrath
& Ralph Own McGrath et al (Penny Estate)	 124	20
4.	Municipality of the District of
Shelburne	 400	00
5.	Martha S. Swansburg et al
(Ellsworth Swansburg Estate)	622	506.	Locksley & Elzear Crowe et al	' 900	007.	Albert McCarthy et al (AndrewClayton McCarthy Estate) ...	153	008.	Bessie E. Ringer	
150	009.	The Colin C. King Estate	3,000	00Total	
$7,750 20


ST. CATHARINES STEEL PRODUCTS LTD.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the government purchased or otherwise taken over the plant of the St. Catharines Steel Products Limited?
2.	If so, upon what terms?
3.	On what date was the transaction completed?
4.	Was the equipment purchased as well?
5.	If so, at what price and what terms?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No, the plant in question was never owned by St. Catharines Steel Products Limited. The government in 1942 acquired the then existing part of the plant by expropriation, and has added to the plant from time to time since then. The whole plant has been, and still is, owned by the government. It was leased to St. Catharines Steel Products Limited for the production of munitions of war and supplies, and since this has now ceased the lease is being cancelled and the government is taking back possession of the plant.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 1.
Questions



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-PURCHASING DIVISION


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Has the War Assets Corporation been instructed to dispose of drop frame trailers owned by the crown?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	How many have been sold, and how many have been scrapped?
4.	How many of such trailers remain to be disposed of?
5.	What disposition is it proposed to make of them?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2.	None.
3.	None sold or scrapped.
4.	None have yet been declared surplus.
5.	Priorities will be filled, after which normal disposal procedure governing motor transport will be followed.

Questions


CANTEEN FUNDS
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Have all the recommendations of the special committee of the House of Commons on canteen funds been adopted and put into effect?
2.	If not, what recommendations have not been adopted?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	(a) Recommendation of special committee that 2 per cent levy be made on all gross sales was not implemented in view of recommendation of select committee that large surpluses be not accumulated.
(b) That profits from the national organization canteens operated overseas be paid to central trust fund. All surpluses from operation of national organization canteens overseas have been frozen by Department of War Services but funds have been used as working capital and will be subject to subsequent adjustment.



PROVINCE OF QUEBEC RADIO ACT

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Has the government referred the apparent infringement of federal jurisdiction by the province of Quebec under its recently enacted Provincial Radio Act, to the law officers of the crown ?
2.	If so, what is their opinion?


Mr. DORION:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this question is not in accordance with the rules of the house. According to standing order 44:
... in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated. . . .
I think there is an opinion offered in this, question, and also a fact stated, in that it mentions "the apparent infringement". Therefore I think this question should be ruled out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: On the point of order, may I just say that I do not express any opinion in the question. I use the words "apparent infringement"; I do not express an opinion that it is an infringement.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I must say that I agree entirely with the hon. member who raised the point of order. The use of the words "apparent infringement" leaves the definite suggestion there that there has been an infringement. It is almost a statement of alleged fact. I therefore suggest it should not be part of the question.


James Horace King: Dropped.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall re-fword it.
[Mr. Mcllraith.3


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Apparently you will.


Major James William Coldwell: Apparently I will.
Question dropped.



GRANTS TO APPLE GROWERS

Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	What is the total amount of grants voted by the dominion government to Canadian apple growers from September 1, 1939, to September 15, 1945?
2.	What part of the total amount of grants was allotted to each province during the said period?
3.	On what basis and under what conditions were such moneys granted to each of the nine provinces of Canada?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	824 923,275.
2.	Nova Scotia $20,032,735; Ontario $25,000; British Columbia $4,865,900. Not all expended.
3.	Grants to Nova Scotia growers through the Nova Scotia apple marketing board and to Ontario growers through the Ontario fruit export association represented, mainly, compensation for the industrial absorption of apples rendered surplus through loss of overseas markets; grants to British Columbia growers through the British Columbia fruit board represented, mainly, partial absorption of loss in the f.o.b. price of apples for acceleration of sales in western Canada as a means of surplus absorption.



NATIONAL MEMORIAL

Mr. MACDONNELL:: Did the government consult, in connection with the plan for a national memorial mentioned in the speech from the throne, (a) with veterans' organizations of Canada to see if they approve of a national memorial taking the form proposed; (b) with representative bodies representing architecture, engineering, etc., to obtain their views?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: (a) While the decision as to the national war memorial is a responsibility of the government, it is proposed, when definite plans are available which can be placed before them, to consult the principal veterans' organizations. When the time comes for such consultation, it is expected that demobilization will have been completed or largely completed, and that the veterans' organizations will be representative of the veterans of the second as well as of the first great war; (b) the government has secured the services of Mr. Jacques Greber, architect and town planning expert of Paris, France, to advise with regard to the development of the national capital and its surrounding area. Mr. Greber was employed by the government before the war

Questions
in developing plans for the beautification of the city of Ottawa. It was considered desirable that the work already begun by Mr. Greber should be completed by him. In addition, the government is, of course, availing itself of the services of the permanent technical experts of the federal district commission and of the Department of Public Works. As the plans for the development of the national capital are worked out it is probable that additional expert assistance will be required from time to time. In this connection, the government has every intention of availing itself of the services of Canadian architects, engineers and town planners.



METLAKATLA INDIANS

Mr. ARCHIBALD:: What action has been taken by the government with respect to the application of the Metlakatla Indians of the west coast for the franchise?


Mr. GLEN:: The request is now being considered and steps are being taken under the provisions of the Indian Act to appoint a board to consider the application.



CEILING PRICE ON WHEAT-OTHER EXPORT PRODUCTS

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	In view' of the government's policy of preserving the present ceiling price of $1.55 for No. 1 northern -wheat, basis Fort William and Vancouver, for the present crop year, are any other "Canadian export products including textiles, lumber and pulp subject to similar ceilings for the same period?
2.	If so, what products?


Mr. MacKINNON:: I had intended speaking to the hon. member regarding this question, but I have not had an opportunity. The reason I am answering this question verbally is to bring to the attention of the house and to the country, if necessary, the mistaken premise contained therein. The announcement did not limit the ceiling price, did not give a ceiling price on wheat for this crop year. I merely stated that directions had been issued to the wheat board to offer wheat for the time being at $1.55 a bushel. The price may be higher before the end of the crop year, I do not know; but at the present time wheat is being offered at $1.55.
I have no wish to avoid answering the question, but in connection with the latter part of the question I can only say that consideration will be given to the other commodities the hon. member mentions in the light of conditions as they exist when these matters come up for discussion,


Mr. GRAYDON:: That sounds like the Prime Minister.



AIR SERVICES-MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. McCULLOCH (Pictou):: 1.	Have applications been received by any branch of the government for permission to operate a new network of air connections in the eastern maritime provinces?
2.	If so, (a) from what company or companies; (b) where are their headquarters; (c) what are the names of places to be served; (d) location of terminals (i) Nova Scotia; (ii) New Brunswick; (iii) Prince Edward Island; (e) what type of plane will be used; (f) will it be an all year service?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes. The air transport board has received applications from Maritime Central Airways Limited and Pulsifer Brothers Limited for licence to operate air services in the eastern maritime provinces.
2.	(a) Answered by 1.
(b)	(1) Maritime Central Airways Limited -Charlottetown, P.E.I., (2) Pulsifer Brothers Limited-Halifax,, N.S.
(c)	(1) Maritime Central Airways Limited: Moncton, N.B., Amherst, N.S., Truro, N.S., New Glasgow, N.S., Sydney, N.S., Greenwood, N.S., Yarmouth, N.S., Halifax, N.S., Saint John N.B., Sydney, N.S., Charlottetown, P.E.I. (2) Pulsifer Brothers Limited: Operating from bases at New Glasgow aerodrome located at Trenton, N.S., and at Waterville, N.S., to serve any point in maritimes within operating range of aircraft.
(d)	(1) Maritime Central Airways Limited.
Terminals: (i) Nova Scotia, New Glasgow,
Yarmouth, Greenwood, Sydney, Halifax; (ii) New Brunswick: Moncton, Saint John; (iii) P.E.I.: Charlottetown.
(2) Pulsifer Brothers Limited.
Terminals: (1) Nova Scotia: New Glasgow Aerodrome at Trenton, N.S.; Waterville; (ii) New Brunswick; (iii) P.E.I.
(e)	(1) Maritime Central Airways Limited.
Type of Aircraft: Lockheed 10A, Lockheed
10B, Lockheed 12A, Rapide 89A.
(2) Pulsifer Brothers Limited.
Type of Aircraft: Tiger Moth, Cub Cruiser.
(f)	Yes, for both operators.



BONDING OF TRUCKS, WINDSOR TO NIAGARA FALLS

Mr. COYLE:: 1.	Does the bonding of trucks from the U.S.A., travelling over highway No. 3 from Windsor to Niagara Falls still prevail?
2.	If so, when will this operation cease?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The privilege of trucking in bond over the route referred to was authorized following representations from the government of the
Questions

United States that it would be helpful to the war effort. Arrangements such as these involving international co-operation should not be terminated without consultation, and the only answer which can be given to this question at the moment is that the matter is receiving consideration.



VETERANS' LAND ACT-MANITOBA

Mr. JUTRAS:: 1.	How many veterans of this war have been settled in Manitoba under the Veterans' Land Act?
2.	What is the average size farm settled on under the act and at what cost?
3.	How many have settled in the electoral district of Provencher, and what are the locations of such by land description?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Applications for financial assistance approved, as of August 31, 1945-131.
2.	201-85 acres. $4,071.10 for land and permanent improvements and $1,095.46 for livestock and equipment.
3.	No veterans have been established under the act in the electoral district of Provencher.



INCOME TAX DIVISION


Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	In what building or buildings, in the city of Vancouver, is the divisional office of the income tax division located?
2.	How many persons are employed in that office?
3.	How many people are employed in the branch office located in Victoria?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Winch Building, 739 Hastings St. W.
2.	Six hundred and two.
3.	Twenty.



HOUSING-VANCOUVER

Mr. MERRITT:: 1.	Of the 1,200 houses for veterans contracted
to be built in the city of Vancouver by Wartime Housing Ltd., by contract dated in or about the month of July or the early part of August, 1945, how many were under construction on, (a) the 1st September, 1945;	(b) the 1st
October, 1945, and how many were completed at the 1st October, 1945?
2.	What is the average estimated time required for the completion of one of these houses ?
Mr. MciILRAITH:
1. The agreement referred to was entered into with the city of Vancouver whereby Wartime Housing Limited undertook to erect 1,100 houses and the city agreed to provide improved lots for the construction of these houses. Lots are still being allocated by the

city of Vancouver and as of September 27, 1945, lots for approximately 800 houses had been allocated by the city.
(a)	As of September 1, 1945, the construction of 250 houses had been contracted for.
(b)	As of October 1, 1945, the construction of 800 houses had been contracted for.
No houses were completed as of October 1, 1945, but it is expected-depending upon weather and other conditions-that completed houses will be delivered starting approximately December 1, 1945, at the rate of several houses per day.
2. On a contract for 250 houses, deliveries of completed houses generally start about four months after the date of letting the contract, with completion of the last house approximately ten months' time from the date of letting the contract.



SELECTIVE SERVICE-VANCOUVER

Mr. MERRITT:: 1.	How many, (a) male; (b) female, employment vacancies were recorded in the national selective service offices in Vancouver on 26th September, 1945?
2.	How many, (a) male; (b) female, applicants for employment were so listed on said date?
3.	Of the male vacancies, how many were in, (a) the logging, sawmill or other woodworking industry; (b) mining; (c) other manufacturing industry; (d) the construction industry; (e) others?
4.	What were, (a) maximum; (b) minimum, rates of pay offered in each classification under question three?
5.	What was the general classification of vacancies for female employment, stating particularly how- many of the existing vacancies were for domestic service?
6.	What were the, (a) maximum; (b) minimum, rates of pay offered for female workers?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The figures for September 26, 1945, are not available. Those given are for September 28, 1945-5,502 male, 1,721 female employment vacancies in Vancouver on September 28, 1945.
2.	5,673 male, 2,129 female applicants for employment, same day.
3.	Of the male vacancies, there were 793 in logging, sawmill or other woodworking industry; 388 in mining; 2,148 in other manufacturing industry; 479 skilled and 149 semiskilled in construction industry, and a total of 1,545 unskilled in all other male employment.

Questions as Orders for Returns
4.	In logging, sawmill or other woodworking industry, maximum and minimum rates of pay were 60c to SI.50 per hour. In mining the rates were S4.62 to $7.55 per day. In other manufacturing industry, the rates were 50c to $1.12^ per hour. In construction industry, the rates were 50c to S1.31-J per hour; and in all others, the rates were between 50c and $1.31 per hour.
5.	The general classification of vacancies in female employment were clerical workers, sales workers, household workers, waitresses, kitchen workers, textile workers, miscellaneous workers and cooks. There were 220 unfilled vacancies for domestic service.
6.	The maximum and minimum rates of pay for these workers were, for clerical workers, $15 to $25 per week; sales workers, $15 to $25 per week; household workers, $20 to $60 per month, with board and room; waitresses, $15 to $18 per week, with meals; kitchen workers, $15 to $18 per week, with meals; textile workers, 36c to 65c per hour; miscellaneous workers, 30c to 62c per hour, and cooks, $22 per week.



HOSPITALIZATION OP P.E.I. WAR VETERANS

Mr. McLURE:: What is the total number of Prince Edward Island veterans of this and the last war who are patients in hospitals in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and other parts of Canada?


Mr. TUCKER:: On being advised of the tremendous amount of work and expense entailed in obtaining an answer to this question, the hon. member who asked it was good enough to agree to have it dropped.
Question dropped.



EMPIRE PREFERENCES

Mr. THATCHER:: Has the Canadian government received any recent request from the government of the United States, asking Canada to agree to the abolition of her empire preferential tariffs?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.



REPRESENTATIONS AS TO NEWFOUNDLAND BECOMING PROVINCE OF CANADA

Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Has the administration received any representations during the past year, either from the British government or from Newfoundland indicating the willingness or desire of the latter, to join the Dominion of Canada as a tenth province?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.



NATIONAL WAR SERVICES-POSTAL CENSORSHIP

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	How many employees are on the staff of the postal censorship branch of the Department of National War Services?
2.	Are any of the employees of this staff being sent to Germany?
3.	If so, how many; what are their names, addresses, ages, racial origin; what languages can they speak, and are they to be maintained by the government of Canada?
4.	What is the estimated cost to Canada, (a) for each employee; (b) total?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	45.
2.	None.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	During each of the years 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 up to September 12: (a) bow many pounds of raw cane sugar did the sugar administration import into Canada; (b) what was the total purchase price in Canadian currency paid for this imported raw cane sugar by the sugar administration f.o.b. seaboard; (c) what was the average price per ewt. so paid?
2.	In each of the years 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 up to September 12: (a) how many pounds of raw cane sugar did the sugar administration sell to the Canadian cane sugar refiners; (b) what was the total price paid by the Canadian cane sugar refiners to the sugar administration for that sugar f.o.b. at the seaboard in Canadian currency; (c) what was the average price per cwt. so paid?
Mr. BLACKMORE;
1.	On the raw cane sugar which the Canadian sugar administration imported in the years 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and up to September 12, 1945, did the sugar administration make a profit or suffer a loss in each of the above mentioned years?
2.	What was the amount of profit or loss in each of the years indicated?
3.	What was the average profit or loss per 100 pounds in each of the above years?
4.	As a result of such purchases and sales of raw cane sugar by the sugar administration of Canada, how much money has been accumulated in the sugar stabilization fund over the operations of the whole period indicated?


CANE AND BEET SUGAR
Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	What quantities and from which countries did Canada import its raw cane sugar supplies in 1939?
2.	What was the cost of same, f.o.b. seaboard in Canadian currency?
3.	What was the value of Canada's exports to the countries which supplied Canada with raw sugar?



Questions as Orders for Returns
i. How many pounds of granulated white beet sugar is the full capacity of all six Canadian sugar beet factories?
5.	What was the amount of Canada's beet sugar production in each year , from 1937 to 1944 inclusive ?


Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	Is there any difference between the ceiling
price (wholesale) of cane sugar and beet sugar as allowed by the sugar administration m Canada?	,
2.	Has the Canadian government at any time restricted by regulation or otherwise limited. beet sugar production in Canada?
3.	What is the total amount paid into the price stabilization fund established by the sugar administrator, June, 1940, by the beet sugar industry?
4.	Has the paying to the fund increased the cost of beet sugar to the consumer? If so, by how much?


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, 1944
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many lending institutions have been approved under the National Housing Act, 1944, and what are they?
2.	How many contracts have been entered into by the minister under part I of the act?
3.	What is the total number of houses for which loans have been authorized under part I?
4.	How many of such houses have been completed and are now occupied?
5.	What is the total amount of the loans authorized under part I?
6.	How many lending institutions have been
approved under section 8 of the act, and what are they?	.
7.	How many contracts have been entered into by the minister under part II of the act?
[DOT]8. What is the total number of rental housing projects for which loans have been authorized under part II?
9.	How many of such rental housing projects are low-rental housing projects?
10.	How many of such rental housing projects have been completed and are now occupied, and how many of them are low-rental housing projects?
11.	What is the total amount of. the loans authorized under part II?
12.	How many limited dividend corporations have been recognized by the minister as qualifying under the act to receive loans under section 9 of the act?
13.	How many of such limited dividend housing corporations have received loans under part II?
14.	How many life insurance^ companies have
invested funds pursuant to section 11, and what companies are they?	...	,
15.	(a) To how many municipalities have grants been made pursuant to section 12; (b) t what are the individual amounts of such grants and what municipalities respectively have received them?
16.	How many contracts have been entered into by the minister under part III?
17.	(a) What is the total number of houses for which loans have been authorized under part III; (b) how many of such houses have been completed and are now occupied?

18.	What is the total amount of the loans authorized under part III?
19.	How many contracts have been entered into with manufacturers of plumbing or heating equipment or other component parts of houses, pursuant to section 15?
20.	How many payments have been made under part IV, and what is the total thereof?
21.	What regulations have been issued under part I?
22.	What regulations have been issued under part II?
23.	What regulations have been issued under part III?
24.	What regulations have been issued under part IV?


Mr. MAYHEW:: Return tabled.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL-BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND CONTROLS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DiIEFENBAKER:
1.	Have any orders in council been passed since the 8th of May, 1945, wherein, (a) recourse to the courts by a party aggrieved by decision of a board, commissioner or controller is specifically denied; (b) a commisisoner or investigating officer has the power in any proceeding to deny the right of a person appearing before same to be represented by counsel?
2.	If so, give particulars?

Mr. MEN ARY:: 1.	How many automobile tires are there in
Canada in the hands of the manufacturers or dealers?	_
2.	How many tires were available in Canada in each of the years 1938 to 1942?
3.	When will the present stock be released to general public?



DAFOE, SASK., BOMBING AND GUNNERY SCHOOL

Mr. BURTON:: 1.	What was the total acreage purchased for the bombing and gunnery school at Dafoe, Saskatchewan?
2.	From what person or persons was such land
purchased ?	.
3.	What was the total cost of construction of this airport, excluding the cost of land?
4.	Has this airport been transferred to some other department or organization?
5.	If so, under whose jurisdiction and management is it now?
6.	If not, will this property be disposed of?



ENLISTMENTS FROM P.E.I.

Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the total number of enlistments in the armed forces during the period of the war of persons giving their domicile as Prince Edward Island?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BOUCHER:: For a copy of all reports made to the government and/or the federal district commission by Jacques Greber on the beautification of Ottawa.

Motions for Papers


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no objection to the motion passing, with the customary reservation in case there are any confidential papers-I do not think there are.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. FRASER:: For a copy of all letters, reports, contracts or agreements in possession of any department of the government in regard to the building of semi-permanent wartime houses.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: 
Mr. HOWE:: May I suggest that if my hon. friend will limit further his request it will help us considerably. There are several hundred contracts. If he could suggest any particular contracts that he would like to have, he would get the reply that much sooner.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I shall call the minister's office on that. Subject to the reservation mentioned, I should like the motion to pass.


James Horace King: Dropped.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No.
Motion stands.



DISALLOWANCE OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION

Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of applications for disallowance of dominion-provincial legislation, made and refused since 1920, by years and provinces.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that a pamphlet was published in 1938 dealing with all applications for disallowance from confederation up to that date. If it is agreeable to the house I should like to file a copy of that pamphlet as a part of the return and then comply with the terms of the motion from the date dealt with in the pamphlet to the present time.


Major James William Coldwell: That is quite
satisfactory.



PETITCODIAC RIVER POWER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. HAZEN:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and surveys in the possession of any department of the government in connection with the proposed Petitcodiac river power development. 47696-574



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION-WOLVERINE CREEK, SASK., WATER PROJECT

Mr. BURTON:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in the possession of the department, regarding the construction of a dam in Wolverine creek, approximately five miles southeast of Humboldt, Saskatchewan, under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, along with a statement showing, (a) who recommended this construction; (b) cost of preconstruction survey and testing; (c) cost of construction; (d) total cost; (e) amount of water impounded by the dam; (f) tests made.



HUDSON BAY ROUTE

Mr. KNIGHT:: For a copy of all reports made to the dominion government by the United States government of a survey made during the recent war by the United States government of the weather conditions of the waters and of the air over the waters of what is generally known as the Hudson's bay route.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: With the understanding
that none of this correspondence or reports is confidential or secret, I have no objection to the motion passing.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of motions-Mr. Castleden-the following proposed resolution-That, in the opinion of this house, it is in the best interests of Canada to establish a distinctive Canadian citizenship, w-hich shall be available to all persons of certain residence or birth qualifications within the dominion.
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution, proposes the establishment of a distinctive Canadian citizenship, available to all persons of certain residence or birth qualifications within the dominion. I notice on the order paper under the name of the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) a. bill which was allowed to stand to-day respecting nationality, citizenship, naturalization and the status of aliens. If I could have the-assurance of the Secretary of State that the-bill he is to introduce does provide such citizenship, I should be quite willing to let. this motion drop.
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State)' r The hon. gentleman was kind enough to discuss this matter with me earlier. As the speech from the throne indicated, the bill standing in my name will create the status
Live Stock-Control

of citizenship. It will not only meet the point the hon. gentleman has in mind; it will ;go much farther.


George Hugh Castleden: In the circumstances I :am prepared to let the motion drop.
Motion dropped.



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of motions-Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North)-the following proposed resolution-
That, in the opinion of this house, there should be incorporated in the constitution a bill of rights protecting minority rights, civil and religious liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly; establishing equal treatment before the law of all citizens, irrespective of race, nationality or religious or political beliefs; and providing the necessary democratic powers to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms.
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I find myself in the same position as the previous speaker. My motion asks for a bill of rights dealing with certain aspects of the citizenship of the people of Canada. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is going to introduce his bill, and I have some assurance that the things I should like to see in it will be discussed in this house, I am quite willing that this motion should be dropped.
Motion dropped.



LIVE STOCK


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration the advisability of appointing a board of live stock commissioners in Canada, for the purpose of regulating and controlling the assembling, transporting, grading, marketing and exporting of live stock and live stock products.
He said: There is no branch of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, in which there is as much confusion as exists in connection with live stock to-day. We have a great many government appointed boards, committees, supervisors, inspectors and investigators, all of whom appear to lack the cohesion necessary for the efficient operation of this important branch of agriculture. I therefore appeal for legislation to be enacted by the federal government to make possible the creation of a board of live stock commissioners, the majority of the members of which shall be recommended by

farm organizations. This board would parallel in a general way the work done by the board of grain commissioners in the regulation of the grain trade.
Might I point out to the house that this is not a political gesture but something the farmers have fought for ever since I came to Canada twenty-six years ago. Farm organizations all over the dominion have repeatedly asked for this legislation. I do not intend to take up the time of the house by reading all the resolutions which would prove my statement, but I am going to quote from the brief presented to the cabinet by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in February, 1944:
This federation desires to repeat its request of former years that the federal government should establish a board of live stock commissioners, with powers and duties similar to those of the board of grain commissioners. It requests that the said board be empowered to administer, under the Department of Agriculture, the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, and that the members of the board shall be appointed in consultation with organized agriculture. The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act should be amended and consolidated with other legislation in order to vest in the board the power to license, regulate and control the facilities for assembling, transporting, yarding, slaughtering, processing and packing, together with the facilities for grading and selling all live stock and carcass products designed for human consumption. . . .
Their recommendation in this connection in the brief presented to the cabinet in February, 1945, was quite short, and I am going to place it on record also:
We again wish to record our sincere conviction that many of the problems of live stock marketing as regards assembling, grading, price differentials, transportation, processing, and the regulations governing these matters, can best be solved by the appointment of a board of live stock commissioners. We therefore repeat our request, made on previous occasions, for the setting up of such a board.
This board should be empowered to administer, under the Department of Agriculture, the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act; and the members of the board should be appointed in consultation with organized agriculture. The act should be amended and consolidated with other legislation in order to vest in the board power to license, regulate and control the facilities for assembling, transporting, yarding, slaughtering, processing and packing, together with the facilities for the grading and selling of live stock and carcass products designed for human consumption. The board should have power to make such levy on the products under its jurisdiction as may be necessary to defray the cost of its operations.

Live Stock-Control
Speaking, on a previous occasion in the house, I said that some of the surplus money accumulated in the condemnation fund could quite easily be put to that purpose. With such a board in operation it should be possible to deal satisfactorily with many causes of difficulty and dissatisfaction to producers, which frequently arise. It would be of particular importance in developing a system of grading live stock and live stock products under which standards of grading to consumers in Canada, or for the export trade, and to producers might be coordinated as closely as practicable.
I wish to direct the attention of the government to the disability suffered by live stock producers from time to time, when the congestion of transportation facilities, packing plants or cold storage warehouses prevents live stock in process of marketing from being disposed of or being delivered for sale at the normal plant or slaughter-house. In the past western Canada has shipped hogs over two thousand miles to have them slaughtered. This is a serious business, and we hope1 that sort of thing will never occur again. I am also of opinion that existing price control regulations do not provide adequate protection to cattle producers. To-day certain classes of cattle are selling at below their value. It should also be pointed out that favourable weather conditions this fall have enabled producers to maintain an orderly movement of cattle to market	It is obvious that any
break in weather conditions would bring a rush of cattle to market which would immediately aggravate the situation.
There has been a pronounced trend in Canada toward larger business organizations, and in many cases toward monopolistic markets. The meat packing industry, and other distributing organizations have in general followed this trend, and a large part of the purchasing of western live stock is done by three companies. The concentration of buying power in the hands of three firms is a serious situation. Concentration in the buying of live stock has been accompanied by the weakening of the position of the producer as a marketer. The protection which the producer had in the public market has now practically disappeared.
It is my view that the position with respect to the marketing of live stock is simply that buying is now concentrated in a relatively few hands, and selling is largely disorganized and ineffective. Under these conditions we cannot expect adequate provisions making for a sound live stock industry in Canada.
Since 1920 a great change has taken place in the method of marketing live stock, and particularly in that of marketing hogs. This
change came in the form of direct buying by the packers, and a decreased use of public markets. In 1920 only about five per cent of Canadian hogs went direct to the plants, whereas in 1938 we find that eighty-five per cent of all hogs went direct. Whatever strength or weaknesses were involved in the public markets system, it used to perform an important function, namely that of providing a meeting place for buyers and sellers, and of registering from day to day price levels which reflected competitive bidding for the vast proportion of live stock marketed in Canada.
At the same time, with sixty-five per cent of our live stock going direct to the packing plants, and only thirty-five per cent passing through the public market it cannot be said that the public market is a proper indicator of the value of live stock, because packing houses to a very considerable extent are now independent of the supplies which come on the public market.
If, as a result of direct buying, values are not finally established in the public yards, price making for live stock is not a matter of public negotiation. Under these circumstances prices of live stock are largely determined on the basis of the prices packing houses are prepared to offer on any particular day, and not as a result of a thorough bargaining process.
It may be argued that under a system of direct buying, bargaining actually does take place between the producer or his representative or agent, and the packers, in so far as the packer must offer a price sufficient to induce the producer to sell in the desired quantities. This situation, of course, is not significant in the practical marketing of hogs because, owing to the grading regulations now laid down, the producer has little or no choice as to the time at which he will sell his product. Penalties are attached to overweight and underweight hogs, and these strict grading regulations have limited the choice which the farmer may exercise in respect of the time at which he sells his hogs. His product must be sold, no matter what the offered price may be.
The board would give continuous study to the steps necessary to make more efficient and satisfactory the services of our public central markets, and the insurance of competitive bidding in the sale of live stock.
Direct shipment to packing plants has developed very rapidly and, if increased to any marked extent, may make doubtful the continuation of our public markets. This would mean a monopoly of buying in the
[DOT]902
Live Stock-Control

[DOT]hands of the packing plants. Such a development would have serious consequences to our producers.
The whole problem demands serious study. One-half of all the hogs delivered at the stockyards in 1938 arrived by truck, and in the same year one-third of the cattle came by truck. If truck shipments delivered direct to the packing plants were included, the percentage of the total shipped in this way *would be considerably increased.
One thing we must remember is that the man who trucks stock to the market is a trucker; he is not a producer. He is more concerned about a full pay load than about the selling of the animals. Two complaints are brought against the method of marketing. One is that it is claimed that packers buy live stock from truckers at less than stockyard prices. A check made by investigators for the price spreads commission in the month of March, 1934, seems to support this contention. The packer has complete freedom of grading, when buying direct. In addition, direct purchases are made on an off-car basis, while in the stockyards animals are fed and watered before being sold. This may make a difference of seventy-five pounds in a 1,000-pound cow. The farmer saves the commission merchant's fee, the stockyard charges and part of the freight he would otherwise have to pay. In spite of these savings, it is probable that he obtains from direct sales a smaller net return than could be obtained from selling on the public yards.
Secondly, it is argued that the weakening of the stockyards system by a process of direct sales is deterimental to the producer. This seems a reasonable argument. The elimination of the central competitive market would probably put the producer at a considerable disadvantage in selling to two or three large buyers. If we are to establish fair economic returns, and security for primary producers, I do not believe we can ever again rely upon the automatic processes of what in the thirties was erroneously termed a free competitive market. Such automatic processes broke down hopelessly in the depression years, and are now almost completely *discarded as incapable of the supreme test of war-time conditions.
In one of his speeches Mr. Donald Gordon, *chairman of the war-time prices and trade hoard, said:
Selfish and private interests must be ruled out completely and the competitive system must be replaced with one which is based entirely upon the criterion of maximum production.
Having failed us in these two periods, it would in all probability be disastrous to risk

the return to such automatic processes in the post-war period, one which promises to be the third and not the least of a series of national emergencies. I am therefore suggesting that the live stock industry in Canada should be brought under public regulation through a board of live stock commissioners, and that that board be constituted with producer appointed representation thereon. Such a board might be composed of nine members. Of these the chairman, vice-chairman and one other member should be salaried and devote their full time to problems of the live stock industry. The others should be representative of producers, consumers, government services and the packing industry. They should attend meetings when required and serve without remuneration, except for fees and expenses for each meeting.
The powers accorded to this board should cover, among others, the following points:
1.	The administration of the grading of live stock.
2.	The regulation of all purchasing agencies, including country buyers.
3.	The regulation of public and private live stock markets.
4.	The establishment and maintenance of export standards.
5.	The hearing and investigation of complaints from producers, marketers or processors with respect to any live stock problem.
6.	The regulation and publication of grade discounts.
7.	The supervision and auditing of condemnation insurance.
8.	Continuous study of the economic basis of the live stock industry, including:
(a)	Methods of stabilizing live stock prices.
(b)	Methods of securing a better seasonable distribution of marketing.
(c)	Methods of securing and maintaining adequate feed supplies and promoting their distribution within Canada.
(d)	Methods of improving the quality of live stock.
(e)	Promotional work in securing export markets.
(f)	Methods of narrowing the spread between prices to the producer and prices to the consumer.
(g)	Methods of extending research and statistical facilities.
(h)	All other matters affecting the live stock industry.
In conclusion, I would say that farmer representation on such a live stock board should be the strongest available. It is no place for political appointments. The greatest interest in the live stock industry is the

Live Stock-Control
interest of the men and women who produce the live stock, and it is a matter of prime importance that they be fully and adequately represented on such a body. I hope the government will do something about this matter without any further delay.
Mr. MARK C. SENN (Haldimand): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of attention to the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. member who introduced this motion. I think this motion is of extreme importance to the farmers of Canady. For many years the production of live stock has been an important branch of agriculture, not only in this country but I believe in every country of any consequence in the world.
If the fertility of our soil is to be maintained our farmers must not grow crops year after year without returning something to the land. Such a course may be successful for a while, but the land will finally become exhausted and crop failures will be the inevitable result. It is a proven fact that the best way to maintain the fertility of the soil is to raise animals on the farm. I think it is also a proven fact that the best way to market our crops is to feed them to live stock and then market the live stock. The production of live stock has steadily and gradually increased in Canada for a great many years, and this increase has been very marked indeed during the years of the war.
In a return brought down in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) it was shown that the hog population of Canada in 1939 was 4.360,000. In 1943 it had risen to over 6,000,000. The cattle population in 1939 was 4,693,000, and this had risen to over 6,000,000 in 1944. Another return showed that the value of cattle marketed in Canada in 1944 was $202,000,000 odd. The value of hogs marketed during the same year was $323,000,000. The value of sheep marketed was over $12,000,000. The over-all total was $538,000,000 worth of live stock marketed in Canada during 1944.
These figures illustrate clearly the importance of the live stock industry to agriculture generally throughout Canada. It is an obvious fact that this live stock is produced by thousands of farmers. There are over 740,000 farmers in the Dominion of Canada, and well over sixty per cent of those farmers produce live stock on their farms in some way or another.
It is an obvious fact too that production is only the first stage in the live stock industry. It is manifestly impossible for a farmer to slaughter his animals and process them for domestic consumption or for the foreign
market. The result is that a large army of men has grown up throughout the country for the purpose of collecting, processing, grading and distributing our live stock. This army of men is continually taking a toll of consumer prices that are realized and on the whole, the producer must be satisfied with what is left. Middlemen are indispensable in the live stock industry, because they are performing a useful and necessary service. They must have an adequate reward for the performance of those services, but I think it is apparent to everybody that the time has come when some control of this vast and intricate system should be set up.
As the mover of the resolution has stated, a similar condition prevailed at one time in the wheat trade, and the board of grain commissioners was finally set up under the grain act to control and regulate all aspects of the wheat trade. At the time that board was set up there was considerable opposition, and I have no doubt that there will be considerable opposition to the idea outlined in this motion. However, I wonder if there is anyone in this country who would advocate a return to the conditions in the grain trade that prevailed before the board of grain commissioners was set up; I wonder if there is anyone who would advocate its abolition. I do not believe there is anyone in Canada who would do such a thing.
No doubt the same arguments that were advanced when the board of grain commissioners was set up will be advanced at this time. It will be argued that there is machinery already in the Department of Agriculture to regulate and control the live stock industry in all its aspects. It is true that there are many capable men in the Department of Agriculture; they have done good work, and I "can find no fault with them or with the work they have done. At the beginning of the war, under the War Measures Act, a number of boards were set up, what you might term war boards. The first was the agricultural supplies board. It would not be possible for me to read into Hansard at this time all the duties that were conferred upon that board by the order in council which set it up. One principal thing, the basis of all duties which were enumerated there, was:
To direct and regulate through the various dominion and provincial agricultural services and through advisory boards representative ot the industry which are already constituted, or which may be established, the production, preparation and conservation of farm products.
Live Stock-Control

A little later an agricultural food board was set up under order in council P.C. 5163. Briefly, the duties of this board are as follows:
Subject to the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and in cooperation with the agricultural supplies board to develop and direct the policies and measures of the Department of Agriculture for the wartime production of food.
A third board, known as the bacon board, was set up, and that board was later renamed and reconstituted as the meat board. It had certain powers, and I want to read one or two of them to the committee, because I believe it shows how important they are, and to what extent their powers could go if they carried them all out. May I say in passing that the meat board did take over the export trade in meat products to, I believe, all the countries of the world. At least the export trade which had formerly been carried on by private enterprise was taken over by this meat board. Here is one of the things they were allowed to do under the powers conferred upon them:
To determine the prices which shall be paid to packers or other persons for meat delivered for export. . . .
And so on. They were to determine the prices which should be paid to packers. Under another clause, paragraph (e), they have power to fix the minimum price to be paid by packers or other persons for live stock. I do not believe they ever exercised that power, hut it indicates how broad their powers are and how necessary it seemed at the beginning of the war that there should be some supervision of the meat trade. I suppose that when the War Measures Act goes out of force, or very soon afterwards, these boards, unfortunately, will automatically cease. Whether they do or not, I think I have said enough to prove that some kind of supervision is necessary over the whole live stock industry if it is to flourish as it should.
What are some of the reasons why a live stock commission should be set up? Just speaking in generalities, because I do not want to go into particulars, I would first say that they should see that the farmer, who is the primary producer, gets a square deal. They should see that the farmer receives a fair share of the consumer's dollar. They should see as well that efficient production of live stock is made possible for the live stock producer. I think they should also ensure- from the other angle-that the consumer is not exploited. They should see that he does not have to pay too much for services rendered in bringing meat products to the consumer's door. They should see as well that the spread between producer and consumer
fMr. Senn.]
prices does not widen and continue to widen as it has done in days gone by, but on the other hand is reduced to the narrowest possible margin consistent with giving a fair return to the middlemen who have to process and distribute the food. To accomplish this, the proposed live stock commission should, as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) has said, be free from political influence, and I believe its powers should be clearly defined by amendments of the present live stock act. May I point out in passing that the leader of the party to which I have the honour to belong advocated at Lethbridge in 1943 that a live stock commission should be set up with powers somewhat similar to those of the board of grain commissioners.
Reference has been made by a previous speaker, and by myself, to the fact that the wheat board has done a remarkable piece of work for the people of this country, and particularly for wheat producers. But that is not the only board which has been set up for similar purposes. In 1933 the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization conducted an exhaustive examination of the fluid milk trade throughout the dominion. It was an extended investigation; there are some thousand pages of the report. It was pointed out at that time that the fluid milk trade operates mainly within the boundaries of the provinces and is therefore under provincial control, but there is a recommendation in the report which I think should be of interest to parliament at this time. It is this:
Your committee recommends that tribunals should be set up vested with authority to settle differences between producers' and distributors' organizations and, if necessary, to fix the returns to the producers and the prices charged the consumer.
Following that, some six provinces set up boards to exercise supervision over the fluid milk trade, and I am sure everyone will agree that the results have been very beneficial indeed. I know at least that in Ontario, with which I am better acquainted than with any other part of the dominion, higher prices to farmer producers were obtained than could have been realized otherwise. The price to the farmer has been stabilized and he has been given some feeling of security by these boards which have been set up.
Let me go a little further. Ten years ago there was set up a royal commission on price spreads. That commission made an extensive study of all phases of the live stock industry, and the report makes very interesting reading. It investigated the production, the collection, the processing and the marketing of live stock products of all kinds.

Live Stock-Control
Its conclusions were clear-cut and were given somewhat in detail. I believe that conditions to-day would be somewhat similar if it were not for the war years and for the fact that we have boards set up already which, as I have already remarked, I assume will go out of existence when the War Measures Act is repealed.
One paragraph of the report was devoted to the stockyards and the public markets. The chief criticism which was offered in the report was the lack of competitive buying in the yards. In the early history of the stockyards there were many buyers on the market, but as the years went by the numbers grew less and less; many of the smaller packing plants were eliminated, either by mergers or by absorption in bigger plants; and then there was the other question of direct shipment, with which I shall deal in a few moments. The report also states that there was evidence of arrangements between buyers. One sentence in that report has special significance and a particular bearing on the commission now under discussion. It is this:
When many competing sellers are faced by few buyers who act in concert or who tacitly agree to follow the lead of larger buyers, exploitation becomes possible.
This is true to-day as it was in those days.
Another paragraph deals with the retailing of meat products by stores. Chain store activities came in for criticism because of the use of "loss leaders" and inequalities in prices. Then the matter of direct shipments was dealt with, and a recommendation was made by the commission which I wish to read; it is very short:
Direct shipments of live stock should be subject to the same rules of weighing, grading, publication of prices, deliveries, and supervision, as shipments to the public stockyards.
I believe that if that were done by the live stock commission it would very nearly meet the ideas of the hon. member who introduced this motion. It also urged that strict supervision of the export trade should be undertaken. One could mention at some length other features which were discussed and recited as proof of the need of greater supervision of the whole live stock trade. Their recommendations, as I have said, were clear and concise. It will only take a moment or two to read what they have to say in their final recommendation which was brought down late in the year 1935:
As a step toward the solution of some at least of the problems which we have outlined, we recommend the establishment of a live stock board, under appropriate jurisdiction.
The duties of the board should include, among others, the following:
(a)	The prompt dissemination of information to producers and the trade generally, in respect to production, marketing, stocks, and prices, both export and domestic.
(b)	Administrative jurisdiction in matters connected with all phases of live stock marketing and in connection with disputes between producers, processors, etc.
(c)	Licensing and supervision of truckers, dealers and export packers; where necessary in cooperation with provincial authorities;
(d)	Adequate inspection of all marketing stages and action to correct abuses;
(e)	Cooperation with producers, processors and the trade generally, to ensure as far as possible a balance between production and available markets;
(f)	To encourage the organization of producers of live stock for regular and orderly marketing;
(g)	Improvement of quality of all live stock;
(h)	The formation of a uniform policy on external marketing, with a view not only to promoting new, but also retaining and developing, existing markets.
(i)	The stabilization of supplies, and the regulation of quality to each particular market;
(j)	The utilization of all available means to secure fair returns to the primary producers of good stock.
The powers that the board should have under these recommendations coincide very well indeed with these powers which were outlined by the hon. member who brought this resolution into the house. This recommendation is very definite. It is strictly in line with the pronouncement made by the leader of my party (Mr. Bracken) in his Lethbridge speech, and having been a member of the royal commission on price spreads. I agree with that report and its recommendations. I have always thought since that it would be in the interests of the live stock industry at large.
One more matter. The live stock industry is now faced with a very serious situation. If the threatened strike of packing house workers materializes, the effect on the live stock industry in this season of heavy shipments will be disastrous. I was surprised yesterday when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in reply to a question on the orders of the day, stated that the government could do nothing about the matter.


Mr. GARDINER:: I did not say that.


Mr. SENN:: The minister's statement was pretty close to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I answered the question, if these men did go on strike what could the government do in order to remove the difficulties that the farmers would have? I said there was not very much that could be done to remove the prejudice if they did go on strike.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister said there was nothing he could do. I think there is some-

Live Stock-Control

thing that could be done even then, but it should be done earlier. According to a statement made recently by the Acting Secretary of State for External Aflairs, Canada is still at war and the War Measures Act is still in effect. It is not altogether the proper thing for the Minister of Labour to state that this is a matter that is up to the province. While the War Measures Act is in effect the federal authority is supreme and has a right to do as it likes in these matters. I urge that the question be dealt with immediately if the producers are to be saved from the consequences which would inevitably follow a strike at this particular time.
I think it is unanimously conceded that the establishment of a board of grain commissioners has been of decided advantage to the people of Canada and to the grain trade, and I think it is equally true that the provincial boards set up to deal with the operations of the fluid milk trade have greatly benefited both the producer and the consumer. I therefore ask the government to take into serious consideration the recommendation made in this motion, and in fact to adopt the motion as a forward step for the benefit of the live stock producer and of agriculture generally.


Joseph William Burton: I wish to say a few words in support of the motion moved by my friend and colleague the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). In doing so I shall give a number of reasons why I consider it necessary and desirable that the members of this house should pass this resolution. First, I believe' that the request contained in the motion is reasonable. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will read the motion again, wherein it states that:
. . . the government should take into immediate consideration the advisability of appointing a board of live stock commissioners in Canada, for the purpose of regulating and controlling the assembling, transporting, grading, marketing and exporting of live stock and live stock products.
If we the members of this house consider this motion we shall find that we are asking something very reasonable of the government. All that we are doing is to ask them to give immediate consideration to taking this action. At times I look into the book that some of us occasionally need to refer to, the dictionary, and I find that "consider" means "to think, to think about." I am quite sure that the government will not refuse to think, because we would have reached a very sad state of affairs if the government refused to think. We ask them to think about appointing this board of live stock commissioners, and the terms we suggest to them to follow are also

reasonable-"for the purpose of regulating and controlling the assembling, transporting, grading, marketing and exporting of live stock and live stock products."
The second reason why I am happy to support this motion is that it is necessary in the interests of the live stock industry as a whole.
I am happy that we can bring before the house and ask the government to consider a motion to take action on something that is of concern to such a large number of people, not only as producers and handlers but ultimately as consumers. There are many people concerned with the live stock industry. They are dependent upon it. I should like, therefore, to refer the house to a publication entitled "Live Stock Market Review," published by the authority of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). If I may, I would congratulate the minister and the officials of his department, first of all, on compiling the statistics given and preparing and presenting them to us in the manner in which we have them. I do not know how widespread this publication is in the country but I know that I appreciate receiving it regularly. Page 5 of this booklet indicates that there are live stock yards in Toronto, Montreal West, Montreal East, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Prince Albert, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Regina and Vancouver. When I first looked over this list I failed to understand why the maritimes did not have a live stock yard or market. If they have not one I think they should get busy and obtain one. If they have a number of markets I suggest that they get in touch with the minister to see that they are put on the map. I was disappointed to see that such a large section of the dominion, which I know raises considerable live stock, is not included in this list.
We find that spread all the way from Montreal to Vancouver there are these large centres and markets where the live stock that is produced is being handled in one way or another. In that connection I should like to refer to the week ended October 4. In that week 33,727 head of cattle went through the markets I have mentioned. There were 9,912 head of calves, 18,454 hogs, and 21,131 sheep. In addition to that, we have the other situation referred to by the hon. member for Selkirk. He then indicated that a practice has developed whereby the packing houses send their own drovers out into the country to gather up live stock and hogs and ship them direct to the packing plants without putting them through the public markets or the live stock yards.
The department gives us some information on that. Included in this booklet are the

Live Stock-Control
shipments to plants for the week . ended October 4. It shows that 53,170 cattle were shipped direct to plants whereas there were only 18,454 listed through the stockyards. There were 17,363 calves shipped direct to the plants and only 9,912 to the stockyards. In the same week there were shipped direct to the plants 52,376 sheep. To obtain comparable figures for hog marketing we are asked to turn to the table on page 6. They do not give us the total number of hogs shipped direct to the plants. I think the minister might ask the officials of his department to check into that and see if we cannot get this additional information.
On page 6 to which we are referred we find that hog carcasses graded in the week ended September 29 and also from January 1 to date, 1945. There we find some interesting figures. According to the table, in the week ended September 29, 83,538 hogs were graded. In the same week last year there were graded 112,017. I should like to have the minister and hon. members bear in mind how these figures compare. To date in 1945 there have been graded in these packing plants 4,378,655 carcasses. In the same period last year there were 6,614,226 carcasses graded.
In that connection I might refer the minister to what my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk and I brought to his attention a number of times during the past year or so. We said that with the policy being fol we were bound to have a reduction in the production of hogs and bacon products. I might say that, speaking in the Saskatchewan legislature before that, I drew it to the attention of the then minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, who is now chairman of the Canadian meat board, and he along with the federal Minister of Agriculture practicallv laughed at the suggestion that we would have a reduction in the production of hogs. However, the figures show that to-day. That is not the point with which I am concerned to-day, although it is something that we should have been concerned with during the past few years. The point that I am concerned with is to show to hon. members that the live stock business is big business and that it is affecting the lives of a lot of people. We have these markets scattered from Montreal to Vancouver. In addition to that we have eleven stockyards, and the packing plants involved have numerous drovers. Then there are shippers, cooperative concerns, individual shippers and trucking by farmers. I contend, that, with a business of that size spread all over the country, with the interests of so many people involved, and 47696-584
with so many people handling the product, it is in the interest of everyone concerned to have some regulating authority along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk. I suggest that the resolution, if agreed to, will not deprive anyone of his just dues, but, on the contrary, will be of service and protection to everyone.
I have another reason for supporting the motion. The majority of the people whom I have the honour to represent are greatly concerned about this matter. I believe that there are very few if any constituencies in Saskatchewan where the people as a whole are so dependent on mixed farming, as we call it, as they are in the constituency of Humboldt. In that constituency we have no mines, no timber of marketable size and no industries except perhaps an odd creamery or something of that kind. We have only two towns, which would not be of any great .size as towns are considered in the east, but one is a divisional point for the Canadian National railway and the other is a divisional point for the Canadian Pacific railway. With the exception of the people in those towns practically everyone in the constituency is dependent upon the returns from agriculture for livelihood, most of them directly and the remainder indirectly. Ever since that country was opened up some forty odd years ago we have been carrying on what I have referred to as mixed farming. We did not go into it in a spectacular way; there are few if any herds of prize-winning cattle, but still the people on the land from the early homesteading days have gone into the production of cattle and hogs, and during the years have produced an enormous amount of wealth by way of live stock.
I am sure that all the older members from the west, including the Minister of Agriculture will recall the difficulty we had in persuading the governments of that time that we needed a board of grain commissioners to supervise the handling of the enormous amounts of grain being produced in the prairie provinces. Eventually, after a great deal of work and agitation, that board was appointed. Any person who would suggest now that the board of grain commissioners be done away with and that in regard to grain we go back to conditions similar to those under which live stock products are handled to-day, would meet with a cool reception and would deserve ridicule. In the early days the emphasis was placed upon the production of grain, and finally we obtained the board of grain commissioners. In the intervening years the agricultural picture in western Canada has gradually changed, and more
Live Stock-Control

and more districts have taken up what we have had in the Humboldt district from the very beginning, mixed farming and the production of live stock. As I mentioned previously, we have arrived at the position where the live stock industry has become big business, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house that it is in the interests of the producers, in the interests of those who handle our products, in the interests of those who process our products and in the interests of those who consume our live stock products that we have a board of live stock commissioners.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) may I say that on various occasions during the last parliament I requested the appointment of a board of live stock commissioners with producer representation. This has been and is a plank in our platform, as was stated this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), who dealt with the findings and recommendations of the commission on price spreads some years ago, which I sigrcs were all to tho good. Ho also dealt fully with the many boards which have been set up during the war years to deal with the production, processing and handling of meat in this country, pointing out that with the elimination of the War Measures Act most of these boards would go out of existence.
The marketing and exporting of live stock and live stock products has been most unsatisfactory even during the last few years. As has been pointed out, in western Canada at any rate in the early twenties we depended upon wheat for our livelihood. In those years I believe some seventy per cent of the income of the western farmer came from the production and sale of wheat. That picture has changed very greatly to-day. In the same area I believe wheat accounts for only about forty per cent of the income of the farmer. Great increases have taken place in both hog and cattle population of Canada from coast to coast, and particularly in the prairie provinces. In 1939 our cattle population was 4,693,500. In 1945, according to a return brought down at the end of September, it was 0,676,400, so that there was an increase of approximately forty-two per cent in the cattle population this year.
As one hon. member said a few moments ago, the production and marketing of live stock in this country has become big business to-day, and many people depend upon it for their livelihood. Previous speakers have pointed out the difficulties which were encoun-

tered a few years ago when we asked for the establishment of a board of grain commissioners, but I am sure everyone will agree that this board is rendering a great service in the various ways it regulates the marketing of grain in Canada. I hold in my hand the report of that board for 1944, setting out on the last page the regulations of the board, under some fifty-nine headings. I do not think I should take time to mention them all, but that should indicate the great service being rendered by this board to the wheat producers of the country.
Now that live stock has become just as important as wheat, in dollars and cents; now that it affects probably as many producers in Canada, if not more, I think we are just as much entitled to a live stock commission. The hon. member for Haldimand pointed out that my leader and this party for years have requested that such a commission be set up. It has been pointed out that the greater percentage of hogs marketed now go direct to abattoirs or packing plants. Not long ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made an appeal in this house for a greatly increased production of bacon for shipment to Britain during the next two months. I fully agree with his appeal, but it seems strange that since that appeal was made the price of pork has gone down in various markets across Canada. I have never been able to understand why these fluctuations should take place. If I might refer again to the way in which our grain is handled, the government are now in a position to tell the producers, usually before seeding time in the spring, what they can expect for their product for the coming year. Under a price ceiling system such as is operating in Canada I have never been able to understand why these fluctuations should take place in connection with live cattle and hogs at marketing centres. Perhaps I might add that these fluctuations have been more varied in respect of cattle than hogs. On several occasions a.t this session I have asked the Minister of Agriculture to try to explain to the producers why the same animal which was running in pasture, on good grass, at the end of June or July, and which has grown and gained in flesh and in condition, should sell six weeks later for a smaller figure per pound. Why should this condition obtain, especially when meat is controlled as it is in Canada? That situation does prevail and has prevailed year in and year out at certain periods of each year. It is one which should not be permitted to continue.
Many other arguments have been advanced this afternoon. While I shall not repeat them, may I say that I concur in them. Cer-

Live Stock-Control
tainly it is my view that a majority of producers in Canada from coast to coast are in favour- and most desirous of setting up a live stock commission such as has been described by the hon. member who moved the resolution. This is something for which, as I have said, I have asked on repeated occasions since 1940.
Without taking further time I make an appeal to the government to take steps toward the setting up of a commission to operate in the interests of live stock producers in Canada as a whole, so as to -assure them of some degree of justice in the marketing and processing of their live stock-operations which have become big business in this country.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, as another practical farmer and as a member of the committee on agriculture which sat during the last parliament, I wish to add my support to that of hon. members who have already spoken in favour of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). I consider that this matter has been far too long delayed. It has been considered by farmer organizations all across Canada, and on different occasions requests along this line have been made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I realize, as do many other hon. members, that since the beginning of the war the live stock industry flourished to a greater extent than it had previously. Even at that, however, far too many abuses still exist, and far too many leakages take place. The result of those leakages is going into the wrong channels.
I believe it is in the interests of the government and of the Canadian people as a whole that the commission be set up, so that the wrongs which still exist can be set right. I do not believe it is necessary to discuss some of the questions which have -been debated this afternoon. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that the members of this group are fully behind the suggestion made by the hon. member for Selkirk, and that we fully endorse it. Therefore we ask the government to give this suggestion immediate consideration, and to have the new commission appointed.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the suggestion made in the resolution now under discussion that there be set up a board of live stock commissioners to order and regulate marketing of live stock products in this country. It is not my intention to enter into any great detail with respect to that matter, but
there is a related subject to which I should like to give some attention this afternoon, one which has a most definite bearing on the marketing of live stock. I refer to the report of the likelihood of a strike taking place in meat packing plants throughout this country.
On various occasions in the course of this debate it has been said that those engaged in agriculture, and particularly those connected with the production of live stock, are in a better position to-day than they have been for many years. This is perfectly true, and I scarcely think it is necessary to remind hon. members that their present position is in marked contrast with the state of affairs which existed up to the beginning of the war. Therefore any steps that can be taken to prevent a recurrence of pre-war conditions are in my view essential to the welfare of the country.
I should like to refer to certain questions which have been addressed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) in connection with the threatened strike in the meat packing plants. Two questions which were put to him on Tuesday, October 9, and to which he gave answers, sought to bring forth from him some assurance that a strike would not be allowed to take place in the meat packing plants. The questions were asked in order that the producers of live stock might be assured that their markets would be kept open, and that there would not be that decline in price which is bound to follow from any strike in packing plants.
As reported at page 827 of Hansard for October 9, the Minister of Labour admitted that he did understand the position in the packing plants, and made this statement:
I have received a letter from the secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Any decision made with respect to the purport of the letter will be made known when the government makes a decision. The answer to the first part of the question is yes.
That is, the minister was aware of the situation.
We are in constant touch with the provincial departments of labour with respect to what some people anticipate will be a dispute or strike in the packing house industry in this, country.
I submit that very little comfort can be found in these words. There is little of the-assurance which the producers of this country-are hoping for, namely that the strike will! not be allowed) to take place, or that if it does take place their position will be safeguarded.
The minister, asked for a further statement, made this reply:
If my honourable and garrulous friend will just give me an opportunity to answer the question which was put by the leader of the opposition-
Live Stock-Control

One would have thought we were to get a reassuring answer, but he went on to say:
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I can add much to what I have already said.
I submit, therefore that the live stock producers of Canada have very little justification for thinking that their interests will be protected by responsible ministers of the government.
I should like to give briefly the reason why a strike in packing plants of Canada is a matter of such importance to the producers of live stock. I have a telegram from the British Columbia beef cattle growers' association asking me to take up this matter with the government. I have done so through *questions in the house and private discussion with the Minister of Labour. The purport of the telegram is that the producers of live stock wish to have the assurance that the government is taking all possible steps to avert a strike and to allay producers' fears, in view of the fact that a panic at this time would mean disaster. The seasonal run now on would be aggravated by the efforts of producers to market before the threatened stoppages occur.
If hon. members will cast their minds back to the situation last July they will recall that at that time a strike took place in the meat packing industry of Canada. What I wish to do now is to show why a strike is important and why it is viewed with alarm by producers. I would show, too, the adverse effect on the cattle marketing situation brought about by the strike that took place at that time, and I would point out the adverse effect a repetition of the strike would have to-day. I am reading from the "Live Stock Market Review" published by the Department of Agriculture marketing service for the week ended July 19 of this year. On page one of the "Review," under "Summary," it is stated:
Cattle offerings, as compared with the corresponding week last year, were fairly generous, but the market showed ability to absorb everything on hand. In some instances gains were recorded.
And further down:
Eastern cattle markets. A good clearance of cattle was made at Toronto, with all grades selling firm, and the top' of the market at $13.75 for two loads of prime weighty steers.
By the next week the strike was beginning to make itself felt. Reading from the same report for the week ending July 26, we find under "Summary" the following:
The demand for cattle was adversely affected this week by unsettled labour conditions. In some packing houses in Toronto there was a strike early in the week and the possibility of a similar situation developing at some other packing house centres. The larger buyers were
LMr. Fulton.]
therefore operating sparingly but the small operators, not being directly affected, were active at the somewhat reduced values which resulted from the temporary slowdown in total demand.
And further down:
Eastern cattle markets. Closing prices on cattle at Toronto were about fifty cents lower, with last sales of choice weighty steers at $12.75 and $12.80.
If we take the top price for the previous week of S13.75, it will be seen that in one week the price went down from 95 cents to SI per hundred pounds, not 50 cents. That is the drop in price in one week as the result of the strike.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not on the same class of cattle.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Even taking the statement that they were fifty cents lower, we find on page 5 of the report that cattle marketings at public stockyards during the week were 21,121 head. Taking the average beast as weighing 1,000 pounds, which I think the minister will agree is a fairly good average, at fifty cents per hundred pounds we find the loss on an average beast amounts to $5. If you multiply that by 21,121 you get a total of $105,605, which represents the loss to the producers in one week. The decline in prices to that extent was the direct result of the unsettled labour situation, as stated in the market review, or, in plain words, it was the result of the strike in the packing plants.
I think we can see quite clearly how important this matter of a strike in the packing plants is to the producers of meat. It is of increased importance at this time because of the seasonal run of cattle on the market. This always takes place in October and November when grass on the range is getting short and winter is about to set in. Producers are anxious to market their cattle and take advantage of high prices before feeding difficulties may begin. The result is, again using the department's own figures, that for the week ending September 27, the latest report, sales of cattle at public stockyards were 29,221 head, an increase over the July figure of 8,100 head. That is to say, the seasonal run of marketings at this time is over thirty-five per cent higher than it was in July. With those two facts in mind, that in one week in July the loss to producers was over $105,000 and that in October the marketings were over thirty-five per cent higher than they were in July, I think this house will see how important this question of a strike in the packing plants is to the live stock producers of this country.
In view of this serious situation I directed a question yesterday to the Minister of Agri-

Live Stock-Control
culture, which I should like to read, along with his answer, as reported on page 827 of Hansard:
With respect to the anticipated strike in the meat packing plants, is the Minister of Agriculture in a position to make a statement which will reassure the producers of meat that their position with respect to marketing will not be prejudiced should there be such a strike?
Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) : Mr. Speaker, I think all that I can say is that if there is a strike in the packing plants the position of the producer will be prejudiced and nothing this government can do will prevent it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read it all; read the next part.


Edmund Davie Fulton: By all means.
Mr. Homuth: Should do, or will do?
Mr. Gardiner: Nothing that they can do will prevent the producers' position from being prejudiced if these men do go out on strike.
I submit that that answer is indicative of the defeatist attitude of this government. I am reminded of a previous occasion when a member on the government side of the house said that after all, private members of parliament could not accomplish very much, and they would soon find that out. We on this side of the house do not share that view. It seems to me that this government is bemused and bewildered by the problems which now face them. If they are going to answer a question in that way, I say to them: If you cannot do anything about it, perhaps you will move out and let somebody in who can.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that we
could not do anything about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister said:
Nothing that they can do will prevent the producers' position from being prejudiced


James Garfield Gardiner: If they do go out on
strike.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am going to suggest
something that the Minister of Agriculture can do to prevent the producer's position being prejudiced. There is at this time an embargo on the export of cattle to the United States. It has been suggested by members of this house and by cattle producers' associations that that embargo might be removed. I am going to suggest to the minister that if a strike in the packing plants of this country should take place, he take into consideration the lifting of the embargo on the export of cattle to the United States. The minister may answer that we are attempting to supply a maximum amount of meat to Great Britain and to UNRRA.
Mr. GARDINER; Would the hon. member like my answer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not yet; wait until I have finished.


James Garfield Gardiner: My memory is that
every member on that side of the house voted against the trade treaty which allowed cattle to go into the United States at lower duty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know of the
occasion to which the minister is referring.
I am referring to the possibility of a strike in the meat packing plants of this country. I was not here on the occasion to which the minister refers. If the minister will permit me to make the suggestion I want to make to him, I will sit down and he can have the floor to give his answer. If a strike takes place in the packing plants and we do nothing about it I am certain that Great Britain, UNRRA and the devastated countries in Europe will not get our meat. The result will be our producers will be affected and our standard of living will go down. If the embargo on exports of cattle to the United States is lifted, that country, which is also trying to export the maximum amount of meat to the devastated countries, will have our meat and they can export it. If our packing plants cannot handle it, why not make a deal with the United States to have their packing plants handle it until the strike is over in this country? I suggest to the Minister of Labour-


Mr. MITCHELL:: Just to carry it through to the logical conclusion, it is the easiest thing in the world to suggest that we do what the hon. member says we should do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know my hon. friend
is an expert on cattle, and I bow to his superior knowledge, but suppose they would not process the meat in the plants of the United States; what then?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry I cannot give
the minister an answer. I suggest a deal should be made or some inquiries instituted. I am offering the suggestion. Unfortunately we are not on the government benches; so we cannot carry out this suggestion. I am suggesting that some approach be made to finding a solution to this problem.
The Minister of Labour said he realized that I am an expert on cattle. I certainly do not hold myself out as an expert, but I do know that producers of meat, of whom my constituency contains a very large number, are extremely worried over the prospect of this
Live Stock-Control

Strike. That is Why I am suggesting to responsible ministers a course which they might take, a course which would result not only in the opening again of that potential market in the United States, but would help solve to some extent the United States meat shortage, would make meat available to the devastated countries without the loss of time and of meat which would follow a strike in our packing plants, would prevent a certain and definite loss to the producers, and, if it were stated now that some such step will be taken, would remove the fear they now have which may bring about a panic and a sudden run and glut of cattle on the market.
As I say, we are not on the government side and therefore are not in a position to put these suggestions into effect. But a suggestion was made yesterday in another matter to the Minister of Labour which he was kind enough to say was very constructive. All I ask is that, in the interests of the meat producers of this country, the Minister of Agriculture give the same degree of consideration to this suggestion.


Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Middlesex-West) :: I have listened with interest to the discussion which has taken place on the motion which was moved by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). I have also listened to other members discussing this question, and as to whether it would be in the interest of Canada as a whole and of the live stock industry if a board of live stock commissioners were appointed. All those who have spoken during this last hour and a half have taken the stand that such a board should be appointed, and have given their reasons for doing so. I am going to take the opposite view. I feel that we have now boards enough, if not too many.


James Arthur Ross: Such as they are.


Robert McCubbin: And at this time I do not think it is in the interests of the live stock industry to appoint such a board.
As you know, we have a dominion-provincial conference, and members of the house are watching its proceedings. It is adjourned until the end of November, when it will again meet. The government put out a little book, which I have read with interest, containing the proposals of the dominion government for this dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. I suppose all hon. members have read it. Certainly those who are interested in agriculture will read what is therein contained with respect to agriculture, our basic industry. I am going to read into the record just a couple of paragraphs, containing proposals to the con-
[Mr Fulton.]
ference Which should be of interest to those engaged in agriculture. I quote:
No industry has made a greater contribution to the Canadian war effort than agriculture. Its achievement has left problems of conversion to peacetime conditions comparable to those of manufacturing industry. Sfany branches of agriculture were greatly expanded in response to war needs, and overall production increased to levels far exceeding those of the past. This accomplishment drew heavily upon agricultural resources, resulting in heavy depreciation of machinery and equipment and great strain on the depleted farm population. The dominion government feels it has a responsibility to assist the industry in making the necessary readjustments to peace-time circumstances and to work in cooperation with the provincial governments to provide for a greater degree of stability in farm income and a greater measure of security than has prevailed in the past.
I skip a little, and come to the subject of marketing which is dealt with in the resolution of the hon. member for Selkirk.
In the field of agricultural marketing, there are two matters that merit special consideration; one has to do with the regulation of the movement and sale, the other with the grading and inspection, of products. With respect to the first, it has been noted that some of the provincial governments have provided legislation under which various marketing plans and activities are developed. It would appear that this is evidence of an interest that should be considered at this conference in so far as dominion-provincial relationships in the marketing field are concerned.
The second aspect of the matter, namely that relating to grading and inspection, is one that has concerned the dominion and provincial governments for a great many years. By various means, the regulations with respect to grading, inspection, packaging and labelling of products have been enforced to the advantage of producer and consumer alike. From time to time, however, the procedure followed has been interrupted by decisions of the courts which have indicated that either the dominion or the provincial governments had exceeded their respective powers. It is apparent that the dominion and the provincial governments are agreed as to the need for some action which will clarify the control and direction of activities in this field. Under these circumstances, it would appear that the conference should give some consideration to this matter with a view to achieving the desired control.
That is the attitude of this government at this conference in respect to agriculture and the marketing of agricultural products. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), who was the only speaker from Ontario, has referred to this live stock industry, which had a value last year of $538 million, as something which is worthy of consideration; and I wish to commend all the speakers who have taken part so far on their sincerity and honesty in trying to provide the necessary machinery for the orderly marketing of farm products. Though I may not agree with it, nevertheless they are putting forward their own proposal.

Live Stock-Control
The hon. member for Selkirk has brought up this matter in the house before, as also has the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and, I believe, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). It has been, stated that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) spoke on it in a speech at Lethbridge. As the hon. member for Selkirk has mentioned, it is sought to deal with these problems in the same manner as that in which the board of grain commissioners are dealing with wheat. The price spreads report has been mentioned here to-day. I have in mind a statement which I read in that report, and also in Hansard, in the year 1935, when the exminister of trade and commerce, Hon. H. H. Stevens, said to the then leader of the government, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, that he thought the government was dodging its responsibility to the grain trade by appointing a board of grain commissioners. That was his view at that time. I am not saying it was right or wrong. But we in Ontario got mixed up with the wheat board, to our sorrow, one time in the marketing of our wheat. I hate to have to say this; nevertheless it is true: the board and the administrators and the office workers in connection with it used up all the profits, after the initial price had been paid, in the administration of the board, and we as producers received only a cent or a cent and a half on our participation certificates.


James Arthur Ross: I know that the hon. member will not mind a question. Is he talking about the Canadian wheat board or the grain commission? They are two different organizations altogether.


Robert McCubbin: I am talking about the wheat board.


James Arthur Ross: That is not the grain commission.


Robert McCubbin: Did I say the grain commission? I thought I said the wheat board. It is "the wheat board" that I have written down here. That was our experience with the wheat board in the province of Ontario.
I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that wheat is not handled in a satisfactory manner in the province of Ontario; it is not handled in the way it is dealt with in the west. This, however, will be discussed at another time.
We in Ontario feel that we are not getting a fair show as regards the price we are receiving for our wheat.


Joseph William Burton: In comparing the wheat board with the board which the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) suggests, the hon. member is in error because what is asked for is a board of live stock commissioners similar to the board of grain commissioners.


Robert McCubbin: You may say to me, "If you are not in favour of this board, what are you in favour of?" In my opinion, under the dominion department of agriculture and the departments in the provinces everything possible will be done. They have efficient officers and they will try to see that our farm products are marketed in an orderly manner in the interests of the farmers of the country.
I suggest that we need markets more than we need boards, and I would net support this government if I did not think that they will do everything in their power to procure markets for Canadian farmers.
This question of a live stock board was brought up some years ago. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) will remember this better than I do, because I was not a member of the house. The matter was brought up by the then member for Peace River, Mr. Kennedy, who introduced the subject in 1935. [DOT] At that time the leader of the government, Mr. Bennett, opposed the setting up of a live stock board because in his opinion there would be overlapping. I have a copy of Hansard of that day and I could quote from it to show that in his opinion it was not in the interests of agriculture to set up a live stock board of the kind that is asked for to-day. That was his view. As I say, we are more interested in markets.


James Arthur Ross: Let us look to the future.


Robert McCubbin: I am looking to the future, but we have to review the past if we are to look properly into the future. Some of the hon. members who have spoken to-day voted in 1936 against the trade agreements which did so much for the farmers and the cattle producers of the country.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) referred to the lifting of the embargo from Canadian cattle going into the United States. No one would be happier than I to see it lifted, but that is not possible at the present time. However, I hope the day is not far distant when that can be brought about.


James Arthur Ross: Why is it not possible?


Robert McCubbin: It is not possible because we have certain commitments. The governments of Canada, the United States and Great Britain have certain commitments across the sea, and we intend to carry out those commitments. We have been asked for two hundred million pounds of beef, and another twenty-five million pounds, if we can send it, and it is our duty to see that it is shipped. However, as I say, I hope the day is not far distant when we can ship our cat-

tie to the United States, and I wish to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), my leader, for the visit he paid President Truman before leaving for overseas. I am sure that under his able leadership and that of President Truman, agreements will be consummated which will be in our interests as well as in the interests of the American people. We know that the United States Senate is permitting the president to reduce tariffs in future trade agreements by a further fifty per cent, and that will be to our advantage. I am happy to see our friends on the other side of the house willing to support these trade agreements. I hope I shall be sitting on these benches when such an agreement is voted on in the house, and I trust that members on the other side will not then do as they did in 1936 and 1939, but will stand up and support the agreements which I have every reason to believe will be brought into effect by the present leader of the government.
I am not here to uphold and commend everything the government has done with regard to the cattle industry. It has done certain things in the last five years that I do not like as a cattle producer, and the people whom I represent do not like them; nevertheless, there are certain things that must be done in wartime, and we are willing to do them. But we are willing to have them done by this government and not by any board. This government should take on the responsibility of bringing in any legislation that is necessary; it should not be done by members of a board.


Mr. CASE:: And not- by orders in council.


Robert McCubbin: That is all right.


James Arthur Ross: There are exceptions.


Robert McCubbin: I have always taken that stand because I believe in it. The other day I listened to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, (Mr. Macdonnell) and with a good deal of what he said I was in agreement. I am a farmer and I speak on behalf of farmers. I feel that this government, of which I happen to be a supporter, is one that will do the utmost to legislate in the interests of our farmers and primary producers; for there is no class of people who have done more-and they will continue to do a great deal-for the welfare of this country. I hope the government will go forward with the legislation that is on the statute books and not appoint a lot of boards. I hope they will take the necessary steps themselves, and if there is to be any discussion it should take place on the floor of the house or in committee.

Live Stock-Control


William Scottie Bryce: Would the hon. member permit a question? Am I to assume from the hon. member's remarks that the Ontario federation of agriculture is against a board of live stock commissioners for Canada?


Robert McCubbin: I never made any such statement. I am speaking only for myself.


William Scottie Bryce: The hon. member is speaking only for himself?


Robert McCubbin: I am only expressing my own views.


William Scottie Bryce: A board of live stock commissioners has been endorsed by four hundred thousand farmers in Canada.
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): May I say a few words in support of the resolution which has been introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce)? I fail to see, if the principle is sound in the case of grain, why it should not also be sound in the live stock industry. WTe have a board of grain commissioners to-day.
At the present time we are short of meat. The reason we are short is that our live stock producers have stopped producing live stock. There are two main reasons for this. One is shortage of help. Incidentally this may concern the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) more closely than he possibly realizes. The other reason is that the live stock producers feel that they have not been receiving a reasonable return. There is a physical limit to what a man can do. The difficulties of the war have pressed rather heavily upon the older men who have had to feed the live stock. They have not been able to feed the quantity of live stock that they might wish to do. One of the first things that a man lets go of when he feels he is unable to handle the whole situation is what is commonly known as his chores, and on the farm his chores consist principally in the feeding of live stock. Therefore live stock raising suffered immediately the labour shortage became apparent. Of course, if there is not sufficient help to raise live stock the farmer cannot do it. But if he feels that he is not getting a reasonable return he will not do it regardless of the labour situation. I know this is the feeling that obtains to a considerable extent in the west. Rightly or wrongly they feel that their position could be improved very much by the establishment of a board of live stock commissioners.
The farmers have run into all kinds of small difficulties. I do not wish to speak of them in a general way, but I shall touch on one or two. First of all, let me say that my hon. friend to the right could not understand why
there was such a range in the price of dressed hogs, since the price of bacon and the grades are fixed and the animals are on the rail. That is to say, there is no need for allowances in errors of judgment of the buyer when he is buying a live animal; yet we find that there is a range of prices. Last week in Toronto prices ranged from $17 to $17.90 a hundredweight. While $17 is the average price and $17.90 is the range, it would indicate that some of the hogs were sold for even less than $17. That is one thing I, too, do not understand.
In 1936, the west was in difficulties over its shortages of feed and we were compelled to get rid of a lot of our live stock. At that time our live stock was pretty thin. The government of the day guaranteed a price of one cent a pound if we shipped in our live stock and disposed of them. Even at that we received complaints. I approached a drover who was in charge of the handling of a lot of this one cent stock in order to see what the difficulties seemed to be. These are a few of the things he told me. The cattle were taken, incidentally, from my small home town up to Edmonton, a distance of some two hundred miles in a straight line on the railway. The complaints of the farmers at that time were, first, that the cattle were taken straight to the packing plant and not weighed in the stockyards. They were weighed on the packing plant scales. The second complaint was that they were not fed and watered before they were weighed. In one case that he mentioned they were kept in the yards for fifty hours before they were unloaded. He then gave me some of the shrinkages on a two hundred mile rail journey. He had three cows which shrank 760 pounds. He had one bull which shrank 300 pounds; he should have shot him, I imagine. He had another cow which belonged to a neighbour of mine and in which I was particularly interested which shrank from 1,400 pounds to 1,160 pounds, a matter of 240 pounds of shrinkage in this cow.
Another grievance which they feel they have at the present time

and I speak quite feelingly about this because it happened to me-is the range of the different grades. Anyone who is connected with farming knows that the A-pig carcass ranges from 140 to 170 pounds, the B-l from 135 to 175 pounds, the B-2 from 125 to 134 pounds, and the B-3 from 176 to 185 pounds. There have been difficulties and stoppages at various packing plants for various reasons, and the farmer has not always been able to gauge accurately the weight of his live animals. He guesses at it and sometimes he is a good guesser; sometimes he
Live Stock-Control

is quite a long way out. But in some eases his live animal was just on the edge of being too heavy for a particular grade. With another couple of pounds it would have been too heavy for the particular grade and would have had to go down a grade because it was too heavy. Then his animals were shipped away and, the packing plants not being able to handle them for various reasons, an animal was sometimes kept for a week before it finally got into the packing plants. During that week it was fed, at enormous cost incidentally, and when it did get into the packing plant it had made so many more extra pounds that it was out of the grade. That was one grievance. In my own particular case I had one particular pig which was one pound too heavy and it went down a grade. It was docked fifty cents a hundred pounds because it was one pound too heavy, and incidentally it missed the government premium. I talked this matter over and complained to a man who was familiar with the workings of the packing plant, and he thought it was very funny, because he said that with one quick slice of the knife one pound would be taken off the carcass and it would go up in the grade after it had got out of my hands and when it got into the packer's hands. Therefore, as I have said, we have the feeling that with the appointment of a commission to take charge of all these matters we could iron out many of our difficulties. If there should be a jam in Edmonton, cattle could be sent to Saskatoon, and so on. The commission would keep an eye on all these things and probably we would not be troubled with strikes or threatened strikes at some of the packing plants, as we are at the present time. I consider it highly probable that such a commission would be able to keep all these difficulties under control, and in that way we would have less trouble.
The main point I wish to make is that rightly or wrongly the live stock producers believe they would be better off under a commission. Our ambition at the present time is to get them back into the production of live stock; so let us agree with them for once and grant them this live stock commission.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I should take time to speak to the house on a resolution of this kind. This is supposed to be a day when private members have the time pretty well to themselves. However, in view of the remarks that have been made and the suggestion that the minister should say some-
'Mr. Townley-Smith.]
thing on the matter I have decided to break the general rule and say a few words in regard to this resolution.
As the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin) has pointed out, this is not a new question in this house. A similar resolution was introduced as far back as 1935, prior to the election of that year, which means that the matter was considered in this house before most of those now here, including myself, were elected. In other words, none of us here to-day can claim credit for having suggested for the first time that a commission of this kind should be appointed. I do not know that a resolution of this kind has ever passed the house on any previous occasion, although I have not checked the records to make certain, but it has been d-iscussed during many sessions since I came here ten years ago, and it was also discussed before that time.
I make that statement in order to point out that the matter has been given a great deal of consideration. I agree with the statement of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) that in order to give consideration to anything you must think; and I am sure a great deal of thinking has been done about this matter. It is not necessary for the House of Commons to ask the government to give thought to it; we have done so already. On many occasions we have discussed it with representatives of farm organizations and members of this house who have brought the matter to our attention; from time to time it has been discussed in council meetings and elsewhere. So that it has been given a great deal of consideration and a great deal of thought.
I wish to speak this afternoon only in order to follow up some of the expressions of opinion that have been given in regard to the matter. It has been suggested that we ought to appoint this commission because away back, I think about 1901, we set up what was known as a board of grain commissioners to deal with the marketing of wheat in western Canada. Everyone who was in the west at that time, as I was, will recall that the situation existing then in relation to wheat was entirely different from the situation existing to-day in connection with the marketing of live stock products. Our grain was graded by elevator and warehouse men out at country points, and we had no redress in connection with that grading. It was because of the manner in which the grading was done and because of the manner in which our grain was handled that we agitated for, and I might even go so far as to say that the western farmers demanded, a board of grain commissioners. Certainly they

Live Stock-Control
brought their influence to bear upon Ottawa, and finally secured the appointment of that board.
I believe the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), who this afternoon referred to the report of the commission on price spreads in 1934 or 1935, will agree when I say that it seemed to be the opinion of most people at that time that the act setting up the board of grain commissioners is ultra vires of this parliament. The question naturally arises, then, as to why this legislation has never been contested. The faot of the matter is that from seventy to eighty per cent of all the wheat grown in the three western provinces is exported, and that only a very small portion of the wheat grown in those provinces is consumed there. We are the most sparsely populated part of the Dominion of Canada; we farm great acreages, and we produce a great many bushels of wheat in comparison with the number of people in that area. So that, since we market such a large percentage of our wheat outside the provinces where it is grown; since that wheat is practically all grown in three provinces, and since at that time all the wheat had to pass through the city of Winnipeg, it was comparatively easy to set up an inspection point at Winnipeg and have all the grain that was going to foreign markets or to the mills in eastern Canada graded at one point by one set of inspectors.
I mention these facts in order to indicate two principal points of difference between dealing with wheat and dealing with live stock products. One is the fact that unlike meat or milk, the greater percentage of the product is not consumed in the province where it is produced but is shipped out and sold somewhere else. The amount of wheat grown in Saskatchewan that is marketed in that province, for example, has practically no bearing at all upon the price which can be obtained for the entire crop grown there. There is not enough consumed in the province to have anything to do with the value of the wheat to the farmer who produces it. The wheat is consumed outside the province.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Is that not also true of beef, in the western provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will deal with that in a moment. May I repeat, in order to direct attention to the difference between wheat and cattle which I mentioned a few moments ago, and the importance of which apparently my hon. friend did not realize, that this wheat not only passes out of Saskatchewan; but it passes out of Canada, to be consumed in some other country. I mentioned that fact in order to point out that in dealing with a product
of this kind no one in Canada has any interest in taking that matter to the courts of the country. They do not believe anything could be accomplished by doing so. They believe that to set up a board of grain commissioners in order to look after everything having to do with the transportation and grading of our wheat is the best possible way of handling that wheat, the greater part of which has to be marketed outside Canada. Therefore everyone agrees to let matters stand, and the question has never been taken to the courts. I am not a constitutional lawyer; in fact, I am not a lawyer at all. I have no personal opinion with regard to the matter, and I am only reciting what others have said, who are presumed to know something about it, that if it ever were taken to the courts it would be declared ultra vires, just like much of the other marketing legislation we have attempted to pass, either in this house or in the provincial legislatures.
There is, however, one thing in connection with the question which ought to be repeated-and it was stated a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Haldimand. He said that a commission which previously had investigated the whole matter of the marketing and sale of farm products had said that because milk, which is produced within provincial boundaries, is largely consumed within those boundaries, therefore this parliament had no authority to set up a commission to deal with the marketing of it, in the same sense that the board of grain commissioners would deal with the marketing of wheat.
I submit to the house that if that is true of milk, it is just as true of live stock generally; because while it is true to say that whole milk is for the greater part consumed within a province, when one lives in Montreal he knows that a great part of the milk consumed in that city comes from Ontario, which is just across the river from the city. When one lives in other cities of the dominion one realizes that a similar condition prevails in respect of a city situated across the boundary of a particular province.
On the other hand a considerable part of the milk in Canada or of the butter fat that comes out of milk, is turned into butter. Another considerable part of the milk produced in this country is turned into cheese. Nearly all the cheese, again almost seventy per cent or eighty per cent of it, under normal conditions is exported from the country. On the other hand, butter is all consumed in Canada, but it is not altogether consumed in the province in which it is produced.
The surplus of milk produced in Saskatchewan finds its way to Ontario in the form
Live Stock-Control

of butter, or to the city of Montreal in the same form. Therefore I would say that perhaps not any greater percentage of the milk production of the provinces is consumed within the boundaries of those provinces than there is of the meat products produced within the boundaries of those provinces.
In other words, while there may be no reason whatsoever for anyone taking any action with respect to legislation which has to do with the marketing of wheat, produced as it is in the three provinces, and selling part of it in some other parts of the world, yet when it comes to dealing with products such as meat products, the situation is not on all fours with that of wheat.
Therefore I would suggest it is not necessarily sound or right to say that because a certain board of grain commissioners has done a good job in relation to wheat, therefore we should have a similar board to handle live stock. Just what does the board of grain commissioners do in its handling of wheat? Well, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of wheat. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual marketing of wheat. It has something to do with the placing of cars at local points in order to move grain from those local points to the central elevators. It has something to do with the spotting of cars, and all that kind of thing. It does give some direction to the railway companies as to the moving of the grain. But its main work has to do with grading and the assigning of the grain that comes in from all points in the country to certain graded classifications, in order that it may be properly marketed under the price schedule set up by the board of grain commissioners. They set the margins as between No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. Then, in cooperation with a standards board, they set the ratio as between those top standards and all the other grades of grain, running down to around twenty in number, if my memory is correct.
That is their real job; that is what they do. Then they leave the marketing, including price, either to the wheat board, as it has been done during the period of war, or to the wheat board plus the trade, as it was done before the war, or to the grain exchange and all those associated with it, as it was done before the time we had a wheat board at all. The board of grain commissioners has gone on operating in its own way and doing its own job, without any more interference than is necessary in order to carry out the regulations under which it operates.
One has only to recite the set-up in order to convince the house that is one of the chief reasons why no one has ever contested that legislation. It is legislation which is doing a

job for everyone. It is doing that job efficiently; but it is doing a job quite different from the one suggested to the house by hon. members who this afternoon have supported the appointment of a live stock commission.
What is proposed in the present instance? We are not told, not in the resolution, because apparently someone was sitting in on some of the discussions before the present resolution was drafted, but hon. members have emphasized the fact that they still think in terms of the old resolution. And that old resolution did have in it words which called our attention to the board of grain commissioners. In contrast, this resolution has not.
One of the reasons why it has not is that this matter has been discussed: with farm organizations, and those farm organizations apparently have taken the words out. They did not want them in. They have been convinced by arguments similar to those I have been offering the house this afternoon that the resolution in its original form was not sound. But they are still arguing that they want a commission to. do certain things. They set out what those certain things are.
This takes me back to the beginning of the war. At the beginning of the war farm organizations were not only asking for a commission

or a board, whichever you like to call it-to handle the marketing of live stock, but they were asking that boards be set up provincially to handle marketing within the provinces, much as they have it in British Columbia for the marketing of their farm products, and they asked, other provinces to bring about that condition. Then further, they were asking for legislation to be passed by this federal House of Commons to provide certain powers for marketing of products as between provinces and for export.
We considered those resolutions in, I believe, three different years after I came to the house1; and on the last occasion they were presented to us-I believe that was in 1940- I made a statement to the farm organizations. I am not quite sure of the date but it was some time within the first twelve months of the war.
We were asked1 to appoint boards or to set up legislation which would permit the appointing of boards by the farmers themselves for the handling of their own products. After discussing the matter with the government at that time, I said to those who were making the application that we were of opinion that during the period of war any boards to be set up to handle farm products as between this and other countries, largely because of the conditions existing during the war, would

Live Stock-Control
of necessity have to be set up by the government. I believe I am speaking correctly when I say that the farm organizations accepted my answer as the necessary action on the part of the government. In any event, during the period of war they did not press the matter; but they have kept reminding us from time to time that they would be pressing the matter when the war was over.
During the war, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Haldimand, we appointed, first, an agricultural supplies board. Then we set up under that agricultural supplies board a bacon board, which was finally converted into a meat board when it was thought necessary to do so. Then we set up under it a board to deal with dairy products, and we also set up a special products board which dealt with all other farm products which were being sold under agreements during the war. Those boards have handled the marketing of our farm products from that time down to the present, that is, the marketing of those that go outside Canada. Practically all of them were going to Great Britain.
Those boards made arrangements with the authorities who represented the British government. We delivered the products to the British at our ports and the British took them across the seas and distributed them to their own people in their own way. Our job, first, was to get the product produced, which is quite different from the job of the grain com-misioners. In the next instance, our job was to get the product graded up to the quality that we had agreed with the British to deliver. As I say, those products were laid down at our ports where the British could get them and take them to their own people. We have been doing that during the war.
About two years ago it was suggested that we ought to have a food board. I believe that suggestion came from the other side of the house. We said that we did not intend to have a food board of the type suggested, but that we intended to set up in the department under the agricullural supplies board a food board. I went personally to the officers of the farm federation and asked them whether they desired to have membership on the board or whether they desired to have membership on an advisory committee. After discussing the matter in their own executive and with their own people they reported back to me that they preferred to be on the advisory committee.
Therefore we appointed the food board as it is to-day, composed largely of high ranking officials of the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Fisheries, the two departments concerned with the supplying of food. Then we asked others to name the men they desired to have appointed. The government took the responsibility for the appointments. My hon. friends have suggested that any board or committee that is to be appointed should be non-political. I think they will agree that a board composed of officials appointed by the civil service commission, most of them being appointed during the time our hon. friends opposite were carrying on the government of the country, ought to be a nonpolitical board. It is composed of persons who have been in the civil service for a long time.


Mark Cecil Senn: We did not play politics.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, but my hon. friend knows os well as I that some of his friends nevertheless got into the civil service. But they are in the civil service and, no matter whether they were appointed under the Bennett government or the Borden government or the Laurier government or the King government, I find that they are giving 100 per cent service to the Canadian people. If they were not, of course I would have tried long ago to see that they were not there. But there they are. That is the best non-political board I know of. It is made up of the most experienced agriculturists of this country. They have been gathered up, first from the farms of Canada, then put into agricultural colleges either by themselves or by their dads where they received the best agricultural education they could get, and next they were sent out to gain experience throughout the dominion. I am quite sure the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), although he is not in the house at the present moment, will agree with me when I say that that is the right way to produce good agriculturists. That is the way he was produced 'himself.
I have the benefit of knowing that he and I were born in the same year. We were both born on farms in the province of Ontario. He went to agricultural college while I went out west. I know that from his experience he has advantages which I do not have. There are officials in my department who have all the advantages that he has, Whether they were appointed under one government or another. I consider them the best authorities on agriculture that we have in the Dominion of Canada. These are the men who constitute the food board.
When it came to appointing the advisory committee, about which the farm federation wanted to have something to say, we suggested that t'he first man appointed ought to
Live Stock-Control

be the president of that organization. I asked him if he would accept the appointment as chairman of the committee. He consulted with his organization and agreed. Then I asked him to name two other men. I told him he could nominate them, although I was not going to give him the right to appoint them. Then we asked the provincial governments, no matter who they happened to be, to nominate men. As the governments change they would have the right to change their representatives on the committee. We got the other nine men through nomination by the provinces. A considerable number of those men are officers of 'the federation in the provinces, while the others are nearly all deputy ministers.
I do not think any government has changed its representative on this committee. One government which changed during that period -to relieve my hon. friends from Saskatchewan I will say at once that it was not the government of that province-did remove from their employ-or the man removed himself who was their representative on the committee. We have been asked within the last few days to appoint another man. I have written to the president of the farm federation and to those concerned, suggesting that a man be nominated who will be appointed in the same way as the others have been. That is the way the committee is appointed.
I say this in order to indicate that our present set-up in the Department of Agriculture is non-political and has greater possibilities for doing all the things that have been suggested would be done by this board, and doing them better than they could be done by any single board that might be set up according to the suggestion made to this house. If I appear to oppose the suggestion which has been made it is not that I oppose the objective which hon. members have in mind; it is because I believe that provision is made already for doing what they suggest ought to be done in a better way than could be done under any legislation passed by this house, which would set up some other form of board.
If it is the wish of farmers of this country to have boards to handle the marketing of their farm products, then the proper place to have a board to handle the marketing of farm products, say in Ontario, would be at Toronto where most of the farm products not consumed in the rural areas are consumed. In Quebec very much the same thing would be true with regard to Montreal. In British Columbia the same thing would be true with regard to Vancouver, and in Mani-

toba with regard to Winnipeg. Just as milk boards handle the marketing of milk to better advantage, I believe that live stock boards in the provinces could operate to better advantage and could operate constitutionally. If we set up a board here it might immediately be challenged by the interests in those central points where a greater part of the products is consumed.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, October 11, 1945.