1946-05-28

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, May 28, 1946.
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate

Quebec Boundaries
chamber on Tuesday, May 28, at 5.59 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 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES



RADIO BROADCASTING-CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) presented the first report of the special committee on radio broadcasting, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Assuming the fact that strangers to this country, occupying high places, should not take advantage of the prestige attached to their name . or to their situation to try to influence members of this House of Commons or of a committee of this house on a decision pertaining to Canadian problems now under study, I wish to protest against the statement made yesterday in Halifax by the newly appointed British Ambassador to Washington, Lord Inverchapel, who expressed his preference as to the choice of a national flag for Canada.
Owing to the nature of his statement, and of the reflection it may bear on some of the members of the flag committee, which is sitting this afternoon at four o'clock, I definitely object to this very untimely intervention in such a controversial matter which concerns Canadians and Canadians only.


An hon. MEMBER:: He should mind his own business.



THE KING'S BIRTHDAY


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Interpretation Act, the Bills of Exchange Act and the Civil Service Act provide that the king's birthday, or the day fixed by proclamation for the celebration of the birthday of the reigning sovereign, shall be a public holiday under these statutes. The actual date of His Majesty's birthday is December 14, but since his accession, the king, recognizing that the actual date is an inconvenient one, as it is only eleven days before Christmas, has been graciously pleased to approve the celebration of his birthday in the month of June. Accordingly, with the approval of His Majesty, a proclamation is being isued fixing Monday, June 10, as the date appointed for the celebration of His Majesty's birthday in Canada in 1946.



QUEBEC BOUNDARIES EXTENSION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 156, to amend the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an incident of the comprehensive proposals concerning redistribution expressed in the resolution standing on the order paper to-day.in the name of the Prime Minister. In 1912 parliament provided for the extension of the boundaries . of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba to take in northern portions. In the bill providing for the extension of the boundaries of Quebec it was provided that the population of the new territory would not be counted for the purpose of ascertaining the number to be divided by sixty-five to determine the unit of representation of the other provinces in the Canadian parliament. Under the proposal expressed in the resolution on the order paper it is suggested that hereafter the unit of population for purposes of representation shall no longer be'the population of Quebec divided by sixty-five but the population of all the provinces of Canada divided by 254 or such lesser number as may be arrived at after providing for provinces where representation will be determined by the number of senators they have in the other house.
As a part of the scheme envisaged by the resolution, these conditions which were inserted in the statute annexing to Quebec the northern territory commonly known as Ungava, will become purposeless. This statute of 1912 had provided that it would come into operation only by proclamation, and would not be proclaimed until there had been concurrent legislation by the legislature of Quebec, and this bill would contain a similar provision. It would propose to do away with that restriction in respect of the population of Quebec, but would also contain a clause providing that it would not become operative until proclaimed and would not be proclaimed until met by concurrent legislation of the legislators of
Quebec Boundaries

Quebec. I might add that no such conditions were expressed in the statutes enlarging the area of Ontario and Manitoba, because there was no similar reason for making any special provision in that regard.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the minister if the legislation to which he refers is not premature? Is it not predicated on the house passing the proposed redistribution bill, which it may or may not do?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is a part of the scheme, and it is intended to have it go along concurrently with the other. This is the motion for introduction and first reading of the bill, because it is intended at this time to move the resolution. It is not intended to ask the house finally to adopt the bill until the house has considered the resolution, but it was felt to be proper to have them move along concurrently. Because of the order of procedure in the house this happens to come before the resolution to-day, but at a later stage of to-day's proceedings it is intended to move the resolution.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But the resolution would have to pass before this could become operative at all?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not only would the resolution have to pass, but it is not intended to ask the house to give this bill second reading until the house has disposed of the resolution. And even after it is adopted still it will not become operative until proclaimed, and will not be proclaimed until there has been concurrent legislation by the other legislative body that concurred in the adoption of the 1912 legislation.


Mr. McMASTER:: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what is the present population of this area?


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry, but I must remind the hon. member that it is not proper to put questions to the minister at this stage, nor is it incumbent upon him to answer them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Thomas Bryson Beakes.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Lila Edna Page Kennedy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Ernest Crete.- Mr. Stuart (Charlbtte).

Bill No. 145, for the relief of Pauline Hellier Kirsch.-Mr. Gasselman.
. Bill No. 146, for the relief of Wilfred Fields Benlow.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Thomas Allan.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Martta Baavisto Aaltonen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Rhona Gertrude Paikowsky Munn.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Arthur Joseph Hubbard.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Eleanor Hibberd Hiowe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of George Graver. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Malcolm Ernest Bigelow.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to establish a corporation to be known as the Canadian Commercial Corporation empowered to assist in the development of trade between Canada and other nations and to assist persons in Canada to obtain goods and commodities from outside Canada and to dispose of goods and commodities that are available for export from Canada. Provision is made for grants to the corporation from unappropriated moneys of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate ten million dollars and other grants out of the consolidated revenue fund as authorized.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. FRASER:: Would the minister explain?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: I must remind hon.
members that this motion is not debatable.
Motion agreed, to.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (for the the Prime Minister) moved:
That, whereas by the British North America Act, 1867 it is provided that in respect of representation in the House of Commons the province of Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members;

Redistribution
And whereas the said Act provides that there shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec:
And whereas the said Act provides for the readjustment of representation on the completion of each decennial census, and that on any such readjustment the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate population of Canada at the then last receding readjustment of the number of mem-ers for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one twentieth part or upwards;
And whereas the effect of the aforesaid provisions has not been satisfactory in that proportionate representation of the provinces according to population has not been maintained;
And whereas it is considered that a more equitable apportionment of members to the various provinces could be effected if readjustment were made on the basis of the population of all the provinces taken as a whole.
A humble address be presented to His Majesty The King in the following words:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Members of the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that You may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An Act to provide for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons of Canada on the basis of the population of Canada; '
Whereas the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an address to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth,
Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
1. Section fifty-one of the British North America Act, 1867, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
51. (1) The number of members of the House of Commons shall be two hundred and fifty-five and the representation of the provinces therein shall forthwith upon the coming into force of this section and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
1. Subject as hereinafter provided, there shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members computed by dividing the total population of the provinces by two hundred and fifty-four and by dividing the population of each province by the quotient so obtained, disregarding, except as hereinafter in this section provided, the remainder if any, after the said process of division.
2. If the total number of members assigned to all the provinces pursuant to rule one is less than two hundred and fifty-four, additional members shall be assigned to the provinces (one to a province) having remainders in the computation under rule one commencing with the province having the largest remainder and continuing with the other provinces in the order of the magnitude of their respective remainders until the total number of members assigned is two hundred and fifty-four.
_ 3. Notwithstanding anything in this section, if upon completion of a computation under rules one and two, the number of members to be assigned to a province is less than the number of senators representing the said province, rules one and two shall cease to apply in respect of the said province, and there shall be assigned to the said province a number of members equal to the said number of senators.
4.	In the event that rules one and two cease to apply in respect of a province then, for the purpose of computing the number of members to be assigned to the provinces in respect of which rules one and two continue to apply, the total population of the provinces shall be reduced by the number of the population of the province in respect of which rules one and two have ceased to apply and the number two hundred and fifty-four shall be reduced by the number of members assigned to such province pursuant to rule three.
5.	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.
(2) The Yukon Territory as constituted by chapter forty-one of the Statutes of Canada, 1901, together with any part of Canada not comprised within a province which may from time to time be included therein by the parliament of Canada for the purposes of representation in parliament, shall be entitled to one member.
2. This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1946, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1943, the British North America Act, 1907, and this Act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, during the last
session of this parliament there was a lengthy debate on the redistribution of representation in tlhe House of Commons. It arose on a motion submitted by the hon. member for GharlevoixnSaguenay (Mr. Dorion), when he recalled that in 1943, on a joint address to both houses of parliament, an amendment had been adopted by the parliament of the United Kingdom to the British North America Act making it unnecessary to proceed with the distribution consequent upon the census of 1941 until the session following the cessation of hostilities with the German reich, the kingdom of Italy and the empire of Japan. After referring to this the hon. member moved:
That in the opinion of this bouse the government should conform to the aforesaid resolution and take into immediate consideration the advisability of proceeding during the present session with representation of the provinces in the House of Commons, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act.
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
As I said a minute ago, there was a lengthy debate on the motion. The debate was adjourned at the end of the day, and was not resumed during the session. In the course of the debate I ventured to point out I did not think that the resolution, in the terms in Which it was couched, should be adopted, because it would appear to be a determination by the house that it was the government which provided for redistribution of representation in the House of Commons, whilst in fact it is a matter which is the responsibility of parliament.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) then asked for clarification of that statement. I stated that of course members of the government, as members of parliament, realized that because they did have some control over the disposal of the time of the house, they had greater responsibility than did other hon. members to see to it that readjustment of representation was provided in due course.
Before I sat down the leader of the opposition put two questions to me. He asked first:
Does the minister recognize a responsibility on the part of the Canadian parliament to have redistribution before the next election?
And, secondly:
Will the government say now that thye will be such a redistribution?
I answered the first question immediately in the affirmative-and that without the slightest hesitation. Replying to the second question I said I would hope that the government would take the initiative in having that responsibility of parliament to the people of Canada satisfactorily discharged before another election.
Hon, members will recall that in the speech from the throne at this session His Excellency made this statement:
You will be asked to make provision for the redistribution of representation in the House of Commons.
Hon. members will also recall that when in 1943 the government suggested to the house the adoption of an address to His Majesty asking him to have laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom a bill to postpone the redistribution consequent upon the census of 1941, the reasons stated were that redistribution made on the basis of the British North America Act as it stood, and had been construed by decisions of the courts, would bring about a reduction in the membership of the house from 245 to 238, by reducing by three the representation from Manitoba and by four the representation from Saskatchewan; and that even that would leave a further number of thirteen members, in addition to what would

be the representation of the population in the other provinces, based upon the quota obtained by dividing the population of Quebec by sixty-five.
It was also urged that there had been some displacement of population during the war, that it might not be fair to have a redistribution made at that time and on that basis, and that in those troubled days, when the minds of all Canadians were concentrated upon the problems of the war, it might be unfortunate to precipitate the kind of controversy that would arise out of any attempt to make any change in the constitution, as construed, with respect to distribution of representation.
At the last session of parliament it was urged that the amendment in 1943 made it a duty to proceed with redistribution at the first session following the cessation of hostilities. And, though there might have been some technical question then as to whether or not hostilities had completely ceased, that was not the ground upon which it was decided not to ask parliament at that time, or at that session, to consider the problem.
The matter had given us some concern. I had had it carefully examined by law officers in the department, and they had expressed the opinion that there was a duty to have a redistribution made before another general election, but that the statute did not require that it be proceeded with, at the first session following even the cessation of hostilities; that the effect of the amendment was to make it unnecessary to do so during the life of the last parliament, but did not change the requirements of the statute otherwise. And it was pointed out that, in fact, redistributions consequential upon former decennial censuses had not always by any means been attempted at the first session of parliament following the publication of the returns of these census statistics.
But in accord with, the announcement in the speech from the throne the government has felt it should take the initiative of placing the problem before the house, and of asking that it be dealt with at this session. Thereupon the question arose as to whether or not it would be proper to proceed in the same manner and with the same consequences as would have resulted from a redistribution in 1943, or whether it would be preferable to submit to the house a proposal for readjusting the representation on a basis that would not have the consequences to which I have alluded, in the matter of inconsistencies between the population and the number of members sitting in the house.
The government has come to the conclusion , to recommend to parliament the adoption of a petition to His Majesty to cause a bill to

Redistribution
be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to provide for the repeal of section 51 of the British North America Act as it now stands and to substitute therefor the provisions which are printed on pages 4 and 5 of the Routine Proceedings of this day. I do not think it is necessary to take the time of the house to read the text of section 51 as it exists. I think that text is familiar to all members of the house, who know that it provides that Quebec shall have a fixed representation of sixty-five members and that the number of members to be elected by the population of each of the other provinces shall be determined by dividing the population of Quebec by sixty-five to get a quotient and by using that quotient to divide the population of the other provinces.
If that were done, and if that were all that was provided for in the constitution, the result would be that Prince Edward Island would have two members; Nova Scotia would have eleven; New Brunswick would have nine; Quebec, of course, would have the fixed number of sixty-five; Ontario would have seventy-four instead of eighty-two; Manitoba would have fourteen instead of seventeen as at present; Saskatchewan would have seventeen instead of twenty-one; Alberta would have sixteen instead of seventeen; British Columbia would have sixteen as it has at present, and the Yukon would have one because of the special provision made in that regard.
But there are two qualifications of the application of that general rule. One, introduced by way of amendment in 1915, provides that the representation in the House of Commons of a province will never be of a smaller number than that province is entitled to have members of the senate. That provision makes it impossible for the representation of Prince Edward Island to fall below four, because the constitution provides that Prince Edward Island is entitled to have four representatives in the senate. It makes it impossible for the representation of New Brunswick to fall below ten, because that province is entitled to ten senators.
The second qualification, which has existed from the year of origin of the British North America Act in 1867, provides that on any redistribution the representation of a province shall not be diminished unless the proportion which its population bears to the population of the whole of Canada has been reduced by not less than one-twentieth since the last readjustment of its representation in the House of Commons. That provision gave rise to no difficulty until the turn of the century.
63260-122	,
At the turn of the century the application of section 51, even with the qualification, meant a reduction in the representation of Prince Edward Island. The attorney general of that province suggested that under a proper construction of the statute it could not be said that there had been any readjustment in the representation of the people of a province in the House of Commons until the number originally fixed by the constitution had been increased, that until it had been increased there could not be said to have been any readjustment, and that as the representation of the province of Prince Edward Island had never been increased beyond the six which it was at the time of the entry of the province into confederation, there had never been any readjustment and that there could not be any until such time as its population gave it an increase over six.
That argument was submitted to the supreme court and the decision of the court was against the validity of the argument. An appeal was taken to the privy council, and in the case of the Attorney General of the province of Prince Edward Island and the Attorney General of the Dominion of Canada, reported in Law Reports Appeal Cases, 1905, at page 37 and following, it was decided that on a true construction of the British North America Act the argument of the representatives of the Province of Prince Edward Island was unfounded. The language used, and which is to be found at page 51, was this:
This argument assumes that there has been no readjustment for any province unless there has been an alteration. Their Lordships think this is to give too narrow a meaning to the word. In their opinion, when as the result of a census the representation of the provinces is reconsidered and the necessary changes, if any, made to bring it into harmony with the results of the census, that is a readjustment within the meaning of subsection 4, whether there be or be not any change in the case of any particular province.
That decision of the privy council is to be regarded as a binding construction of section 51, subsection 4, of the British North America Act as it now stands. The effect is that unless there has been a diminution of one-twentieth in the proportion of the population of a province to the population of the dominion between two censuses there shall be no change in its representation in the House of Commons. Although since the number of representatives of the province of Ontario was fixed at eighty-two, there has been a diminution in the proportion of more than one-twentieth, it has no effect on the application of the statute because it has not come about within one decade. However, in the case's of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, even
[Stage Direction]
Redistribution
[Stage Direction]
though there has been perhaps a smaller reduction in the proportion of their population to that of the dominion than is at present the case in Ontario since the number of its representatives was changed, there has to be a change because the diminution has come within a decade instead of being spread over more than a decade.
The matter was discussed when the suggestion was made to parliament to adopt an address praying for a postponement of redistribution by way of an amendment to be enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom. At this stage I shall not attempt to comment upon its validity or otherwise but will merely refer to it as a fact.
As was stated by Mr. Newcombe, who argued the case for the dominion in the supreme court, and whose most interesting argument, as [DOT] Were all his arguments, is reported at full length in volume 33, Supreme Court Reports, this could go on indefinitely. You could have a situation growing over a long enough period where the representation of Quebec would remain at sixty-five, although its population might have become considerably larger than that of the premier province of Ontario, which would still be entitled to retain its eighty-two representatives.
Dissatisfaction has been expressed over this growing gap between the original principle of representation by population and the way the provisions of the British North America Act as construed in this Prince Edward Island decision have worked out, and it was felt by the government, in considering the proposals which it should submit to parliament for the readjustment of representation, that a fairer basis for the representation in parliament would be the population of all the provinces as a whole rather than the population of any one province.
Consideration had been given to taking as the basis the population of the province having the largest representation, and dividing that by 82, because it so happens that 82 is the number of members that Ontario had in the first parliament of Canada. It grew from 82 to 92 and is now back to 82. But it was found that that would not work out entirely satisfactorily, and it was found that it was perhaps not fair to any province to have it in such a position that any necessary reduction in its representation would be attributable to what had happened in the pivotal province. It was thought that it would be fairer to the population of the whole country to have the growth of the country, taken as a whole, determine the representation in the House of Commons, rather than to have the growth in 
any one locality applied generally throughout the whole country. The proposal which it is submitted it would be proper to request the parliament of the United Kingdom to substitute for the method now in effect is that the representation be fixed at 255; that the Yukon territory, and such other portions of lands as are not now within the limits of any province as parliament may at any time see fit to annex to the Yukon territory for purposes of representation, have one member; that the population of all the provinces of Canada be then divided by 254 to obtain a quotient, and that that quotient serve as a divisor of the population of each province separately; and that if as a result of that operation it should happen 'that any one or more provinces would have a lesser number allocated to it than its numbers in the senate, then that rule would be disregarded for that province and it would have allotted to it the number of representatives in the House of Commons equal to the number by which it is entitled to be represented in the senate; and that the 254 would be reduced by the number that is allocated to the province to which the rule no longer applied; and that the population of the other provinces would be divided by 254 less that number.
In the present circumstances the calculation made in that way would show that Prince Edward Island would receive only two representatives, and that being less than its number of senators the proposal requires that it be allotted four representatives; that the population of the other eight provinces together be divided by 250, and that the quotient thus arrived at serve to divide the population of all the other provinces.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the total population include the Yukon and the northwest territories?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, the population of the remaining provinces. The Yukon and the northwest territories are dealt with in a separate section, and for the time being are provided with only one representative.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Why was the figure 255 chosen?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I cannot say just why the figure 255 was chosen. It is probable that it was realized in advance that one would be set aside for the Yukon and that four would have to be set aside regardless of population for Prince Edward Island. The figure of 250 is used to divide the population of the other eight provinces. A calculation made in that way will give the results which

Redistribution
I shall mention in a moment. But before giving those results I wish to explain further a part of the proposal.
The quotient obtained, by dividing the population of the eight remaining provinces by 250 is used to divide the population of each individual province. That quotient happens to be 45,578, because the population of the eight remaining provinces is 11,394,666. Each province then receives one member for as many times as 45,578 goes into its population, and when that operation has been accomplished for each of the eight provinces, if 250 members have not thus been allotted, the remaining members are allotted to the province having the largest remainder as a result of each individual division. The result of a calculation on that basis is as follows:
Prince Edward -Island, with its population of 95,047, receives four members, because that is the minimum to which its representation can be reduced.
Nova Scotia, with a population of 577,962, receives 12 members, and there is a remainder of 31,026.
*New Brunswick, with a population of 467,401, gets 10 members, and has a remainder of 1,621.
Quebec, with a population of 3,331,882, gets 73 times the divisor and has a remainder of 4.688, including the population of New Quebec, which is 3,067. This 3,067 is such a small number that whether you take it into account or not it has no effect whatsoever upon the calculation provided for in this resolution. It would, if you left it out, diminish the divisor by .twelve, so that it has no effect whatsoever on the calculation.
Ontario, with a population of 3,787,655, gets S3 units, with a remainder of 4,681. Manitoba, with a population of 729,744, gets 16, with a remainder of 496. Saskatchewan, with a population of 895,992, gets 19, with a remainder of 30,010. Alberta, with a population of 796,169, gets 17, with a remainder of 21,343. British Columbia, with a population of 817,461, gets
17,	with a remainder of 43,035. That provides for only 247 of the 250 to be allocated; so that one additional member is allocated to British Columbia, having the largest remainder, 43,035, as compared to the unit, 45,578, and British Columbia's representation in the House of *Commons, according to this formula, would be
18.	Nova Scotia, with a remainder of 31,026, would also get an additional member and have 13 instead of 12 units; and the third would be
63260-122J
allotted to Saskatchewan, which has by the calculation 19 and a remainder of 30,010. That, would make up the 250 members.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What was the quotient, again, please?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The quotient is
45,578. Perhaps, for the convenience of hon. members, I might put on Hansard this tentative calculation, which has been given to me by the assistant chief electoral officer, showing the population of each province and the representation which would conform with the terms of this proposal. If I have the consent of the house and if the house feels that it would be helpful to have this on Hansard, I shall be glad to have it made a part of the report.
Some hon. MEMBERS': Agreed.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) would like to have these figures. It will be found that the population of Yukon territory is 4,914 and the population of the remainder of the northwest territories is 12,028.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That 12,028 would include Eskimos and Indians?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Indians too?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would imagine so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Otherwise the population would not be anything like that size.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I imagine that would include all those whom it was possible for the census enumerators to find in the territory at the time of the census.
The statement rejerred to follows:
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Ottawa, May 27, 1946. Memorandum for	the	Honourable	Louis	St.
Laurent, K.C., Minister of Justice
Set out below is a table showing the number of members to which each province will be entitled should the total membership of the House of Commons be set at 255.
The following figures are based on the 1941
population of Canada which is...	11,506,655
Less Yukon Territory (1 member)	 4,914
Prince Edward Island
(4 members)		 95,047
North West Territories.. 12,028
(5 members)	111,989	111,989
Therefore the total population used
to obtain the quotient is .... 11,394,666
And the quotient for 255 members is 45,578
Redistribution

Remainder , after
division by No. of
Province	Population quotient members
P.E.I	95,047	4Nova Scotia	577,962,	31,026*	13New Brunswick ..	457,401	1,621	10Quebec	3,331,882	4,688	73Ontario 	3,787,655	4,681	83Manitoba 	729,744	496	16Saskatchewan . ..	895,992	30,010*	20Alberta 	796,169	21,343	17British Columbia	817,461	43.035*	18Yukon 	4,914	1Total	255
*In order to bring the total number of members to 255, these three provinces, having -the largest remainders, are each assigned an additional member.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald Stewart, Assistant chief electoral officer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Having made this objective statement as to what would be the application of this formula provided for in the resolution, there is very little. I have to add. It will be for the house to decide whether o,r not it is desirable to proceed in this way. If it is, the procedure of presenting a petition by ,this house to His Majesty asking that he cause a bill to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom is the only procedure that can be adopted. We have section 51 as it now stands in the British North America Act, am enactment of the parliament of the United Kingdom. In the Statute of Westminster it was provided that, although the parliament of the United Kingdom would not thereafter adopt legislation applying to Canada except on the request of Canada, nothing in that statute would affect the provisions .of the British North America Act; and therefore, Whenever it is desired to have any change made in the British North America Act the procedure to be adopted is to petition His Majesty to cause a bill to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom and have the enactment made there.


Mr. BRACKEN:: I should be interested in knowing how long it would take to have this amendment passed.	i
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, it would be presumptuous on my part to say how rapidly the parliament of the United Kingdom would proceed. All I can do is state to my hon. friend that in 1943 it was a matter of about ten days between the time thie petition was adopted by the houses of parliament here and the time it was assented to as an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom.


John Bracken: These measures are
usually expedited?
{Mr. St. Laurent.]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is what happened the last time.
Another question, which has arisen each time there has been any move to ask for an amendment of the British North America Act, has been whether or not the provinces had been consulted and had agreed to it. I think that when the question is put in that form it is ambiguous. The provinces, that is to say the people of the provinces, are all represented in this parliament, and for the purposes of such matters as are confided to the jurisdiction of this parliament it is by those representatives here that the people of the provinces speak. There are other matters given by the act to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures and the provincial governments; with respect to any of those it is my view that it would not be possible to deal with them without the consent of those to whose jurisdiction they have been confided. My view of the confederation enactment-it matters little whether it be called a pact or any other name-is that there was an assembly of distinguished' gentlemen representing in the conferences four colonial legislatures, legislatures which legislated by delegation of the parliament of the United Kingdom; so much so that if one looks at the constitution of 1791, the parliaments then set up for Lower Canada and for Upper Canada were expressly authorized to enact laws for the peace, order and good government of these colonies. It was expressly provided that those laws would be obligatory by virtue of the enactment of the parliament of the empire, and practically the same language was conserved in the act of union between the two Canadas in 1840. Then the representatives of the people which had legislatures of that delegated character met and discussed resolutions which were finally submitted to the imperial parliament for enactment, and by those resolutions they provided that the sum total of the sovereignty would be divided between two jurisdictions; one portion would go to the central parliament, another portion would go to the provincial legislatures; and the courts have held that with respect to what was allocated to the provincial legislatures they are not mandatories or agents of or subservient to the central parliament; they have received that portion of the sovereignty of the nation to exercise it under their own sovereign authority; and it is my view that nothing which has thus been allocated to them can be taken from them without their participation. They have been given exclusive jurisdiction over that field, and it cannot be interfered with. But on the other hand, exclusive jurisdiction over other matters was given to the other representative body of the Canadian people,

Redistribution
and it so happens that the representation in this house has to be adjusted from time to time in such manner and subject to such conditions as this parliament, composed of the representatives of all the provinces, determines.
When I hear these suggestions that the constitution of the Canadian parliament results from a delegation made by these original colonial legislatures I sometimes wonder how that can be seriously argued, when it is remembered that at the time the two groups of population with respect to which the argument is urged so forcibly are the group of Anglo-Saxon descent and the group of French descent. At that time they were both in one legislature, and their representatives appointed by that one legislature participated in the conference which led to the enactment of the statute of 1867. It seems inconceivable to me that John A. Macdonald, afterwards Sir John A. Macdonald, was not as much a representative of the group for which he spoke before the first of July, 1867, after confederation had been proclaimed, as he was the representative of that group in the various conferences that took place prior thereto. And similarly that George Etienne Cartier, afterwards Sir George Etienne Cartier, was not as much a representative of the group for whom he spoke and negotiated in the Quebec conference after the proclamation of the statute of 1867 as he was before that time.
These are matters about which one must be rather careful. I know there is no desire anywhere to do anything that is not in accord with the true spirit and intent that presided over these deliberations; but it is apt to appear a bit strange to have it constantly urged that for the purposes of any amendment whatsoever to the British North America Act the persons who are competent to express opinions are the provincial legislatures. They are competent to express opinions on all matters allocated in the statute to provincial jurisdiction; but as to everything that was put within central jurisdiction by the statute of 1867, the statute provided how the people were to be represented and to what assembly His Majesty and his constitutional advisers were to be responsible.
This matter of adjusting representation is something which in express terms falls to be determined by the parliament of Canada. Of course there are rules expressed in the section which can be modified only by the legislative body which enacted them. Section 51 of the original act provided that:
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces-
By virtue of the decision expressly made by the supreme court and the privy council in the Prince Edward Island case, that has to be read "the representation of all the provinces." I continue:
-shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides,-
Subject to the subsections expressed. It is the parliament of Canada, subject to such action as may be taken by the parliament of the United Kingdom, which is the only body having been given jurisdiction in that regard in 1867. And under the Statute of Westminster it is now provided that the parliament of the United Kingdom will not act in respect of Canadian affairs except upon request. According to constitutional practice that request has to be expressed in the form of humble addresses presented to His Majesty.
As to whether or not it is proper at this time that there should be a modification made that would provide for a truly proportionate representation based on population, it is for this house to decide on this resolution. There can be no doubt that the time will come when the application of these restrictive rules will become unbearable. The general principle is representation according to population. There will come a time-there cannot be any doubt about that-when anything that gets seriously out of line with that principle will be considered unbearable. In this house there are twenty representatives who are not here because there is behind them the quotient provided for by the general rule. In my opinion that is sufficient to make it desirable to get back to a rule which will provide for a truly proportionate distribution of the representatives in this house. Should it be 255; should it be 245, or 238? These are matters of detail. But it so happens that by making it 255 there seems to be at this time only one province which will see its representation diminished, and there it will be diminished by only one.
It is a matter of practical experience, I think, that it is always painful to bring about a readjustment which requires a diminution in representation. It does not seem to me that a house composed of 255 members would be inordinately large, not only in view of the numbers of our population but in view of the immense territory the representatives in this house represent. Do we always realize that the area of this country is enormous-from one ocean to the other, from the boundaries of the United States to the north pole, an area scarcely smaller than the whole of Europe and somewhat larger than the whole of the United States? Of course, were it not for the

Redistribution
fact that only a relatively small fraction of it is regarded as potentially valuable for agricultural purposes, it would be difficult to explain why there are only twelve million people in that vast area; but the representation is territorial, and the territory is very large.
I submit that there should be found much to commend itself to hon. members in this proposal, which will provide, if it is adopted, that hereafter the adjustment of representation will be in accord with the general growth all over the country from one ocean to the other and from the United States border to the north pole. And whenever in applying the results brought about by the growth over the whole country it does happen that one province suffers some diminution in its representation, it will not be chargeable to happenings in any other individual province.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Did the minister say just one province would lose a member?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, I think so.


James Arthur Ross: As I followed the minister's figures, there will be two provinces losing-Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member failed to take into account the fact that there is a remainder, providing for one member-


John Bracken: Saskatchewan still would be one short.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Saskatchewan would lose one member, but Saskatchewan seems to be the only province that would have any diminution in its representation as a result of the application of this rule.


John Bracken: And Manitoba, according to your figures.


James Arthur Ross: If the minister will recall, he gave the extra ones to Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, so that Manitoba remains at sixteen, whereas they had seventeen. That is as I followed the minister;
I may be wrong.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry, but I handed the statement I received from the deputy of the chief electoral officer to Hansard, and the figures will appear there. My impression was that only one province would have one less member.


James Arthur Ross: I took down the figures as the minister gave them, though I may be wrong.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My hon. friend will see the figures in the official statement I ob-

tained from the deputy of the chief electoral officer, and I think he will find that the representation of only one province has been lessened.


Charles Edward Johnston: What provinces will find their representation increased, and by how many?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There would be increases totalling ten in all; two to British Columbia, one to Ontario and eight to Quebec. That is a total of eleven, but there is one diminution, making a net increase of ten. There are eleven to be allocated, because in respect of Saskatchewan there is a diminution of one.


Mr. CHURCH:: As a matter of fact does not this resolution have to pass unanimously before the United Kingdom parliament will consent to it? On the occasion of the last amendment they asked whether the provinces had consented. We people should first vote on it. Why ask for it at a time like this?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure that I was able to follow the hon. member. However, I will see his question and will endeavour to have an answer to it when I reply. If the question is, does there have to be unanimous consent in this house to enable a petition to be presented, of course the answer is no.


Thomas Langton Church: At the time of the last amendment we were asked about the provinces.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have anything more to add. It will be for hon. members to determine whether in their opinion the time has arrived to bring the representation back to a proportionate basis.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house calls upon the parliament of the United Kingdom to make the most far-reaching constitutional change in the British North America Act that has been made or asked since the confederation pact of 1867. This being so, I feel that the speech delivered by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) requires the serious consideration and study of all hon. members, and I suggest that at this stage the debate be adjourned until a date to be fixed, to the end that such study may be possible.
I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Would the hon. member be prepared to resume the debate at a relatively early day?


John George Diefenbaker: Tuesday?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Monday or Tuesday.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well.

Labour Conditions
Mr. ST. LAURENT: On that understanding, on this side of the house we have no objection to the motion.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: In view of a telegram I have just received I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Will he consider taking immediate steps to remove the anachronism in chapter 186, section 288, of the Canada Shipping Act, revised statutes, 1927, under which seamen engaged in an industrial dispute can be arrested and tried as deserters?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I think that is a pretty tall order to give the Minister of Labour.


Major James William Coldwell: I said consider it.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Canada Shipping Act comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, and I have nothing to do with that matter.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I direct the question to the Minister of Transport. This is clearly an anachronism, and it never was intended to be applied as it is being applied at the present time. May I just add that during the war the defence of Canada regulations were set aside by order in council in regard to industrial disputes, and it seems to me this is analogous.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I am not familiar with the section to which my hon. friend refers. If he has reference to the general sections under which charges have been laid, all I can say is that charges laid under the Canada Shipping Act are similar to those laid under the criminal code. The Canada Shipping Act has the same effect as the criminal code, and these charges are not laid by the Department of Transport; they are laid by informants before police magistrates. I have not the section before me, but I shall be glad to look at it and consider the matter.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Why are they not permitted bail?


Lionel Chevrier: The question of bail is one for the magistrate in the locality in which the charge is laid.


Major James William Coldwell: Action of this kind could not be taken under the criminal code or under the defence of Canada regulations in connection with an industrial dispute. It seems to me this is an anachronism in relation to an industrial dispute, and one which should be removed.



BEVERAGE DISPENSERS IN ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the'orders of the day:
Charles Edward Johnston: I do not like to impose upon the Minister of Labour, but I also have a question I should like to ask. I do not want him to put this on to the wartime prices and trade board, because I have received wires and air mail letters in regard to it, as no doubt he has also, from the province of Alberta. What action has the government or the national war labour board taken to avert the impending strike on May 30 of the beverage dispensers of Alberta?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to look into my hon. friend's question.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is a very serious matter, at least to the people concerned.



INQUIRY AS TO RETAIL PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Minister of Labour has received a wire from the retail meat dealers' association of his riding, as I have. Since he is a member of the government I should like to ask him what he has done in regard to this matter, or what he intends to do.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I have enough to look after in my own department. Other people may not think so, but I am not trying to be funny when I say that. I hope I shall never live to see the day when the wartime prices and trade board is transferred to the Department of Labour. I will make my representations to the board, as no doubt the hon. member will also.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
109. Departmental administration, $755,967.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
259. Departmental administration, $1,175,465.
Item stands.
Supply-Agriculture

[Stage Direction]
444. Departmental administration, $1,554,712. '
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Normal services-
191. Grants to military associations and institutes, as detailed in the estimates, $10,675.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production service-
18. Health of animals-Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $2,103,508.
Mr. CHARLTON:: When the committee rose a week ago last Friday evening I was speaking to this item, and was pointing out that there had been reports of abortions occurring in herds that had been vaccinated. In that connection I should like to quote one paragraph from an article sent out by the Ontario Veterinary college at Guelph. It deals with the duration of immunity, and states:
The interval of time during which the resistance against infection lasts has not been definitely established. Outbreaks amongst adult vaccinated animals, vaccinated three to six years previously, have been reported. The question of revaccination in such instances is under survey at the present time. The duration of immunity therefore, has not been definitely fixed.
A considerable amount of work is being done along these lines at the Ontario Veterinary college. The paragraph does bring up the point as to how long after initial treatment the animals should be revaccinated. Abortions have occurred in vaccinated animals from six to eight years after, and in this instance from nine to ten years after the vaccination of the herds. This fact may lead farmers to believe that vaccination is not a proper procedure, and I suggest that veterinarians who are doing vaccinating work should reassure the farmers who may have questioned this process. It should be pointed out that vaccination is not a cure, and was never intended to be. It does however have a worthwhile restraining effect upon the recurrence of the disease.
Many breeders have felt that the disease would be contracted from vaccinated animals.
I tried to point out last fall that this was not so, and in that connection I would read another paragraph from the same report, which deals with the subject of the stability of strain 19. It says:
The strain has been injected into pregnant females, producing abortion. These animals inoculated, have been free of infection prior to the next pregnancy. Furthermore, contact normal pregnant females did not contract the disease. The germ, when re-isolated, or recovered

from these experimental animals, had the same qualities as the original strain 19. Hence, the strain 19 is stable.
Now, as further evidence of the fallacy of this programme as now carried on by the department, I should like to quote from the North American Veterinarian of April, 1944, where it says:
For fifteen years, the blood-test method for the control of brucellosis in cattle has been given the most earnest and efficient support by the vast majority of veterinarians, state sanitary control officials and cattle-breeders. Few disease-control measures have had as much trial or have ever been given greater financial or professional support. This method has been of value in keeping many herds free from infection as far as could be determined by the agglutination test. How-ever, such herds are in constant danger from some undisclosed, latent infection or from infection gaining entrance to the herd from the outside.
In areas where herds are small and cattle are few in number, the disease incidence is reduced and the problem of control is vastly simplified.
The ultimate control and eradication of the disease in areas where herds are large and in close proximity and where the rate of infection is heavy, becomes a problem of considerable magnitude. In such areas control and eradication by the testing method alone has in many instances resulted in almost complete eradication of the herd, not only once, but several times.
I should like to emphasize that last sentence. To continue:
After the most thorough and conscientious efforts were expended over a period of years, the more farsighted practising veterinarians and cattle-breeders concluded that this method, even though bolstered by huge state and federal funds, would not accomplish the desired end.
And further down:
Considerable progress of a more permanent nature in the control of brucellosis in cattle in Illinois and throughout the country has been made during the past few years.
And again:
Cattle breeders and veterinarians have found that calfhood vaccination has given them an offensive weapon with which to fight the disease and in recent years definite progress has been made at a minimum of expense. Veterinarians realize that this procedure is not 100 per cent perfect but they have found a method that has enabled them to make permanent gains-a method that has enabled cattle breeders to plan their breeding operations with greater security and confidence.
I should like to say a word about the action taken by the Ontario Veterinary college at Guelph, and to commend the Ontario department of agriculture for the action it has taken; because as far as I know Ontario is the only province that has taken a definite stand on this matter. The Ontario Veterinary college has made available vaccine for all breeders in the province. The vaccine will be distributed through the agency of qualified veterinarians. Vaccine will be maintained in

Supply-Agriculture
the fresh state and will be distributed free of charge. The breeders will be responsible for the payment for the injection of vaccine. The college will supply the veterinarian with the vaccine, vaccination certificate forms and ear tags. During the present year the college plans to make the programme provincer-wide in its application.
I hope I have made my point quite clear. Action must be taken for the protection not only of the cattle breeders of this country but of human life as well. As I have said before, this disease probably causes more loss to cattle breeders than any other disease we know of, and it will continue to cause large losses unless something definite is done.
There are two other types of this disease, one affecting swine and the other affecting goats. The one affecting swine is known as brucella suis and the one affecting goats as brucella melitensis. They say that in some parts of the United States seventy per cent of the undulant fever in humans is caused by brucella suis. This disease is very difficult to diagnose in swine because abortions are not noticeable. For this reason brucella suis is far more important from the human standpoint than the brucella abortus which affects cattle. I should like to quote Veterinary Medicine of March, 1946, page 99, as follows:
On the whole, it is not the economic loss from swine brucellosis but the public health aspect that is most important. In the whole country there is a large number of cases of undulant fever in man, and the incidence is increasing year by year. What percentage of these cases is due to the porcine type of the organism is not known, but statistics gathered in Iowa, the leading state in swine production, shows 75 per cent of the eases to be due to the suis type. Curiously enough, in Alabama, which is not an important swine producing state, a survey showed almost the same percentage-72 per cent-of the cases of undulant fever to be due to the swine organism. Every epidemic of undulant fever that has occurred in this country, so far, has been due to the suis type of the organism, in most, perhaps all instances due to the infection of cattle and contamination of raw milk with the swine type of the organisms.
I think we have much to learn in this country regarding this organism and I suggest that the Department of Agriculture get in touch with the United States officials and find out all they can about it. As I said, it is important not only as it affects the cattle breeders, but also because of its possible effect upon the health of this nation.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I rise with some hesitation to take part in a discussion upon so specialized a matter as testing for Bang's disease and tuberculosis in cattle and other animals, but I should like to relate to the committee an incident which came to my notice during the 63260-123
week-end. It was brought to my attention by the farmer concerned', and he was in the gathering where there were others to testify to the facts in the matter. This farmer had an accredited and listed herd of Holsteins, which is the term used in connection with the dominion government testing programme. His herd numbered some forty-four cattle. During the last twelve years he has never had a positive reaction. Tests should have been made last November, but there, was some delay caused by congestion brought about by the war. The tests were made two or three weeks ago, and every one of his forty-four cattle went down. There was one calf which escaped but they took the calf off with the rest to the abattoir. The farmer tells me that in this instance a new serum was used for testing ' purposes. Whether it is more sensitive or not I dio not know; in any event the result has been very strange, as I think the minister will agree. This farmer can ill afford the loss of his herd. I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that when the cattle went to Swift's abattoir for slaughtering, particular attention was paid to these animals by those specializing in the making of tests when animals are killed, and not a single bit of evidence of tuberculosis was found in the whole herd. This serves only to arouse further suspicion in the minds of the farming community in which this man lives. In fact it is causing consternation, because the farmers feel that either the new serum must have been too sensitive or there must have been some error in making the test. The farmers are inclined to attribute it to the new serum, and oppose any suggestion that the test was not properly carried out.
I shall give the minister the farmer's name and address, and his lot and1 concession number-he does not happen to be in my constituency-so that he may make an investigation. It is a matter of grave concern to the fanning community, and -the sooner a full explanation is made from the ministerial level the better it will be for all concerned. An investigation should be instituted and the truth be made known so that rumours will not be flying about such as I heard over the weekend.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Chairman, in the first place I wish to thank the hon. member for Peel for having brought this matter before the committee. The facts are very much as they have been stated so far as tuberculin is concerned. The reason for introducing the new tuberculin some four or five months ago was that our cattle going across into the United

Supply-Agriculture

States and being tested with this tuberculin were going down, and that was having a very bad effect on the trade of our breeding stock going into the United States. So the department decided to use the same tuberculin that was being used in the United States. There are some cattle going down under the test of this tuberculin., which did not go down under the tuberculin that was used before. Apparently it has a more sensitive reaction, but so far as we have been able to determine up to the moment it does not result in cattle going down that are not affected by tuberculosis. Of course the object of these tests is to get all the cattle that are affected. It is just possible that cattle which were reacting negatively under the old test are going down under the test with this new tuberculin. It is just as well that the question should be discussed here and information given to the committee in regard to it.
The department is making a most careful check to make sure that no undue hardship is being caused to anyone as a result of the use of this new tuberculin. I am sure that all breeders, particularly those breeding for sale outside Canada, will desire to have their market retained by having the most careful check made of animals on this side.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask what have been the results in the last five or six months since this new tuberculin was introduced? Have there been similar cases to the one I have discussed this afternoon, in which whole herds which for years have been reacting negatively to the old test have gone down under the new test?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have no information up to the moment as to a whole herd reacting negatively under the old test and then, with one exception, reacting positively under the new test. There are no such cases on record. There are cases of individual animals reacting negatively under the old test and positively under the new test. That was the reason for using this serum. Our cattle were reacting negatively under the old test and were reacting positively to the new serum on the other side of the line. The complaint was made that animals afflicted with tuberculosis were being shipped into the United States even though we were giving certificates that they were free from the disease.
I do not know that I should attempt to give a detailed explanation of the different methods by which the tuberculin is developed, but this serum is being .used in the United States, where our greatest market is, and to protect the breeder here we thought we should use the same tuberculin.


Gordon Graydon: I would ask the minister to clear up one more point which the farmers have made to me. At the abattoir where the cattle were slaughtered the veterinaries

I suppose they would be veterinaries-


James Garfield Gardiner: They would be veterinaries.


Gordon Graydon: The veterinaries found no evidence of tuberculosis in this herd. Would1 a veterinary at the abattoir, after a cow had been declared to have reacted positively, be able to find evidence of tuberculosis in the animal?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would not be definite proof that the animal was not affected, because the disease cannot always be detected in the slaughtering.


Gordon Graydon: It seems strange that forty-four of them had been declared negative and then were declared positive under this new test, and yet not one of them showed any evidence of tuberculosis at the abattoir. This has confirmed the suspicions of the farming community in which this man lives and carries on his business. I would ask the minister to make a personal investigation of the case I have brought to his attention.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will give me the name and all particulars, we shall go into the case.


Gordon Graydon: I shall be glad to do .that.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: May I ask the minister if there are manjr municipalities in Manitoba which have made requests for the tuberculin test which it has been found impossible to accede to? In one area I have in mind, the farmers, mostly very good farmers, are raising splendid cattle, but they are isolated, and while all the municipalities surrounding them have had the test, this municipality has not been able to get one because of the shortage of veterinaries. Thus they are placed at a great disadvantage in the distribution of their herds, and they are hoping for a remedy very soon. I know that the trouble has been the shortage of veterinaries, and I would ask the minister whether there is a likelihood of the situation correcting itself in the near future.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are six municipalities in Manitoba which have been accepted but have not yet been passed. A number of others-I have not here the figures as to the exact numbers

have made applications which have not yet been finally considered, but six have been accepted but the tests have not yet been made. The reason for that is

Supply-Agriculture
largely a lack of veterinarians to make the tests. But there are some isolated cases where applications have been made and where it is not intended to make the tests right away. I would take it that a case which would be in the vicinity of Brandon would be in a block, rather than isolated. Efforts" are being made to make the test as far as possible in all the areas where there is a block of municipalities around about which have already been accepted and where tests have been started but not completed.


Mr. TTTSTIN:: A few years ago a test was taken in a number of municipalities, and I understand that it must be continued over a period of several years before it becomes authentic. During the war years some of those municipalities were dropped. Will they be taken on again now and the work started from the beginning and carried right through?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just as soon as we can get the men to do it, it is intended to bring them up. Unfortunately, some of them have lost their standing because it has not been possible to do them regularly enough.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do they inspect this canned meat at the plant, or is it inspected afterwards? I heard the other day that some thousands of cans of food were condemned at Montreal. Does the minister know anything about that?


James Garfield Gardiner: All that is put up at the inspected plants is inspected by dominion inspectors, at the plant. There are in the provinces plants which are not subject to federal inspection. That is, we do not accept those plants as plants from which meat can be exported, either interprovincially or internationally. But in certain provinces there may be meat sold which has been put up within the province by a plant that we do not inspect, so I cannot say definitely that all meat condemned in Montreal or Toronto or somewhere else has been inspected by us. We inspect at the plant where the product is being put up for export from one province to another or for export from this country to another country.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The way I understand it is that if the meat is only to be sold within the province you do not have to inspect it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That does not cover it fully. For example, there are a certain number of plants in Ontario which are exporting meat, and because they are exporting meat they live up to all the health regulations of the federal department of agriculture. Those are what we call inspected plants. But there are a number, some of them of quite considerable 63260-123J
size, that will not bring their plants up to the standard we require: they do not intend to export meat, and therefore, they say, we are going along under provincial regulations as they are, or probably under the health regulations of the city in which they operate. We do not inspect those plants: no meat out of those plants will go into export. But take a plant like Canada Packers in Toronto: we inspect the meat there, and a very considerable part of it may be marketed in Ontario, but it is all inspected; we cannot separate meat to be exported from that to be consumed locally. Because all the meat in that plant is inspected, it can be exported either to another province or to another country, but some is consumed in Ontario.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then a farmer could start his own canning plant out in the country where, perhaps, they have no health laws and sell that canned stuff any' place in the province without its being under the jurisdiction of your department?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not be under the jurisdiction of this department. There are, however, health laws in every province, and there are regulations with regard to local slaughter for local consumption. But they are not under this department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The reason I brought up the matter is that about forty people were poisoned last year from canned chicken which they had bought, and I wondered what the minister's department does with regard to incidents of that kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: We would have to know the exact case before we would know whether we inspected it or not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
IS. Compensation for animals slaughtered, $373,036.
Mr. BRYCE:: Has the minister given any consideration to the raising of the allowance for slaughtered animals? To-day, if you happen to have an animal from a registered or a purebred herd that goes into the tank, the amount is $96; if you have a grade herd you get only $38 per head. Those figures were set at a time when good milk cows were worth $75 to $80. In the west to-day we are paying anything from $175 to $200 for milk cows, and to get only $38 is not enough. Has the minister given that matter any consideration? I raised it once before.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been up, I think, every session for the last ten years, and we have given consideration to it each time.
Supply-Agriculture

Some have suggested that when the price is high we should raise the amount which is paid, but we have always held that it would be most difficult to vary the amount year by year. One might say that when prices are very low we should make the allowance very low, but we have maintained the position that we should have a fair average return. The maximum is $40 on the grades and $100 on the purebreds.


William Scottie Bryce: Is it not $96?


James Garfield Gardiner: It may work out at that, but the maxima are, I think, $40 and $100. Over a long term of years those have been considered to be fair rates. We have considered the matter from time to time and have always come back to the same conclusion. One obvious reason is that when prices are high the salvage is very much higher; when prices are low the salvage value is low. That is not the only amount the man gets, as was just indicated by the hon. member for Peel. All these cattle went to the abattoir; then they were examined and apparently the inspectors were not able to condemn any of the meat. The animal was sold. In those cases, at least, the raisers got the full meat value of the animal. In addition to that, they would get the other allowance. It is presumed that the two combined pretty well takes care of the loss.


William Scottie Bryce: Thirty-eight dollars is much too low for an animal that cost $200, particularly if the farmer does not get any of the meat. The individual to whom the hon. member for Peel referred got the meat, but if you do not get the meat the loss on the cow is that much greater. I hope the minister does not think we are going back to the old days when cows were low in price. We may go back to the day when the price is lower than it is to-day, but surely we shall never go back to the days when we were getting $15 for a cow. I would ask the minister to reconsider the matter and try to bring the price up more in line with present-day conditions. The farmer is taking a terrific loss when he gets only $38 for a cow which cost $200, and which goes into the tank.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for Selkirk mentioned the case I brought up and spoke about the value of the cattle if they were slaughtered for meat. Perhaps I should put more details on the record. The farmer I mentioned could have got $7,200 for his cattle on the open market. Actually he will get exactly $4,800 in spite of the fact that, as the minister says, the meat was not condemned. In spite of that the loss is considerable.
fMr. Gardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: The salvage plus the compensation amounted to only $4,800?


Gordon Graydon: His loss on the transaction is exactly $2,400, the difference between $7,200 and $4,800.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a purebred Holstein herd?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: The matter raised by the hon. member for Selkirk is an important one. It was raised last year by the hon. member for Haldimand. I do not know the year in which the department set the maximum allowance for animals, both grade and purebred, that are slaughtered.


James Garfield Gardiner: The maximum is $100.


James Arthur Ross: I know what the maximum is, but in what year was it set? What I am trying to arrive at is the year and the corresponding values.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was 1937.


Mr. SENN:: They never pay the maximum.


James Arthur Ross: I would ask the minister to have the department give careful consideration to this matter. We have heard a great deal about stabilizing prices for farm products. To-day our cattle are not bringing in anything like the prices obtained in markets in other nations. Therefore there should be some upward adjustment of these maximum allowances.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said it was 1937, but it goes away back beyond that, prior to the last war. It has remained at the present level since 1922.


James Arthur Ross: I would think it was set at a time when prices were at a very low level as compared with prices these days anyway. Certainly the allowances are completely out of date. In some of the better sections of the country our people are trying to improve their herds and have them inspected. I presume that there will be an expansion of that work now that more help is obtainable in the way of veterinarians and so on. That being so, those people who are unfortunate enough to have a herd go down take too drastic a loss. I hope the minister will reconsider this matter and try to have the maximum allowance adjusted at this time in line with present prices prevailing for beef.


Mr. FAIR:: I should also like to join with the hon. members for Selkirk, Souris and Peel in asking the minister to have his department check up this matter again. Some upward adjustment is badly needed. The

Supply-Agriculture
farmer who sustains a loss by having his herd slaughtered sustains that loss in the interests of other farmers in the country. Ample provision for him should be made without delay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
20.	Live stock and poultry, $839,625.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to ask the minister a number of questions pertaining to artificial insemination. I shall read the questions and then I shall send them across to the minister so that he can answer them in order. How many artificial insemination centres are operating in each of the provinces? Where are the artificial insemination centres located in Alberta? How many stock men were supplied by each of these Alberta centres in 1943, 1944 and 1945? What breeds of bull are stationed at each of these centres? What is the name of each sire at each station? From what breeder was each purchased? What is the age of each sire? What price was paid for him? What proof of outstanding quality can be furnished for each sire?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid I shall have to take that as a notice of questions. It is information that I would not and could not possibly have here. I am asked to give the names of these different animals, and all that kind of thing. I cannot do so now.


John Horne Blackmore: Artificial insemination comes under the Department of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but to get the name of every bull while I am sitting here is rather difficult. Give it as a notice of question and I shall get the information in writing.


John Horne Blackmore: I did wish to have the answers at this time. These things are of great importance and could go a long way to improving live stock throughout Canada. Live stock throughout the country is going to depend on this important matter and that is why I raised the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I quite agree with all that. I may say that there is no station in Alberta. That answers part of the question which I think would be of the greatest interest to the hon. member. Possibly there should be a station there. The only thing I can say is that there is so much detail asked for by the hon. member for Lethbridge that I would ask him to let it stand on the record as a question and I shall see that an answer is brought down in the house, if not while my estimates are on, just as soon as it can be obtained. Answers to the questions will be put on the record.


John Horne Blackmore: While the minister is obtaining the answer will he also tell the committee from what sources anyone in Alberta would be most likely to obtain the service?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member can get that from the answers to the questions that were asked. He asked for the location of the different places, the names of the animals and so on. I think all the information desired is covered by the question. When the information is secured the farmers would then examine the pedigrees of their own herds and select the service accordingly. Persons who had been getting sires from some breed herds would probably not desire to utilize the same service. They would make their own choices in these cases as to where they would get the service. So long as all the information asked for is on the record any person wanting to use the service can utilize it.


John Horne Blackmore: The reason I asked the question is this: if the stations are not in Alberta then from what centres would the Alberta farmers likely get the service? That is the point I want to have answered.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will all be in the record.


Mr. MEN ARY:: Will sufficient grain be available in the west to supply the eastern provinces with feed for their hogs and chickens this year? Some farmers in my district are cancelling their orders for young chicks because they fear they will not be able to get the grain. They are also getting rid of some of the young pigs for the same reason.
I should also like to join with the hon. members for Peel, Souris and Selkirk in asking that the price of cattle that go down in T.B. inspection and go to the tank be raised. It is altogether too low.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been attempting during the whole session, and as a matter of fact since before the session opened, to emphasize the fact that feed supplies are low, not only in eastern Canada but all across the dominion. The reason they are low in different parts of the country is that they are low at the source from which the feed is obtained, that is, the prairie provinces, and at present the position for the future is not too encouraging. The crop is not going in under the best of conditions, and I am not in a position to say whether or not farmers will be able to obtain the full amount of feed they may require to finish, their live stock. That is something individual farmers will be able to determine much better than anyone here. The fact is that the supply is
Supply-Agriculture

low, and it is low partly because we have had comparatively poor crops during the last two years, one year getting a little poorer than the year preceding. The other reason is that people are to-day insisting on farmers placing upon the market all cereals available for human consumption. We think in terms of wheat When we think of consuming cereals in this country, but in other countries they want any kind of cereal at all. They simply say that it takes five to eight pounds of barley or oats to produce a pound of pork or beef, and they go on, "Give us the barley and oats for the present." So we are shipping it out.
Just a short time ago, in the last announcement he made in connection with this campaign, the Prime Minister stated that we had undertaken to ship practically all the feed wheat we had left in Canada for human consumption in Europe, and that at the same time we had undertaken to send five million bushels of oats. We knew we were taking a chance in doing so, that perhaps some people who had chickens to feed might have to go short of that feed, but we took that action as a result of the appeals which were made. The only assurance we can give that there will be sufficient to carry us through is the hope that there will be a good crop this year. If that crop should fail to materialize we shall have further difficulties toward, the end of the year. The situation in relation to feed is not good.


Mark Cecil Senn: Could the minister give the committee any assurance that the freight assistance policy, which has been in operation for some time, will be carried on for another year?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say is that the freight assistance policy under which we are now operating was provided under the War Measures Act. I assume that sooner or later a bill will come before the house which will determine whether or not we are to have authority to maintain such a position by order in council. If we do not have that authority it is my intention to submit to the government legislation which would have to be considered by the government and then, if the government passed upon it, by this house in relation to the matter of paying part of the freight upon grain from, western to eastern Canada. The general position at the moment is that we are favourable toward the continuance of freight assistance, though I am not sure I can say the full amount of assistance now being given.


Mark Cecil Senn: Then I should like to ask
another question having something to djo with the question asked by the hon. member for

Lethbridge. Would the minister make a statement on what is being done by his department by way of a sire assistance policy? I understand that in times gone by they purchased bulls, boars, rams and so on which they lent to young farmers' clubs. Would the minister made a general statement on the policy which is being pursued in this connection?


James Garfield Gardiner: No change has been made for a number of years. The work is being conducted on the same basis as in previous years. Under this policy, purebred bulls are lent to farmers' associations organized for their maintenance, and used in accordance with the regulations prescribed. There is a list of regulations in that connection. This policy provides farmers, who otherwise would not have access to bulls of superior breeding, an opportunity to improve materially the quality of their cattle holdings. As an adjunct to the regular policy, a limited number of proven sires of approved blood lines are supplied to artificial insemination centres, which were mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. member for Lethbridge. That is the general policy.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister say to what extent it is operating and what advantage is being taken of it by farmers' clubs and so on?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department buys the bulls and lends them to clubs. From time to time, after they have given service in one place they are moved to another and new bulls are purchased. In western Canada we have enlarged that plan to include the community pastures we shall be discussing in connection with prairie farm rehabilitation. The dominion department buys the bulls which are put into these pastures, which have the same effect as clubs in the communities. The farmers of the area around and about the pasture run their breeding stock into the pasture and the manager looks after the breeding of that stock with a bull which is provided by the government. In principle, the practice is much the same in regard to the other sires the hon. gentleman mentioned. I can get the details later.


Mark Cecil Senn: I do not want to hold up things at all, but at one time the department had a policy under which it furnished thoroughbred horses to be used with Clyde mares and heavy mares to produce saddle or hunter horses. Is that policy being pursued at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is still being followed. Of course it is not being utilized to the same extent. There are not as many saddle and driving horses used as at one time, but the policy is still in effect.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to ask if the department has done any investigational work in connection with the price at which fertilizer is being sold in Canada. In 1943 we were given to understand in the reconstruction committee, I believe it was by Doctor James, that a new process had been developed in Canada for the manufacture of ammonium nitrate, which would materially reduce the price of fertilizer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if we could carry this item. The question the hon. gentleman is asking comes under the next item.


Percy Ellis Wright: Very well.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to ask one more question in regard to poultry. At the present time, and for some time past, eggs put in hatcheries had to be from flocks that were accredited as being free from pullorum and other diseases. There was one danger which was apparent at one time, because of the importation of baby chicks. Are baby chicks still being imported and, if so, what supervision is exercised over that importation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not certain of the exact position, and I have not the poultry adviser before me at the moment. However, I shall try to have him here a little later and give my hon. friend an answer.


Mark Cecil Senn: I think it is quite important.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
21.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $25,900 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $708,256.
Percy Ellis Wright: If I may follow up the question I was asking, I had inquired if the department had done any investigational work into the price of fertilizers being sold in Canada. I said that Doctor James had given evidence before the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation in 1943, stating that new developments in the production of ammonium nitrate would reduce the cost of fertilizer. This reduction has not developed, to date. At that time, too, the committee on war expenditures had recommended that the plant at Calgary should be operated by the government after the war for the production nf fertilizer in Canada.
According to recent press reports, it appears that this plant has been disposed of to Consolidated Smelters. In view of the fact that fertilizer is becoming more important to agriculture in Canada, I suggest that the Department of Agriculture should do some investigational work in respect of the prices being
charged for fertilizer, in an effort to see that it is made available at the lowest possible figure.


Mr. HENDERSON:: I rise as one of the representatives of one of the geographically favoured parts of Canada, southwestern Ontario, comprising the counties of Huron, Lambton, Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Essex. This portion is geographically favoured, as our latitude of 42 degrees-it will be seen by tracing it out on the map-is the same as that of a large part of the well known state of California. It is often said that this area is the banana belt of Canada, and though we do not grow bananas, our soil and climate are such as to make this a highly productive region for many of the well known and specially favoured canning fruits and vegetables with which we are all so familiar. The composition of the soil is similar to that of the great agricultural states of Illinois, Ohio and Indiana, and our climate being on the border-line of the warm southern states and the colder northern parts of Canada brings us a great variety of insect pests and plant diseases peculiar to both the hot and the colder geographical regions of North America.
The existence of some 20,000 types of insects that may have an injurious effect on the crops of this area is a hazard that cannot and must not be overlooked. The estimated value of this highly productive area in 1943 was $99 million, and the estimated loss from insect pests was eight per cent, or approximately $8 million. This is a staggering loss, not only in monetary value, but in food, which at present is so urgently needed. Since this area, in conjunction with the rest of Canada, is exhorted to produce as we never produced before, we are bringing this matter before the department for its utmost consideration, asking its greatest assistance by way of supplying trained men to help the farmers combat .these pests, and thereby overcoming this farm loss.
It is true that our farmers are doing all they can to carry out the methods as recommended to them by departmental experts, but in spite of this we are waging a losing battle. Our clover crop, one of our best winter feeds and soil builders, for reasons entirely unknown, is decreasing year by year. Our exacting methods of farming require a clover crop in our rotation cycle, and we cannot afford to lose it.
Our preferred list of field crops, including tobacco, sugar beets, soya beans, vegetables, fruit crops and field beans, all suffer from important and urgent disease conditions. These are in addition to and far removed from the above-mentioned insect pests.
Supply-Agriculture

The farmer, with a layman's limitations, is in the unhappy position where having done all he can do, he still faces the possibility of either complete loss of a vital crop, or an annual loss of staggering proportions.
Since, in this area, we are asked to plant and cultivate 35,000 acres of sugar beets this year, and since, to date, some 26,000 acres have been contracted for, it is urgent that I again bring to the attention of the committee a disastrous plan disease called a nemotode, which is seriously affecting this plant in as yet certain defined areas. But its ravages are spreading. This same nematode is what created such havoc in the sugar beet area of Utah. The entomologists of the Department of Agriculture are well aware of its existence, its ravages and its menace and have made some surveys concerning it; but as yet no complete eradication action has been taken.
The field bean crop is one of great importance because it comprises a large acreage and is a favoured crop in all this area, since some
58,000	acres were reported as of 1942, with noticeable increases in the succeeding war years. Although this acreage may look small to our western wheat growers who compute their acreage in the millions, it was nevertheless a valuable food contribution in our war effort, and was a substantial cash crop to the hard-worked farmer. It requires much attention during the growing and harvesting periods, and scientific skill is required for its successful completion. In addition to the insect pests that attack it, it is also subjected to a plant disease called the fusarium wilt, which as yet is an undetermined disease.
A disease peculiar and injurious to our corn crop is the ear and stock rot. Those peculiar to the tobacco crop are black root rot, brown root rot, blue mould, seedling diseases, and leaf spots. The soya bean is also not lacking in plant diseases, because it is subject to virus diseases, pod and stem blight, and fusarium wilt.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister at this time further to magnify the farmer's drawbacks and difficulties, and also his dependence on the Department of Agriculture for their trained and scientific assistance and knowledge in combating and overcoming his great drawbacks and difficulties.
Excellent work is being .done by the dominion laboratory of plant pathology at Harrow, but here again the staff and facilities available are not sufficient to cope with the many diseases affecting these vital crops.
In addition to the laboratory at Harrow, the dominion government has set up a dominion entomological laboratory at Chatham. These laboratories have been doing

excellent work, but the needs are so increasingly great that an enlarged service is necessary. It is appreciated that there is great difficulty in obtaining greater numbers of highly trained personnel, larger buildings, and more equipment to study the origin and control of these insect pests and plant diseases which are playing such havoc. But it is considered that the potential hazards are so great that no effort on the part of this department should be spared in attracting personnel to the fields of pathology and entomology, and also in obtaining the buildings and equipment so necessary for the carrying out of their scientific work.
It is recommended that the dominion entomological laboratory at Chatham and the dominion laboratory of plant pathology at Harrow be expanded to meet present and anticipated future requirements.
The department has recognized our requirements by setting up these two stations to study plant diseases and insects. All of us from that part of the country join in asking for further support. I notice that in the estimates this year there is an extra $89,662 for that particular branch of agriculture, but I exhort the minister on behalf of those six townships for a just and equitable share so that we may carry on as we should like to.


James Garfield Gardiner: I rise at once to call attention to the fact that that matter would come under items 8 and 9 which were passed some two weeks ago. I have allowed the statement to be placed on the record without raising a point of order, because I assume the hon. member was not here at that time. I suggest that those who were here discussed the matter fully and I hope we are not going to have another discussion on the same matter.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has not
answered my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: One plant in Ontario is being operated, and there is another one under operation at Trail. A plant was constructed at Calgary, principally for the production of nitrates which were used to make explosives during war time as well as in the production ' of fertilizer. As was suggested by the hon. member for Melfort, my understanding is that nitrates can be produced at a low cost at Calgary. Unfortunately, the type of fertilizers required in western Canada does not require great quantities of nitrates. The plant could be utilized for the production of fertilizers which could be exported, and it could be used in a limited way to provide cheaper fertilizers even for Canada. The plant in the Niagara peninsula is to be used for the

Supply-Agriculture
production of explosives under arrangements made with the British and French governments and this plant can supply the nitrates necessary for the production of fertilizers. When all the facts are taken into consideration, in all probability this plant in Ontario can supply fertilizers as successfully and at approximately the same cost.
I do not want to be misunderstood. My information is that if we could utilize the Calgary plant wholly or even partly for the production of fertilizers there would be an advantage in operating that plant. We did not lightly dispose of the plant. The Canadian federation of agriculture approached me a year ago to inquire about the possibilities of the government operating the plant. We examined all the factors, and the results of the investigation were such as I have just stated.
When it was apparent that the government would not be interested in operating the plant I got in touch with the pools in western Canada and suggested that they investigate the matter to determine whether or not farm organizations might be interested in operating the plant. The result was that no one desired to assume the responsibility of operating the plant under all the circumstances and with all the information available. It was not thought, because of the amount of money which would have to be invested, that the plant could be operated as a separate unit by either the farm organizations, the provincial government or the federal Department of Agriculture.
As a matter of fact I made application on one occasion on behalf of the federal Department of Agriculture For full information with a view to our operating it for the advantage of the farmers. After obtaining all the the information, I came to the conclusion that those who were advising against it were probably more correct than I if I insisted upon having the plant operated by the Department of Agriculture as an operation separate from the other operations in Canada.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: At the beginnning of the discussion on the agricultural estimates the minister said that the Canadian seed growers would be given a grant of $25,000. While the grant this year is increased by $6,100 over the grant of last year, it really is not an increase. This year there was a deficit of $6,100, and the Canadian seed growers asked the government to make this up. This is a rather small grant which pays large dividends and I am wondering if it could not be increased.


James Garfield Gardiner: The grant to the seed growers last year was $18,900 and a request
was made for an increase of $6,100. It was intended that the original grant of $25,000 should be increased by that amount this year, making it $31,100. Some mistake was made when the matter was being considered and the $6,100 was not added. I am proposing to provide for the additional $6,100 in the supplementary estimates. At the moment I cannot say that this will go through either the treasury board or council, but I hope it will come to the committee later on in the session.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understood the minister to say that the plant at Galgary would eventually be closed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not intend to say that. My understanding is that the plant at Calgary was sold to Consolidated Smelters and I assume that they will operate it. I was attempting to show that the plant in the east can be operated by the government to do two jobs, and the department concerned did not feel that they could successfully operate the Calgary plant along with the other one which would have to be operated in any event. They argued that the Calgary plant should be sold to the highest bidder. I attempted to have the farm organizations put in a bid. I am not sure whether the plant would have been turned over to Consolidated Smelters if the farmers had put one in even lower, but my understanding is that the only bid was from Consolidated Smelters. The bid was considered reasonable and the plant was sold to them. I do not assume that they aife going to close down this plant.	v


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think the plant will be closed down, although its operations have been reduced. Before I left home at Easter I know there was considerable difficulty in getting fertilizer there. I was unable to understand why that was so, because the plant had been converted for some time to the production of fertilizer. Especially was it difficult for the returned man to get fertilizer from the plant at Calgary. In fact I had to get in touch with the manager personally to obtain fertilizer for veterans. The supply was so short that a certain amount was allotted to each district and the farmers were not given the amount they required.


James Garfield Gardiner: Was that in Alberta?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes. Farm organizations throughout the whole district had put in their orders and the general policy of the plant was-and this is what I took exception to- that no returned man could be given fertilizer until the orders from these farm organizations had been filled. Another difficulty was that
Supply-Agriculture

a returned man could not get fertilizer unless he had purchased it the year before. They were fighting the year before, and when they came back from the battlefield to the farm they found they could not get fertilizer. No relief was given until I personally telephoned the manager in one or two cases, and he was good enough to take the matter up and see that they did get fertilizer.
The Whole point I want to make is that the amount of fertilizer being -produced in Canada is not sufficient to supply the local demand. If the minister had thoroughly investigated the whole situation before turning down the idea of taking over the Calgary plant, which was not producing at full capacity, he would have found that the supply was not beginning to meet the demand for fertilizer. If the supply is short in Alberta it must be short in Saskatchewan and, I would think, in Manitoba too. If this plant were producing at capacity .it would be of great assistance to agriculture and incidentally the company would be making a profit. I cannot explain why they are not producing enough to supply the demand unless they consider that in two or three years the demand will drop off and that therefore it would not pay them to go into greater production. Certainly at the present time the demand for fertilizer far exceeds the supply, and I think the minister would be well advised to investigate to see what can be done to expand the production of fertilizer.


James Garfield Gardiner: The plant at Calgary does not produce fertilizer, but nitrates. Nitrates are not used to any great extent in producing fertilizer in western Canada. They are used to mix with other ingredients in producing fertilizer. If we were to operate the plant at Calgary to capacity it would supply all the nitrates that are needed in all Canada and in a considerable part of the United States. It is not a case of operating that plant to get fertilizer. Our information is that fertilizer is available for all the prairie provinces. No shortage has been reported to us from the prairie provinces. There may be certain areas which do not have not their share; I do not know about that, but the report we have is that there is sufficient fertilizer for the prairie provinces.


Charles Edward Johnston: Technically the minister may be right. The plant itself produces nitrates, and these nitrates may be shipped in some form or another to be made into fertilizer. But there definitely is a plant there for the distribution of fertilizer. I got in touch with the manager to see that these returned men got some fertilizer, and it was quite

evident from the information I got from him that the fertilizer which is being distributed from that particular point is in short supply. I cannot reconcile the minister's statement with the information given to me by the manager because he definitely stated that they did not have a sufficient supply to meet the demand. If a returned man were just starting in on the land he could not get fertilizer because he had not purchased the year before. The only reason he got it was that I interceded with the manager, and he told me that he had to get in touch with the local agent and say to him: "We have allotted you so many tons to fill the orders you have sent in from the farmers around, and you will have available to these returned men." That is how critical the shortage was. The minister should make a further investigation of the situation.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I commend the minister for putting the grant back to $25,000 for the seed growers' association, and I hope he will be able to increase this amount in the supple-mentaries because this association is doing a good job. I would ask the minister what the policy is to be in regard to fertilizer and fertilizer chemicals in the future. During the war you have been subsidizing the trade and equalizing freight rates in different sections of the country. Is this policy to be continued?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should correct my statement to this extent. The seed growers proceeded on the basis that they would get $25,000 this year and that we would make up that $6,100 to them in addition to giving them the'total of $25,000. It is to make up that $6,100 that we are suggesting a supplementary vote.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What will be the policy with regard to fertilizer chemicals this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to state definitely what the policy will be this year. A recommendation has been before me but it has not yet been passed. If my hon. friend will repeat his question at a later day I may then be in a position to state what the policy will be.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: There was a report in the press that blue mould had appeared in tobacco in the Delhi district and was causing the growers concern. Would the minister state whether that is true and whether anything is being done to combat blue mould in tobacco? It appears in the greenhouse stage.	_


James Garfield Gardiner: The only information I have with regard to that is the item in the

Supply-Agriculture
paper. I did see that; but that, again, is back under "plant pathology", and the official who might know about it if it has been reported is not here. We shall get the information on that, as to what extent it has developed.


Mr. PEARKES:: This afternoon I received a letter from a dairyman near Ladysmith, complaining that the production of his crop is retarded owing to the difficulty of obtaining agricultural hydrated lime. He says that he has been to all the dealers who usually supply lime and that they have told him that, owing to the request to increase the price of lime by, I think, SI a ton having been refused and an increase of only fifty cents a ton having been authorized, there is no lime available. He also makes reference to a subsidy being paid on lime and wishes to know whether that is a subsidy on lime for export purposes only. Could the minister inform me concerning the situation regarding agricultural hydrated lime in British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: It involves the same information which I said a few minutes ago I was not in a position to give at the moment, with regard to what may be paid in connection with the promotion of the use of lime and other ingredients of fertilizers during the years 1946-47. There was assigned to British Columbia in 1945-46 the sum of $15,200, assistance being given out of the amount which was allocated for that purpose. As to what it will be this year, I shall not be in a position to say until the regulations now being presented to council are finally passed.


George Randolph Pearkes: I assume that all supplies of lime in respect of which assistance was granted in the previous year have been used up.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It was really
assistance which had to do with shipping from the source of supply to mixing plants, and bringing into Canada from outside some of the ingredients, and there were certain regulations with regard to what was imported and certain regulations with regard to what is produced in Canada^ The materials are shipped to the mixing plant, mixed, and distributed as fertilizer. The regulations are being changed this year; and the form of assistance, if any, which finally comes before the government is being changed to some extent, owing to the fact that conditions have changed with the end of the war. Many of the ingredients of fertilizer are utilized in war time for war purposes. Distribution is now on a somewhat different basis; the assistance, wherever
it is given, will be on a somewhat different basis, and on some ingredients there may not be assistance.


Percy Ellis Wright: There has been considerable criticism in the press, and I have heard it elsewhere, as to the quality of the insecticide DDT which is being sold, that it is not doing what it was supposed to do. Does the department make any inspection of the quality of this material before it is sold?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department chemically analyses it, and my information is that, so far as we know, there have been no difficulties in connection with it.


Mr. BENTLEY:: It has to be made according to certain standards?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it is chemically analysed by the department.


Thomas John Bentley: j4nd analysed as it goes out?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a chemical analysis made of the product.


Thomas John Bentley: There is a standard which has to be maintained by the manufacturers?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	,
Production service-	.	_
22.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $30,000.
James Garfield Gardiner: Probably I should make a short explanation in connection with this item. The amount here is just the amount which has been paid during the war years. It will be remembered that back about 1941 or 1942 grants to fairs were discontinued because of the necessity to utilize all funds available in the prosecution of the war. This is one of the items which was cut down materially. It is the intention to reestablish fair grants, though probably not on exactly the same basis as they were before. It will be remembered by those who were here at that time that there was a strong agitation all across Canada among those who were operating fairs to have the basis of paying the grants changed, and at that time we were on the point of reorganizing the whole system of paying grants. Consideration of the matter was discontinued until lately, but quite recently the organized fair associations have had representatives in to see us; we have gone into the whole question of grants with them. A new system is being set up. We expect to bring down supplementaries dealing with these grants before the end of the session, in fact as early as possible, because the fairs will be coming along very shortly, and it is desired to make known to those fair boards which are going to operate this year just what the situa-
The Royal Assent

tion is. However, most of those who have been in to see us and who operate the larger fairs do not expect to get under way this year, but they desire to know what the plan is, and they will be under way a year from now.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I ask the minister what the basis is?


James Garfield Gardiner: The basis has more to do with the establishment equipment. [DOT]
Item stands.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Charles H. Larose, Esquire, Acting Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Department of External Affairs Act.
An Act respecting the Financial Agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom signed on the sixth day of March, 1946.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code. (Race meetings).
An Act to amend the Export Act.
An Act to amend The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929.
An Act respecting the Manufacture, Testing, Sale, Storage and Importation of Explosives.
An Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Acceptance Company.	.
An Act respecting Rupert's Land Trading Company.
An Act to amend the Navigable Waters' Protection Act.
An Act respecting the appointment of Auditors for National Railways.
An Act respecting the boundaries of certain National Parks.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1947.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Edith May Hort Search.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Alexander Thompson Powell Scott.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	130,	for the relief	of Frances
Eleanor Miller Foster.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Mary Kathleen Maloney Rassie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	132,	for the relief	of Mildred
Florence Rooke Cochrane.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Eileene Ruby Aspell Stinson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Edna Booka-lam Howick.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Berthe Alice Cardinal Reid.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Elizabeth Jean Warden Leupold.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill	No.	137,	to incorporate	Evangelical
Ghuches of Pentecost.-Mr. Dechene.
[Stage Direction]
The	house in	committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production service-
22. Grants to fairs and exhibitions, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $30,000.
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: We were discussing this item before the house rose at six o'clock. At that time the minister gave the committee assurances with respect to certain supplementary votes which would enable exhibitions to carry on their activities. I should like to have a more specific undertaking from the minister with respect to the maritime winter fair, an exhibition which has been carried on for about thirty years or more, and has done more than any other activity in the maritime provinces to encourage stock raising and improvement in the quality of stock.
The buildings of the maritime winter fair are under the control of the stockbreeders' Association and, in a patriotic gesture, were handed over at the commencement of the war to be used for military purposes. The result has-been that those buildings have continued under the control of the Department of National Defence, and at that point, up to the present time, a large ordnance storage warehouse has been established. An undertaking was given to the stockbreeders that.

Supply-Agriculture
the premises would be vacated at the end of this month. The association has had meetings from time to time, and I understand it is their wish that the maritime winter fair be reestablished this autumn. In order that this may be done, it is, of course, necessary for them to have grants from the different governments.
The mere fact that the exhibition was discontinued during the years of the war makes it necessary that much additional work be done by the director and others who are interested in the success of the fair. It is desirable that assurance be given by the minister that an adequate vote will be provided in the supplementary estimates to enable the continuance of this exhibition. I regret that provision has not Been made in the main estimates. It is important that assurance be given, so that these people may go ahead on the understanding that the grant will be available and that the fair may be reestablished this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Amherst fair has a building which was constructed with assistance from the federal government. I believe the last agreement entered into was in 1939, the first payment being made in that year. That agreement was for $50,000, for a period of ten years, $5,000 a year to be paid until 1948.


Percy Chapman Black: For the construction of the new arena.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That is the building which was utilized by the armed forces during the war.


Percy Chapman Black: One of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, one of them. The same thing has happened in respect of most exhibition grounds across Canada. During the war, buildings were taken over for military purposes, and they are being turned back at the present time. I believe the agreement under which they were taken over by the Department of National Defence was that they would be reconditioned and put back in much the same shape as when they were taken over.
Answering a question asked by the hon. member for Haldimand, may I say that the plan of grants now being worked out is in these terms. We consider it important that these grants should be based upon equipment rather than upon the prizes offered at the fairs. The old grants were based upon prize ' lists; and representations have been made to the effect that in respect of both winter fairs and others it would be more helpful if the grants were based upon equipment, not only
in the matter of buildings, but equipment necessary for the proper exhibiting of farm products.
For example, as everyone knows, there has been a marked development in the matter of cold storage and refrigeration. At the beginning of the war, strong pressure was being brought to bear to have grants based upon the placing of equipment which makes it possible to exhibit to better advantage dairy products, meat products and everything of that kind.
I believe the system of grants which will be introduced later in the session by way of supplementary estimates will be based upon equipment rather than upon prize lists. One reason I am anxious to bring that in this year has to do with the very point just raised, namely, that some of these boards will find it possible to put on exhibitions this winter in the form of winter fairs. Some others may not be able to. But I think all of them feel that they should be placed in a position where they can put on exhibitions next year. Where the grants are based on equipment, they ought to know in advance what the grants will be so that they can equip their plants in order to carry on exhibitions successfully at a later date.
It is with the idea of giving that information at the earliest possible date that I hope to be able to have something in the supplementary estimates dealing with this matter. I am not in position to say what the amount will be for the fair at Amherst, but whatever it is for fairs of that type, the same grant will be paid to Amhrest as is paid elsewhere and I think it will be satisfactory.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not know just how a grant based upon equipment will affect the maritime winter fair which serves Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but it would appear to me that the directors of the maritime stockbreeders' association and the commissioners of the maritime winter fair would be at a great disadvantage if it were required that they should put in new installations in order to qualify for a grant. They have not been able to hold fairs during the years of the war and, therefore, have not been able to add to their equipment from year to year. I have no particular information about what funds they have on hand, but I believe it is their general policy to distribute all revenues to exhibitors and to provide facilities in order that stockbreeders may exhibit.
It would appear to me that the minister or some of his officials should have a request or an application from the representatives of the maritime winter fair setting out their require-
Supply-Agriculture

ments. This is a big undertaking on their part, and it is in the interests of agriculture in the maritime provinces that the fair be reestablished as early as possible. There should be a clear understanding as to what is expected of them and as to what they may receive in the way of grants to carry on the exhibition this year. This is usually held in November, and they should know as soon as possible what is to be procured from the three maritime provinces in order to supplement the grant from the federal government. I should like to have a statement from the minister as to what the department is prepared to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: All the fair boards across Canada have made representations. I should have said that the basis of the grants for winter fairs will be somewhat different from the grants to A and B fairs. There is more likely to be some provision for prizes in connection with the winter fairs. I believe there is a fairly definite understanding between the fair boards right across Canada and the officials of the department as to what these grants ought to be. Of course they will be paid on the same basis right across Canada. I am not in position to discuss the question on this item because there is no money being voted for that purpose. The $5,000 being voted here for Amherst is to carry out a ten-year agreement made in 1938. This has to do with the building of the arena that was erected for show purposes.
As a matter of fact I opened the fair the year preceding the one in which this grant was first made. We discussed the whole matter and went into the possibilities of developing better facilities. The grant will be completely paid out in another two years. It is assumed that the department will go on promoting fairs across Canada on a somewhat similar basis to that which prevailed prior to the war, although there may be some changes based on the experience we have gained and the arrangements made with the provinces as well as with the fair boards as to what proportion is to be paid by each.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Will consideration be given in the supplementary estimates to class B fairs ?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be for class A and B fairs.
Mr. McltAY: I believe the policy just announced by the minister of basing fair grants on equipment is a step in the right direction. Since these items are to appear in the supplementary estimates which will be brought down shortly, I should like the minister to state whether or not grants will be paid for building replacements. Last year the

buildings used by the Weyburn agricultural society in southern Saskatchewan were destroyed by fire. They have since been replaced at considerable expense to that organization. All through the country fair buildings need replacement, particularly those in the west. Very few buildings were constructed during the war to replace the ravages of fire, wind and over-all depreciation. The minister has stated that, from now on, grants will be paid on a different basis, that of equipment, and I suggest that the replacement of buildings be considered as part of the new policy in order that these fair boards and agricultural societies may repair the ravages of time on buildings used for housing agricultural exhibits of various kinds.


Mr. BROOKS:: I just want to add a word to what my seatmate, the hon. member for Cumberland, has said with reference to the maritime fair. For nearly fifty years this fair has been carried on in the maritime provinces. Ever since I can remember anything about fairs, the Amherst fair has been very popular in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I hope the minister will be able to give some assurance to the hon. member for Cumberland and to this association that something will be provided in the supplementary estimates to help carry on this fair this fall.


Mr. LENNARD:: According to the details of this item, there is nothing for the royal winter fair which is to be held this coming fall in Toronto. Has it been the custom of the dominion department to support that fair?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have supported the royal winter fair in Toronto to a greater degree than any other fair in Canada.


Frank Exton Lennard: Why has it been left out of the estimates this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The arrangements in connection with the buildings were made with the Canadian national exhibition board, but the payments are all paid up in Toronto. The board have been here in strength on a number of occasions and are pretty well looking after their future requirements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
23.	Grants to agricultural organizations, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $38,500.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: There is apparently a new item here which requires some explanation, $5,000 for the Canadian hunter, saddle and light horse improvement society. While the grant is not large, in the face of the

Supply-Agriculture
difficulty which other organizations have in getting grants I think the minister should make some statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Prior to the war the Canadian hunter, saddle and light horse improvement society recieved a grant to assist it in carrying on its work of securing and distributing suitable hunter type stallions for the production of saddlers, hunters and light commercial horses. There is a large and increasing demand for Canadian horses of this type. The grant is considered necessary to assist the society in maintaining and extending its activities.
This grant was discussed last session, when the hon. member for Nanaimo raised the question and we had some discussion about it at the time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: With a hungry world clamouring for food I think this is hardly the time to include an item of this size to encourage the people of Canada to embark upon the production of hunters, saddle and light horses. In normal times those who wish to have this type of relaxation might well enjoy this luxury but I cannot see why this item should be in the estimates at this time when so many other more important items cannot be included. The explanation given by the minister is certainly not very convincing to me.


James Garfield Gardiner: While there are hungry people in the world, there are a great many other people who are concerned with providing food for those who are. hungry, and I do not know any part of Canada where it is more necessary to have this type of horse than in the section from which I come and the section from which the hon. member for Mackenzie comes. A while ago one of the agricultural experts in western Canada visited my farm. He is not particularly a political friend of mine, being more friendly to some of my hon. friend's friends, and as he walked over the farm he said, "I am pleased to see that you have two light horses, bred from a cross between hackney, Percheron and standard bred. That is the kind of horse we ought to have on more farms in western Canada." I use those horses to get into town in winter. You cannot drive a car in some parts of Canada all the year round, and farmers in western Canada require that type of horse to get in and out between the farm and town. They do not always ride in the saddle because they use a saddle horse. I use a cutter or a light sleigh. The only way I have of getting into town in the winter is by using a light horse, unless I get a jeep.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister is still living in the horse-and-buggy days. He does not believe in tractors.


James Garfield Gardiner: I travel as fast as my hon. friend when I am out there.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The last time tractor farming was discussed by the minister he said that he had never had a tractor on his farm and never planned using one.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not had one yet but I am going to get one, I think.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad the minister is making progress in that way. Would he tell the committee just where this money is to be spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Wherever there are
hunter, saddle and light horse improvement associations. The last time I was in Regina I sat in the grandstand and watched some of the finest horses in Canada going over the jumps. They belonged to people all over that area, some from the Weyburn area, some from the Lumsden area and elsewhere. People were enjoying themselves looking at those horses perform. I am sure they would take them back home to their farms roundabout and use them not only in winter but during the summer season. The grant is used all across Canada in different areas where people require these horses.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have no quarrel with people who want to ride for pleasure.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not riding for pleasure.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am complaining about the minister including a grant of this kind when other grants for more useful purposes are not included.


James Garfield Gardiner: The places where the money is spent include Ailsa Craig and Brampton, Ontario, in the constituency of the hon. member for Peel; Russell, Manitoba; Shaun-avon, Saskatchewan; Kamloops, British Columbia, and at different places. There were twenty-four stallions in all last year.
Mr. 'WEBB: I notice that there is a grant to the Canadian council on boys' and girls' club w'ork. That is important to me. Would the minister explain how far this activity extends?


James Garfield Gardiner: The grant is $5,000. The boys and girls are encouraged to feed calves, pigs and lambs and exhibit them at shows that are held across the country, including those live stock shows that have been mentioned. The practice has been for the prize-
Supply-Agriculture

winning stock to be sold at auction, and those who are interested in the live stock industrj' go there and bid fairly high prices for the live stock. It promotes the industry and encourages the boys and girls to take part in the production of better live stock.


Mr. WEBB:: I am strongly in favour of this item, which I think is too small to encourage this work right across the country. It helps to keep the boys and girls on the farm and I should like to see the item increased some day.


Heber Harold Hatfield: There is an item of $18,000 for Canadian national live stock records. Is this organization not selfsustaining and has it not a big surplus built up?	'


James Garfield Gardiner: It is an organization of live stock breeders associations that keeps live stock records. We have given a grant of $18,000 for many years. The grant is the same size as it was when I came here ten years ago. The organization gives an efficient service. Sometimes it has been thought that we should give this service as part of the operations of the department itself, but the service has been so efficient and so satisfactory to the breeders' associations that we have hesitated to take it over and bring it under the department. I do not know that they have a large surplus. I cannot answer that question because it is not a branch of *_he department.
Mr, HATFIELD: They make a charge for aheir services, and I understand that they have a one million dollar surplus. Then why continue this grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the different associations have surpluses but that the records organization has not. I understand. that they get their start from the fees mentioned, plus- some assistance from the association and some from the government.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Do they not furnish a report to the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: They report on the money we grant and give us a record of their position when it is required.


Thomas John Bentley: Is the Canadian council on boys' and girls' club work the organization that brings the winners to the royal winter fair at Toronto?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of the grants that we have continued during the war. Their final meet is held in Ottawa.


Thomas John Bentley: And that comes out of this grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
2J/. Marketing service administration, $113,322.
James Arthur Ross: Last week, when the Minister of Agriculture was in Washington, the following press release appeared in the papers:
LaGuardia raps low wheat price paid in Canada
Criticism was expressed by UNRRA director, F. H. LaGuardia, at the united nations food and agriculture conference Tuesday. He said the nations cannot get away with "squeezing their farmers any more."
Farmers are industry's best customers. President Roosevelt understood this and obtained legislation insuring parity between agriculture and labour.
This, however, has had a great bearing on Canada, resulting in disparities which must be adjusted.
Mr. Gardiner said "Mr. LaGuardia seems to have little knowledge of Canadian economy. There is far greater parity between the incomes of farmers and labour in Canada than there is in the United States."
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he was correctly reported. If so, this would be the proper time to give us some facts to substantiate his statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have done that so often during this session that I am afraid I would be wasting the time of the committee to do it again. I doubt if there is anyone in the committee who does not realize that we have better than parity prices in Canada. The situation, however," which was being referred to by Mr. LaGuardia at that time had not to do with wheat. The suggestion made was that he was dicussing the relatively low price of wheat in Canada. What he was really discussing was the general world position in relation to food, and laying before the meeting which was held to discuss that situation the conditions existing in the United States in relation to the matter of food. He did pass the remark, toward the end of his comments, that they had made certain provisions in the United States for parity and that the level of prices in the United States provided for under that arrangement did have some effect on Canada. I do not think his intention was to imply that our prices, being lower than theirs, had any particular effect upon the relationship existing in Canada as between what the farmer paid for necessities and what he obtained for his product. His meaning, I thought, from discussions I had with him afterwards, was that if you are going to maintain one price level on one side of the line and another price level on the other side of the line, difficulties are bound to develop in the course of time because of the differences.

Supply-Agriculture
The newspaper reporter who asked me what I thought about it at the moment got this reply, that "I am quite certain that the greatest difficulty we have in maintaining price levels as between the United States and Canada results from the fact that we have high tariff walls and that one of those is related to wheat." If anyone mentioned wheat in connection with any of the discussions, it was I. I said that there was ho possibility of our ever having the same price level in Canada as in the United States so long as the United States maintained its duty against wheat of forty-two cents a bushel.
I should like to say, now that the question is up, that in my opinion the 42-cent duty on wheat going from Canada into the United States has more to do with the wheat problem throughout the world, both in peace time and during the war than any other one thing. I think, when we are talking about removing obstructions from trade and making it easier for people to assist in feeding one another, one of the first things which ought to be done in some way or another is to have that obstruction removed from the handling of wheat on this continent; and until it is removed there will always be trouble in maintaining price levels as between the United States and this country. That is the remark which I made, and I want to make it here.


James Arthur Ross: Just on that point, the Minister of Labour issued on May 6, a pamphlet setting out the prices of five articles, namely, butter, eggs, sugar, bread and milk, for 1920 as compared with 1946, and indicating a reduction of approximately 46 per cent in prices this year as compared with 1920. But he omitted to state that industrial hourly wages in Canada have increased by over 30 per cent since 1920, which of course is an added injustice to our farmers; and, according to the government's own records, the wages of farm labour between 1939 and January, 1946, have increased by 110-8 per cent.
Other arguments which we have gone through in the past do not need to be repeated. But I may just point out that during the first great war our farmers received 29 per cent of the national income; during the last great war their share of the national income was only 18 per cent; and everybody knows the variation in prices prevailing on both sides of the line for cereals, meat and dairy products. Only the other day I noticed in a Winnipeg newspaper an article wherein the deputy minister of agriculture of Manitoba, in addressing a group of women consumers on the milk problem, stated that never in his recollection of the history of this country had there been so many dairy herds being disposed
of as had occurred this spring in Manitoba. I believe the same state of affairs applies throughout the dominion. The minister has admitted that implements of farm production can be bought cheaper in the United States than in Canada. On the other hand, I am sure that if anybody will take the trouble to go to banks situated a few miles apart in Canada and the United States he will be amazed at the result of a comparison of bank deposits of farmers on the Canadian side and in the United States during the last six years.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few observations on marketing from the point of view of my farmer constituents. We have heard so much from another section of Canadian producers that I think it is about time you listened to representations on behalf of British Columbia farmers. The men with whom I have worked for forty years are not large farmers, but men who have hewn their small farms out of the woods and are more acquainted with the axe, the grub-hoe and the walking-plough than the combines and tractors and rubber-tired machines on which my hon. friends to my right ride around in comfort to do their work. On the whole, the British Columbia farmers find it necessary to work both summer and winter in order to make a living, and I have never seen many of them staying at the Empress hotel in Victoria. But I must say that they are people who have accomplished something, and I am going to put forward their views this evening as the views of people who are not asking the government to do something for them, except to this extent, to provide them with the necessary legal machinery to give them the protection necessary to enable them to work out their own economic salvation.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I am a citizen of no mean village. I can illustrate briefly what has been done by these people in a cooperative way. I come from a village which, with a district covering a radius of ten miles, contains about 750 people. I have been in that district almost since the first tree was chopped down. I have seen every acre cleared; I have seen every orchard planted. These 750 people, representing many races, including the various peoples of Europe and different portions of the British isles, have, as a result of cooperative action, in that time built and paid for their own irrigation system and, although it cost $50,000, do not owe a dollar; it supplies water to these farmers at a dollar each per month. They have built their own nine-hole golf course and recreation grounds at a cost of $10,000 and do not owe a 5-cent
Supply-Agriculture

piece. They have built a community hospital at a cost of $47,000, of which they do not owe a cent. The legion branch in that district, composed of several farmers and farmers' sons, and numbering sixty-seven members, have completed a legion hall worth $15,000 and on which there is not a cent of debt. I mention these facts as an illustration of the . type of cooperative effort that goes on in the district which I represent, and which is general throughout the Kootenay district. These people have put forth a tremendous effort along cooperative lines, and they are simply asking the government to give consideration to a type of legislation which they deem necessary to protect them in the future.
Before proceeding further, I must say that the farmers of my constituency believe that, on the whole, the government has handled the marketing of their major products during the war period in a commonsense way and has, on the whole, met very difficult circumstances satisfactorily. But they are concerned with their position when the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act ceases to operate.
When speaking on the agriculture estimates last session I had this to say, as reported at page 2527 of Hansard:
The farmers of my constituency are particularly interested in three aspects of our agricultural policy: first, marketing arrangements, to assure stable and satisfactory marketing and farm income; second, disease control, to ensure satisfactory crops; and, third, intensive research in the field of marketing problems and disease control.
That is their opinion at the present time. In the provincial field we have a satisfactory natural products marketing act; in the international field we have the food and agriculture organization of the united nations and the latent possibilities of world agricultural councils, but in between we maintain there is a missing link, namely, a national natural products marketing act that will tie together provincial and international arrangements.
I know something of the pioneer days in the fruit industry. In the early days of this century, as most hon. members know, settlers flocked into the interior of British Columbia, settlers without experience on the whole. As a result of their appreciation of the possibilities of cooperation and its practice, they have built one of the outstanding cooperative movements in the British empire and in the fruit industry as a whole in the world.
In recent year? I have often heard it said that the pioneering spirit of the Canadian people is dead; but I do not believe this, nor do those who are associated with me. I believe it is simply a question now of channeling that spirit into new fields of social

adventure and economic organization. Fruit growers of British Columbia believe that the time is ripe to pioneer a national natural products marketing act. For the information of the members, so that they will get this picture clearly, may I give a brief history of the development of the fruit industry and the marketing arrangements in British Columbia. It is a romance of collective effort, disappointments, failures and final success, worthy of careful study by all who are interested in the various aspects of cooperative endeavour. In the interior the fruit growing sections of British Columbia are located chiefly in the Okanagan from Armstrong to the international boundary, on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway between Kamloops and Salmon Arm, on the Arrow and Kootenay lakes, Creston and Erickson, and in the Grand Forks valley on the. Kettle Valley railway that lies between the Arrow lakes and Okanagan lake. That comprises a total area 'of about forty thousand square miles.
The first carload of apples was shipped from the interior of British Columbia in 1903. In 1900 the total apple production of British Columbia was 240 boxes, and at the present time it is around six million boxes or over. This year there is a possibility, if the crop continues to develop according to present prospects, of a production of close to eight million boxes. Considering the time it takes to produce orchards, I think everyone will realize that the development has been very rapid indeed.
Originally the production was started to supply the home market of British Columbia and, later, the prairie markets. Production rapidly increased far beyond the needs of the local population, and when the prairie markets could not consume our products new fields were explored, until before the war apples were reaching all parts of the world. I am speaking of just prior to the war. At that time we sent about 40,000 boxes annually to South Africa and 100,000 boxes to South America; we sent 50,000 boxes to Egypt,
130,000	boxes to the United States, but our best overseas market was Great Britain which took from two to two and a half million boxes. During the war these normal marketing arrangements were disturbed, but I am glad to say that there is evidence at the present time of our former customers being anxious again to receive British Columbia fruit. It is amazing how quickly that situation has developed. From the heads of our organizations I understand that we are getting inquiries from various countries of Europe, South America, Australia, South Africa, in fact all of our former customers

Supply-Agriculture
who are in position to buy apples at this time, although owing to their circumstances they are asking for limited quantities.
Years ago we were under the impression that unified control of the fruit industry could be obtained by voluntary effort, but in 1925 and 1926 the weaknesses of the voluntary effort became apparent to all those directly concerned with organizing the industry. Then a drive for legislative action and assistance was commenced. As a result of that drive the natural product marketing act of British Columbia was placed on the statute books. No doubt hon. members have heard the legislation condemned on the score that its coercive powers savours of regimentation and robs the individual of his rights. Time does not permit me to go into that argument. It is sufficient for me to say that it is based solely upon the rule of the majority. The only type of legislation we have ever asked for is the type of legislation which provides that when seventy-five per cent of the producers of any commodity wish to join together, then all producers of that commodity must abide by the rules and regulations set out in the act as a result of the decision of the majority. I think everyone will agree that a seventy-five per cent majority is democratic to the last degree. If agriculture is ever to come into its own from our point of view, one of the outstanding requisites is unification of action in the marketing sphere, provincially, nationally and internationally. To this principle the fruit growers, the vegetable growers and the poultry producers of my constituency adhere.
I wish to deal briefly with certain aspects of the marketing question. Under present conditions, in the preparation of our crop for marketing extensive facilities have been provided in the way of warehouses, graders and general packinghouse equipment. We must deliver high quality, attractively packed fruit if we are to hold our markets and extend them. I have often heard it suggested that too much expense is incurred in the packing of our fruit, and that we should ship it loose in containers direct from the orchard to the consumer.
I am going to deal with this aspect of the matter for a minute or two because I myself receive letters from the prairies suggesting that this would be the most economical and cheapest way to handle our crop. I can understand that point of view, but I should like to outline some of the difficulties. For the information of the committee let me say that first our fruit has to be graded so as to eliminate insect infested, diseased and deformed fruit. Then it has to be checked over on the graders to be properly sized. The reason is that all these
various markets demand a particular size or a particular variety of fruit. I shall illustrate it this way: South America will take only extra and fancy Delicious running 72 to 138 per box. Egypt will take only Newtons and Delicious running 72 to 125 to the box. South Africa demands Jonathons and McIntosh, running 138 to 216 to the box. The south of England prefers apples running 163 to 234 to the box; Li verpool, 150 to 180 to the box; Glasgow, 138 to 163 to the box; Montreal, 150 to 180 to the box, and Toronto, 80 to 125.
That is an interesting point. You always find that the large cities in the old country, and apparently in this country as demonstrated by the figures for Montreal, like the small apples. That is because when poor people want to give each of the kids an apple before they go to school, they like to buy a box containing a large number of apples, because a box goes much farther. It is interesting to note that Toronto buys the largest sizes and most select apples, 80 to 125, so it is obvious that our good friends in Toronto go in for the more expensive apples. Some of our Canadian markets want apples in grade C; others want nothing but the best in extras and fancies. Therefore to get the sizes and grades preferred by the different markets at home and abroad we are almost compelled to pack the whole crop. I am sure that is an aspect of the situation which is not appreciated by many people on the prairies. Harvesting the bulk of the apple crop usually takes a period of six weeks, but it takes twelve months to sell the crop, so that expensive cold storage facilities have been built. At the present time we have cold storage in British Columbia for approximately five million boxes. That represents an immense investment in the fruit industry.
In regard to the sale of the crop I think the growers are at the present time getting a reasonable proportion of the consumer's dollar; but the fruit industry is in a peculiar position. A great deal of its perishable product has to be marketed over a short period of time, and one has to sell through the channels established for the handling of that crop. A wholesaler or jobber cannot keep going by selling apples or tree fruits alone. He has to handle citrus fruits and other commodities to cover his overhead. So that this handling of fruit from the producer to the consumer is a complex and difficult question. I think I can safely say that, without a doubt, experience has proved the value of the natural products marketing act, and the system of central selling organized under its protection, to the fruit growers of British Columbia and the com-
Supply-Agriculture

munity as a whole. In saying that, I mean it has benefited both the producer and the consumer.
I am going to deal briefly with the conditions that existed before the act -was passed, and with conditions at the present time. Mind you, the federal act might not be necessary if we sold all our apples in British Columbia, but we do not. We have to sell a great deal of our crop in other provinces and abroad, and that is why we need the protection of the proposed act.
Before the provincial act was passed we had internal competition, and the fruit grower received a most unfair proportion of the consumer's dollar. We had maldistribution of the crop to the Canadian market, through the practice of selling on consignment. I know in my own district, before we had unified control, our packing house would ship a carload to a certain town, and perhaps half a dozen other packing houses would do the same thing. As a result, a small town on the prairies would have possibly three or four cars of apples roll in the same day, when one car would be sufficient, while another town would be without fruit. Then we had large losses through trade abuses, such as excessive rebates. That was a serious condition before this act was passed. We had a high percentage of bad debts. We had an uninformed public, with little knowledge of varieties or suitable seasons, and we had an unfair division of the Canadian and export markets. All the powerful people were grabbing the domestic market and leaving to somebody else the export market, which of course is less profitable. Then we had a lack of coordination within the industry, which prevented development of the flexibility necessary to meet changing conditions or to enable us to cooperate satisfactorily with a government programme.
Those were the conditions which existed before the act came into force. Since the passing of the natural products marketing act and organized selling under the direction of the tree fruit board and Tree Fruits Limited, we have first, a return to the producer of the greatest possible share of the consumer's dollar under present circumstances and conditions. Looking at the question from the point of view of the national interest I believe the fruit growers of British Columbia are reasonably satisfied with the prices they are obtaining to-day.
Second, we now have a planned distribution on the western Canadian and other markets. We own and control Canadian Fruit Distributors, and the whole distribution of the western Canadian market is planned so that marketing may be efficiently organized.

Third, we now have fair dealings within the trade and the elimination of trade abuses. For instance, prior to the Natural Products Marketing Act, claims made by wholesalers for damaged fruit, particularly on the prairie market, averaged $17 a car. To-day these claims have been reduced to less than $2 a car. That is because we have our own inspection service and can investigate any complaint made.
Fourth, we now have an almost complete elimination of bad debts; and this is a most interesting feature. Since the act came into force Tree Fruits Limited has marketed between $100,000,000 and $110,000,000 worth of tree fruits. A normal business concern allows one to one and a half per cent loss for bad debts. That would mean, under the old conditions, that we would have lost around $1,000,000 in bad debts. Up to the first of this month, after marketing that large volume of fruit, we have lost in bad debts only $163. That is what planned, cooperative marketing does for the producer.
Fifth, owing to coordinated publicity and advertising, we now have an informed buying public. People know when to buy Delicious, when to buy Wealthies, when to buy McIntosh, when to buy Gravensteins. They are informed as to the value of the apple they intend to purchase, and the best use to make of it.
Sixth, we have a planned division of the Canadian and export markets. All the shippers, whether they are cooperative organizations, semi-cooperative or joint stock, have to take their proportion of the domestic market and the export market, and we now have a planned division of those markets.
Seventh, we have a complete coordination throughout the whole industry which makes it possible to meet to the best advantage any given situation, and to cooperate effectively with any government programme. When, owing to war conditions, the government was faced with difficulties, it entrusted their solution in British Columbia and Nova Scotia to organizations which, I am sure the minister will admit, rendered an entirely satisfactory performance, organizations which can do just as effective a job in time of peace. In our opinion the best possible chance of satisfactorily implementing the government's agricultural prices support legislation will be with the cooperation of the producers in the industry concerned, under a national natural products marketing act. In fairness, I must say that during the critical period of our organization and the critical war period, we were most fortunate in British Columbia in having as members of the tree fruit board and Tree

Supply-Agriculture
Fruits Limited men of exceptionally high principles and outstanding ability, willing to work unceasingly for the cooperative principle and on behalf of the growers they were elected to represent. We were most fortunate in that respect. .
In the few moments during which I have discussed this matter, I think I have proved that the Natural Product Marketing Act has been of great assistance to the fruit industry in British Columbia, and that under the provisions of the act the producers are providing fruit for the consumers at fair prices under present circumstances. As I have said before, we are convinced that if the producer is to be protected we must forge that missing link, a national natural products marketing act. The tree fruit growers of British Columbia pioneered the provincial act. They have been the pioneers in advocating for several years a national act of this type. They are simply asking the government to develop in the federal field what has proved so successful in the provincial field. Hon. members will remember that the federal act passed in the early thirties was declared ultra vires of dominion powers by the privy council. It will be remembered that the federal act passed in the early thirties was declared ultra vires of dominion powers, by the privy council, and the fruit growers of British Columbia have given a great deal of study to this matter in an effort to draft an act that would not be ultra vires. The Canadian federation of agriculture has endorsed the draft act and in their brief presented to the government on March 28, 1946, expressed a desire for federal marketing legislation on this basis.
Before concluding, I should like to read from the Canadian federation of agriculture brief, where it states:
We desire to express appreciation to your government for the substantial progress made in applying a policy of long-term contracts or floor prices assured a number of years in advance. This is in line with the views of the Canadian federation of agriculture and incidentally in harmony with the fundamental theme of our recent annual meeting.
To carry such a policy into effect successfully, will require orderly production and a regularity of flow of products concerned in export trade to market to meet the needs of importing countries. Unorganized and haphazard marketing methods will not do it. Producers could make a valuable contribution to a national marketing programme in respect to some products if federal legislation were provided to enable them to undertake it. Most of the provinces now have legislation which permits the producers to develop and qperate plans for marketing within their respective provinces. These have proven successful in practically all cases and at the same time are recognized as being in the general interest. But producers are blocked completely from coordinating their efforts with fellow producers in other provinces for interprovincial and export movement of their products because supplementary federal legislation is not yet available to them. There is a widespread national demand from our producers for such legislation and since the close of the war particularly it is becoming more and more insistent.
It should be pointed out that in at least one province in Canada, producer marketing plans which have been in operation under the War Measures Act, and now the Emergency Powers Act will become absolutely ineffective even provincially, without federal legislation such as we are now requesting.
Hon. members would be well advised to secure a copy of the draft act which was originally drafted by the fruit interests in British Columbia, submitted to the Canadian federation of agriculture, gone over again, finally accepted in final form by the federation, and then submitted to the government. I shall not read the whole of it, but I should like to place on record one brief section which deals with purpose and intent. It states:
The purpose and intent of this act is to provide in respect to interprovincial trade in Canada and in export trade, for the improvement of methods and practices of marketing of natural products, and for the promotion, control, regulation, or prohibition, of the marketing of natural products, in any or all respects and in whole or in part,
I just wish to emphasize again that our people are anxious to see this type of legislation in the federal field, as I said before, to forge the missing link between provincial and international' arrangements.
I urge that hon. members give some study to this question. We in British Columbia are firmly of the opinion that if we are to assure the orderly marketing of farm products in the future at fair and stable prices, we must have a national natural products marketing act as the link between provincial legislation and international arrangements. I have, and the fruit growers in my constituency, as wrell as fruit growers in British Columbia as a whole, have great faith in this type of legislation, because it depends for its success upon local and cooperative action, and involves the people concerned in the administration and the direction of their own affairs. That is what I like about it. This type of legislation permits the development of large-scale planning under the control of the people themselves. It is democratic in principle, democratic in action and, I am sure, has been proven to work to the advantage of the community as a whole. It will move the latent pioneer spirit of the past into action for the requirements of the future.
I should like the minister to express his opinion of the draft act presented to him by the Canadian federation of agriculture, and of the principles of marketing outlined therein.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. HACKETT:: Would the minister give me some information with respect to item 22? To get it, I waited patiently all afternoon, and believing that the first hour this evening was to be devoted to private and public bills, I was absent for a short time. Upon entering the chamber at nine o'clock, however, I found that the discussion of the estimates was well under way. Is this the only item in the minister's estimates providing for exhibitions and fairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the only item in the main estimates providing for exhibitions. However, I did tell the committee in the hour the hon. member was not here that later in the session I shall bring down supplementary estimates to deal with fair and exhibition grants. There can be a full discussion at that time. Little would be gained by taking time to discuss the matter now, because I am not now in a position to tell the committee the nature of the grants. Representations have been made from fair boards across Canada as to what they desire. These representations are being fully considered by officials. They will then be brought before the government and eventually to the house.


John Thomas Hackett: What amounts were
devoted to this purpose in 193S and 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures before me, but my memory is that at the time we put this through it was in the neighbourhood of $200,000 or $300,000. At certain times it may have been even a little more than that.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Chairman, at this point in the discussion of the estimates for the Department of Agriculture I wish to say a few words on behalf of the primary producers in British Columbia. I find myself fully in agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West. I fully realize ^that, so far as agriculture in British Columbia is concerned, we have not reached the point of development that has been reached in the prairie provinces. However, with the building of 'the necessary railways to provide an outlet for the British Columbia-Peace River block, that situation will correct itself to some extent.
The constituency of Kootenay East, which I have the honour to represent, contains some fairly large agricultural areas, with their usual problems and needs. I might mention the Columbia river valley, the Creston valley fruit district and the range lands in the southeast corner of the province.

The setting up of a provincial marketing board has already been achieved in British Columbia, as mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West, and it has met with a fair degree of success in its work.
Then, too, the British Columbia fruit growers' association has united in the setting up of the British Columbia fruit marketing board. They, too, are doing good work, but over the years some weaknesses have manifested themselves which call for correction.
The farmers in my constituency who live fairly close to the British Columbia-Alberta boundary complain from time to time of Alberta surplus supplies being sold in British Columbia below our cost of production. It was at this point that our provincial marketing board fell down in that it could not control interprovincial trade. Therefore a dominion marketing board or a national marketing board is necessary to control the organized marketing of our agricultural products. To show that what I am advocating is a live issue, I should like to quote a press report in the Vancouver Sun which bears the date line of Victoria, April 11. It reads:
Hart wip urge Ottawa market law.
The British Columbia legislature to-day passed a resolution asking Premier Hart to urge on Ottawa authorities next month the need for federal legislation to control organized marketing of agricultural products.
The question was raised by J. H. Corsbie (C.C.F., Peace River), who said there is need for a dominion marketing act to make provincial marketing legislation fully effective in dealing with interprovincial trade.
Mention has already been made of the dominion marketing act which was passed in 1935 by the Bennett government and which was declared to be ultra vires of the powers of the federal government. I sincerely hope the minister will give serious consideration to the setting up of a dominion marketing board.


Percy Ellis Wright: 
James Garfield Gardiner: This matter has been an issue, not only since the hon. member for Melfort came to the house but at a time when most of us who are now in the house were not here. As the hon. member knows, this was a matter of live discusion during the thirties. At that time an act was passed which was presumed to do what is now being asked for. That act was taken to the supreme court and then to the privy council where it was declared to be ultra vires. I am not a constitutional lawyer either, but I take it that the members of the privy council are and they decided that that act was not constitutional.
It may be possible to draft an act which is constitutional, but I find it most difficult to believe that that is possible under our constitution. That does not mean that the constitution cannot be amended, but I would think it would be most difficult to draft even concurrent legislation that would be declared by the courts to be intra vires. The previous legislation was I believe, drafted most carefully with the thought in mind that it might be declared ultra vires. That act was in effect when I came to Ottawa and we. operated under it for a number of months. However, it was declared to be ultra vires and we have not since acted under it.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has suggested that I express an opinion with regard to the model act which was drafted, I believe in British Columbia, and presented to the Canadian federation of agriculture and by that federation to the government in the year just preceding the war. As Minister of Agriculture,
I took the matter to the government and it was discussed there. I had the government's policy with regard to it announced in the first year of the war, which policy is on record in Hansard. That policy was to affect the period of the war, and it was stated that further consideration would not be given to the matter until the end of the war.
To state in as few words as possible the position taken by the government, it was simply this. We had entered upon the war, and during the war period it would be absolutely necessary for the government to set up any boards that were necessary to take control of the marketing of farm products. Those boards would be operated by the government on behalf of the people of Canada and on behalf of those engaged in the war in order to assist in the prosecution of the war. We thought that could be most effectively done by the government operating under the War Measures Act. That is what we have since been doing, and the success of apple marketing during the war period has been partly due to the fact that we have had an arrangement with the apple producers and the tree fruit board right from the first year of the war. Under that agreement the government has taken possession of any surplus product we have had. That has been canned or' dehydrated and sometimes given away, but at all times the producer of apples was guaranteed a certain set return for his product.


An hon. MEMBER:: The growers appreciated it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The growers have expressed their appreciation on many occasions. I think we have had less criticism from the apple growers of Canada throughout the whole war period than from any other group. That action was taken in the first year of the war and was continued right through. It resulted in our paying out perhaps more per farmer engaged in the apple industry than we have paid out on behalf of any other group of farmers in Canada. When you talk about two or three million dollars to assist a branch of the industry, let us say in Nova Scotia, it does not sound very large as compared with other expenditures that are made, but there are only four or five thousand apple producers in Nova Scotia. When you spend two million dollars in order to promote the interests of four or five thousand producers and of those assisting in the marketing and processing of the product it figures out to a higher level per person involved than is the case even with the enormous amounts that have been expended in connection with wheat growing in
Supply-Agriculture

western Canada where we have spent in the neighbourhood of a few hundred millions, but the number of farmers engaged is very much greater.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister will admit that that is because of the loss of export markets.


James Garfield Gardiner: I agree that that was the reason for the action taken in the first instance. The British government said in the first year of the war: We do not want any apples at all. I would remind hon. members of that fact when they sometimes speak of fruit as an important food product that would help people who are starving. But the British said: We do not want to utilize any shipping space for the shipment of apples because of their low food value. We all know that that is true. The apple is used not particularly for preventing starvation but for purposes we all understand. I think we all enjoy apples, and most people throughout the world do when they have an opportunity of getting them. But at a time when it was necessary to do everything to prosecute the war successfully the British said that they did not want apples at all. We naturally had to do something about the situation, and the only thing we could do was to guarantee a certain return to the producers until such time as they could market their product.
We had less difficulty with the apple crop in British Columbia than we had with the apple crop of Nova Scotia, for reasons more or less obvious. The apple crop of British Columbia has its market next door in the prairie provinces, for at least a considerable portion of the crop. Might I suggest to the apple growers of British Columbia that something happened during the war which might work out most beneficially to the apple producers of British Columbia and probably other parts of Canada, if the idea is used to the fullest possible extent? During the war we developed to a greater extent than ever before the process of dehydrating fruit and vegetables. One of the difficulties in marketing British Columbia apples on the prairies is that the temperature sometimes gets down to forty below in November, and anyone who knows anything about transporting apples on the prairies knows that if you start out from your town or village with a barrel or box of apples when it is forty below the apples will not be of much value when you get four or five miles away from town.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How often does it get forty below in November?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend will probably find out in a year or two. It has been thirty below on the prairies in October, and even that temperature will freeze apples. The position is that if you attempt to take apples out in their natural state on the prairies you have difficulties in the winter months. But dehydration was developed greatly during the war to the point where apples can now be put on a shelf in any part of western Canada and fdrty below will do them no harm whatsoever. Dehydration dries them down to the same moisture content as wheat, so that they can be put anywhere and carted about from one place to another and consumed the whole year round.
I had some dried apples from Nova Scotia presented to me just at the beginning of the war. They had been dried three years prior to the time they were presented to me. I took them home and had them cooked, and you could not distinguish the product from apples picked fresh off the tree. I realize that what made it impossible to carry that further was the cost of dehydration. But we have gone a long way during the war, and if we will only take advantage of our experience a great deal can be done to assist in the marketing of the apple crop. Much of that we learned because we were required to process products during the war, partly to take care of them over a long period and partly to feed the troops and others who required different products at different places where storage was necessary.
So far as the act itself which has been proposed is concerned, I wish to state only this. During the war we have used boards. We had a meat board, a dairy board, a wheat board, a special products board and a fruit tree board, and under these boards we have handled most of our farm products during the war. We still have those boards. In addition, we have an agreement with Britain on pork products extending down to 1948. We have an agreement on cheese extending down to 1948. We have an agreement under consideration for wheat extending down to the end of the 1949 crop, which agreement in all probability will eventually be signed. We have also an agreement with regard to canned milk. When one takes all these products into consideration -and others I might name, it will be realized that exactly the same condition exists in relation to them down to the end of these agreements as did exist during the war.
We have these boards, operated by the government it is true, but operated on behalf of all the people of Canada, to handle the exportation of our surplus farm products whether they come from a private organiza-

Supply-Agriculture
tion, a cooperative organization or a province so highly organized under marketing legislation as British Columbia is. These farm products going into international trade are taken over by these boards and delivered to some organization in some other country. The greater- part of them are delivered to the British food ministry and distributed by them to people who require them under the terms of the agreement. I think that so long as that condition exists-and, as I have indicated, these agreements will extend from two to four years and at the end of that period there will be the possibility of extending the agreements farther-there is not ' the same necessity for having central boards set up under a federal marketing act as some thought just prior to the war.
On the other hand, I would point out that we shall require to come to this house for legislation to give us authority under an act conferring similar powers to those under the War Measures Act to deal with food, or we "sFalt have to ask the house for special legislation dealing with the different boards themselves and giving us authority in connection with handling them in order to overcome difficulties that exist in connection with the constitution itself. With a situation existing such as we have in the world to-day, when the food production and food distribution problems are just as serious as they were during the war, I would anticipate that there would be no difficulty in having the membership of this house extend that kind of authority to cover the term of these agreements, and so long as that situation does exist I see no reason for putting into effect marketing legislation of the type suggested.
I do not say that we should not be giving every consideration to the possible necessity of it and to ways of making it effective if it became necessary to do so. But for the time being I think the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West have suggested that producers are fairly well satisfied with the manner in which products which are going into export are being handled up to the present, and so long as we can continue to handle them under the arrangement which is now made I should think they would be fairly well satisfied to have it carried on in that way. I have understood that, even from those who are the strongest advocates of the system which has been proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. HAZEN:: The special products board to which the minister has just referred, which comes under the marketing branch of the Department of Agriculture, has looked after the marketing and export of certified seed 63260-124
potatoes from the maritime provinces for the past three years. This was done at the request of the provinces and of the exporters of the maritime provinces. My purpose in rising is to ask the minister what the policy of the government is for the coming season while certified seed potatoes continue to be exported and marketed in the way they have been during the past three years. In this connection I should like to point out to the minister that for the first two years this board was under the supervision of Mr. John Tucker and the work of the board was done to the satisfaction of all concerned. But Mr. Tucker retired, and last year the supervision of the board was taken over by another gentleman. Since that time the work of the board has not been nearly so satisfactory to the exporters who are interested in this matter in the maritime provinces. Will the minister tell us what the policy of the board will be during the coming season?


James Garfield Gardiner: The arrangement setting up the special products board was made, of course, under the War Measures Act by order in council, and the authority under which they are operating now is the special powers which were given in the measure last year. As hon. members know, that measure is for one year. It operates to the end of this year, provided that we do not make some changes late in the year-my memory is that it is to November or December-and if it continues into the new year and the house is not in session, it goes on until the beginning of the next session and fifteen days into that session. So that the authority under which we are operating as far as potatoes and many other things are concerned is limited at the moment to fifteen days after the opening of the next session. But, as I said a few moments ago, I do not anticipate, from remarks made by hon. members representing all groups in the house when that legislation was under consideration, that there would be any difficulty in having special powers continued with regard to the handling of food. That being the case, probably at the moment there really is not any limitation of the policy which might be followed by the special products board.
In so far as potatoes are concerned, I think, as has been suggested, the special products board has been assisting in the marketing of these potatoes at the request of the growers in the district for about three years, and it is operating under powers given to it to deal with potatoes without any limitation on the period of time. The only limitation that is there is the limitation put on by the Special Powers Act. The fact is, of course.TKafT

196(5



Supply-Agriculture
through negotiation as between the special products board and those who invited them to take over the operation, there may be changes, but in so far as I know at the moment the present arrangement will continue to operate at least for the time we have the authority to carry on as we are doing.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not rise to say anything about potatoes, but there was one point which was made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, in the very fine outline of what the tree fruit growers of Kootenay have done, that might be emphasized, and that is the packing and grading of the fruit. If we had a federal marketing act the probability is that we could do something in regard to that. It seems to me that is something which needs to be emphasized. The minister and I and other members from western Canada can remember very well that thirty or thirty-five years ago we used to buy barrels of apples from Ontario, but to-day the people of the prairie provinces use almost exclusively the British Columbia boxed product,-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Much better.


Major James William Coldwell: -graded and packed. Even in this city, I have noticed, you can buy more economically the British Columbia apple at a higher price than you can buy the Ontario apple at a lower price, because when you buy the Ontario fruit you are not sure of what you are getting but when you buy the British Columbia graded fruit you know you get exactly what you pay for.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: You get a good sound apple, and you are quite sure that you are getting something that you can use right to the very core. You are not so sure of that with regard to the Ontario product. ,


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It is better, though.


Major James William Coldwell: I was sorry that some of the farmer members of the Progressive Conservative party were not listening a little more attentively when the hon. member for Kootenay West was speaking, because I thought the outline he gave of the marketing of fruits in British Columbia was something which might be studied very carefully by the fruit growers of Ontario.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: You cannot beat the flavour of Ontario apples.


Major James William Coldwell: Someone says that you cannot beat the flavour of Ontario apples. I have heard that for a long, long time, but I find it difficult to agree with my Ontario friends, and I am quite neutral.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you sure you were not
eating a pear?


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to enter into that argument at all.
WThat I rose to say is that some method should be worked out by the federal department of agriculture with the provinces to see to it that we get a grade which is pretty uniform throughout the country, and particularly in the export market. I agree with the minister that the processing of apples during the war has been quite remarkable. To-day you can buy dehydrated apples which, when cooked, you cannot tell from the fresh product. My hon. friend the member for Fraser Valley shakes his head.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That may be true of Ontario apples.


Major James William Coldwell: I buy them in Ontario. I do not know what British Columbia apples are like when they are dehydrated.
One other thing has often occurred to me in relation to the processing of this fruit. I was born, of course, in an apple country, Devonshire, famous for apple products, and I have often wondered why the lower grades of apples in this country are not turned into cider-not necessarily hard cider, but cider. I know from my youthful experience that it is a healthy and quite mild drink, if it is intoxicating at all: I leave that to the hon. member for Fort William to decide. But I have often wondered why we cannot utilize the lower grades of apples in the production of cider-sweet cider, and, if you like, sparkling cider. I believe that sparkling cider is imported into Canada from across the seas. Yet we grow, I would say, very much better apples than the apples which grew in the county where I was born. I have heard it said that they grow a particular type of apple for cider; that may be so, but it seems to me that, in the years to come, at least when we may have difficulties in marketing, apple juice and apple cider might be made to a larger extent and our people encouraged to use it rather than the harder drinks which are being used by many people in this country.
What I really rose to say was that in some parts of Canada much more attention should be given to the grading and the packing of apples for both domestic use and export. I have no doubt, although I said otherwise, jocularly, just now, that the Ontario apple can compete with any other apple if it is properly graded, packed and marketed.


Robert Fair: Another item that is also being neglected is prices. On different occasions we have been told about parity prices. I should

Supply-A g ricu l lure
like the minister to give us a definition of that to-night. In my opinion the parity price that he is speaking about is based on the prices that existed during the period 1926 to 1929. According to the bureau of statistics, the farmers of Canada at that time received 16-6 per cent of the national income. This means that about 33 per cent of the people received 16-6 per cent of the national income. In my opinion that is not a sound basis on which to figure our parity prices. It does not matter how many agreements we make; unless we have worth-while prices we are not going to have a prosperous agriculture. It seems to take many of us in Canada a long time to realize that the farmer does not get that to which he is entitled. Not many days ago we found that the former mayor of New York, Mr. LaGuardia, said:
The low earnings made by Canadian farmers are a threat to the progress made by farmers in the United States.
There is the opinion of some of our neighbours. Perhaps we at home should look a little more closely at our price structure.
On the fifteenth of last month in defending the increase of 12J per cent allowed the machine companies the Minister of Finance quoted several increases in prices of farm products, as reported at page 893 of Hansard. Because of that, people throughout the country are perhaps under the impression that farmers are getting far more than they are entitled to. On that occasion the minister should have made it quite clear that when we started out on our war period, or even up to 1941 or 1942, we were still receiving for agriculture the prices which were received in the depression years between 1930 and 1935. Therefore, when all these things are taken into consideration, I feel the question of price should receive far more attention than it has up to the present time in order that agriculture may be placed on an equal footing with other industries in the country.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do we export solid packed apples; that is, the apple in the gallon can solidly packed?	*


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we ship some of them.
I might say while we are on the subject that what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said is correct, generally speaking. That is, the best graded and sorted apples are those which come from British Columbia. There they have a mechanized system of grading which is very efficient; it does the job particularly well, but there is something other than that associated with the apple as it grows in Ontario and the apple as it grows 63260-124J
in British Columbia. When I was a schoolboy I used to learn some things that I never understood the meaning of until much later. One of the things I learned was that nature provides, through the texture of leaves, bark and other parts of plants, against evaporation in dry climates. I never did associate that with apples until I came east ten years ago to take tire position I now occupy.
I knew from my experience on the farm as a boy in Ontario where apples were grown, that when you put apples on the shelves in the cellar and left them there for use during the winter months they shriveled up very quickly. The British Columbia apple does not do that, not with the same readiness. If you leave it long enough the moisture will evaporate from it, and there is a simple explanation of it when one has occasion to get the explanation. It is associated with the fact that apples in Ontario have to be kept with greater care than they do if they are produced in British Columbia. In the Okanagan valley the apples are produced under irrigation. The air is very dry, and the result is that the skin on the apple does not permit of evaporation easily. It is nature's way of seeing that evaporation does not take place. The pores in the skin of the apple produced under these conditions do not give off moisture as freely as they do in a moist climate like Ontario, and it is even more moist over in the area in Britain in which the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar lived. That might have something to do with his suggestion that the apples there are not as good even as they are here. They are produced under different climatic conditions.
Those who do take care of apples, and do it properly, in Ontario, are able to overcome that difficulty through cold storage facilities that are made for the storage of apples. In our boyhood days we did not have the cold storage that we have to-day, and the result was that the apples went on the market in a different form from what British Columbia or even well' cared for Ontario apples do.
Associated with that is this further fact. A very small proportion of the apples of Ontario and Quebec need to be exported. They have their market right next door to them. We grade the apples which are exported, but there are some years when they have a very good crop and no apples are exported from Ontario and Quebec at all; they are all exported from Nova Scotia and British Columbia. The apples of Nova Scotia and British Columbia have to meet the grading regulations that are put on by the federal department, Apples marketed in Ottawa, if they are
Supply-Agriculture

from the Ottawa valley, or apples marketed in Toronto from around Trenton or anywhere in that area are not subject at all to the federal regulations. They can market them within the bounds of the province in any way the people within the province will take them, unless some special provision is made with regard to grading within the province; and the restrictions on grading in Ontario are not anything like the restrictions on grading put pn by the British Columbia government even, in addition to those that are put on by the federal government in relation to the marketing of products outside the country. These are all facts in relation to the matter of grading apples in Ontario and in British Columbia, which will be there whether you had the marketing act or not. That is what is associated with the 'situation which exists in the different provinces. There is also the fact that in normal times 50 per cent of the British Columbia product and 80 per cent of the Nova Scotia product must be marketed overseas. Fifty per cent of all our apple production must go out of the country. That being* the case, we do control the grading and the marketing of the product that goes out, but we have very little to do with the marketing of the product inside.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to ask a few questions with regard to the purchasing of horses by the Netherlands and the French governments. There was some discussion on this matter at the last session, and the minister indicated then that the methods being used in western Canada were not satisfactory. He- said that he intended to change that method and purchase through the municipalities there, or at least use the municipalities for the assembling of the horses for purchase. Representations were made to the government by the various horse breeders' associations in the west that they would prefer to have the purchasing done through the special products marketing board direct from the farmers on behalf of the French purchasing commission which was in Canada purchasing these horses. Could the minister give us some information with regard to the matter? How many horses have been purchased by the French government? What method is being employed? Are they buying direct through the trade, or is the government assembling the horses? Just what method is being used at the present time? Could the minister give the average price that is being paid by the French purchasing commission for the horses that they are purchasing?
["Mr. Gardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: Last session there were discussions in regard to the marketing of horses; I believe the matter was brought up on the floor of the house by the hon. member for Wood Mountain. I do not know that there was any considerable dissatisfaction with the plan followed, other than that there was not a market for all types of horses, and perhaps in regard to the system of asking farmers, many of whom were not able to determine from the circulars put out just what type of horse was required, to bring in their horses and take their chance on selling them-perhaps that did not work out so satisfactorily in view of the fact that too many of them had to take their horses home again.
Two agreements were drawn up; one had been signed. That was with the government of the Netherlands. It covered the delivery of
5,000	horses, beginning a year ago last spring and continuing to next October. When I was in Europe in January I took the trouble to see those on the other side, particularly in the Netherlands, who had been handling the horses. They said they were perfectly satisfied with the horses they had received, as to both quality and price, but they said they did not want any more. Of the 5,000 they had received some 2,200. I asked why they did not want any more, and they said they were going to be exporting horses within twelve months. They told me that the reports they had at the end of the war, on the basis on which they entered into the agreement to buy 5,000 horses from Canada, were not in accordance with the facts as they later developed. They had far more horses in the country than they thought, and they said that within twelve months they would be exporting horses and therefore did not want to buy any more from us. I did not tell them we were going to force them to carry out their contract. We just have not shipped them any more horses. Up to that time they had bought 2,200; since then they have not taken any more, and under the circumstances I do not believe we should insist on the contract being carried out. So that deals with the situation as far as the Netherlands is concerned.
In France it was a different situation. As hon. members know, the French governments were changing very rapidly in January, and we had not signed a contract with them. We never have had a signed contract. The contract was drawn upon the basis that they would buy 35,000 horses over a period of time and would advance a certain amount of money for each horse purchased. We undertook to return any cash that was not required in order to purchase and ship the horse. Under that arrangement, which was never signed, we sent,

Supply-Agriculture
I think, something over 2,500 horses last year, for which the farmers obtained an average price of just three cents under $100. The actual figure was $99.97, after making allowance for the losses that had to be taken by reason of certain horses not being suitable. The farmers received that amount of money, and there was some money left over of the total that had been advanced.


Percy Ellis Wright: Was that f.o.b. the shipping point?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was $100 to the farmer himself. They cost more than that, of course, at Montreal, from where they were shipped. One of the conditions that developed in that connection was that some people apparently got the notion that they could handle these horses more satisfactorily through local organizations, that is, private organizations. I discussed the matter with the French minister of agriculture in Paris. He said he was of the opposite opinion and thought the agreement should be signed and carried out as it had been discussed originally. Others, however, had different views, and he did not have full control over the purchasing or marketing of the horses. While I was in England last year, a delegation from France arrived here to buy horses. They entered into negotiations with private interests to purchase horses on somewhat the same basis that had been discussed previously with the government. One of the reasons given by some people who were discussing the matter -not by the minister in France-was that in some of the discussions which took place in this house the statement was made that you could buy horses in different constituencies of eastern Canada for $30 and $40, so that naturally they asked why they should be paying something over $100. Well, one can understand that when statements of that kind go to the people who are providing the money some of them begin to wonder whether or not that is the case. I understand that the arrangement they now have is one under which they agree to put up approximately the same amount for each horse that they had agreed to put up with the government, but the buyers who go out to look for the horses are in a different position from that of the government buyers. We had no means of disposing of horses other than to the French and Belgian governments. The ordinary dealer may buy horses for any trade whatever. He goes into a community, buys a carload of horses and probably gets them at an average price of $60-the price at which they tell me horses can be bought in western Canada-to be shipped to Toronto or Montreal. No one knows whether all the horses purchased are of the right quality to go to France or Belgium or wherever it may be. They only know the buyer purchases a carload of horses and pays a certain price. We have checked some of these shipments. I would not say we have checked them all; we had no particular right to check them all. This is a deal made absolutely between the French government and the local buyers, most of them in Toronto and Montreal.


Percy Ellis Wright: But financed out of our loan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps financed out of the loan we made to France, but in any event we put no strings on that loan except to specify that a certain amount must be spent in .this country. They buy goods in their own way and no doubt finance their purchases with money lent to them by Canada. On those we did check, however, I had a report from Mr. MacCallum, who is the nearest thing we have to an expert on live stock, indicating that on one shipment the amount the farmer received for the horses that actually went to France was within a few cents of the amount he received for the horses we shipped last fall. Recently I have heard another suggestion that a carload of horses was bought,
I think in the neighbourhood of Prince Rupert, at $40 per horse. I have asked for a check to be made to see if we can determine what percentage of those horses went to France or whether any at all went to that country. They may not have gone to France at all; but the horses that were actually loaded on the boat in the one check I made brought the farmer approximately the same amount he received under the plan we put into effect last fall.


Major James William Coldwell: You do not know how
the French government fares in these deals, in comparison?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, within the last week I had in my office two representatives of the French government, with whom I discussed the matter, and they said they were satisfied with what they were getting. At the present time they are asking for a higher standard horse, a 1,500 pound horse as against the 1,350 pound horse that was being asked for by France last fall. They say they are getting good horses; they are satisfied with them and with the treatment they are receiving. So that I would hesitate to step into an understanding of that kind which is satisfactory to both sides.
Supply-Agriculture


Percy Ellis Wright: I wanted to ask one other question in regard to marketing, and that is in reference to peas. Has the special products marketing board entered into any agreement with any purchasing agency or agencies in Great Britain for peas for 1946 or 1947?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that an agreement has not been entered into, but Great Britain does want to take all the peas we can supply her, and negotiations are on.


Percy Ellis Wright: At the price which obtained last year, or is there any change?


James Garfield Gardiner: Approximately the same.


Major James William Coldwell: Does that apply to beans from Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: Referring back to the very fine explanation made by the minister with respect to horses, if my memory serves me correctly I heard all that last session. I realize that many answers will have to be made to questions asked, but if the minister is going to make a 20-minute speech every time a question is asked we shall be on agriculture estimates until the middle of next September.


James Garfield Gardiner: Agreed.


William Scottie Bryce: What did the minister find out when he went to the old country? I have asked privately about it, but perhaps he would like to give the committee some information. In the future we are going to have far more cattle in Canada than we shall be able to sell to the United States. I know that next to the domestic market, the United States offers our best market. However, they take only a quota.
Would the minister tell us the possibilities of shipping over live cattle? We have a clean bill of health at the present time, and I understand that Great Britain is to-day paying a bonus on beef. But even if we take that bonus off, one can send over good steers which are not properly finished, and get a better price for them in Great Britain, after paying expenses, than he can get from the packing plant in the fall of the year.
I believe the minister told me.that I might speak about hog graders when we reached item 24.


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be on item 29, dealing with live stock and live-stock products. The first question asked would more properly come under that item. However, the only answer I can give now is that when I was in Glasgow in January, at the same time the hon. member was there, I visited 
the three shippers, one of whom is Nelson. I met them all at one place on one occasion. When I was discussing the question with them-and they are three concerns which handled feeder cattle going into northern England and Scotland before the war; Browns handle the cattle going to Manchester and the southern section; I was in the Manchester area, but did not see Browns-the other three said that just as soon as we can ship them feeder cattle they will take all we can ship. We were not in a position to discuss price, of course, but the price would be as good as that paid to anyone.


Mr. ARGUE:: What is the flour extraction rate used by millers in Canada to-day? Is there a government regulation covering the minimum extraction rate? If so, what is it?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no regulation as to what millers should use, but the extraction rate in Canada is from 72 to 76. I think that generally it is about 72. The extraction rate in many other places at present is about 80 We dealt with that in this way. We said that there was an immediate requirement for wheat. Canada is handling her wheat differently from most, if not all, other countries. Our wheat is under the control of the wheat board, which means that it is under control of the government. That is not true in the United States, and in many other places.
To those who were discussing the question we said that by another method we can take what would be actually the difference between 72 per cent and 80 per cent extraction by simply saying to-morrow morning that we are going to supply the market with less wheat for domestic consumption. We could save 10 per cent, which is just about equal the amount you would take by the increased extraction method from the mills, and they would have to get along for domestic consumption with that much less. We did not say what they had to do to get along, but I assume that what they had to do is to cut down on storage here and there across the country, and to tell their dealers they would have to do with less in the future.
By whatever method it has been done, when I was in Washington last week I received a communication from the wheat board saying that they had an extra 100,000 tons of wheat to distribute. That was more than they had estimated they would have at the beginning, when different ways of saving wheat and making wheat available for shipment were considered. That wheat was divided up, as I remember, in this way:
34.000	tons to India, 25,000 tons to Britain,
8.000	tons to Belgium, and the remaining

Supply-Agriculture
amount to other countries. Those were the important ones. In other words, the policy of getting more wheat for these countries is working to the point where we are getting more than we had anticipated a few months ago.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that due to the diversion from Great Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. It is due to many things, of course. We have been making appeals to get more wheat out, and everything that has been done has resulted in there being more wheat available than we had a while ago to go to Britain or elsewhere.


John Horne Blackmore: I understood the minister to say that importers of feeder cattle to Great Britain have said they would be interested in quantities of feeder cattle at certain times. Were they referring only to the immediate future, or did the minister gather the idea that there would be a permanent market for Canadian cattle in northern Great Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: I had the idea it would be indefinite. After things settled down and shipping was available, they would be expecting to take the cattle from Canada they had taken in the past, and take them as freely as we can make them available. They are most anxious to get them.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is the production of egg powder still being carried on? There has been some recent criticism. If it is being carried on, to what extent?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is being carried on, although not as many eggs are being dried as there were during the war.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Could the minister give figures to show comparative shipments?


James Garfield Gardiner: As nearly as I can recall, in the agreement we now have it is about half and half. During the war only dried eggs went over for a time. However, they are now talking about half shelled eggs.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What was shipped until the termination of the war, and what is being shipped to-day in thousands of pounds?


James Garfield Gardiner: The contract amount for 1946 is for 83 million dozen. Of this amount 52,500,000 dozen are in shells, and
32,500,000	dozen dried, or in a ratio of about five to three.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What egg powder was shipped last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The contract last year was for 50.400,000 dozen; we shipped 42,000,000 dozen in the shell and 47,700,000 dozen dried.


Mark Cecil Senn: Do the producers receive as much iot eggs that are sold in the shell as they do for those sold as powder?


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmer gets the same whichever it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
25.	Agricultural economics, including surveys formerly under Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, $245,520.
Mark Cecil Senn: I notice the report for 1945 states that certain surveys were made in regard to farm management and the cost of producing butter fat. The cost of producing butter fat in the Edmonton area is given as 68 cents a pound, while the cost in the Calgary area was something like 54 cents per pound. How does the minister reconcile those figures with the statement he made a short time ago that we have parity in farm prices?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not like to refer to another debate, but it is about the only way I can answer the question. The question of parity prices has been brought up on a number of occasions. In this connection I should like to refer to what was said by the Minister of Finance, as reported on page 1869 of Hansard. He said:
However, let us take the period 1926-29 as the basis of parity, a period which apparently is regarded as being a favourable one for the farmers, and which is usually referred to as the basis of parity. Official figures from the bureau of statistics show that in March, 1946, the average wholesale prices of Canadian farm products wras six per cent higher than the average of 1926-29, and that is without making any allowanace for wheat participation payments. I am informed that if wheat participation payments were added, instead of being six per cent the figure would be something like ten per cent. Over the same period the official index of prices of commodities and services, including labour used by the farmers had, according to the bureau of statistics, increased by seven per cent. That is, the actual level of farm prices is slightly higher to-day than in 1926-29, and the relationship between prices of goods farmers sell, and prices of goods and services farmers buy is almost identical with that which prevailed in the former period of prosperity, the advantage being in favour of the farm prices. I have taken this period because it is the one frequently quoted in respect of parity.
That was the statement made the other evening by the Minister of Finance when he was dealing with this question.


Mark Cecil Senn: It does look as though you have given up the idea of parity when you find that the cost of production exceeds the price which the farmer is getting for a particular product. I do not think you can convince the farmer that he i? getting parity
Supply-Agriculture

to-day in comparison With what is paid for other products. I should like to argue this a little further at <ome future time.
Mr. ARGUE- This item is of great importance to the people of the west because economic land surveys are different from soil texture surveys. An economic land survey takes into account the distance from markets, the prices of commodities, freight rates, land texture, average production and all the other economic factors that go into making a decent income on a farm. An amount of $75,000 is being provided for economic surveys, but this amount will not be put to the best use if the economic surveys that are made are not themselves put to the best use. If an economic survey is to be useful more attention will have to be paid to the results. These surveys should be the basis of deciding whether land shall be used for community pastures and whether submarginal land shall be taken out of the production of wheat and so on.
I understand that these economic surveys are conducted mostly by agricultural students during the summer time. If my theory serves me correctly, a few years ago these students were being paid something like $80 a month. What is being paid for the temporary help engaged to carry on these surveys? Agricultural students do not have a large field in which to find jobs during the summer months between terms and I think this provides one of the best ways of their making a few dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount paid runs from $1,200 to $1,800, depending upon the students.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the yearly rate?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a yearly rate, which would work out at from $100 to $150 a month. I am more familiar with the engineering students who are engaged to do survey work under the P.F.R.A. The only complaint I have ever had -with regard to the employment of these students is from people in the areas where they are working who say that they are being paid better than many people in the community.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think that is a good complaint.


Percy Ellis Wright: Do they have to pay their own board?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; they have their expenses.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I notice that in some departments there is an increase in travelling expenses. I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture has done this, but I took oc-

casion to figure out the cost of travelling expenses and I find that in the case of the Department of Agriculture it totals $1,360,000. Having been a member of a municipal council where we are used to figuring in hundreds of dollars, I may not have raised my sights high [DOT] enough to understand why a department should pay out $1,360,000 for travelling expenses. Could the minister give us some breakdown of this figure?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be difficult to go through all the items and pick out each individual or group of individuals and account for the travelling expenses. The fact that travelling expenses are essential in the Department of Agriculture was emphasized by the questions which were asked a few moments ago. We have students out making surveys in the summer months who are paid from $100 to $150 a month. It is absolutely impossible to have them do this work unless they are driven from place to place. At times they must take a train to a certain point and then be driven to different places, checking crop conditions in the west at present in connection with prairie farm assistance and with regard to P.F.R.A., checking the spraying of fruit trees in the eastern part of Canada and many other things that have to be done to give service in connection with the operation of
750,000	farms all the way across Canada. That is a travelling job. There is no way in which service can be given in connection with agriculture unless we move officials around in the farming areas. We do get the complaint sometimes that there are too many of them, and there may be some justification for that complaint; I do not know. By that I mean that there are men employed in that kind of work both by the province and bj' the federal government. But they are all doing work that is worth while. Sometimes you have men sent out by processing organizations, buying farm products, eggs, butter, hogs, or -whatever it may be, and when people see these men they think they are all government officials, but they are not. But I know of no other way of giving service to farmers than bj1- getting people out on the roads and going to the farms and communities where farmers are. That costs money, but $1,300,000 out of a total expenditure of over $100,000,000 at present- the usual expenditures would run to around $20,000,000 or more-is not too high, I think, in view of the nature and value of the work.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Would it be possible to get a breakdown of these expenses?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member wants the amount spent for hotel accommodation, gasoline, railway services and the like?

Supply-Agriculture


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Yes, I think so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably we could get that. Does the hon. member want a breakdown of the total amount of $1,300,000?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I should like to have that.


George Robert Webb: I think it would be well to have that on the record. There is an increase of $100,000 over last year; I am not complaining about that. It means that the farm services are to be extended, does it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is, of course, an increase in the total expenditure for ordinary services, $19,429 this year, and $17,215 last year. The increase in travelling expenses will be in proportion, if not a little less, because the one part of our estimates which was pared more thoroughly than any other by the treasury' board when I was before them was this very' item. They went over it with a fine-tooth comb and took out everything that could be taken out. The real reason for the increase is that more service is being given. Cars can now be obtained which we had to do without during the war, and men are obtainable now, many of them back from overseas service and others that we could not get during the war. Some hon. members have said that we should have more veterinaries inspecting cattle. They have to have a car to do that work, and naturally the more we put on to do the work the greater the expenses will be.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I am not criticizing the expenses so much, but I think we ought to know something of how an amount of this size is to be spent.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall get that for you.


George Robert Webb: This does not include the
purchase of cars, does it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think ear purchases would come under expenses. There might be depreciation on cars, mileage and that kind of thing.


Mr. QUELCH:: Do oil surveys come under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. Any that we have passed so far come under experimental farms and under prairie farm rehabilitation.


John Bracken: When travelling is done by automobile does the government provide the cars in some instances and allow the expense of running it to be charged up, or is there a double policy, with civil servants driving their own cars and being allowed mileage?


James Garfield Gardiner: I answered a question with regard to that earlier under the administration of the department. We have cars operated both ways, but most of our cars are owned by the department, purchased by the department and operated1 by the civil servant. Some cars are owned by the individuals and we pay the expenses, so much per mile. As I remember the figure given earlier in the discussion, it is nine cents per mile for the first 4,000 miles, and seven cents per mile from then on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
26.	Dairy products, $438,652.
John Alpheus Charlton: Has the minister a statement to make on the increased subsidy asked for by the farmers who met in Ottawa last Thursday?


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmers who met in Ottawa last Thursday did not see me. They did not ask to .see me after their discussions here at that time, but they have since asked to see me some time this week and I have said that I am prepared to see them any time this week that they can be in Ottawa. No date has yet been set. I do not know that I should say here what I am going to say to them until I have heard them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
27.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $694,221.
Mr. KIDD:: How many cold storages are subsidized in Kingston?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only one that has had assistance is the Canadian Cold Storage, with space of 17,169, and a subsidy total of $5,617.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: What is the total amount of subsidy which has been granted for cold storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is $5,617.50.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: That is the total amount of subsidies granted to the cold storage plants?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The cold storage subsidy is 30 per cent; half paid the first year and the other half over four years.


Mr. McKAY:: Would the minister give us a statement as to the basis of payments of subsidies for cold storage warehouses and plants? In this item I notice that cold storage cooperatives are dealt with; fruit, wine, dairy products and poultry are all included.

Supply-Agriculture

Could the minister make a brief statement in explanation of the present policy in this regard, because nothing is allowed for the province of Saskatchewan; at least, I cannot locate anything. We have cooperatives there which do a cold storage business; and a number of cold storage plants are being erected at the present time, including several small ones.


James Garfield Gardiner: The four which have had the subsidy are: Moose Jaw Cold Storage Company, Moose Jaw; Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries, Regina; Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries, Saskatoon; Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries, Vonda.


Percy Ellis Wright: They are not listed in the explanation, though.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are listed in my explanation.


Eric Bowness McKay: What is the principle which is being followed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall explain it. The position is that we have been paying for many years a subsidy which amounts to 30 per cent of the cost of constructing the plant. Half the 30 per cent is paid in the year the plant is constructed and the other half is divided equally over the next four years. The payments are made conditionally; no matter who constructs the plant, whether it be a private individual, a company, or a cooperative, the condition is that the plant must allow the public the services of that plant. The individual cannot utilize the plant for his own purposes if he accepts this grant; if he does not accept it he can do what he likes with his cold storage. Then we have certain rights in connection with the rates which are charged. We simply keep a check on them, and if those we assisted were charging unreasonable rates they would be checked up on that. There is an understanding that they must charge rates which are satisfactory to the department.


Eric Bowness McKay: What is the situation with regard to these small cold storage plants which are being erected at the present time throughout the west?


James Garfield Gardiner: Plants which, I understand, have lockers in them?


Eric Bowness McKay: Yes, a locker system.


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulation is that a plant which receives this assistance can have only 15 per cent of locker space, which is one way of enforcing the idea that the plant must be open to the general public. I have been arguing the point a little recently with officials in the department as to whether that should
[Mr. McKay.1
be changed. I said that conditions have changed considerably, and particularly out in our part of the country. It is the most useful kind of cold storage, I think, that can be put in in villages and towns where you have not any reason for having these large services such as you have in big cities. That matter is under discussion. Personally I am favourable to the suggestion that the assistance under this act should be applied to this class of storage plant, but up to the moment it has not been done.


Eric Bowness McKay: At the moment none of these has received any assistance?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not up to the moment, if they have more than 15 per cent given over to locker space.


Mr. BURTON:: This vote is referred to on page 93 of the main estimates and several pages later, containing the details. I went through them some time ago and I noticed there were not any subsidies listed for Saskatchewan. Why are these not listed in the detailed explanation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those which are listed in the statement are only those which are affected by the grants which are in these votes, and these have not yet been made.


Joseph William Burton: You were speaking of the Moose Jaw and Regina grants.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood the question to be whether there were any in Saskatchewan that have been given assistance. I have just given one for Kingston which did receive assistance. These are already constructed and have been assisted. I do not recall any which have been applied for this year; if they have they would have been accepted if they had met the conditions.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Could the minister indicate whether in the supplementary estimates we might expect some grants for these smaller cold storage plants which are providing locker service? I understood that the minister is favourably disposed to making grants for them. I think it is recognized that they are providing a useful community service; and building costs are now high. If the minister could hold out some hope in this matter it would be well received all across the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be money in the supplementary estimates, as there always is, for any applications received between the time these estimates are made up and the time the house closes. But I think we would require to change the legislation in order to bring in the type of cold storage we are discussing

Supply-Agriculture
at the moment, the locker system where practically 100 per cent is locker space. I think there would have to be an amendment of the legislation, although I would have to check up to make sure that the matter is not governed by regulations rather than by legislation. If it is a matter of regulation there would be a possibility of this being done; if legislation is required it would have to come here before any assurance is given.


Thomas John Bentley: What particular kind of organization must apply, or likely will apply, if you grant these small places the right to build locker plants?


James Garfield Gardiner: A number have applied, and the organization I know best is the one in the second nearest town to where I myself live, that is in Abernethy. It is an organization of farmers, largely, and business people; they formed an association and built a cold storage locker plant, and they wrote here to see whether they were entitled to the grant. We informed them that under the legislation and the regulations as they now are they were not entitled to it.- I think maybe I had half a dozen such applications of that type from Saskatchewan.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I notice in the estimates there is $7,000 this year for Trenton cold storage, and there was $15,000 last year. The minister said this evening that subsidies are paid over a period of four years. This has beep going on for a number of years-more than four. How much has been paid out in subsidies to the Trenton cold storage warehouse?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only explanation is that there have been extensions. If the plant were built twenty years ago it would get its first grant in*the first four years; but three or four years ago it may have added an extension on which it is entitled to the grant. I should say that a feature of the law is that any plant which gets a grant must apply before it starts its building operations. If that is not done, they are not entitled under the law to a grant. On a number of occasions, I would say probably a dozen times since I have been here, in ten years, we have had to bring in a special vote for some concerns which inadvertently broke that part of the law.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do they submit their plans to you?


James Garfield Gardiner: They submit their plans to us. First, they have to make a request to the department which is dealt with in the dairy branch. The dairy branch examine the existing situation, as to the need, and advise them at the time the application is made as 63260-125J
to whether on that basis it would be acceptable to the department. After that is done, they are required to build it up to a certain standard and live up to the other conditions which I mentioned a few moments ago.


Joseph William Burton: The minister has dealt mostly with the grant part of it; but on what basis are the subsidies paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only subsidy that is paid-you might call it a grant, or a subsidy-	,


Joseph William Burton: You include that?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no subsidy. I am informed that there are a few instances where it was impossible for those applying to live up to the conditions of the act where a grant has been made apart from the subsidies that are paid under the conditions of the act, but there are only a few of them scattered over a long period of time.


John Bracken: The minister has partly answered the question I had intended to ask. Are these subsidies granted to all who apply, provided that they comply with the regulations, or are you limited by the appropriation or by any departmental regulations?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I can best-answer, that by saying that in the early stages of the act applications were made and were practically all accepted, but there was a period just prior to the war when cold storage was overbuilt. I believe it began in the period when Mr. Bennett was here, and it continued on to the first years that I was here down to war time when we had to check this whole situation carefully in different communities before agreeing to add to the cold storage. That continued for about two years of the war, and then it became evident that because of the enormous shipping of food products we had to have more cold storage. From then down to the present these have been passed almost automatically. If persons could live up to the conditions of the act and the cold storage were needed-and there were very few cases where it was not needed- it was passed almost automatically. At the moment I cannot recall any that have not been passed in recent years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In what year was the act passed?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was passed in 1907.


John Bracken: The department is not required to accept these applications even though they comply with the regulations?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not required.
Supply-Agriculture


Eric Bowness McKay: The minister has indicated that there is a 30 per cent grant based on construction costs, I believe.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Eric Bowness McKay: Is there any restriction in dollars as to the amount of the grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should say it takes in both the lands and the buildings, but there is no limit.


Eric Bowness McKay: No top limit?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, excepting that it is usually done through Mr. Singleton of the dairy branch. He examines into the situation and he might say to them: "We do not advise you to put in more than a certain capacity." That limits the amount which is spent.


Frank Exton Lennard: I see an item here as follows: "Dundas, Samuel Netkin." He has had several grants in 1944, 1945 and 1946. He got $3,600 last year, and I see an equal amount this year. Has the minister the figures to show what he will have for the complete grant when it is completed?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is for this year?


Frank Exton Lennard: Last year he received $3,600, and there is also the same item to be passed this year. These two items will amount to $7,200. '


James Garfield Gardiner: It is one of the four items. I could not say whether it is the first, second or third.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are they equal payments?


James Garfield Gardiner: After the first year they are equal. The first year it is half the total, and then for each of the next four years it will be the same amount. I assume this is one-quarter of half the amount.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is that grant given for land and buildings, or just the buildings?


James Garfield Gardiner: Land and building.


Frank Exton Lennard: No interior decoration?


James Garfield Gardiner: The interior equipment, if you call that decoration.


Frank Exton Lennard: In.this particular case I might, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole equipment of the building, the building itself and the land.


John Bracken: The answer to the hon. member's question then would be eight times the figure that is in this year's estimate?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would appear to be so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Marketing service-
28.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian horticultural council, $683,764.
John Alpheus Charlton: I understand that there has been some change in me classification of the senior fruit and vegetable inspector and the supervising fruit and vegetable inspector. Has there been a corresponding change in salary? How did that change in classification come about?


James Garfield Gardiner: The supervisor is supervising the inspection staff and the senior inspector is just the senior inspector on that staff. The two terms have been reversed in a recent reorganization of the department. The supervisor is made the official who has charge of the others.


John Alpheus Charlton: Do the salaries remain the same?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not quite the same; there have been salary increases. The senior had a maximum of $2,500: it is now $2,700.


John Alpheus Charlton: The supervising fruit and vegetable inspectors come above the seniors?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: Their salaries would be higher than the senior inspectors' were before?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Could the minister tell us something about the honey production, what the marketing of honey is likely to be in the future? I believe there has been a big expansion in the production of honey in Saskatchewan -and other western provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: The 1945 honey crop was estimated at 30,683,000 pounds and valued at $4,946,000, or 11-8 per cent short of the 1944 crop, which was valued at $5,253,400. The average yield per colony was only fifty-nine pounds as compared with sixty-nine pounds in 1944, and the 1935-39 average of ninety-three pounds. The production has been down per colony. Adverse weather conditions in eastern Canada were responsible for the reduced total.	,
Increased interest in beekeeping evidenced since the outbreak of war continued during 1945, the total number of beekeepers rising to the record figure of 43,800 as compared with 40,700 in 1944, and the 1935-39 average of 26,860. The number of colonies of bees operated in 1945 was 524,100, as against 508,500 in 1944 and the 1935-39 average of 382,840. The demand for honey was heavy, despite rationing restrictions, and ceiling prices were maintained throughout the year.

Supply-Agriculture
1977 *


Mr. COLD  WELL@: 
James Garfield Gardiner: In 1940 we were exporting 10,762,000 pounds. In 1942 we exported 4,071,000 and, in 1942, 1,880,000 pounds, and from that time we did not export any. We are utilizing the quantities that I mentioned a moment ago for home consumption.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there a demand from overseas ?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is now, and it will grow.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what many of our people are interested in. They would like to get some assurance that in all probability the demand for our honey will grow on the export market. I believe we produce a high grade of honey.


James Garfield Gardiner: They want all the honey they can get, but at the moment they are nor prepared to agree to take any certain quantity.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Earlier the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar raised the question of the variation across the dominion in the quality of fruit. On a previous occasion I raised the question of variations in the quality of fruits and vegetables offered for sale in cans. Could the minister make some statement on what his department is doing so that a consumer who buys canned goods may have some guarantee in regard to quality? There has been a great variation in the qualities offered in different parts of Canada at different times. During the Stevens price spreads inquiry it was disclosed that there were some irregularities in connection with this trade. So that I should like the minister to explain what assurance the consumer has that canned goods being offered for sale have been inspected as to quality and quantity.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I remember them, the Stevens reports criticized the great number of sizes of containers, and also criticized the quality to some extent. We have regulations which I think were brought in during the last year before we took over in 1935 and which, since that time, have been adjusted as a result of our experience. I believe we have regulations in that regard as strict as any that can be found anywhere.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How about fruits and vegetables canned in British Columbia; how do they compare with those canned in Ontario or the maritimes?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are much the same. The standard is the same; the containers are of standard sizes, and the quality is good. There may be some difference in the quality of the different fruits in different years. In other words, some years weather conditions in Ontario make it difficult to produce the best quality fruits, and in other years you will find similar conditions with regard to certain other fruits in British Columbia. Tire product may not look to be as good, but it is at least supposed to be graded up to an equal standard.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What machinery have you to assure the consumer that Aylmer or Heinz or Campbell canned goods, first quality, are similar to those offered by other competitors?


James Garfield Gardiner: The plants are all
specially inspected, but I must repeat that we should keep in mind in connection with these matters the fact that we have no control over fruit that is put up in Ontario for sale in Ontario. We control only fruit that may be exported from Ontario. A short time ago I made a statement for which one of the local newspapers took me to task. I said that the red gauze was being taken off peaches. That is a fact; the red gauze is being taken off peaches as far as we have any control over them, but we cannot control the marketing of peaches in Ontario which are grown in Ontario. Of course that was made perfectly plain at the time.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister would not have time to-night, but at the next sitting of the committee would he deal with a question which is of vital importance to fruit growers almost from coast to coast? It has to do with the importation of maraschino cherries, particularly Italian cherries, that have come or are likely to come into Canada because the ad valorem duty is very low. During the war a definite improvement was made in the production of maraschino cherries from both British Columbia and Ontario fruit, and a really beautiful product has been turned out. I know great fears are felt that this market may be lost. I believe we must say, to the credit of the growers and processors of this country, that they have turned out a product second to none. I know the minister would not have time to deal with the matter to-night, but at the next sitting of the committee would he review the situation and tell us the possibilities? Even if there should be need of subsidies, certainly some assistance should be given to the fruit growers and processors to protect their market, after they made such valiant attempts during the war years to
Supply-Agriculture

provide a Canadian product which had not been produced heretofore. Would the minister give us a full statement as to the possibilities of protecting that market in the interests of our fruit growers? It has grown to be an important market, and a wonderful product has been turned out.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can say that what has been said in regard to the matter is in accordance with the facts as I know them. There has been a considerable development of this production, but I am afraid I cannot say anything about what will happen until the conclusion of the trade meeting which is to take place this summer. That meeting is being held for the purpose of taking restrictions off trade. I do not know whether we are going to advocate putting on any, but that is something which will have to be considered. I do not think I could say anything in that regard that would be helpful.


Frank Exton Lennard: Could the minister assure us that these growers and processors who developed that industry during the war years will receive his support within the government when the question arises? I realize that this is a matter concerning duties and that sort of thing, which probably does not come within his department, but could be assure us of his support?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say is that I am not a protectionist.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is not a matter of protection; it is a matter of preventing a product from being dumped in this country from another country where there is quite a different standard of living. It js not a question of protection at all; it is a question of the survival of an industry which has been more or less perfected in Canada during the last few years.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It is Italian fruit; we may as well call a spade a spade. Here is a country that is likely to come in and take away the splendid market that has been developed in this country, and I think the minister should give the matter the fullest possible consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has said it is dumping, and if that is so it cannot be done under the present law.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The dumping duty was taken off at the beginning of the war. Why should it not be reestablished?


Frank Exton Lennard: To the best of my knowledge the United States has a duty of about ten cents a pound against the Italian cherries,

which prevents them from being dumped on that market; and I understand that the British market is closed to this product.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe our duty is 15 per cent plus two cents.


Frank Exton Lennard: I think it is 17^ per cent.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 29, 1946.