1946-05-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) presented the first report of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons appointed to examine and consider the Indian Act, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I desire to make a statement to the house. For some time the government has been giving serious study to the matter of immigration, and it has been considered advisable to permit a somewhat increased movement of immigrants to Canada than would be possible under existing regulations. In addition to British subjects and United States citizens the present regulations provide for the admission of,
(a)	the wife or unmarried child under eighteen years of age of any person legally admitted to Canada who has sufficient means to maintain himself until employment is secured;
(b)	an agriculturist having sufficient means to farm in Canada;
(c)	the fiancee of an adult male legally admitted to and resident in Canada who is in a position to receive, marry and care for his intended wife;
(d)	a person who, having entered Canada as a non-immigrant, enlisted in the Canadian armed forces and, having served in such forces, has been honourably discharged therefrom.

Immigration
Alien immigrants, other than United States citizens, require to be in possession of a properly vised passport.
By order in council 2071 dated 28th May, 1946, the following have been added to the admissible classes:
The father or mother, the unmarried son or daughter eighteen years of age or over, the unmarried brother or sister, the ophan nephew or niece under sixteen years of age, of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada who is in a position to receive and care for such relative. The term "orphan" means a child bereaved of both parents.
As there will be a number of persons coming within the degrees of relationship that I have just described who cannot obtain a valid passport required by the present passport regulations, these have also been amended by P.C. 2070 dated 28th May, 1946, to permit of the acceptance of a travel document establishing the identity of the holder in the case of an immigrant who has been displaced from his country of origin as the result of the war and is not in possession of a valid passport.
The action taken is intended as a short term measure to provide for the admission to Canada of approved persons who can be both maintained until established and provided with housing by relatives, and to meet in some measure the pressing demands being made on behalf of refugees or displaced persons having relatives in Canada anxious to provide them with homes.
It is necessary to state that for reasons beyond the control of the government the amending of the regulations does not mean immediate action can be taken to admit immigrants from overseas. At the present time there is an acute shortage of westbound transatlantic passenger accommodation, due primarily to the scarcity of passenger vessels, the return of service personnel and the bringing to Canada of their dependents. There are still approximately 32,000 of the latter in the British isles and on the continent. There are also many Canadians overseas awaiting opportunity to return home. While every effort ^is being made to complete these movements and hasten the return of normal conditions, it undoubtedly will be the end of the present year before much accommodation will be available for the ordinary traveller.
Prior to the war the immigration branch maintained inspectional staffs at European ports of embarkation for the examination of immigrants. These staffs had to be withdrawn following the outbreak of hostilities. It is
proposed to reestablish inspectional facilities on the continent as quickly as circumstances permit, so that as transportation becomes available immigrants of the admissible classes may come forward.
I may say further that I expect there will be a flood of applications made by persons resident in Canada who desire their relatives to come to this country. In view of what I have already said in regard to the transfer and transportation of our personnel in the armed forces, as well as their dependents, and in view also of the acute shortage of shipping, it will not be possible to give any priority to those who may make applications.
I wish to emphasize that the mere submission of applications now will not give any priority to those making such applications. They will be dealt with when the time arrives at which we can deal with them. May I add that the immigration branch to-day suffers not only from a shortage of staff and an insufficiency of space, but from the added fact that it is receiving mail in such great quantities that it is physically impossible to deal with it in the expeditious manner we would wish to follow.
However I give this warning to the house and to the country that applications will not receive any priority until, as I have already said, the personnel of the armed forces, as well as their dependents, and those wishing to be repatriated from European countries, are brought to Canada.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has outlined some recent action by the government which will result in increasing the flow of immigration to Canada. Might I in this connection ask two simple questions. He pointed out that two orders in council had recently been passed. What are the dates of those orders in council? Then, would he give us some idea-if he has any-of what the increased volume of immigration is likely to be under these new proposals?


James Allison Glen: The order in council dealing with the admissibility of immigrants is P.C. 2071, dated May 28, 1946. The one dealing with passport requirements is P.C. 2070, dated May 28, 1946. It is impossible to give any estimate as to the number of immigrants.


Mr. GREEN:: Does the regulation extend to immigration from the orient?


James Allison Glen: No.



Immigration



TRANSPORT TO CANADA OP WIVES OF SERVICE PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Mines and Resources, and I shall be glad to place it on the order paper if my question is not in order. This question is pursuant to the anouncement made this afternoon with reference to service men's wives. I should like to know how many are still to be brought over from the United Kingdom. I do not want the exact number, but are there many still to be brought over, and when can we expect this transportation to be completed?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I have not the figures with me at the moment, but I believe the total is somewhere in the vicinity of 12,000 or 14,000 wives.



IMMIGRATION OF ALLIED EX-SERVICE MEN TO MARRY CANADIAN GIRLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources: Will ex-servicemen of the allied forces be allowed to come to Canada under the neiv immigration provisions in order to marry Canadian girls to whom they are engaged?


James Allison Glen: Yes, subject to the regulations.



OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I desire to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. Will an early opportunity be afforded to discuss the two orders in council referred to by the Minister of Mines and Resources concerning immigration from Europe? I cannot understand why this is handled by order in council when the House of Commons is in session.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to have a reply.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister):: There will be an opportunity on the estimates of the Department of Mines and Resources to discuss the action which was taken. I gather that the order in council was passed pursuant to legislation. '
fMr. O-Ien.J


Thomas Langton Church: It is an outrageous and irregular proceeding while the House of Commons is in session.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Has the city of Moose Jaw recently sought to purchase from War Assets Limited, certain construction machinery needed to improve its w'ater supply?
2.	Is there any such equipment now being stored in hangars at No. 2 R.E.M.U.?
3.	If so, what action has been taken to date in this regard?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The equipment declared surplus at No.
2 R.E.M.U. by the Department of National Defence for Air and now in the possession of War Assets Corporation is being disposed of in accordance with the sales policy of the corporation.	-
The provincial government of Saskatchewan is exercising its higher priority to obtain some of this equipment and as a consequence the application of the city of Moose Jaw for construction machinery can be met only in part by War Assets Corporation.


&quot;CANADA 1946&quot;
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Upon what date did "Canada 1946" come off the press and become ready for distribution?
2.	Why does the said official handbook contain no reference to the progress made by Canada in
~the field of external affairs?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	First 1,000 copies received April 12, 1946.
2.	It has been the policy to include the constitution and government chapter, which normally carries such material, at intervals only, owing to the limitations on the size of the standard edition of the handbook. This particular chapter appeared last in "Canada 1940", but reprints of that material have been made available to inquirers in intervening years. During war years especially, increased pressure on space and paper shortages were experienced, but limited treatments on external affairs (mainly in the form of statements in the war effort and illustrative matter) have appeared. In special Spanish and Portuguese, editions of the handbook printed in 1945 for distribution abroad, the chapter on constitution and government,

Questions
together with special external affairs material, was included. Plans for "Canada 1947" have in view the inclusion of the constitution and government chapter in revised form.


COMMITTEE ON FOOD REQUIREMENTS
Mr. MARSHALL:: . 1. Who are the present members of the Committee on Food Requirements which operates under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council?
2.	How is the work of this committee coordinated with the Department of Agriculture?
3.	What amount of money was allotted to this committee in the year ended March 31, 1946, and how was it spent?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	Present members of the food requirements committee are as follows:
Dr. D. B. Finn, Department of Fisheries (Chairman).
Dr. G. S. H. Barton, Department of Agriculture.
Mr. S. D. Pierce, Department of External Affairs.
Mr. M. W. Sharp, Department of Finance.
Dr. L. B. Pett, Department of Pensions and National Health.
Mr. W. F. Bull, Department of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. K. W. Taylor, Wartime Prices and Trade Board.
2.	The work of the committee is coordinated with the Department of Agriculture as may be necessary by means of the presence at committee meetings of a representative of that department.
3.	$855 were allotted to the committee in the year ending March 31, 1946. None of this money was spent.


NOVA SCOTIA FISHERIES-DESTRUCTION OF TRAWL GEAR
Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries received complaints regarding alleged destruction by trawlers of foreign registry, of trawl gear used by Nova Scotia fishing schooners on Quero bank off the coast of Nova Scotia?
2.	If so (a) by whom and when were complaints made: (bl what action has been taken or is contemplated to protect Nova Scotia deep sea fishermen?


Mr. BRIDGES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) By Willis Park, secretary-treasurer, Canadian Fishermen's Union, Lunenburg, N.S., on May 21 and by H. C. Meade, district representative Canadian Fishermen's Union, Halifax. N.S., on May 22; (b) complaints are of a general nature and investigation has been instituted to obtain full facts.


PERMANENT FORCE NAVY
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the present strength of the permanent force navy?
2.	How many men are in each of the following categories: (a) chief petty officers; (b) petty officers; (e) leading seamen; (d) able seamen; (e) ordinary seamen?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Strength of permanent force navy at 1st May, 1946: officers, 751; ratings, 4,364; total, 5,115.
2.	As of the 1st May, 1946: (a) chief petty officers, 300; (b) petty officers, 373; (c) leading seamen, 301; (d) able seamen, 400; (e) ordinary seamen, 612.


PRISONERS OF WAR-BOWMANVILLE TRAINING SCHOOL
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	What are the names of the contractor or contractors engaged in changing the Bowman-ville Training School from a prisoner-of-war camp to its original status?.
2.	If incorporated, what are the names of the directors and officers of the company?
3.	If a partnership, who are the partners?
4.	On what basis is the contract let?
5.	What is the estimated cost of making the change?
6.	When will this school be ready for occupancy ?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Frontenac Construction Co. Limited, 67 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario.
2.	No information.
3.	Not a partnership.
4.	Contract was awarded on the basis of actual cost plus a fixed fee of $3,500. This fee includes plant or equipment rental, overhead and profit.
5.	Estimated cost is $83,483.
6.	School expected to be ready for occupancy by June 30, 1946.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. McICAY:: 1.	How many persons were in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits in the province of Saskatchewan during (a) November, 1945;
(b)	April, 1946?
2.	What was the total amount of the unem-1 ployment insurance benefits paid out in Saskatchewan during (1) 1945; (2) since the inception of the act?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	(a) 902; (b) 3,866.
2.	(1) $319,644; (2) the total amount paid out in benefits in Saskatchewan since the inception of the act to April 30, 1946, was $916,765.44.
Questions


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-ADVERTISING
Mr. FRASER:: What was the cost to War Assets Corporation during the year 1945 for all forms of advertising?


Mr. McILRAITH:: $35,299.04. This amount includes $33,666.68 for advertising disposal of surplus assets and $1,632.36 for advertising in relation to general administration of War Assets Corporation.


CLOTHING
Mr. FLEMING:: What were the quantities (a) produced in Canada; (b) imported into Canada; (c) exported from Canada, in each of the years commencing 1939, of the following kinds of clothing:
(a)	shirts; (b) underwear; (e) socks; (d) suits;
(e)	overcoats; (f) shoes, for (i) men; (ii) boys; (g) underwear; (h) stockings; (i) coats; (j) shoes, for (i) women; (ii) girls; (iii) babies?


Mr. MacKINNON:: (a) Production of Specified Items of Clothing, Canada, 1939-1944
(a) (b)	(c)	(d)	(e)(i) Year	Men's fine Underwear	Hosiery	Men's Suits	Men'sshirts (Men's,	(Men's,	(Woollen)	Over-Women's and	Women's and	coatsChildren's)	Children's)	1939 	718,427 3.165,211	8,112,842	1,305,794	595,6571940 	748,139 3,785,139	8,843,807	1,201,281	810,1511941 	834,495 4,007,898	8,957,859	1,409,125	869.2641942 	894,865 3,891,850	8,804.521	1,406,619	1,149,2401943 	748,694 3.333,155	8,374,383	1.171,117	1.156,0001944 	710,443 3,544,734	8,433,143	1,252,923	825,557(ii)	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)Boys'	Boys' Boys' Socks	Boys' Suits	Boys' Over-Shirts and Underwear	coats andBlouses	Reefersdozen	Number	Number1939 	.. 50,204	Not compiled Not compiled	369,601	123,9951940 	. . 65,811	separately separately.	434,245	120,7911941 	. 72,572	Included Included	406,004	147,8291942 	. 57,668	with (i)-(b) with	(i)-(c)	298,055	117,0651943 	. 103,856	295.107	104,5841944 	. 102,866	369,530	104,032(f) Production of Leather Footwear 1939-1944	1939	1940 1941	1942	1943	1944Pairs	Bairs Pairs	Pairs	Pairs	PairsMen's 	7,479,974	7,970,440 9,311,908	10,207.188	10,417.982	9,074,812Boys' and youths'	1,250,116	1,211,146 1,357,251	1,258,095	1,493,169	2,351,521Women's 	11,740,391	12,024,955 15,230,045	15,711,546	15,852,454	16,195,425Misses' and	Children's ....	3.215,655	3,480.337 3,949,205	3,965,630	4,021,146	5,046,480Babies' and	infants' 	1,119,115	1,064,739 1,673,827	1,923,930	2,142,870	2,602,359Total 	24,805,251	25,751.617 31,522,236	33,066,389	33,927,621	35,270,597(g)	(h)	Underwear Stockings	(i)-(ii)	(i)-(iii)(i)-(ii)-(iii) (i)-(	ii)-(iii)	Women's and	Children'sMisses' coats	Coats(woollen)	(woollen)Number	Number1939	Not compiled Not compiled	1,082,759	402,4491940	separately. separately.	1,257,378	325,5291941	Included Included	1,493,957	447,2601942	with (i)-(b) with	(i)-(c)	1,634,205	522,4981943	1,434,029	510,9351944	1,431,032	624,757



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HACKETT:: 1.	Did the government ask the sugar beet growers of south-western Ontario to plant 35,000 acres to sugar beets in the year 1946?
2.	If so, what provision was made to supply prisoners of war in work camps to do sugar beet work in the area?
3.	Is the number of prisoners of war available for sugar beet work in camps this year considerably less than the. number used last year? If so, why?
4.	What numbers of prisoners of war have been made available for sugar beet work in the camps of Manitoba and Alberta this year and how do these numbers compare with those of last year?


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many quarter sections of land were sold by the Soldier Settlement Board in the province of Saskatchewan between 1943 and 1945, both inclusive?
2.	What were the highest and lowest prices realized on such sales?
3.	How many of the lands so sold have been purchased back by the Vetedans' Land Act administration?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, regarding the establishment of a letter-box collection in the town of Beau-harnois.



POSTAL SERVICE-LETTER BOX COLLECTION, TOWN OF LAPRAIRIE

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, regarding the establishment of a letter-box collection in the town of Laprairie.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question in connection with a news item from Sherbrooke, Quebec, reported in this morning's Montreal Gazette under the heading, "Vets barred from land act homes by Ottawa shift boosting prices." Similar complaints have been received from, other parts of the country. I mentioned this matter to the minister this morning, and the question T wish to ask is as

follows: Under what authority does the Department of Veterans Affairs charge veterans more than S6.000 for houses under the Veterans Land Act?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the question is one which should be placed1 upon the order paper.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I, with your permission, put the question shortly?


James Horace King: I suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): If I may be permitted, without replying to the question asked; by my good friend the hon. member for Kamloops, may I say to him that at the first meeting of the committee on veterans' affairs I, along with the officers of my department, shall be . glad to go thoroughly into the whole question of housing costs in Canada.



WOMEN IN ATTENDANCE IN THE GALLERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: There is a matter I wish to draw to the attention of the acting house leader, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It has been the custom not to allow women in the gallery without some kind of head covering. So many women go everywhere now without hats that the observance of this regulation is enforcing indignity on this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I would suggest that the hon. member put her question on the order paper.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): With deference to Your Honour, I think the hon. member has raised a question affecting the privileges of parliament and of those attending parliament. I suggest that she direct her question to someone more competent to reply than the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: To whom should the question be directed?


An hon. MEMBER:: To Mr. Speaker.


Mr. GRAYDON:: To the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


James Horace King: As the question asked by the hon. member concerns the house, I suggest

Labour Conditions
that she put her question to the Speaker, but not from the floor of the house, as it is against the rule. I shall be very glad to give it consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
seamen's STRIKE-AMENDMENT OF CANADA SHIPPING ACT
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Transport in regard to the arrest of seamen who were involved in a labour dispute. Can he make a reply to-day?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The question the hon. member asked yesterday was whether immediate consideration would be given to the removal of an anachronism in the Canada Shipping Act, section 288 of chapter 186 of the revised statutes, 1927-, under which seamen engaged in an industrial dispute can be arrested and tried as deserters.
I have looked at section 288 of the Canada Shipping Act, and I find it deals not only with the subject matter to which the hon. member referred, but also to several other matters, such as neglecting or refusing without reasonable cause to join a ship or to proceed to sea; quitting a ship without leave after her arrival in her po'rt of delivery; wilful disobedience to any lawful command given by the master; assaulting any master or mate; combining with any other or others of the crew to disobey lawful commands; wilfully damaging the ship or embezzling or wilfully damaging any of her stores or cargo; and lastly, any act of smuggling. I have looked at the section and have given it some consideration. I am informed by the officers of my department that when a seaman is engaged by an operator he signs an agreement, one clause of which provides that he is to give at least seven days' notice of separation. Had that been done in the cases to which I presume my hon. friend is referring, I am told that that would have been a perfect defence to any charge under section 288.
Dealing directly with the question which my hon. friend put, I am informed further that the Canada Shipping Act as it now stands is taken pretty much from the shipping act of the United Kingdom. In fact there is in the United Kingdom act a section which is much the same as section 288. That section still remains in the act, notwithstanding the reference which my non. friend has made. I am informed still further that following the passing of the Statute of Westminister this parliament decided to enact the Canada Shipping Act. The bill
was initiated in the senate and I presume it had the approval of this house. That was done in 1934, not so long ago.
The matter as I see it is that no action was taken by the Department of Transport against these men and it is felt that no action is indicated at this time.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour which he may treat as a notice if he desires. Can he make a statement on this dislocation of water transport? According to the newspapers the eight hour day has been conceded, andi we learn also that there has been some revision, and so on. Could the minister, probably to-morrow, give us a complete statement so that we may have the facts before us rather than the rumours which are current at the present time?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I shall be very glad to do that. I thought we had this dispute pretty well under control until the unfortunate incidents of last Friday occurred in the city of Montreal. I am not attempting to apportion blame to one side or the other. I have heard both stories and until you have really taken time to consider them it is pretty hard to blame one party or the other. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend to-morrow the answer he desires.
I have been in conversation with the owners and representatives of the union both yesterday and to-day. It may be only my judgment and opinion, but I think the differences between them are quite small. When the conference was arranged for Tuesday I thought we could probably settle this dispute without having any unfortunate incidents such as have occurred within the past two or three days.


Lionel Chevrier: May I follow up what the Minister of Labour has said by -making some reference to the ships of the Department of Transport?-because I think there has been some misunderstanding with reference to these ships. In answer to a question put some days ago by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) I said that in the Department of Transport we had the eight hour day in effect, and that while we did not pay time and a half for overtime we do allow time off for any work of an overtime nature that is done. A large number of ships are operated by the Department of Transport. Until recently the men on five of these ships were on strike, or were reported not to have returned to their ships. I am informed that that was due to an error and that there was no intention on the part of the men to abandon their ships. The department has agreed that in the place of the ar-
Labour Conditions

rangement obtaining hitherto, whereby members of the crews of vessels operated by the department were given time off to compensate for any hours worked in excess of eight per day, we will operate henceforth on a straight eight hour day. It is understood1 that this arrangement will obtain pending a further discussion with a committee representing the crews on matters affecting the substitution of overtime rates of pay for the present time-off arrangement and a revision of the present wage schedules which has already been referred to, and which is now the subject of a survey by the Department of Labour under the provisions of the government's fair wage policy.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: May I ask the Minister of Transport to clarify the answer he gave to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell)? In the case of an industrial dispute would the notice of strike action be sufficient for the men concerned under section 246 of the Canada Shipping Act?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better answer that question. In the first place let us be frank and honest about this dispute. There was no notice whatever given of the strike. The men just pulled the plug. The hon. member for Vancouver East understands that language; it is an expression used in the labour movement. I am not laying any blame on the labour organization or on the employers, because one must endeavour to be impartial, but if I had been leading the men I think I would have warned them that the seven days' notice was necessary.



BEVERAGE DISPENSERS IN ALBERTA

Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am reported at page 1939 of Hansard of May 28 as having asked the Minister of Labour this question:	.
What action has the government or the national war labour board taken to avert the impending strike on May 31 of the beverage dispensers of Alberta?
May 31 should read May 30; and as to-morrow is May 30, the date set for the strike, will the minister make a statement indicating what the government or the national war labour board is doing to avert the strike, which will be on to-morrow unless something is done?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I had conversations with the national organizer of the union concerned, and my information is that he has

advised the membership in Alberta not to strike on the 30th. Another submission will be made to the regional board in the province.


Charles Edward Johnston: The regional board has already given its decision, and I understand that the national war labour board is withholding its decision on the appeal.



LUMBER INDUSTRY-STRIKE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-FOOD CONTAINERS

Humphrey Mitchell: Hon. members will desire to know the results of the earnest appeal for the resumption of work at once to all those concerned in the dispute in British Columbia which has interrupted the production of wooden food containers.
It will be recalled that the Acting Prime Minister made a statement on Monday last as set out on page 1876 of Hansard.
Negotiations on behalf of the owners have been conducted by Mr. J. H. Ruddock, industrial relations officer, Interior British Columbia Lumber and Box Manufacturers Association. His reply is as follows:
Hon. J. L. Ilsley,
Acting Prime Minister
Reference your communication Stuart regarding fruit containers, desire inform you that members Interior Box Manufacturers Association who normally produce all containers used by interior British Columbia growers are now and at all times have been willing continue production necessary containers notwithstanding fact that strike was called on fifteenth instant while provincially appointed conciliator was con; firming efforts effect settlement.
Interior Box Manufacturers strongly recommend that instructions be given union to resume work immediately in Interior 'Box plant and related logging and saw milling operations on basis effective at time of strike and subject only to condition that any settlement of present differences finally arrived at in relation to interior log lumber and box production in interior British Columbia shall then apply. If this is not done immediately, in interest not of lumber or box industry but of agricultural community, there is no doubt that severe box shortage will be created. Interior log lumber and box production is entirely different type of operation from that conducted on coast in relation to which latter negotiations now proceeding before Mr. Justice Sloan. Final settlement in relation to interior operations must depend on separate negotiations in relation thereto' and must be on basis mutually satisfactory to box manufacturers and fruit industry in relation to additional costs involved in final settlement. Industry have negotiated in good faith for over eighteen months and, despite arrival on at least two occasions on basis agreement satisfactory to local bargaining committees, union headquarters here on both occasions withheld approval these agreements arrived at in good faith. Furthermore present strike in largest box producing plant in interior British Columbia called in face of valid agreement which that plant has with Canadian Congress of Labour and which agreement has never been terminated either by C.C.L. or I.W.A.

Supply-Agriculture
Under all circumstances in fairness to all concerned and particularly to avoid heavy loss to growers we again urge instructions be given for unconditional resumption operations leaving result to legal processes of conciliation and arbitration.
This is the reply received from Mr. Harold Pritchett, president of the International Woodworkers of America:
Ketel International Woodworkers of America have no fight with farmers and are in full sympathy with their desire to obtain wood containers necessary to harvest crop. Employers in woodworking industry fully responsible for delay in sincere efforts during nine weeks of negotiations. Woodworking employers have refused to sign an agreement since nineteen forty-four thereby averting present crisis. We are prepared to do everything humanly possible to bring about a just settlement. Urge your government take immediate steps to force lumber operators who stand in the way of crop harvesting to accept union proposals on wages and hours, namely, twenty-five cents and forty hours-
They are asking for an increase of twenty-five cents an hour and for a forty-hour week: -and abide by award of arbitrator Sloan on union security. Final settlement on wages and hours reached between union and employers could then apply.
Mr. R. V. Stuart, President of Stuart Research Service Limited, who has been acting on behalf of employers on the Pacific coast, has the following to say:
Your telegram requesting resumption of operations in mills and camps supplying materials for food containers. Strike is entirely illegal and operators felt I.W.A. should have ordered men back to work as a preliminary to Sloan hearings. Nevertheless we whole-heartedly agree that needed lumber production should be made immediately available to food producers. Employers concerned will willingly agree to immediate resumption of operations at these plants on basis that workers will be paid at rates finally incorporated in contract now under negotiation.
Hon. members will appreciate from the replies that there are two organizations of employers involved:	one consisting of the
manufacturers in the interior and the other of the lumber producers on the coast. The wooden containers are produced in the interior.	.
Mr. Pritchett, on behalf of the union, says that the men will return to work if a twenty-five cents per hour increase is granted and if hours of work are reduced to forty per week subject to a later final settlement. Mr. Ruddock, on the other hand, suggests that the employees return to work at the rates of pay which prevailed at the time the strike took place and that negotiations be continued and settlement of rates be mutually agreed upon as a result of negotiations.
The replies received will be transmitted to the parties and to our conciliation officer at
Vancouver, and discussions will be continued with the objective of bringing about immediate resumption of work in the mills which normally are engaged in the production of wooden containers, I am hoping that the good sense and judgment of both parties will bring them to an acceptance of the viewpoint that work should be resumed on the understanding that any wage adjustment finally agreed upon will be made retroactive.
Hon. members will be aware that Honourable Chief Justice Sloan is acting as commissioner and conciliator in connection with the coast lumber dispute and is conducting conferences daily with the parties. At the moment these negotiations are with the group of employers having to do with the coast lumber production, and as soon as this phase of the dispute is disposed of it is the intention that he shall deal with the interior lumber situation. The two problems are so interwoven it is not feasible or practical to have two commissioners sitting at the same time. However, as I have already stated negotiations through the conciliation staff of the province are under way in connection with the interior situation.

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



DEPARTMENT OP MINES AND RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
1S2. Departmental administration, $173,255.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
276. Departmental administration, $206,035.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE Marketing service-
28. Fruit, vegetables and maple products and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian horticultural council, $683,764.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that the
minister's department had sent out a circular regarding "Save the Food". Was that done by his department, or was that the work of another department?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: "Save the Food" circulars and advertisements have gone out under direction of a committee of which I happen to be chairman, but not by the Department of Agriculture. The committee is operating with funds provided for the purpose, altogether apart from these estimates.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In one of the folders it is stated that victory gardens should be cul-
Supply-Agriculture

tivated in order to grow food for Canadians, and that by doing so more food could be sent overseas. The folder also states that a copy of "Home Garden" will be sent to anyone writing for it. To what department does one write? I have been in contact with the minister's department and they do not know anything about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is published under direction of the agricultural supplies board, which was set up during war time to promote the production of food. The chairman is Mr. Shaw.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Should inquiries be directed to the department, or to the supplies board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Whichever place they are directed to, they should get a proper reply, and the proper reply is that there is such a publication, and it ought to be sent out.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the literature sent out there is reference to this "Home Garden"; I have communicated with the department and I have had three or four other circulars, but no copy of "Home Garden". In the circular which was sent out, victory gardens are mentioned. I suggest to the minister, as head of that committee, that he get in touch with every horticultural society across Canada and ask them to put before their members the views set forth in the folder. There are thousands and thousands of horticultural society members across Canada, and unless they are personally communicated with, the desired results will not be obtained.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood they were being communicated with. That was the plan which was put forward.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not think that they have been so far.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: Last evening we were discussing item 28, dealing with products with which I am somewhat familiar. The minister said that last year the production of honey was 30,683,000 pounds. That would go a long way to helping to meet the sugar shortage. While the low average yield last year decreased the production somewhat, we still have a .production in the dominion of some thirty million pounds of honey. We have in the dominion a national honey council which is supported by the primary producers of honey, and it is a credit to the industry that they have not asked for government aid. They are securing funds by a levy of a small fraction of a cent per pound on the production of each individual. The position of this industry, in comparison with other branches of agriculture, is favourable, because of the fact

that while dairy products and many other commodities are supported by subsidies, this does not apply to honey. Therefore we do not look to the future with the misgiving that many farmers have as they see the day approaching when subsidies may be removed. We can see the position the milk producers were in when the subsidy was removed; immediately the consumers in the city were demanding that it be replaced. We are in a relatively favourable position because of that fact. We are in need of better domestic grading, but we do not wish the regulations to work to the advantage of central packers and to the detriment of the primary producer.
Many products which the farmers sell are graded, but after they leave the farmers' hands they lose their identity, because the grade is not carried on to the ultimate consumer. This applies particularly to pork. There are several grades when the farmer sells it, but it is all number one when the consumer buys it. The honey producers are keenly interested in having the control of the industry remain with the producers. We do not want it to get into the hands of any government agency or any selling agency of the government. The producers feel that they can manage their own affairs if given proper opportunities. We are in a peculiar position at the moment. The beekeepers of the country are prepared to sell their honey on the export market in Britain. For many years we exported our product to Britain, and we have letters showing that the buyers there are willing to buy our product, but the regulations on that side were such that they could not buy or could pay only so much. I am personally willing, and so are many others, to sell to buyers in the old country, but the control regulations here have in the past prevented us from doing so. Two governments, therefore, interfere in the business. Britain at the moment is offering only 65 shillings per hundredweight Lo.b. British ports. That, boiled down, comes to about 12% cents, and taking shipping charges off it does not come up to the domestic price at the moment. However, we believe that the day is coming when we shall again export honey to England. The industry wants domestic grading so that consumers can purchase by grade and know what they are buying. We have grading regulations for export and interprovincially, but that does not apply within the individual province. We do not want to have the industry controlled by government authorities who are anxious and willing to tell us what w-e should do and how to do it. We ask to have the industry left as independent as possible of government control.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. BRYCE:: Mr. Chairman, may I revert to item 26? I know it is against the rules, but I would ask you to extend me the privilege. I am not going to go into the matter at all, but I have received certain material with regard to the price of butter being reduced two cents a pound on. the Montreal market. To keep my word to you, Mr. Chairman, I will send this material over to the Minister of Agriculture and he can discuss the matter some time this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact I have already dealt with it. I have started action in connection with it which I hope will meet the situation.


William Scottie Bryce: I am delighted to hear that, because it is a very disagreeable situation to the people producing butter to have the commodity being sold at two cents a pound less after the price has.been raised four cents. The thing is altogether out of kilter, unless someone is gambling in butter; and as I have said in this house on previous occasions, there is no room for anybody to gamble in this country with the people's food which the farmers produce. I feel very strongly when I see people gambling with, butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: With reference to the matter raised by the hon. gentleman, there was a certain proposal under consideration a short time ago in connection with butter. One of the difficulties, when we are controlling the distribution of butter, is that the commodity has to be assembled in May, June, July and August and a certain amount in September. Those are the months in which we have a greater production than consumption, and someone has to carry the butter through until the winter months. Under the price ceilings and price floors a margin of four cents has been allowed, and at the time the four-cent advance was made in the ceiling there was a question whether we were raising the floor sufficiently high when we made that advance. While that matter was under discussion butter was selling at a certain price,'and immediately the discussion was dropped butter did go down. It might have been two cents at one point, a cent and a half somewhere else, and two and a half cents in some other place. Immediately that was reported to me by one of the members of the house I opened up discussions again as to whether we should have a narrow margin between the floor and the ceiling, and that question is under consideration at the moment. If we narrow the margin it will have some effect on the present situation.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of two hon. members who have spoken with reference to the importation of maraschino cherries, because this question is a very serious one in my section of the country in view of the little cherry disease. These cherries have a low sugar content and are smaller in size; consequently a large proportion of our cherries will have to be processed until the disease is cured or eradicated. The minister says he is not a protectionist. I am not either. I am a free trader in principle, though I do not think you can have free trade when you have not equalized standards of living. I was brought up on principles that incline me to free trade. I suggest to the minister however that representatives of the industry concerned should be consulted, and there may .be some possibility of cooperative action between the government and the interested growers. In British Columbia we have developed to a considerable extent methods whereby stronger or more favourably situated sections of the cooperative movement assist those who are operating .under less favourable conditions. Perhaps a solution could be found through action cooperatively by the government and the growers on the basis of carrying to some extent the other fellow's burden.


Mr. LENNARD:: Further in connection with what the hon. member for Kootenay West has just said, and in connection with what was said last evening in this regard, I might draw the minister's attention to the fact that, as I stated last night, there is a duty of something in the neighbourhood of 10 cents a poufid on these Italian cherries going into the United States, while here we have only a protective duty of 17| per cent ad valorem. If we had a fixed value on these cherries of 11 cents per pound, and the duty which is now 17J per cent were raised to 30 per cent-


James Garfield Gardiner: The duty now is 30 per cent.


Frank Exton Lennard: Since when?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last evening I said it was 15 or 17 per cent, but the official statement this morning is that already it is 30 per cent.


Frank Exton Lennard: Very well; even if it is 30 per cent,.that amounts to only 3-3 cents per pound on these cherries as against something like 10 cents a pound on the same cherries entering the United States from Italy. The minister said he did not know what could be done, and that quite possibly he would not know until some time in the summer, when a meeting on trade agreements is to take place. It will be too late then, because at the moment the processors are in a quandary in regard to the price thry should pay the
19'JO
Supply-Agriculture

growers. Last year the growers received something like 18 cents a pound for the cherries used in this process.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. LOCKHART:: The minister has no knowledge of when that went into effect?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no information as to when it went into effect; apparently that has been the situation for some time. In addition to the 35 per cent duty there is a 3 per cent excise tax, plus exchange, which builds it up to 48J per cent over the c.i.f. quotation. Second quality cherries are two cents less. I understand that eastern Canadian manufacturers of maraschino and glazed cherries have a fair supply of British Columbia and Ontario cherries from the 1945 crop because of restricted supplies of sugars and syrup. I understand also that Italian cherries are being manufactured in France and the finished product is appearing in Canada at relatively high prices, mainly because the restricted Canadian output does not meet the demand. That restriction, I understand from this statement, is due to the sugar shortage and not to regulations under the tariff or anything of that kind.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is it not a fact that there is a very considerable quantity of cherries of this description in Italy from the 1944 and 1945 crops waiting to come into Canada, if it can get in? If that is hanging over the market here, and the Canadian processors are now in a position, as I understand they are, to supply the bakery trade in Canada, will that not to a very great extent wipe out the processed cherry industry in this country?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the. question of import permits is involved, and these would have to be obtained from the wartime prices and trade board. But I should like to suggest to the committee that we are dealing with a product which has no food value whatever. It is a product used for decorating cakes and cocktails, as I understand it, and it would seem to me that a duty of 35 per cent is very high. I can hardly understand why anyone would advocate increasing it beyond that, particularly in view of the argument put for-

ward last night that our protection ought to be as high as that of the United States, while in fact our protection appears to be twice as high. That is the information I have from the department concerned, and if that is the situation I do not know that we should discuss the matter very much further, particularly when we are dealing with these two countries, Italy which was an enemy country, and France which was a friendly country. These cherries apparently are being processed in France, if any processing is being done, and then sent here. They have always sent those cherries here. I remember before the war meeting one of their agents who used to go across the country. It is a product in which we have traded over a very considerable period of time; and at this moment, when an effort is being made to remove all these obstructions, I should think we have gone a long way in putting a duty as high as 35 per cent on a product of the kind.


Grote Stirling: Thirty-five per cent may sound a large figure in arithmetic, but when you take 35 per cent of a minute price it does not amount to very much in the way of protection. I understand that these cherries are held in Italy at 11 cents, Canadian funds. That is a mere bagatelle to the producers of cherries in this country. The minister says this product is used in cocktails and in the decoration of cakes. I dare say it is used for those purposes, but it is also used as an ingredient in various forms of cakes and sweetmeats. It is not a matter of food, perhaps, but it is a matter of Canadian demand. The bakery trade of Canada has made this-demand on the producers of this country over all these years, and during the war years, consequent on the requirements of the bakery trade, the processors of cherries in this country not only improved their quality but very greatly increased their quantity, and succeeded in meeting the demands of the Canadian market. Now if the Canadian market is still going to demand the same quantity of cherries-and the demand is more likely to increase than decrease-it does seem an unreasonable thing, no matter what Italy's part in the war may have been, to allow into the country an extremely low-priced article, with the price further cut by the rate of exchange as between the lira and the dollar to such an extent that it will harm an industry built up during the war to supply a demand in the Canadian market.


James Garfield Gardiner: The prices which have been paid by processors to producers for Canadian cherries during the war years were as follows:

Hup-ply-Agriculture
Cents per pound
1939		 4-20
1940		 6-24
1941		 7-95
1942		 8-0
1943		 12-03
1944		 13-46
1945		 16-32
My information is that these cherries laid down on the American continent, irrespective of what they may be in Italy or elsewhere, cost from IS to 19 cents. If you add all the other costs, including the duty, the excise and the exchange, that is increased by 48J per cent, which makes the laid down cost of these outside cherries 26 or 27 cents a pound. In other words the processor here is purchasing these cherries at 16-32 cents per pound and the price of the imported cherries is 26 to 27 cents. Surely there should be sufficient margin there for the Canadian processor to handle the situation. But from the statement I have been given I understand the problem is that there is not sufficient sugar allowed to process all the cherries that might be used in Canada, and as a result other manufactured cherries do come in, even at a high price. They are being utilized for a special purpose. Anyone understands that when you have a cocktail party you do not worry much about the cost of the one cherry. Other things can be dealt with accordingly. So that that is not so much a factor, as the fact they want the cherry.


Mr. MacNICOL:: They want the cocktail.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are short, not because the producer is short on production, but because there is not enough sugar to carry out the curing process. But that is another question which, I suggest, should be discussed separately from this matter. If they should have more sugar, then that is a different problem.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is there anything in the schedule covering the dumping duty?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; on checking last night I found, as was suggested by some hon. member on the opposite side of the house, that the dumping duty regulations were taken off during the .war, and have not been reestablished.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is nothing in there now?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is no way to stop dumping at the present time.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: When did these higher rates of protection go into effect? I am anxious to find out, because I cannot find anything which would lead me to believe that there was anything more than 174 per cent ad valorem, with no dumping duty. And that information was obtained a short time ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister responsible for that matter came down a minute ago and handed me a slip of paper indicating that there is no dumping duty, and that there is a higher duty in Canada than in the United States. My own officials, during the time since we rose last evening, have got certain information on the point, and I have just put it on the record. It was obtained directly from the customs branch, and I assume it is correct. But the date as to when it was brought in was not indicated.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have only a word to say with respect to this $5,000 vote for the Canadian horticultural council. Perhaps the minister would tell us the relationship between this council and the Ontario horticultural council or the Toronto horticultural society, and all down through the various branches.
There is one such branch, known as the St. Clair horticultural association which operates in my part of Toronto. In their respective spheres these local organizations do first-class work. I often feel that what they do is not appreciated either by the public or by the authorities as much as it should be. In my view some practical way should be found to recognize the work of all these horticultural councils, societies and associations throughout the country because, in their way, they do much to brighten the lives of each and everyone of us. Their work is carried on in the parks, on the street corners, in the vacant lots, the gardens and the lawns.
In my end of the city of Toronto the St. Clair horticultural association gives a number of prizes, including silver cups, to those who have the best showing or stands of flowers in their gardens or in front of their residences. I can say that my section of the city is recognized by visitors for its beauty, resulting from the activity of this horticultural association.
Is there any connection between the Canadian horticultural council, which receives this small vote, and these other bodies down the line? What is done with the vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Canadian horticultural council has only indirect relationship with other organizations. Of course, it is the section which deals with ornamental displays which promotes the growing of flowers.
The organization mentioned in this vote takes into consideration all matters having to do with orchards, gardens and the growing of
Supply-Agriculture

flowers. It has direct connection with provincial organizations across Canada. This grant was first allowed in 1922, when the late Hon. Mr. Motherwell was minister of agriculture, and was done for the purpose of promoting greater activity and showing a national interest in the work of the national council. Apart from that, we have no direct relationship with them. They are an organization which we believe ought to be assisted to the extent of $5,000.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I should like to say a few words about the growing of sugar beets. Last fall a request was made by the minister that he hoped there would be a material increase in the production of sugar beets in Canada. My recollection is that the request by the Department of Agriculture was for a 50 per cent increase this year.
The same condition of affairs prevailed, in the United States. Only recently the United States secretary of agriculture, Mr. Clinton P. Anderson said that sugar is one of America's greatest food needs for 1946, and that farmers could do no greater service to their country this year than to plant a full acreage of sugar beets.
Generally in Alberta-and I shall not deal with that specifically-in Manitoba, and also in Ontario there has been a material increase in the sugar beet acreage this year. In the United States the request was for an increase of 31 per cent. In this country there would be -a much greater increase were it not for the difficulty mentioned the other night by the minister, when he pointed out that from the point of view of agriculture one of the greatest deterrents to production in Canada is the lack of necessary man-power.
In the United States, with a view to the encouragement of this necessary industry, and having regard to the requirements and shortages in production, they gave benefit payments last year averaging $5.50 a ton, and this year the amount has been increased to $6.50 a ton. The Canadian government has cancelled the one cent per pound tax on sugar, and has made provision for a subsidy of 60.75 cents per hundredweight on refined sugar, without any increase in the consumer price.
This matter was brought to my attention recently while I was in western Ontario. Following that, I asked a number of questions, which were answered by the Minister of Labour. As I say, I am not speaking about Manitoba or Alberta because, while we appreciate their problems, there are other hon. members who will speak for them. The aim in western Ontario this year was 35,000 acres.

Last year the acreage under crop was 17,400 and this year the acreage signed up so far is 26,500 with a prospect of an additional 3,000 or 4,000 acres if labour is made available.
I am advised that if labour is made available between now and June 15 this additional acreage, namely some 3,500 acres, will be put into crop. That would make the total for this year about 30,000 acres, which would be quite an advance over the figures for last year.
Sugar is a commodity very much in demand in this country. Last year the sugar beet factories of the United States produced 22 per cent of their domestic requirement, while in Canada the production was approximately 15 per cent. Knowing that the Minister of Agriculture gets whatever he goes after, and knowing also that he asked the farmers of this country materially to increase the production of sugar beets this year, I am going to ask him what he is endeavouring to do and will endeavour to do within the next ten days to assure that maximum production.
Last year prisoners of war were made available in larger numbers than they have been this year. Some 890 were made available as a travelling squad in the five counties of south-western Ontario, and an additional 200 were quartered at various points. This year the number made available up to the day before yesterday is only 480, a number totally insufficient to meet the demands.
There are some who will say that manpower should be available because so many are out- of work and receiving unemployment insurance benefits. That may be true, but the fact is that a person receiving unemployment benefits is required to accept only what is called suitable employment. There are very few who regard work in sugar beet fields as suitable alternative employment. It has been brought to my attention that not only is there a possibility that the 26,000 acres will not be increased, but that if labour is not made available immediately there may be a considerable reduction in this acreage.
Is the minister prepared to state the general course he intends to follow and whether he will again direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to this matter? I feel sure he is desirous of having action on this matter. I bring it up at this time because I kno'w that unless action is taken tliis desirable commodity will be in greater short supply during the present year than it was in 1945, and certainly there will be no approach to the target which the minister set last year for - production during the current year.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to add a word on behalf of the Manitoba sugar beet

Supply-Agriculture
producers. I received a wire somewhat along the lines of what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said. This wire reads:
Manitoba beet growers have nearly sixteen thousand acres sugar beets seeded of which eight thousand dependent on outside labour. Labour department was informed continuously and requested early this spring to provide if no other agricultural labour available two thousand prisoners of war. We now understand that only seven to nine hundred POW's allocated Manitoba although there are enough POW's left in Canada to supply balance of thirteen hundred. All our direct and sugar company's efforts so far unsuccessful. Please approach Messrs. Mitchell and MaeNamara or raise question in the house without delay drawing attention to gravity situation and fact that negative attitude may mean loss of five thousand acres or fifty thousand tons beets or twelve million five hundred thousand pounds sugar unless additional beet labour reuired is forthcoming immediately. Herbert
ulkers, president, Manitoba Sugar Beet Products Cooperative Association.
This matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour and, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has so well pointed out. it is most important that it be considered at this season of the year if we are to have the necessary sugar beet production.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not be proper for me to make the announcement which I know will be made shortly with regard to this matter, but I think I can satisfy members of the committee by saying that the question of whether prisoners of war should be retained for work in the sugar beet fields has been under discussion for some time. Tlje consensus is that an effort should be made to have these men returned to Europe as soon a? possible and it may be possible to move some of them before the work would be completed in the sugar beet fields. Without saying just how it is to be done, I should like to give the assurance to hon. members that the government has considered the matter. While the order has not yet been officially passed by the government and therefore it would not be proper for me to say what is in it-the Minister of Labour will say that himself-I think I can say that provision is being made which will be satisfactory to the people of Canada generally to have men of the highest type brought here to replace prisoners of war who are being removed. These men will be brought here in as large numbers as prisoners of war are removed, and possibly in greater numbers.
We have had some concern about the matter which has just been stated by the hon. member for Lake Centre, that is, that there are many people in this country who do not like to hoe sugar beets. As one who hoed sugar beets when younger, I can understand
why some people do not like to do that work. I have had to do a lot of things, including answering some questions put by the opposition, that I did not like to do. It does not make much difference what your' employment is or in what walk of life you may be, you are generally required to do some things you do not like to do.
If we are to have sugar beets grown in Canada we shall have to find Canadians who are willing to hoe sugar beets, at least until we find some other way of having them hoed. If we can work out some machinery, well and good, but in the meantime they must be hoed. I hope when the announcement is made as to who these men are, where they are coming from and how they are getting here everyone will be ready to say that they are just as good as the prisoners of war and will make much better permanent settlers in Canada.


Mr. DESMOND:: I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Souris. One thing strikes me as being significant. During the past six years we have been labouring under a misapprehension that sugar beets have not been available because labour was not available. There was a question on the order paper yesterday asking the Minister of Labour what help was available to harvest and market sugar beets. It is not just the hoeing. We are in a mechanized age and mechanized equipment will shortly be available. But is it economically sound to produce sugar beets in Canada? What is the government's policy in that regard? Are we to produce sugar beets in Canada or are we to import cane to supply our plants in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta? Would the minister state what the government's policy will be and whether he thinks we can produce beets economically in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I should attempt to state government policy, because I doubt very much if anyone could at this stage indicate what government policy will be in connection with the production of sugar beets for some considerable time. We may have a better idea in two or three years. But I would say that most of the sugar beets produced in the last twenty-five years, no matter where they were produced, were not produced under plans which were economically sound, and they were not intended to be. The production of sugar beets wras encouraged in many countries as a preparation for what was known to be coming, a war during which they would not be able to get sugar from the countries where it could be produced on an
Supply-Agriculture

economically sound basis. Many things were done to encourage the production of sugar beets, not so much in this country as elsewhere. I am sure that my hon. friend will remember that when the leader of the preceding government desired to join in that effort he met with opposition all over this country. He put a tax on sugar entering Canada, and I went about this country as one of his opponents ridiculing that policy.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Very unwisely.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend over here says, "very unwisely." But the potato growers in eastern Canada did not think so. They lost their potato market because of what Canada did then in regard to sugar. When we start out to do what is not economically sound because of some situation which exists for the time being in the world, there is no use in fooling ourselves into thinking wre are doing something economically sound. We might have been doing something which was in the national interest for the time being, just as other countries did.
I stated last session, and I am going to repeat it, that I recall being down at the graduation exercises at Macdonald college last year. I met three or four chaps there from the West Indies and the northern part of South America. I made it a point to talk with them and find out why they were there, and they told me that they were officials of the governments of the countries from which they came. They were there to get a special line of education, and that special line of education was to learn how to introduce dairy farming into the countries from which they came. I asked why they wanted to do that and they said "Because we are being driven out of our natural pursuit, which is the grow-ng of sugar, by countries like Britain, which *3 our natural market, subsidizing the growing of sugar beets in their own country so that they may have sugar in time of war." Other countries to which they had been selling their sugar were doing the same thing and they went on to say, "You are doing it in Canada." They said that if they were not permitted to market sugar-which was the natural product for their countries to grow-in countries which formed their natural market, they would have to produce dairy products even if it cost a great deal to do so.
We have now fought the war, and if we are to improve the standard of living of mankind and prevent war I am one of those who think an effort should be made to bring about natural production and exchange. Someone over here said that he was in favour of free

trade but that until all countries of the world could live on the same standards he would not advocate free trade. I will put it the other way and say that until we get free trade we shall not all be able to live on the same standards. The people who are absolutely dependent upon the production of sugar for their existence have just as much right to expect that we shall eat their sugar as we have to expect other people to eat our potatoes, wheat and dairy products upon which our farmers are absolutely dependent.


Mr. HAZEN:: And fish.


James Garfield Gardiner: And fish and any other natural product we have, and we must promote that idea. I .will say quite candidly that so far' as I am concerned I have never at any time urged anyone to grow sugar beets. Last fall we did put out a recommendation from the conference which was attended by the provincial governments, this government and farm organizations, to the effect that if the farmers increased their sugar beet acreage from 60,000 acres to 90,000 acres in 1946, they would be able to dispose of all the sugar beets they grew on that acreage. The acreage proposed in the preceding year was 60,000 acres and that was increased by 50 per cent to 90,000 acres. But I do not recall anyone associated with the federal government urging the farmers to increase their sugar beet acreage. It was simply stated that if they grew sugar beets on that increased acreage they would be able to dispose of all they grew in 1946. But we have not been urging people to grow sugar beets. Some provincial governments have done so, and I am not going to criticize them for that. Manitoba put up $600,000 for the building of a plant; the government of Ontario did something to encourage the growing of sugar beets; the government of Quebec bought a plant in Michigan and moved it over to Quebec province. I am not in a position to say what Alberta did to encourage production there. It was quite proper for these provincial governments to do that if they felt that by so doing they could promote a branch of agriculture in their province to their advantage. But we are concerned with the larger question, whether we should step out and encourage the production of something which, if it is to be produced in this country at all, must be protected very highly, and if it is protected very highly it will take away a market in this country from other countries where we must market some of our products, if we are to market them at all, particularly potatoes grown in the maritime provinces.

Supply-Agriculture


Clayton Earl Desmond: Does the minister think it would jeopardize our trade relations with ^ny other country if we entered into. a larger production of sugar in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: You should know the answer. You felt the effects of it some years ago.


Clayton Earl Desmond: Quite so. That is why I am asking the question.


John Horne Blackmore: Before this item
carries, Mr. Chairman, I think it is fitting that I should say a word or two. I may state here why I have said so little in the last three or four years regarding the beet sugar industry. I believe the last time I spoke at length in this chamber on the matter was on April 3, 1941. The occasion of my speaking at that time was that some body or some combination of interests in Canada had ordered that 1,300 acres of sugar beets should be- taken out of production in Alberta. When hon. members reflect upon the shortage of sugar under which this country has suffered since that time, everyone in this house must, I believe, be almost astounded that there should have been in the dominion in the year 1941 any man or combination of men so egregiously stupid as to make a move of that sort; yet that was done. The speech I gave in April, 1941, was to point out the grave seriousness of such a foolhardy move; and I am pleased to say that for some reason or another the 1,300 acres of sugar beets w-ere permitted to be grown that year.
I have not said anything to speak of regarding the sugar beet industry since that time,, for this reason, that in Alberta, in my constituency, we have two beet sugar factories, namely one at Raymond and one at Picture Butte,, which between them have a substantial beet sugar producing capacity. These two beet sugar factories together with the factory in Manitoba are said to be able to produce all the sugar which the three prairie provinces could absorb. On that matter I am not competent to pronounce, because I do not know sufficient of the details; but it is ordinarily argued that it would not be wise that beet sugar should be taken into British Columbia, because already provision is made through the cane establishments in Vancouver to take care of all the needs of that province with regard to sugar.
The idea seems to prevail throughout Canada, or at least in some parts of Canada, that it would not be economically sound to bring sugar from Alberta or British Columbia into Ontario or Quebec, although I believe nearly everybody in Ontario and Quebec would be quite willing to have Alberta sugar
now in order to avoid the shortage. Because of that condition it was deemed inadvisable by a good many of the people in the beet producing business in Alberta to advocate an increase of our productive capacity for beet sugar at the present time. Consequently I have not said very much about the matter in the house. But I rise on this occasion to say a few words regarding the beet sugar industry.
The Minister of Agriculture and I are, of course, altogether different in our experiences, and we are different with respect to>
the places from which we come, as well as the responsibilities which rest upon us. He is in the government; I am not. But I am going to express just as frankly my opinion in opposition to what the minister said as he expressed his opinion in favour of his views. It is going to be done, I know, with the very best of feelings.
In the first place, with respect to the increase in the production of sugar in Canada, to give hon. members an idea of how near the beet sugar industry can come to competing with the cane sugar industry, may I point out that in 1937, sugar was sold by the Canadian Sugar Factories from the Raymond and Picture Butte sugar factories wholesale for a trifle over four cents a pound. I doubt very much whether people generally throughout Canada would feel aggrieved if they could always get sugar at four cents a pound. In that year a sufficiently substantial profit was made by the Canadian sugar factories and the growers of beet even at four cents a pound wholesale. I believe that alone is sufficient to show that the beet sugar industry is fully capable of standing up under ordinary economic conditions and making a magnificent showing.


James Garfield Gardiner: If that is true I am in favour of it.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, then, the minister and I are m complete agreement.


Charles Edward Johnston: What was the price of cane sugar at that time?


John Horne Blackmore: I did not come prepared to talk along this line, and I do not think it would be wise for me to speak from memory, because people might take seriously what I say and I do not want to let anybody get any wrong ideas; what I do say I want to say with perfect assurance that all I am stating is correct.
With respect to the future of the beet growing industry of Canada, I think the first thing we have to do since the minister very kindly said what he did, and thereby raised himself greatly in my estimation, is to recognize that
Supply-Agriculture

the future is all in favour of cheaper production of sugar beets. I do not wish to detain the committee too long, but I believe everybody here, including the minister, will be greatly interested in this little account of what is being done in the way of developing machines to do the hand work with respect to sugar beets.
Thus far indications are that there will be machines to do every kind of field work in connection with sugar beets and to do it exceedingly well. I am referring to an article, "Notes on Sugar Beet Machinery", which appears in the annual report of the Alberta sugar beet growers for 1945. The article is by Mr. A. E. Palmer, officer-in-charge of the dominion experimental station, Lethbridge, Alberta. Mr. Palmer has been doing a great deal of the work of taking care of that experimental farm for a good many years under Doctor Fairfield,, and is now in charge; he is a man thoroughly qualified with respect to everything pertaining to sugar beets. In this article he points out that beet harvesting is almost completely conquered by machines. He refers to the various machine companies which have thus far produced sugar beet harvesters successfully: the John Deere, International Harvester, Marbeet Harvester, Hydrographic harvester, the Ford-Ferguson harvester, and the Scott-Urschel harvester. That is a sufficiently imposing list to show the committee that there are plenty of brains working on the problem, and the success so far has been so great that Mr. Palmer, discussing the American crystal spike wheel harvester, which is another type again, uses these words:
It is estimated that the cost of harvesting mechanically will not exceed half of the cost of harvesting by hand and this estimate has been substantiated by careful tests. Furthermore, both the John Deere and International toppers have been found to top slightly more efficiently than experienced hand toppers.
This fact must be reassuring to all hon. members who were wondering whether or not it would be possible to get a machine which would perform the intricate and difficult task of lifting beets and topping them.
There is another kind of hand labour which is very hard: that is the loading of the beets after they are topped. There is a loader which works very successfully. Mr. Palmer says of loaders:
Incidentally mechancial loading is rapidly replacing hand loading in the Alberta territory where the Robin loader machine, manufactured in Calgary, and similar in design to the Rass-mann, is the principal machine used.
Thus the next of the back-breaking difficult hand-labour jobs has been conquered. They have already completely conquered the task

of unloading the beets. Beet growers use a truck with an adjustable box on it. After the truck is loaded they run it to a big piler right by the factory pile, and they loosen a catch and put a chain over the box and dump the whole box at once into the hopper of the piler. The piler does all the rest, elevating the beets just as high as is necessary-nearly to the height of this chamber-and doing it very successfully.
The next back-breaking job is thinning and blocking. Those who are familiar with the culture of beets know that these processes have to be performed. Science has segmented ' the seed and has developed a precision planter with which farmers are able to plant the segments of seed one right after the other in a row, thus obtaining a very fine stand, without having two beets beside each other. The beets follow one another in a series. That has already been accomplished and they are using the machine with great success right now. A few more inventions will perfect it.
As to the question of blocking, there is a mechanical blocker which has attained great success. Mr. Palmer has the following to say at the close of his article:
However, it is the opinion of the people interviewed that at the present time segmented seed, development and planting knowledge have progressed to the point where it should be possible soon to eliminate most of the hand labour of thinning should the labour situation become acute. It is possible that this would reduce yields slightly but not seriously and under good conditions of germination it is felt that there should be no loss.
That removes present anxiety in relation to labour for beet culture. May I now turn to the question of trade, to which the minister referred. I was somewhat disturbed when he started on that line, because that is the line that was used against me back in 1936, 1937 and 1938. They said it would destroy our trade. I have not under my hand, but I can get it in ten minutes from my room, material to show that all the talk about the loss of our potato market in the maritimes is nothing but legend, purely a myth. I have an article that shows how dependable is what I have to say in this regard. It is a scientifically written article by Mr. Ralph Bell of the Acadia Sugar Refinery, who is well known to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). Mr. Bell played an extremely important part in the war effort and is respected throughout Canada for his business acumen, his ability, his executive skill, his dependability as a reasoner, and his readiness to face facts. Mr. Bell shows conclusively that the extent of the loss which Canada would sustain by producing her sugar and omitting to buy sugar from Cuba and from other sugar producing areas would be completely negligible.

Supply-Agriculture
I know that the answer will be given, he is wrong. Well, I leave it in the hands of Mr. Bell, but I may tell the committee that I can bring down the information if it is desired. The article appeared in the Halifax Herald in 1938. It is an extensive article and it completely solves the question. We would not lose the potato market in any serious degree at all.
The idea which is conveyed, or which it is attempted to convey, is that the Cuban people will buy our potatoes if we buy their sugar, and they will buy our saltfish if we buy their sugar.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suggest that if those are the facts-and I am not questioning what the hon. gentleman says-then there is nothing for us to argue about. What I wonder at, however, is this. If those are the facts, why should anyone come and ask us to do any more so that they can grow sugar beets? I assume that if people can grow sugar beets in this country, to their own advantage and the advantage of Canada, there is nothing that any government is doing that would stop them. They can go ahead and grow sugar beets if they like. It is only when they come and say that they cannot grow sugar beets in competition with someone else and therefore must have some assistance from the government that we become at all involved. We are prepared to promote in every way possible, obtaining labour and doing everything else we can, the growing of beets or anything that can be satisfactorily marketed from this country, or marketed in the country, and if sugar beets can be grown here and the product marketed at a lower cost than the commodity coming from outside and marketed here, then there is no difference between us.


John Horne Blackmore: I would not say that sugar can be manufactured more cheaply here than it can be brought in from outside, from the cane-growing areas, because no one can ever tell what the cane sugar price is going to be. When it is brought in from cane-growing areas it comes from places where sometimes the standard of living may compel poor people to work in plantations under conditions that are a scandal and a disgrace. Sometimes great quantities of sugar come into the possession of certain people in such areas as Santo Domingo, Cuba and Jamaica, under conditions which make them ready practically to give the sugar away.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been so in the past. I quite agree with that. One of the reasons why we have had a low price for sugar, as well as for some other commodities, G3260-12G
in years gone by, is the way in which labour has been treated in those areas. In recent months I have had the privilege of sitting in at conferences where there have been representatives from all those countries that we are talking about. After listening to those people, who are leaders in those countries, I have grave doubts whether anyone from now on will be able to treat those people as they have been treated in the past by some people, and that in itself may be a partial solution of the problem we are discussing. I hope that the people who produce sugar there will be living on a standard comparable with our own, and that the people producing some other commodities which we require will enjoy a similar standard. If such a condition prevails in those areas, then the situation which is being described at the moment may 'develop under which we may grow sugar beets in this country to the advantage of all and sell our product advantageously. I do not think there is any question, no matter what the result finally was, that a considerable number of farmers in the maritimes did lose the potato market for a time in the West Indies and elsewhere because of what we did in connection with sugar. Whether there could have been some way around that situation is another question. At that time they did lose the market, and we have had great difficulty, in the ten years I have been here, in getting it back.


John Horne Blackmore: I think it must be granted that the maritimes did lose their potato market, but the reason was not that we did not buy our sugar from Cuba, because the amount of sugar we Canadians were producing from beets was so small as to have a negligible effect on Cuba's ability to absorb our potato crop.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the effort made at that time was greatly to increase it. It did not increase it, because there was an election within a few weeks and the result of the election was to change the policy in this country. If the policy which was then put into effect, and which did spoil our potato market, had been carried on, I do not think there is any doubt that sugar beet growing in Canada would have increased and they would have had greater difficulty getting their sugar into this country. That was the intention, whatever happened.


John Horne Blackmore: First of all, may I point out the reasons why our maritime producers lost their potato market? As I recall it, Cuba was unable to sell the quantity of goods she normally would sell, because of the de-

Supply-Agriculture

pression. Naturally she was unable to buy our potatoes and our salt fish, because she was unable to sell her products.


James Garfield Gardiner: As far as Cuba is concerned a depression means inability to sell sugar.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right; and the difficulty was also Cuba's inability to buy our potatoes. Hon. members from the maritimes will correct me if I do not recall this matter exactly. I was not expecting to discuss it and have not gone over it for years, but, as I remember it, Cuba used to buy potatoes in the maritimes and raise new potatoes to sell to the New England market.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was seed potatoes.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right; they would buy Our seed potatoes in the maritimes and then sell new potatoes to the New England market. Anything that prevented them from selling those potatoes naturally would prevent them from buying our seed potatoes and salt fish. Certainly, if Canada were producing her own sugar, so that she did not need to buy sugar from Cuba, that fact should have been in evidence; but at the time when there was a change of government in Canada there was only one sugar factory in southern Alberta. So that the cause of the falling off of the Cuban market for both seed potatoes and salt fish was not sugar; it was entirely something else, and the matter should be explained in that way. I believe, however, that is only a minor point.
I wish now to say a word in reference to what the minister said. The minister said if we could produce sugar so that we could withstand outside competition, then there would be no further cause for worry. This afternoon hon. members have risen in their places in this house and urged that greater protection be given the cherry producers. While we can produce cherries in Canada with great success, we cannot say that we can successfully compete with certain cherry growing areas in the United States. We cannot grow small fruits in competition with those areas, one reason being that their crop matures two or three weeks earlier than ours. They can dump their fruit in here and fill our cellars completely before our fruit matures. Consequently we simply must have protection against their fruit, and must have an anti-dumping duty.
A somewhat similar condition obtains in connection with sugar. While we can produce sugar from sugar beets and sell it at four cents a pound wholesale-at least we could in 1937 -and make a good profit, that does not mean we can successfully compete against sugar

coming in, we will say from Haiti, or Santo Domingo or Jamaica, where there may be a glut of sugar as a result of which they w'ould be ready almost to give it away or dump it. We would require to have ordinary commonsense protection, but that protection does not necessarily raise the price of sugar to a point at which any consumer in Canada will suffer. Certainly when sugar was being sold wholesale at four cents a pound and the dominion government was deliberately adding two cents a pound or 50 per cent to the cost of the sugar by way of excise tax, no dominion administrator and certainly no supporter of. any Liberal government had any right to go about the country telling the people they had to pay high prices for sugar because the beet sugar industry had to be protected.
I want to say just a word or two further on this matter while I am at it, because I think there are important considerations to be borne in mind. May I refer to the question of what to do about the sugar-producing areas?
I will bring just one instance to the attention of hon. members; that is, the rubber industry. Speaking entirely from recollecation of an article I read, so that I may not be entirely correct, though I believe I am, I am told that the rubber we use in Canada would keep a hundred thousand Malayans in Malaya.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Order. I hope the hon. member will keep to the item under consideration.


John Horne Blackmore: Surely sugar is one of the matters under consideration. The hon. member for Lake Centre rose and discussed it, and sugar has been discussed by several other hon. members.


James Garfield Gardiner: The sugar discussion may be quite proper, but certainly rubber is not produced on the farms of Canada; it must be brought in from some other country.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall not be on rubber for more than just a second. Would any hon. member or anyone in this country advocate that we discontinue the production of rubber * in Canada just in order to keep the poor Malayans?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would.


John Horne Blackmore: In case of another war I am afraid the hon. gentleman would regret his stand.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope there will not be another war, and there may not if we do not keep on doing these foolish things.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, we all kept on hoping that the last war would not occur, too.

Supply-Agriculture


William Henry Golding: Order. I hope the hon. member will discuss this item. It has nothing at all to do with rubber.


John Horne Blackmore: I am no longer, on rubber, Mr. Chairman; I have left it entirely and gone back to sugar. In 1936 we had in this house a very large number of members who literally scoffed at the idea of another war; the minister will remember that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not one of them.


John Horne Blackmore: No; fortunately the minister was not one of them. He is too much inclined to face the facts. He was too wise for that, but there were plenty of silly people in this house who were sure we would not have a war. Yet look at what happened in 1939. I am not saying we shall have a war. but I am saying it is the part of wisdom to be prepared in case war should come. That is one of the most important matters bearing on this whole question of sugar. If we should have another war and had to transport our sugar from cane-producing areas, using precious ships, railroads and other transportation facilities, how in the world could it be argued that we would be wise in allowing ourselves to get into a position of that kind? I am just one ordinary Canadian, the same as the rest of us, but as far as I can judge, the more nearly we can come to producing our jsugar requirements in this dominion, the sounder will be the basis upon which we establish our economy.
The minister raised another question which is important. I follow him and agree with his reasoning. He says we must come to the point where we have free trade; we must come to the point where we live and let live. I grant that, but I am contending here that the problem must be solved in a different way from what the minister has in mind. The problem of Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, Santo Domingo, Puerto Rico, Malaya and these other countries which find themselves unable to produce enough goods to enable them to buy the things they need, will have to be taken care of by an international mutual aid arrangement, to the extent of their needs. To the minister, and to many people who have not had experience of the kind I think I have had, that may seem impossible, but to me it is not impossible at all. I do not want to be out of order in making this statement, but I think it must be said; as a matter of fact, if the fundamental principles of social credit are applied to the national and international economies of the world, that problem of international distribution can be taken care of just as easily as the ordinary trade 63260-126i
we carry on to-day. It is a simple matter to deal with the question. The solution must be found sooner or later, and we .might as well begin to look forward.
The first important thing in this world is production. The minister agrees with that 100 per cent, I know. The first thing we must do is to make sure we have all the sugar produced in the world that the world can use. That is the first thing; and that applies to all other commodities. This means that in this Dominion of Canada the prime responsibility resting upon us is to increase our production, increase our immediate productive capacity in just as many lines as possible, so that we shall have the goods. That is one of the greatest reasons for increasing the sugar production of the country.
Just before I take my seat, I think perhaps hbn. members will be interested to hear these facts regarding the sugar industry in my constituency.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been listening to these remarks for a long time, hoping they were coming to an end some time; but if the hon. gentleman is dealing with matters of production, we passed all the production items yesterday. We are concerned with marketing, and nothing else. If it is a question of discussing the marketing of sugar beets or sugar, all well and good. But I do not think we are in order to go on discussing production, when the item was passed yesterday.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not wish to displease the minister; I do not wish to carry on the discussion, if he has strong objection. But certainly the hon. member for Lake Centre was discussing the production of sugar, as did several other hon. members. Certainly the minister, when he attempted to answer those gentlemen, was discussing the same question. I am doing nothing more.
However, I have said enough on this occasion so that, if it is the desire of the minister and the chairman, I shall gladly permit the item to pass.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
29. Live stock and live stock products, $721,521.
Mr. FARQUHAR:: I wish to say only a few words on this item of the marketing of live stock and live stock products. The marketing of farm products has always been one of our great problems. Much has been said in the house from time to time on this subject, especially by hon. members from the western provinces. Much has been said too by hon.
Supply-Agriculture

members from the other provinces. It is quite within the rights of any hon. member to speak at length on the subject.
There is one thing, however, to which I take exception. Many times when these subjects are under discussion in the house, comparisons are made between western and eastern farmers, in an effort to show that the eastern farmer has enjoyed a favoured position, when compared with that of the farmer in the west.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the hon. member include me among those?


Thomas Farquhar: I have not mentioned anyone in particular.


John Horne Blackmore: I just wish to disavow all that, for myself.


Thomas Farquhar: I refer not only to what has been taking place in this debate, but also to what has happened from time to time when farm policies have been discussed in the house, notwithstanding the fact that the eastern farmer is receiving a smaller percentage of the national income than is the farmer in the west.
During my years as a member of the house, from year to year millions of dollars have been poured into the western provinces. On every occasion that western farmers have asked special consideration in connection with some of their problems, we of the east have supported them. We feel, however, that we would like to see a better feeling of cooperation. When western members can show that they have some special reason for asking 'special consideration, we are prepared to support them, as we always have been.
However, after listening to the debates in the house from time to time, I have come to the conclusion that there are some characteristics that eastern farmers have in greater extent than is indicated by western farmers. For instance, we have a much greater degree of personal independence; we have greater confidence in our community and in our province. I believe, too, that we have greater confidence in ourselves and in our own ability to solve some of our own problems, rather than ask the government to do everything for us.
I should like to tell the committee some of the things being done in the constituency of Algoma East, which I have the honour to represent. In that constituency we have agricultural sections second to none in Ontario. We produce some of the finest cattle sold on the Toronto market. We produce, too, the highest quality of sheep and hogs, and our Manitoulin turkeys are known throughout Canada for their fine quality.

For many years buyers have been coming in from the eastern parts of the province. I understand that a number of them have come from the section represented by the hon. member for Middlesex West. Those buyers who have been coming into Manitoulin island for years, and have been buying cattle, sheep and hogs, are much better judges of weights than many of the farmers with whom they deal. The result has been that they have been taking advantage of the farmers of that island.
Through our farm organizations, however, all this has come to an end. Those organizations, especially the ones operating on Manitoulin island itself, take care of practically all the marketing of farm products in that section of the constituency. Our wool growers' association takes care of the grading and shipping of our wool. The turkey growers' association looks after the grading of turkeys, and their shipment in carload lots to any point in Canada offering the best market. Our farm organizations take care of the marketing of our cattle and sheep. Our live stock yard is as fine as that in Toronto. Cattle are brought in, in large numbers. The days on which sales are held are well advertised, with the result that the abattoirs send men in who>
are prepared to pay prices satisfactory to the farmers, prices which are much higher than they have received in years gone by.
Buyers from other parts of the province, including Middlesex West, still come up to my constituency; but they do not buy cattle. They just look on, and think of the good old days when they used to come to M&nitoulin and fleece the farmers. But those good old days are gone forever, a fact for which we are truly thankful.
I appreciated what was said by the hon. member for Kootenay West last evening when he described what the farmers in his constituency are doing in the matter of marketing their own produce. I suggest to my western farmer friends that they put forth a greater effort in endeavouring to solve some of their own problems, through their own local organizations, as we are doing in Algoma East. By so doing, I believe they will accomplish much more than they have accomplished by complaining so much in the house, and from time to time by making comparisons of their conditions with those of farmers in the eastern parts of Canada.	.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I had some difficulty, while listening to the observations of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, in knowing what item is under discussion. I fancy he thought it was the marketing item.

Supply-Agriculture


Thomas Farquhar: I was discussing the marketing of live stock.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I see. The hon. gentleman has referred to the ability of the western farm organizations to be able to take care of themselves and I can assure him that they are doing that quite efficiently.
I wanted to say a word or two about Canadian bacon and I have some questions that I should like to direct to the minister. He may remember that I asked certain questions last year and, as the hon. member to my right said last night, they provided the necessary stimulus to the minister for a couple of speeches. I do not know whether he will have time this afternoon to make a couple more, but I assure him that my questions are couched in such a way that he will be able to answer them in two minutes.
I am making these queries on behalf of the forgotten man of this country, or perhaps I should say the forgotten housewife; in any event, I speak on behalf of the consumers. It is a notorious fact that much of the bacon we have had in this country during the past six years has hardly been fit for human consumption according to our standards. Instead of being produced from No. 1 hogs, it has been manufactured from what is commonly known in the trade as sows, stags and heavies. I think I know meat when I see it, and the unfortunate thing is that we are having to pay as much for this low quality meat as we paid for good meat when it was available.
It may be said that the good bacon is being sent overseas to people who are hungry and need it. I was glad to hear the minister say the other day that it is now considered more important to send grain. As he knows, it takes seven or eight pounds of grain to manufacture one pound of meat, and perhaps grain is a more economical form of food for these hungry people. It may be contended that the higher grades of meat contain more nourishment per pound and that to ship them would save shipping space, but the war.is over and shipping is now available.
I have been doubtful for some time whether we are granting an unmixed favour to the hungry people of Europe by sending them our top quality meats at the prices we have to charge for them. I want to make myself perfectly clear. If the government decided to export all the bacon produced to feed the hungry 'people of Europe and charge the cost against the taxpayers of Canada. I would support them. But having said that, I submit that these same hungry people would probably welcome some less fancy meat if it were offered to them at prices which
they could afford to pay. My opinion in this regard was confirmed and strengthened the other day when I went into a store to buy a piece of back bacon. The butcher handed over an infinitesmal piece of bacon for which he charged me seventy cents a pound, and then he said, "Isn't that terrible stuff to be sending to a hungry man?" He said, "The people who are really hungry cannot afford to buy meat at that price."
Last year I asked what percentage of rough bacon, if you can call such things as front hocks and jowls bacon, was being consumed in Canada. The minister in one of the speeches to which the hon. member referred and in which he took us down to South America and around to other parts of the world-


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member has gone nearly around the world and I shall have to do the same in order to answer him.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister stated that we were sending about 90 per cent of the top cured bacon to Great Britain. That was not exactly an answer to the question I asked. That would mean that the housewife in this country is able to buy only ten per cent of the good meat that is produced. I was asking what proportion of the rough meat of poor quality that is produced is used here? I think the answer would be 100 per cent. However, I should like to have some confirmation from the minister. Canadian bacon as sold on the British market might be all right, but as we know it on the home market it is almost unfit to eat. At first our bacon was not popular in Great Britain because they objected to the type of curing, but we have solved that problem by working out a milder cure.
During the war we were prepared to make sacrifices, but I think the time has come when the Canadian housewife who is paying high prices for meat should receive good meat for her money. We are told about children in Europe who have never tasted an orange but I can tell of children in this country who have never tasted a piece of good bacon. Last session the minister named a period of at least twelve months during which we should try to send to Great Britain bacon of prime quality, and he said, as reported on page 3190 of Hansard:
. . . we shall try to keep on our own market food value in accordance with its real food value.
That is a somewhat vague statement, but I think it meant that while these meats were not the best they would be sold at a price where they would be at least worth the money being paid for them. I claim that that has not been done. This is a matter in con-
Supply-Agriculture

nection with which the packer can easily deceive the public on account of the prevailing ignorance on the subject.. When one goes into a store nowadays and asks for a piece of back bacon, he is given back bacon all right but it is off a sow. It has been trimmed of the two or three inches of fat which would naturally be on it. The residue is lean, but it is hard, tough and comparatively tasteless.
From my own knowledge and of my own experience I know there is no difference between the price usually charged and what should be paid for good bacon, even if it were possible to find the latter. As I say, it is almost impossible to find any good bacon. I suggest to the minister that there should be a definite ceiling upon the prices of this inferior so-called bacon and that such fancy and deceptive names as "picnic ham" used to describe things which are not hams, or "bacon" used to describe pig cheeks should be prohibited by law. High-pressure salesmanship and deceptive terms have been regulated in connection with the fur trade. If it is rabbit, it must be described as rabbit. That may appear in small print in the advertisement, but it must be described in that way. It is time that something should be done in this other and similar commercial racket.
Having thus expressed myself, may I respectfully ask the minister to answer the questions I shall put to him? First, how much of these rough meats produced in Canada is being consumed in Canada? Second, is the percentage of good bacon that is exported, which was given last year as 90 per cent, still unchanged? Third, will the minister assure the housewives through us that more good bacon will soon be offered on the Canadian market and tell us how much and how soon?
There is another question which I should like to ask but which I will not expect the minister to answer at the moment. It seems to me to be relevant to the subject under discussion. Has the minister any reason to hope that, all things being equal and the war now being over, Canada will be able to retain her position in the British bacon market? The only reason I can see for sending all that quantity of meat over there is to retain the British market as against the Irish and Danish producers. So far as my information goes, we can retain that market only with great difficulty against Ireland and Denmark, because of their proximity to the British market and the fact that they are grass and dairy countries and have a tremendous amount of milk which they can feed to their pigs. If there is no hope of holding our preferred position- and I think it is generally admitted that we

cannot hope to hold our bacon market as we did during the war-then any sacrifices that we are making in the direction of eating tough meat to retain the British market are only postponing the evil day and are in vain in any event.
With regard to the quality of the meat that is going over-I am not sure how far I should discuss this because the case is sub judice-I have here a Canadian Press item which says:
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that the Union Packing Company of Calgary, Limited, should proceed against the crown in an effort to obtain damages for loss of quantities of bacon.
There was a question whether they should proceed against the crown or the bacon board. The item goes on to say:
The claim arises out of a shipment of 160,000 pounds of bacon and other pork products to Saint John, N.B.. which arrived there on March 11, 1941, to be shipped to the United Kingdom.
It appears from the following paragraph that no ship was available for eighteen days, and the bacon spoiled, a fact which does not speak very highly for the curing methods, and then on March 29:
On that date the board's inspectors rejected 73 boxes containing 42,785 pounds of rib backs on the ground of slime, odour and some mould.
Now 42,785 pounds is a lot of meat, particu- ' larly when you can scarcely get a pound of bacon in Canada. I would ask the minister what final disposition was made of that meat. He knows that when we cure our own bacon on the farm we often have a struggle with a little mould on the outside. I should like to know whether this meat was salvaged, and whether we have since eaten it, in addition to the other types of meat I have discussed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any meat which is condemned is sent back to the plant that produced it to be reconditioned before being put on the market again, or it may be used for tankage or some other purpose.
I have been asked, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise at twenty minutes to six, which is five minutes from now, and therefore I shall not attempt to make a speech at this moment.
I would suggest to the committee that we have been discussing the marketing service and agriculture on two different amendments which were moved to the address, and also on a motion to go into supply and on two amendments to that motion. In other words, we have had weeks of discussion of these items and have now spent the greater part of to-day on them. I would suggest that, after I have answered as shortly as I can one or two questions that have just been asked, the

Supply-Agriculture
committee might allow the marketing items to pass so that at the next sitting we can discuss the special items.
Replying to my hon. friend's questions, we certainly could not retain the British market in competition with Denmark and other countries if we followed the suggestion that has been made of sending our poorer bacon to Britain and retaining the good product at home.	k
So far as beef is concerned, we have been sending praactically all our canner cattle overseas in cans. Last year we sent 126,000,000 pounds of canned meat to Britain, and it was the poorer pork and the poorer beef that was put into those cans. That is always the case in our canning processes here in Canada. It must be remembered, however, that we are in competition with the Argentine in canned meat and the Argentine follows quite a different practice. They put very good meat into cans, and if we want to compete with them in that trade we shall have to do differently from what we have been doing. The greater part of the 400,000 odd head of cattle which have been shipped out of this country in the form of meat during recent years has been the poorer beef. As a matter of fact, under the arrangements we have we are not permitted to send more than twenty per cent of our red and blue beef out of Canada. That is provided by the prices board regulations. We have never got up to that twenty per cent. Only a very small percentage of our red and blue beef, which is the highest quality of beef we have has gone out of this country for export. We are eating it at home. I know from experience in my own home that in the last three or four years I have been eating the best beef that I ever ate in Canada. When the United States market was open we sent our best beef to that country, but that market is now closed and we are consuming the greater part of our red and blue beef at home.
The other question had to do with the 90 per cent. I never at any time said that we were marketing 90 per cent of our A's and B's in Britain except for two months last fall. Hon. Ben Smith telephoned me one morning to ask if we could not supply Britain with more bacon. I told him over the telephone that we would try to do so, and during a two months' period we raised the amount going to Britain to 90 per cent of our A's and B's. Ordinarily we send from 70 to 85 per cent to Britain, but during that two months' period we sent 90 per cent.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What percentage of the meat is being consumed in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I could not state the exact percentage offhand, but if my hon. friend will put the question on the order paper I will answer it. The figure can be got, but first I would want his definition of poorer meat.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Can we hope that a greater proportion of good bacon will be released for consumption in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a question of whether any more ,can be released. It is a question of whether we can market the quantity we desire to market and thus retain our marketing position. If we turned all the good bacon that is produced in Canada on to the home market, the price, irrespective of anything that this government might do, would not remain high very long.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not want to be discourteous to the Chair or to the minister, but I have been waiting for this item to ask a question about hog graders that I asked at a previous sitting, when the minister asked me to wait until this item was before the committee. How many hog graders have you in the Dominion of Canada and how, do they work? Do you keep them in one place the whole time or change them around like the cream graders-leave them in a plant for three months? How long do you keep them in a plant at a time? When the committee meets again will the minister tell us what are the duties of a stockyard agent?


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer to the first question is, about seventy-five. The answer to the second is that they rotate, in a community like Winnipeg, for example, from plant to plant, and not always for the same length of time. It depends on the plant and on the individual; sometimes it is a week and sometimes it is a month.


William Scottie Bryce: Would the minister give me an answer some other time as to how long they stay? I think it is far longer than a month.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will write me a letter indicating what he wants to know, I will reply to it.


William Scottie Bryce: Certainly. And the minister will tell me what a stockyard agent is?


James Garfield Gardiner: Call the next item and let us carry that.


Mr. SENN:: So far as this party is concerned, I think there is no trouble about passing these two items, except that there is one matter of grading which one of our members wants to bring up. It will take a
Questions

little time, probably about ten minutes, and I understand that it is desired to adjourn. Will the minister undertake to let us discuss that item later?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 5.45 p.m.
Thursday, May 30, 1946.