1947-06-12

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Copy of order in council P.C. 2180, relating to the movement of displaced persons from Europe to Canada.

Mr. Howe.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Yesterday afternoon during the discussion of Bill No. 256 the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) made the statement that the annual return under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act had not been tabled. His words are as follows, at page 4020 of Hansard.
The requirements of that section have apparently been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. It is like a great many similar sections that we encounter in statutes passed by this parliament requiring annual reports-they are simply ignored by the government. It is high time the government made a serious attempt to heed and -obey the -terms of this and other statutes providing for annual reports to parliament on operations under acts.
I replied, at page 4024:
The hon. member also said that the annual report had not been tabled. The act provides that the report shall be tabled, and I think my recollection goes back to the time this year when I tabled that report. This is a copy of what I tabled at that time

I referred to the document I was holding in my hand, from which I was reading. The hon. member for Eglinton then said:
I have done just what the parliamentary assistant proposes, and I think if -he will look back in the records of the house he will not find any report tabled.
I want to refer the hon. gentleman to Votes and Proceedings No. 34 of March 18 this year. On that day I tabled order in council P C. 845, and also the ninth annual report of the operations of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938, for the year ending December 31, 1946.

Questions



MR. MCLTJRE-NAMING OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAR FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. MeLURE (Queens): Having lingered somewhat too long at the banquet board yesterday noon, I was late for the opening of the house at 3.30 in the afternoon. At page 4015 of Hansard I find a suggestion in regard to the naming of the Prince Edward Island ear ferry. I am greatly indebted to the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) for his very kind remarks concerning myself, and also his suggestion. My point of privilege, however, is that it is not my desire to have the Minister of Transport or his government devote too much time to the consideration of the kindly suggestion of the hon. member for St. John-Albert, until I have given the matter some further consideration myself.

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

Mr. CASE:: 1.	Have goods been purchased from war assets corporation by Colonel J. P. J. Godreau or any company he may represent or be associated with? If so, what'goods?
2.	When were they purchased and what price was received at time of purchase?


Mr. McILRAITH:: In reference to part 1 of this question may I say that it is impossible for the corporation to get the information to answer it in this form, because there is no means of identifying the companies with which Colonel Godreau may be associated. We have also been unable to find any means of locating Colonel Godreau; we have no clue as to where he resides or what part of the country he may be in. The only way we could identify any transactions with him would be to search all the invoices. I have discussed the form of the question with the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) and would suggest that it be dropped in its present form and reworded in such a way as to give him the information he desires.
Question dropped.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE -AND HOUSING CORPORATION- AUDITORS
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Who are the auditors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	WThen were they appointed, and on what basis as to fees or other remuneration?
3.	What amounts have been paid to them to date for their services, and what services or periods do such payments cover?
4.	(a) What reports have they submitted as auditors, and on what dates; (b) what subjects or periods did such reports cover?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Mr. W. H. Campbell of Campbell, Glen-dinning and Company, chartered accountants of the city of Montreal and Mr. Jean Valli-quette of Anderson and Valliquette, chartered accountants of the city of Montreal.
2.	Appointed by order in council P.C. 262, dated January 24, 1946 in accordance with section 32 of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, for a term of two years from March 1, 1946. The minister approved a salary of $4,000 each plus expenses, for the fiscal year 1946.
3.	$9,762.17 fees and expenses, for audit for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1946.
4.	(a) and (b).
On February 12, 1947 a report to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply containing a statement of the corporation's position with the department as at December 31, 1946 which confirms balances collected on behalf of the minister and balances owing the corporation by the minister.
On February 20, 1947, the financial statements consisting of balance sheet, statement of profit and loss with appended certificate, for the year ending December 31, 1946.
federal GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	On what municipal projects was the grant made by parliament from 1938 to date, annually, to the city of Ottawa as a subvention in exchange for services rendered by the city to the government?
2.	What sum of money was spent in each year, and the various uses made of this grant for municipal purposes?
3.	What action has been taken to extend the principle in the legislation to other municipalities throughout Canada rendering to the government similar services?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: I think I should give oral answers to these three questions. The grants to the city of Ottawa are made under a special statute of this parliament, and the statute does not provide any obligation on the part of the city to show how the money is spent. That would be the reply to Nos. 1 and 2. If and when the government takes action or does anything to extend this principle to other municipalities the house will be informed in due course.


Mr. CHURCH:: Even if it is statutory
are not the people entitled to know how public funds are expended?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Alphonse Fournier: Under that
statute there is no obligation upon the city of Ottawa to report to the government or to parliament as to the way the money is expended.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION-IRRIGATION PROJECTS	.
['Yes; I shall get the names of this board.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. GARDINER:: I have been asking to have this question stand from day to day. It [DOT]is quite properly asked, but it will take considerable time to get the information, parts of which will have to be prepared in three different provinces in western Canada. If the hon. member will agree, I suggest that it be made an order for return.


James Horace King: Order for return.



Mr. BROWN:: 1.	What assistance has been rendered by the federal government in the development of roads, parks or tourist facilities in the Niagara peninsula?
2.	What steps have been taken by the government with respect to development of the ports of entry, such as Windsor, Ontario, to assist the tourist industry?


INQUIRY AS TO DISCONTINUANCE OF RATIONING TO CONSUMERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont.):: In view of the fact that housewives are finding the ration of sugar inadequate, and since the rationing of sugar to consumers in the United States ended yesterday, will the minister inform the house when the rationing of sugar to household consumers will be discontinued in Canada?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I have not had notice of my hon. friends question. I shall take it into account and give a statement in due course.


SHORTAGE IN VANCOUVER-QUESTION OF DISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply arising out of letters received from retail hardware merchants in Vancouver. They complain of inability to get nails to supply their normal retail demands. From the letters I get the impression that the situation is one of faulty distribution rather than short supply. W'ould the minister care to make a statement in the matter?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Complaints have been received from the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) as to the lack of nails in the hardware stores on the Pacific coast. In response to those complaints I asked the coordinator of building supplies to make a personal visit to the Pacific coast to endeavour to discover some method of better distribution. I believe my hon. friend is right, that it is a matter of distribution. Certainly the production of nails on the Pacific coast, in proportion to the population served, is higher than in any other part of Canada.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2d8, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1947, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways Company.
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the provision of funds for capital expenditures on the Canadian National Railways. For some years, along with some of my colleagues, I have been asking for the completion of certain railways in the northern part of Saskatchewan, specifically those which run from Frenchman Butte to a place called Heinsburg in Alberta, and another which goes from St. Walburg to Beaver River, also in Saskatchewan.

Canadian National Railways
In the first named railway there is a gap of only about forty miles. It breaks the railway, of course, and is a source of great annoyance and inconvenience to those who happen to live along the line; and besides, it prevents those who live on either side of it from getting to the other end of the railway. That is to say. those who live on the east side of the gap can patronize only that eastern section of the railway. If they wish to get to the west end they have to go a considerable distance east until they reach another line of railway, and then get on that other line and go to the west. The same applies to those who live on the west side of the gap.
We have asked that this forty miles be completed. It is not a great thing, but it is an inconvenience which has been suffered by these people over a considerable number of years.
I ask the minister if he will make a special point of doing something about this particular forty-mile gap.
With respect to the other piece of railway, the line has been built at some expense to the north out of Alberta to a place called Cold Lake. That particular piece of line is a good revenue producer; my information is that it is bringing in a lot of money. The break extends now to the southeast and joins up again with the Canadian National railway which at the present time ends at a place called St. Walburg.
I cannot say anything that has not already been said. But I do most earnestly call the attention of the minister to the gaps in these two branch lines, and I should like him to say whether anything has been done toward finishing them, or whether something may be done very soon.
Mr. BENTLEY:: Mr. Speaker, before second reading-
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: May I have an answer?	[DOT]


Mr. CHEVRIER:: This is not the point at which to answer questions. It should be done in committee of the whole.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that we are at the stage of second reading, and that if they have questions to ask they might better wait until we have reached the committee stage. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the general principles of the bill.


Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) (Translation):: Before the motion for second reading is carried, I wish to say a few words and make some suggestions as to what could be done in Chicoutimi county by the Canadian National Railways.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks, during this debate, to the general principle of the bill before the house. In regard to specific questions, I believe that they should be discussed at the proper time in committee of the whole, when the hon. member and all members of the house will be free to deal with special subjects. They will then have 'the opportunity of asking questions which will be answered by the minister.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of asking questions of the hon. minister, but I propose to make a statement on certain problems of special concern to my county.


Lionel Chevrier: Before the hon. member takes the floor, may I remind him that the bill before the house authorizes certain loans to the Canadian National Railways and does not provide for the hon. member dealing with conditions in his own constituency. He will be given this opportunity when the estimates for the Department of Transport are brought down.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Are we not allowed to discuss any financial matters of the Canadian National Railways under this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: The financial matters dealt with in this bill.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: This bill affects Chicoutimi county as much as any other constituency in Canada.
(Text):


Mr. HOMUTH:: Mr. Speaker, we are now on second reading of the bill. Surely it is not. permissible to ask questions back and forth at this time.


James Horace King: I have suggested that at this stage the discussion be confined to the general principle. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1947. I would ask the hon. members to continue their remarks to the principle of the bill before the house. They may question the minister when we reach the committee stage.
(Translation):


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, your objection is premature. I feel that I have the right to discuss the affairs of the Canadian National Railways in my constituency when such a. bill is submitted to the house.
Canadian National Railways


James Horace King: I must point out to the hon. member that when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) comes before the committee to have his estimates approved, including the sums allotted to the Canadian National Railways, the hon. member will have an opportunity to question him and discuss any matters pertaining to the administration of government-owned railways.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1 -Short title.
Robert Wellington Mayhew: There has been an error made in the bill; the amount for the Barraute branch line was left out. I am going to ask one of the ministers to move:
That clause 2 be amended by inserting in the table contained therein, after the item:
"New equipment	 $44,500,000"
the following item:
"Barraute branch line		$ 2,684,000"


Lionel Chevrier: I move accordingly.


The CHAIRMAN:: The parliamentary
assistant has given notice that he will move to amend section 2 when we reach it by inserting a new item in the table contained therein.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Will that item to be inserted leave the total of $46,723,000 unchanged?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That is right, it will be unchanged.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask one or two questions regarding the detailed amounts and then I have a question to ask with regard to the bill itself. This is a measure to provide certain capital funds; it has nothing to do with the operating deficit of $31,000,000 which is referred to in the memorandum furnished to us in connection with the railway budget. That deficit is paid out of consolidated revenue fund and whatever the railroad earns is turned into the consolidated revenue fund.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is an item of $1,057,000 covering acquisition of securities and retirement of capital obligations, which is to be found on page 6 of this memorandum. After certain other items there occur two items about which I should like an explanation. This page is headed, "Acquisition of securities and retirement of capital obligations." The item about which I should like some information 
reads, "Chicago, Western and Indiana railroad, advances under agreement March 1, 1936, $169,000." On the face of it that does not look like an acquisition of securities or retirement of capital obligations, will the minister explain it?


William Ross Macdonald: In order to keep the proceedings regular may we pass section 1 and then proceed to consider section 2?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My question could be asked under section 2.
Mr. HACIvETT: I want to be quite clear. My question is to enable my hon. friend who wanted to ask a few questions concerning his own county, to come into the discussion at this point. I want to know if any of the securities which have been retired affect the whole system. If they do affect the whole system then I think it is competent for the hon. member to speak about that section of the system within his own constituency.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I wonder if we could deal with one question at a time. I was looking up the answer for the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario.


Mr. HACKETT:: I withdrew for the moment. I shall be here and I can renew m3r question as soon as the question of the hon. member has been answered.


William Ross Macdonald: I take it that section 1 is carried!?


John Thomas Hackett: Before section 1 is carried I should like to ascertain whether the hon. member for Chicoutimi has the right to ask the question which he wishes to ask.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think my question had better stand until we get to section 2.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the hon. gentleman wants to ask a question from the way in which he proceeded; I think he wants to make a speech. I notice he nods his head.


John Thomas Hackett: I wish to know whether or not these securities which have been retired affect the whole system. I refer to the securities mentioned in the second section.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. gentleman referring to those concerning new equipment?


William Ross Macdonald: It would appear to me that the question which the hon. member for Stanstead has raised should not be discussed under section 1. The committee will have to decide whether it can be discussed under section 2.

Canadian National Railways


John Thomas Hackett: I was merely trying to make it possible for the hon. member for Chicoutimi to follow through with what he started. Before we go into details section by section it has always been the practice to discuss a bill in general terms. I understand that the moneys being sought, for additions and betterments will affect the whole system. If they do affect the whole system. my submission is that the hon. member should not be precluded from discussing a matter which affects a part of the system. I do not want to protract the discussion at all; I want to be helpful. I am throwing out the suggestion that inasmuch as the betterments apply to the whole system it is competent to discuss the whole system which is to be improved and bettered by the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: That would be on section 2.


John Thomas Hackett: He could talk about it on section 2. but if that matter is included in section 2 it is possible to talk about it now under our interpretation of the rules.


William Ross Macdonald: I would refer the hon. members to standing order 58, subsection 2, which reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
There have been times when a general discussion has been allowed on the first clause, but that is not according to the rule. It has been done only by unanimous consent of the committee when there has been no discussion on the principle of the bill on the motion for second reading. I should remind hon. members that when we are in committee of supply a general discussion is allowed on the first item, departmental administration. But we are not now in committee of supply. We are in committee of the whole on this bill. The principle was approved by the house when the bill was given second reading. An opportunity was given to all members to discuss the principle then, and now I must ask hon. members to abide by the rules and to discuss each clause as it is reached.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, there certainly is a misunderstanding. If you feel it is your duty to depart from what has been the practice in the house for a very substantial period, that on the first clause of a bill a general discussion may take place-


Lionel Chevrier: That was never the practice.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: No, only during the war.


John Thomas Hackett: My right hon. friend opposite can refer to the rule, but I can turn to innumerable instances of departure from it in this session and in previous sessions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I meet my hon. friend's wishes by suggesting that clause 1 stand, and that he raise the point he has in mind on clause 2?


John Thomas Hackett: This putting things off and attempting to preclude discussion according to the practice on the basis of which we have carried on business is not satisfactory to members of the house. If an accepted interpretation is to be departed from there is a procedure, which is known to all the members of the house, to bring that about. But invariably, for years, and on innumerable occasions this session, a general discussion on the first clause has been permitted. We are all anxious to get on with the business and to get home, and I think it is well not to make any departure now from what has been or modus operandi. I am perfectly familiar with the book, but nobody knows better than you, Mr. Chairman, that we have frequently built up customs which depart from the letter of the law. I am merely suggesting that we would do well at this stage of the session to go on as we have done up to the present and permit a discussion of the bill in general terms before we pass the first clause.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend, probably with the best intentions in the world, is entirely incorrect in regard to the rules. During the war on the war appropriation measure it was agreed by all parties that we would have a, general discussion on the first item of the appropriation, and so the custom grew up to which my hon. friend has referred, and I think also in supply on agriculture. But it is not the accepted rule of this house.


John Thomas Hackett: It is the accepted practice of this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it is not.


Mr. GREEN:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, we in the official opposition, and I think in the other opposition parties as well, are very much interested in an attempt to stop discussion on the first clause of the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to another point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is imputing motives to members of the administration and their supporters. There is no attempt to avoid discussion.


Howard Charles Green: The right hon. gentleman is a bit touchy today. I do not believe I imputed motives to anybody. I do say that this privilege or this right of a fairly wide
Canadian National Railways

discussion on the first clause of a bill is of the utmost importance to those of us who happen to be in opposition, and after the next election it will be just as important to my friends who now sit on the government benches.


Lionel Chevrier: You will have to change your tactics to change places.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that hon. gentlemen opposite be not too insistent in asking for such a harsh interpretation of the rule. I was here during all the war years and before that, as most other members were, and I have never heard that this right extended only to war appropriation acts, or to the first item in the estimates of a department. I urge upon you, Mr. Chairman, that you do not make a far-reaching ruling of that type without having given it the most careful consideration after hearing submissions from various sides of the house. Certainly, as the hon. member for Stanstead has said, it would be unfortunate if at this late date in the session a harsh ruling of the type requested by the Minister of Veteians Affairs were made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I object to the word "harsh". I simply wish to see the rules observed. There is nothing harsh about it at all. The rules are fair and equitable.


Lionel Chevrier: I think in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, particularly his statement that there seems to be an attempt to curtail discussion. I should say just a word. There has been no attempt to curtail discussion. The facts are to the contrary. There has been ample opportunity to discuss the very matter that hon. members are attempting to discuss today; first of all in the committee of railways and shipping, where the affairs of the Canadian National are brought up, to which committee matters are referred for that very purpose; and now the bill comes to the house consequent upon approval of the C.N.R. budget in committee. Again, there will be more opportunities to discuss this whole matter of railways, first on the estimates of the Minister of Transport, on the general administration item; then on his estimates for railway service and railway matters, apd again on another part of his estimates. Are we to have three debates on this question, or one? It makes no difference to me whether we have the debate now or later.


Howard Charles Green: Why not have it now?


Lionel Chevrier: I have met this before. There will be the same difficulty when the estimates come up and the whole debate will
start all over again. It seems to me that we should stick to the ruling, and the ruling has been that in committee of the whole the discussion should have to do with the clause before the committee.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, I have a good deal of commiseration for you. I sometimes lose my way and sometimes my patience, and if I were in your position I would lose my patience more frequently than I do in my own role. But the fact is we want to get on with the business of the house. We want to ask a few questions concerning this matter. I am drawing to your attention an authority which I am sure the right hon. member for Vancouver Centre will not question. It is the authority of my genial friend who sits just behind him, the Minister of Labour, who is an authority on procedure as well as on many other topics.


Mr. MITCHELL:: My hon. friend is taking himself too seriously.


John Thomas Hackett: I always take the Minister of Labour very seriously, and I am going to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to follow my good example. This is a matter which came up just a few days ago. An hon. member wanted to discuss, as we are attempting to discuss now, an item on a resolution, and he put forward this argument as reported at page 3894 of Hansard. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who was not being given the latitude that he felt he was entitled to, said:
That may not be true. On the resolution stage you are free to ask any question pertaining to the resolution, but when we are dealing with the bill we are tied down to individual sections and may find it impossible to ask a particular question. We had an example this afternoon when certain questions were asked and hon. members were told that they could not ask them under that particular section. It is quite possible that when the bill comes down there may be certain questions w-e want ito ask that do not apply specifically to any section, and therefore we shall not be able to ask them.
Whereupon the Minister of Labour intervened and said:
You can ask them on the title.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we should be afforded the opportunity of asking the few general questions which are of interest to us at this time. It will save time and will be no departure from tradition; it will be merely carrying out the understanding that has existed and been abided by in the house for many moons. I therefore ask you to rule that since the equipment which is referred to in the bill

Canadian National Railways
affects the whole system, discussion be not curtailed or restricted in any way, and that the whole system be subject of debate.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I want to make my position clear as chairman of this committee. I feel that I must abide by the standing orders. Until they are changed by the house it is my duty to enforce them. However, if the committee sees fit from time to time, by unanimous consent, to allow wider latitude than the rules permit, I would certainly have no objection. At all times the chairman is in the hands of the committee. I do not recall any time this session when a general discussion has been allowed in committee on the principle of a bill. I do recall that during the war on the appropriation bills general discussion was allowed on the short title. I believe that a wide discussion can take place under section 2 of this bill. Section 2 has to do with additions and betterments (less retirements) $18 million. I believe that item and other items in clause 2 permit wide discussion, and I am of the opinion that general discussion should take place under section 2 and not under section 1. I would ask the committee to carry section 1 and then proceed with section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Power to issue securities for capital expenditures.
(Translation)
Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, will the minister permit me to outline the situation which prevails in my constituency?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the hon. member should in the first place ask his question. The hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Hackett) suggested a while ago that the hon. member could ask questions; if they are in order, I have no objection.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Do the Canadian National Railways intend to repair the line which runs from Chicoutimi to Quebec and Montreal?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to answer that question on this bill. If the hon. member will ask his question when the estimates of the Department of Transport are brought down, I shall then be able to answer.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I wish to thank the minister.
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I now have an answer to my first question?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I shall give the hon. member an answer to his question. The 83168-261
company serves the Grand Trunk Western Railroad in providing its entrance to the city of Chicago for both freight and passenger service. For passenger service, it provides a joint union station, and for freight service it provides the trackage whereby the Grand Trunk reaches its exclusively operated freight station and team tracks.
In addition to participating in the operating expenses of the facilities of which it has the joint use, the Grand Trunk Western Railroad is obligated by agreement to pay as rental sinking fund payments sufficient to retire certain bond issues at maturity and interest as it falls due.
The amount of $160,500 included in the capital budget of the Canadian National Railways for 1947 covers the estimated requirements for sinking fund payments and interest for 1946 which the Grand Trunk Western Railroad are obligated to pay under the agreement.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario). Is that an annual rental, or is it something that will come to an end after a term of years? Will it continue to be shown as a yearly expenditure?	.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am told that the bonds mature in 1962 and that this amount will end at that time. It provides for these bonds.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that really answer my question? When that happens does it mean that there will be no longer any rental or payment of this kind to be made?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes, that is right. This is a return of capital.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the same relatively true with regard to the last item, which on the face of it does not look like an acquisition of security or retirement of capital?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Under an agreement between the Grand Trunk Western Railroad and the state of Michigan, dated July 20, 1927, the railway and the state agreed, in order to enable the state to carry out its highway programme, the railway would surrender its present right of way from Mile Post 13 in Royal Oak to Mile Post 22-1 between Pontiac and Birmingham; the state to procure a new right of way 100 feet wide for a new double track railroad; the state to advance the cost of the right of way, and the cost of the railroad to be constructed thereon; the railway to repay such costs to the state by fifteen annual instalments, without interest; repayment to commence on December 31

Canadian National Railways

of the year in which the state shall have acquired control of the entire right of way. Total cost of project to December
31, 1046	  $	6,460,025.49
Payments to December 3T, 1946- from 1934 to 1946-13 instalments	 5,598,688.77
Balance unpaid at December 31,
1946	$	861,336.72Two annual instalments at $430,668.36 each	$	861,336.72Provision in C.N.R. budget 1947 for 1947 instalment	
430,000.00


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you. I have one further question with regard to section 2. I should like the parliamentary assistant to look at the wording of the section. It sets out the amounts which can be borrowed to a total of $46,723,000. Is there any provision for borrowing the money in other than Canadian funds? Is it the intention that there will be no right to payment in United States funds, or to borrow under a debenture which shall be payable either in Canada or in the United States?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am informed that there is no such intention. I would not think there would be, either.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is a matter of some importance. Do I understand clearly that there is no intention of issuing securities payable in other than Canadian funds?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am informed that there is no intention of issuing securities in other than Canadian funds.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I presume it has been a matter of consideration and it has been deliberately decided against.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I understand it has been approved by Finance. I think it will be found that over the years the government has not been borrowing money in other countries, and that the amounts are payable only in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It has been the practice for some time now to have them payable only in Canada?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: Section 2 of this bill which has to do with power to issue securities for capital expenditures, is as ancient as 1931. The marginal note opposite the preamble gives a list of enactments starting away back in 1931, and there are acts also in 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942,

1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, and now 1947. Surely this method of financing improvements on the system and power to issue securities for capital expenditures is more frenzied finance. I read the report No. 2 of the proceedings of the special committee on railway and ship-ing, No. 2, and I saw some reference to this matter in one or two of the questions. I think the hon. member for St. John-Albert said something about it. It was found that in these particular matters of betterments and new equipment, some of it was going to subsidiaries of the Canadian National, the Central Vermont and other places, whereas the old national railways in Canada are starving for new equipment and betterments. Take a look at the cars you are travelling on in the province of Ontario. Surely we should be able to look after our own system within the borders of Canada, fix up the rights of way, provide better rolling stock, and that kind1 of thing, before we start spending all this money away down in central Vermont. It was in Ontario that the old Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern made nearly all their money to start with, and that most of the money was made in connection with the national system.
I would further call attention to the stations and the equipment for some of the trains. They have not proper appliances. Why should we spend1 this money on subsidiaries in the United States? The same thing applies to ships, such as the Northumberland on Lake Ontario. The hon. member for Davenport is not going to risk his life again on that; this year he is going to have his picnic at Centre island instead of at Port Dalhousie. I would call attention to the policy involved in this vote. They should have redeemed all these expenditures out of earnings. The amount of money involved is, for additions and betterments, less retirements, $18,000,000. Then you have to refer to the top of page 2 of the bill where it says:
Less:	Available from reserves for depreciation and debt discount amortization, $16,518,000.
That makes a total of $46,723,000. Included in that is $41,500,000 for new equipment. What equipment we are getting I do not know.
It has been the practice in the house to refer these matters to a committee. I have read over the list of questions asked in committee and I fail to see where any improvement has been made on the suggestions made here in committee of supply. The road is doing very well; I am not here to criticize the road. It is a splendid railway, has splendid officials and has splendid equipment in many parts of the country; but there are other

Canadian National Railways
sections, such as in Ontario, where it is not so good. I believe the time is coming when the old provinces, especially Ontario, should get some consideration with respect to equipment and betterments and all that kind of thing. I believe that charity begins at home. Why should we spend money on subsidiaries in central Vermont and other places in order to try to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak, with the Century Limited and all the special kinds of new cars we see on trains over there?


Mr. KIDD:: Will the minister give an explanation of the first item in section 2? What is the $18,000,000 for? Is there any way of breaking that down?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The $18,000,000 is
divided up with reference to the various
regions of Canada as follows:
Additions and Betterments 1947 Budget
Atlantic region	 $ 1,912,944
Central region	 7,420,829
Western region	 3,878,047
Grand Trunk Western Railroad
Company	 2,476,568
Central Vermont Railway	 333,362
Subsidiary companies	 3,173,504
Express, telegraphs and other departments	 3,157,068
Additions and betterments to equipment (Canada)	 2,708,541
Equipment retirements	Cr. 2,060,863

Less-Portion of projects included in the aljove requirements which will not be physically completed
by December 31 each year	 5,000,000
Total	 $18,000,000
(Translation):


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, if I understood: the minister correctly, there is no amount provided for improvements in Lake St. John and Chicoutimi districts.


Lionel Chevrier: There certainly is. The sum of $1,912,000 will be expended in the Atlantic area.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Is it proposed to spend part of that amount in our district?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
(Text):
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: Is it permissible to inquire what is constituted in additions and betterments? Does that include the building of new lines?


Lionel Chevrier: No. No new lines are provided for under additions and betterments.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Are the government
guaranteeing to any large extent the five per cent bonds of subsidiary companies?
83166-261J


Lionel Chevrier: This is a financial matter. I know of no bonds of the subsidiary companies which are being guaranteed. But the hon. member is perhaps familiar with the bill which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance had up I think last week, and again at the beginning of this week, concerning the issue of additional securities.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is the government guaranteeing the railway's bonds at five per cent? If so, could any of the bonds be bought back and floated at a lower rate of interest, considering the present interest rates, thus saving millions of dollars?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The only five per cent bonds the government has are those of the Canadian National Railway Company. They are callable in 1949, and cannot be redeemed until then. They mature in 1969. Another one is callable in 1950 but matures in 1970. As I understand it, when these bonds are subject to call, it is the intention to call them, and that would be the end of the five per cent bonds. But that was taken up on the refunding bill.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is it the government's intention to float no more issues where the bonds are not callable for a long period, so that when low money rates come along they will not be tied to these exorbitant interest rates? That may bring a smile to the face of the hon. gentleman, but it is a pretty serious matter for the Dominion of Canada.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I cannot tell what is going to happen in future, but certainly there is no intention of doing that at the present time. What we may be obliged to do five, ten or fifteen years from now I cannot say.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The government can express its intention, and govern itself by future conditions. Its present intentions should be expressed now. No one but the government can express them.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The last issue was 2j- per cent. It is our intention to keep the interest rate as low as possible.
(Translation):


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Out of the figure just mentioned by the minister what specific amount is earmarked for the constituency of Chicoutimi?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no way of telling what it would be for the good reason that no separate accounts are kept for each constituency. I may say to the hon. member
Canadian National Railways

that if the railroad in which he is interested is under C.N.R. control, close to $2,000,000 will be spent in the Atlantic district.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: The minister cannot then state any definite amount for the Chicoutimi area in particular?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I cannot.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Power to aid other companies.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister please look at the first line of this section, which reads:
The national company may aid and assist, in any manner, any other or others of ithe said companies-
And so on. I suggest that this is going quite outside the limitations of section 2, though if that is so I am sure it is quite unintentional. I think that should read, "'in any manner not inconsistent with the terms of section 2", because surely this is a broadening out.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am told that this
Ivording is exactly the same as it has been for tome years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do we never want to make any improvements? This is for the purpose of improving it.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The suggestion will be brought to the attention of the minister.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That does not affect my comment. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport in his legal capacity if I am not correct.


Lionel Chevrier: That is just the comment T was making to my hon. friend. I would not want to be discourteous to the hon. gentleman. but I was saying that the question is whether it would be an improvement. In matters such as these we have to take the advice of the Department of Justice, which has gone over this bill and approved it. In view of that fact I feel that the interpretation we have placed upon it is the correct one.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suppose it is always possible that even the Department of Justice may overlook something. I am not suggesting that it is a mighty matter, but I am confident that I am right, and it seems to me it might be worth while, if it could be done, to let this section stand and refer the matter to the Department of Justice.


Lionel Chevrier: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that in view of the fact that this has been the wording over the years, the hon. gentleman allow it to go through, and 1 will make it my business to discuss the question with the Department of Justice to see if, in the bill which will come up next year, it may not be possible to meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the minister what "said" companies are these? I do not see any except the national railways.


Lionel Chevrier: The subsidiary companies of the railway.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bridges for the second reading of Bill No. 264, to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: In rising to speak on this bill to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act, let me at the outset commend the minister for introducing this legislation and for the amendments proposed therein. I want to take the opportunity now, which I did not have last session, to disabuse the mind of the minister, if I have to, and the minds of hon. members with regard to my attitude toward research and the fisheries research board. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am one of those who believe in research; and if I offered some criticism last year I have no apology for having done so, because I had one object in view. As one who has been here for eighteen years, and since the inception of the fisheries research board, I realized that some startling statements had to be made, and that I or someone had to make it strong if we hoped that any attention would be paid to the criticisms offered. I had no animosity against the personnel of the board; there was nothing personal in the remarks I made last year. I want to make it clear that I am in favour of research, and in favour of expending even more money for that purpose. But I was not in favour nor am I of the way the moneys were being expended under the direction of the fisheries research board. Therefore I am

Fisheries Research Board
pleased that the minister has seen fit to propose certain changes in that act; and when we are in the committee stage, or if the bill is sent to the fisheries committee, I may have some further proposals to offer which I believe should be incorporated in the bill.
The step being taken now, by which one of the departmental officials will become a member of the fisheries research board, and the action taken to bring the board more under the direction of the minister himself, I think are all to the good. I can speak with some little experience, because since 1937 I have had the honour to be a member of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission; and I can tell hon. members that if we had allowed the scientists on that commission to do as they pleased, without any check or instructions and without calling upon them to produce results along certain definite lines, I doubt that the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission would be in the splendid position that it is in today. Anyone who has had to deal with scientists, particularly fisheries scientists, knows very well that individuals of this type are sometimes inclined to spend a lifetime on some form of investigation which, while it may be very interesting to them and other scientists, is of very little value to the industry which is dependent upon research.
I am not going into the history of the research board at this time, nor am I going to criticize the expenditures that have been made, because I have quite a number of more important things to say. The general criticism I offer first of all in regard to the activities of the board is that their investigations have been far too general. The varieties of fish in respect of which research should be carried out are far too numerous, and in my opinion the board has therefore dissipated a great deal of its efforts. However I am going to make one or two comments before dealing with the annual report itself, which I have before me. Let me say again that my remarks today will not be destructive though they may be critical so far as the board is concerned, but will be more by way of suggestion-even if at times what I say may appear to be severe in my criticism.
Although Canada is a great fishing nation, Canadians consume less fish per capita than the people of any other nation. According to the latest statistics the consumption of fish in this country stands at roughly eight and a half pounds per head of population.
We are reaching a time when the fishing industry, looking to the future, is beginning to view with alarm what is going to happen to
the great quantities of fish produced, especially when our export markets begin to diminish. In what I am about to say I am not making any reflection upon the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges); indeed I give him credit for the great personal interest he has taken in the industry, and what he has done for its benefit, from one end of Canada to the other. But I must say that if more had been done to have our people consume more fish, and especially during the years of war, when all countries, with the exception of the United States and Canada were short of food, it would have been all to the good, from the standpoint not only of the industry itself but also of the health of the people.
Those who have examined food and food values have made it abundantly clear that there is no more healthful food for the human race than fish. But today in Canada fish is almost in the same position as the egg was some twenty-five or thirty years ago; when one in past years ordered an egg in a restaurant he was always fearful that he might find a chick or something worse inside. The consumption of eggs in those years in Canada went down, and so the Department of Agriculture undertook to improve the quality. While I will not say there was a rebellion, cerlainly in certain provinces there was amongst some farmers definite opposition to the regulations designed at that time to improve the quality and increase the consumption of eggs. In Canada today fish and fish products are not being ordered by the average housewife, the average citizen and the average family as a necessity, but rather as a substitute. Much more could have been done by the Department of Fisheries, and especially by the fisheries research board, to improve the quality of our fish. I do not know that it is the duty of the fisheries research board to check the varieties of fish offered for sale, but anyone who knows anything at all about fish must realize that in the central provinces, and especially in Ottawa, when he orders a certain kind of fish he is often served with another kind or variety. I am not throwing out any brickbats when I say that I have been in no city where this happens more frequently than it does in the city of Montreal.
Even in the parliamentary restaurant one finds at times the same condition. Far be it from me to criticize the restaurant in this buildiing, because the meals here, to my way of thinking, are splendid and well served. Anyone who is not content with them-well, I do not know what on earth would satisfy him.
Fisheries Research Board


Mr. MacNICOL:: You will get an extra piece of pie for that.


Thomas Reid: I am not speaking for any favours today.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But don't refuse it.


Thomas Reid: On occasions I have ordered haddock: it was cod, not haddock, that was , served. But in restaurants in Ottawa and Montreal I have been served with varieties of fish which I really could not name. I have ordered haddock, but what I got had no more relation to haddock than a eulachon has to sockeye salmon.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Did you ever order sole?


Thomas Reid: Yes, I have ordered sole, but I hesitate to order it again, after what I was served. Some check-up should be made in this matter. It is well known that fish is more palatable the closer one gets to the source of production. Efforts will have to be made to have fish brought to inland districts in better form and fresher condition. Some countries are doing that very thing. Only the other day I read that Norway has now established small landing fields along its coastline. Catches of fish, after being frozen, are flown from these locations to the interior cities. Some such step will have to be undertaken in Canada, perhaps not by the fisheries research board, but by the minister's department.
The fisheries research board could do much more than has been done in regards to this. Consider also the smoking of fish. I believe the smoking method was perfected in the maritime provinces over 20 years ago and great credit is due them for that development. But since the smoking process has been perfected, nothing has been done along this line for the past twenty years. Fish were smoked for two purposes, to improve the quality, and to preserve the fish for a certain length of time. Many consumers and many grocers who buy fish still believe that because a fish has been smoked it is preserved for any length of time, and that it can be left indefinitely in the open. Such, Mr. Speaker, is not the case.
Proper smoking is all to the good, because the longer a fish is smoked the longer it keeps, and perhaps the taste also improved. But some firms got tired of using the old smoking methods, and now I understand they give the fish a little whiff of smoke, and then add a lot of paint, in the form of some type of tar product. This, I understand, does not add to the digestibility of the fish. The result of all this is that the consumption of smoked fish in Canada has gone down.
Here there is a great field for research work. Fish is one of the finest foods on earth, and fish considered from the standpoint of production and man hours of work, is one of the cheapest sources of proteins. Investigations have been made, where comparisons have been made between pork and fish products. It has been proved beyond peradventure that fish can be produced more cheaply per man hour of labour than can pork.
I want to repeat that we must put across the idea in this country that fish is a necessity, not a substitute food or something to be eaten perhaps on one day in the week. That idea can be put across if we take the proper steps, assisted by the research board, to improve the quality of the product and the methods of preserving. There is a great field in connection with preservation by ice or other methods of freezing. At present there is a world shortage of food and yet before long this country may be faced with a surplus of fish. We consume roughly only 8-5 pounds per capita when we should be eating twice that amount, if not three times as much. If we were we would not be so much concerned about export markets.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is in how long?


Thomas Reid: One year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is really nothing; it should be far more than that.


Thomas Reid: One must not be confused with the consumption given sometimes in bulletins that are put out. The figures there refer to the amount of fish when caught and retained in this country for consumption, but I am referring to the edible portion of the fish which is consumed. Some countries consume as much as 75 to 80 pounds per capita and I understand that Denmark and Japan, two of the greatest fish eating countries in the world, consume well over 100 pounds per capita.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the consumption in the old country?


Thomas Reid: I have not the figure for the old country before me but before the war their consumption was far greater than ours. We are one of the smallest fish consuming countries in the world.
There are some matters in this report which I should like now to bring to the attention of the minister. It is my intention to deal only with British Columbia because I have given more attention and study to conditions there than to conditions in the maritimes. I shall leave any criticism or suggestion with reference to that part of the country to hon. members who come from the maritime provinces.

Fisheries Research Board
I have in my hand the report of the fisheries research board for 1946 and I should like to deal briefly with some of the matters set out therein in connection with fishing research in British Columbia. I do this, not with the idea of tearing down what has been done, but merely to show where I think they have been amiss and improvements made. Reference is made in the report to the investigation carried out on the Skeena river. Anyone who has given this matter any study cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that the Skeena river fisheries are much too large to be successfully covered by what is being attempted by this board. Their investigations in some lines have been far too meagre. If they intend to cover the Skeena river they should have more investigators, more scientists, and more time and effort should be spent.
Another matter referred to, is the investigation in connection with hair seals on the Skeena river. That is all to the good, but I wonder why they left out the Fraser river. The menace from hair seals is ten times as great in the Fraser river as it is in the Skeena. Looking through the records the other day, I noticed that some fishermen are refusing to go out on the Fraser river because the depradations by hair seals are so great they constitute a financial loss. Not only are the nets damaged but, the fish are destroyed as well. I have been on sand bars near the mouth of the Fraser when the tide was out and on one occasion I saw a herd of over 1.000 seals. Fishermen tell me that where thirty-five to forty fish are caught in a gill net, at least thirty would have their heads or tails nipped off by the seals. It should not be left to the fishermen to destroy these seals. I mention this because the fisheries research board did make some investigations on the Skeena river but, as I say, the menace there is not as great as on the Fraser.
Reference is also made in the report to the general salmon investigations made by the research board. They state that the runs of pinks and chums have been going down. In the north the runs have been going down from 1919 to 1944; yet no recommendation is made as to what should be done to build up the runs in that area. In the south the runs have been going down since 1938. It is all to the good to have the information from the research board that the runs are going down, but steps should be taken to try to preserve the runs and bring them back to their former greatness.
It is suggested to the returning veterans that they should go into fishing, but I would warn veterans in British Columbia not to rush too quickly into that business especially on the Fraser river. There is only a certain
quantity of fish each year but 10,000 or 12,000 licences have been issued. If more enter the business they are just cutting down the returns of those who are already there. Unless we do something to build up the runs to what they were in previous years, the situation will be serious indeed, since no steps have as yet been taken to go out into the offshore fisheries and develop these on behalf of our people.
Then, in connection with pink salmon, I wonder why the research board have omitted the Fraser river from their investigation. They did do some investigation on the Fraser river some years ago. I am not going into that other than to say that the picture of their research work on the Fraser river is not as good a story as I would like to tell. We have at present a problem on the Fraser river with regard to pink salmon. Up until 1913 the pink salmon used to go above Hell's Gate and spawn in the upper reaches of the Fraser river and in the lakes and streams of interior British Columbia. Not only did the disaster of 1913 block out the sockeye salmon at Hell's Gate, but the pinks practically ceased to go above Hell's Gate after that year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What caused the disaster?


Thomas Reid: The contractors who were building the railroad blasted thousands of tons of rock into the canyon. I think the story has been told in the house before and I would be delighted to deal with it again, but I have so many other matters I want to take up. If I started to talk about that I am afraid I would take up all my forty minutes. That condition was cured with the setting up of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission. The United States government and the Canadian government through that commission constructed two fishways at Hell's Gate canyon which has cost close to $1,000,000, fifty per cent being paid by the United States and fifty per cent by Canada. It is interesting to note what took place last year. The pink salmon which could not previously get through Hell's Gate canyon because of rough water and the velocity of the water were able to get up through the fishways in great numbers. The United States not only get the first crack at the sockeye salmon heading for the Fraser river but also first crack at the pink salmon, and yet we in this country provide the home for these fish and try to safeguard them as much as we can. They are really Canadian fish. The international Pacific salmon fisheries commission under the treaty can investigate only one species of fish, that is the sockeye salmon. They have no jurisdiction or authority to investigate pink salmon or any other variety. But here we have another
Fisheries Research Board

variety of fish called the pinks, eighty per cent of which are taken by the United States; yet ninety per cent of the run find their home in British Columbia. Nothing has been done by the fisheries research board to find out what percentage of these pinks go to the Fraser river, how and where they spawn, and how many the United States really get of what I claim are Canadian fish. Either the fisheries research board should be specifically instructed by the minister to investigate this question, as I think they can be when this bill passes, or further authority should be given to the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, not only to investigate and rehabilitate the sockeye salmon industry but all the other varieties of salmon which come up the Fraser river. That, of course, would require an amendment to the present treaty, but it is something I commend to the consideration of the minister and the house.
Another fishery is mentioned on page 46 of the report, the Cowichan river salmon. It has been investigated over many years but so far with little results. The board point out in their report:
This investigation has been carried on over a number of years and has resolved itself into a study of the variations occurring in a coho salmon run or population, subjected to commercial fishing along the west coast and in the strait of Georgia, and to an important sport fishery in Cowichan bay . . .
Nowhere yet is there any body of information of this kind.
I maintain that is not good enough, just to place before parliament and the fishing industry that there is no body of information on this question. I go back to the salmon called pinks and chums and repeat that it is not good enough to simply say that their numbers are going down and leave it at that. That does not help the industry very much unless steps are taken to build up these salmon runs.
The board have investigated pilchards, but I do not think anything has been done by the fisheries research board, so far as I can find out from the report, to investigate pilchards out in the open seas.
Some sunken net fisheries study has also been done. That includes thirty varieties or species of fish. Three or four men allotted to that work are not, in my opinion, enough. If they are to investigate the life history of some of these fish, as they likely will have to do, I wonder just when they will reach any conclusions, especially if only three or four investigators are investigating thirty varieties of fish and carry out their investigations over an area extending perhaps for hundreds of miles. The fisheries industry canniot afford to wait more than a lifetime or two for results. They cannot afford to wait for fifty or a hun-

dred years for recommendations if we are to get any benefit from them. These investigations should be hurried along. I think the minister should tell the board: I want you to investigate this variety or that variety, and that he expects some definite reports or results from their investigation within a reasonable period of time.
I have a word to say regarding oyster studies. I know that the great oyster fisheries in this country are in the maritime provinces, but we in British Columbia have developed some fine oyster beds too. The work in oyster research should be correlated with what is being done in the eastern maritimes. We should also find out what the state of Washington is doing, because the waters and the conditions there are the same as in British Columbia. I might point out that last year British Columbia marketed oysters to the value of $106,000. For many long years we have been bringing what is known as oyster spat or seed from the maritimes to British Columbia waters. The results were not altogether successful. This spat was crossed with the native oyster and even then the product was not as desirable from a marketing point of view as required, although the quality was fairly good. Until the war broke out oyster spat was imported from Japan and it was found that this oyster spat from Japan just suited British Columbia waters. Spat is now beginning to come in again from Japan.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was assimilated.


Thomas Reid: It is too bad we could not do that with the natives from Japan, but the oysters seem to be in a class of their own. Today in the gulf islands, which I know very well because I lived there for six happy years in the early period of my life, the beaches which had no oysters back in those days in 1911 are now beginning to have oysters on almost every beach. This is due to the importation of spat or seed from Japan which has crossed with the native spat and with spat from the east and now there has developed an oyster that does extremely well in the waters of British Columbia. Under the heading of "Oyster Studies" on page 49 of the annual report of the fisheries research board I find this:
The only work conducted on oysters in 1946 consisted of experiments by Alice M. Kelley, under the supervision of Mr. Neave, on tank propagation of oysters. If a satisfactory and feasible method of production of seed in tanks could be found, oyster growers would be less dependent on natural setting or on importation of seed from Japan for maintenance of stocks.

Fisheries Research Board
I claim that is not good enough for an industry which is today developing and in which success has already been obtained, not through the department, but by those engaged in the fishing industry.
We find also in the report of the board that they actually spent some little effort on a small fish called eulachon which comes to the Fraser river. I think it would be no great loss to leave the eulachon to the Indians and not bother with them from a marketing point of view. You can look through the reports of the Department of Fisheries and not find any mention of this fish, and yet the fisheries research board is spending some time in investigating it. It would be better if the department spent some time in finding out what happened to the great sturgeon of the Fraser river. I have in my hand a picture of a sturgeon caught when entangled in their net by gill net fishermen and weighing 633 pounds. It is worth fifty cents a pound, and a fish that was reckoned at one time and still is, as food fit for kings and for anyone. Yet no investigation of any kind has been made as to the cause of the decline or disappearance of the sturgeon. Only the odd few come into the Fraser river today. In the early days many sturgeon came into the river; at one time it was a regular fish on the market. From the fish that was caught the other day the fishermen took 100 pounds of eggs or caviar and received fifty cents a pound for the fish. The weight of this fish was not a record, because sturgeon up to 1,000 pounds have been caught in the Fraser river. The one that was caught recently weighed 633 pounds. In the light of this, is it any wonder that some of us who have read the report and know a little of the industry out there are not too enthusiastic over the research board. It was that and a lot more which caused me last year to make some of the rather harsh statements that I did.
I have pretty well covered the report in so far as British Columbia is concerned. In conclusion, I wish to say that I have a few suggestions to make and I trust that the minister will give them serious consideration. He may not be ready to adopt them all this year under the present amendments to the Fisheries Research Board Act. It is my opinion that the fishing industry as a whole should be represented on the board. It is true that there is one man, an estimable gentleman, on the board who at the time he was appointed, however, was not connected with any fishing company. Today it is felt by some that perhaps he receives some advance knowledge for his company from the research board. I am not 83166-262
accusing him of that; I am merely stating what some of the fishermen believe out there. They believe also that there should be a representative fisherman on the board. There should be one representative of the fishing companies on the board1 and, of course, the minister is putting a representative of his department on the board. That is all to the good. I trust that he will give my suggestion serious consideration.
It is high time also that this board was brought closer and made-I probably should not say "made to cooperate" because the two words do not go together. There should be complete cooperation with the fisheries research board and the fisheries departmental officials on the coast and with the department in Ottawa. We cannot allow a board as important as the fisheries research board to remain aloof and apart and do their own investigating without correlating the entire fishing interests into a closer unity and thereby pooling all our knowledge and all our skill. As I resume my seat I want to say again how pleased I am that this first step has been taken. I say to the minister that the statements made last year were not an attack in any personal way against the fisheries research board. I made the statements so that some attention would perhaps be paid to the matter and1 I have the feeling that somehow or other it has brought some good results.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I am sure the fishermen of British Columbia will be interested to hear that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) is interested in scientific research, and I am quite certain that his admission of that fact will carry a great deal of weight because his long experience and connection with the fishing industry are well known out there.
In some of the remarks which I shall make I shall endorse the facts that he has presented and also the recommendations that he has made, but I shall not take quite the same line of approach as he did. It seems to me, listening to his address, that he was holding up the fisheries research board, and particularly the biological station at Departure Bay near Nanaimo as a whipping boy for the government. It is not the fault of the research board; it is not the fault of the biological station at Departure Bay that they have not been able to accomplish as much as the industry would like. It is because they have not had the support of the government, and the government must take the blame and not pass it on to an organization which is not adequately supported.

Fisheries Research Board

Then the hon. member for New Westminster went on to criticize the work which had been done by the biological station at Departure Bay and said that it was of little value because the scientists there had dissipated their efforts. In the remainder of his speech, which was somewhat illogical in that respect, he went on to enumerate instance after instance where they might well disperse their efforts by carrying out investigations in other areas on other species of fish, which they had neither the time, the staff nor the facilities to do. You cannot accuse an organization of dissipating their efforts and then suggest that they still further dissipate those efforts and be consistent.
The hon. member for New Westminster referred to the annual report of the fisheries research board. The acting chairman of the board, in making his annual report said:
The fisheries research board is charged by parliament with the responsibility for carrying out such researches and investigations as will enable the fishery resources of the country to be managed in such a way as to yield the greatest possible return over the longest possible time.
Then the chairman goes on to say that the results of the board's studies are applied in the management and exploitation of the fisheries through the Department of Fisheries and the fishing industry. I must admit that if you judge by the results of the research board as they have been applied in the management and exploitation of our fisheries through the Department of Fisheries and the fishing industry, either the board or the government stands indicted for failure, because the fishing industry is today probably in the most precarious position of any major industry in Canada. It would appear to me that a thorough reorganization of the fisheries research board is long overdue, not as the fault of the scientists, but as the fault of the government in neglecting to support the board. .
Some of the reasons why the fishing industry is in this precarious position cannot, of course, be directly attributed either to the board or perhaps even to the government. For instance, the cessation of the bulk buying by UNRRA and the rapidly diminishing purchases of fish products by the United Kingdom have all resulted in the elimination of foreign markets which we have enjoyed in recent years, and have resulted in a sharp decline in the price that has been paid to the fishermen. For instance, on Vancouver island a year ago a fisherman was paid ten cents a pound for fresh cod. In a letter I received only a couple of weeks ago I was informed that for the same fish the fishermen are today receiving only six cents a pound. There

is a reduction of forty per ceqt in the amount that the fisherman receives for his toil. On the other hand, the cost of fishing gear has gone up tremendously. In some instances it has gone up 100 per cent to 200 per cent of what it was in the basic year, 1941.
I refer To one instance only, although I have many of them here if any hon. member is interested. In 1941 the price of one-and-a-half inch mesh cotton netting was 66J cents. Today it is SI.54. There is a considerable increase to the fishermen in the cost of all gear and supplies, not to mention the cost of living. If this bill is intended to extend and increase the efficiency of the fisheries research board, and to bring that board into closer contact with the department by the , appointment of a responsible officer to supervise and administer the work of the board, I think at best it can be described as an eleventh-hour measure to try to save the industry. I am pleased to see that there is this administrative connection because in the main, the board and the officials of the board are scientists, men who are devoting the whole of their energy and time to scientific studies. That type of professor is not always a practical man. He is not always a good administrator. That may be one of the reasons why the board has, in the past, not been able to render all the service that was expected. With the addition of an administrator from the department, I feel that the results should be more satisfactory. I do not think I am exaggerating the case when I say tha. for years overpressure of work and lack of adequate personnel have prevented the board from functioning efficiently, and that the lack of this administrative personnel has been keenly felt, alike by the scientists of the board and by the industry itself.
As for fulfilling the responsibilities toward maintaining the greatest possible yield over the longest possible time, as the hon. member for New Westminster has pointed out, they can hardly be credited with having achieved results in that direction, because the salmon industry in British Columbia has been, and still is, showing unmistakable signs of depletion. Neither effective nor adequate corrective measures have been taken toward stabilizing the industry at a higher productive level by maintaining or increasing the run of salmon. As has been shown by the investigations carried out by the board and by the biological station at Departure Bay, many of the streams and spawning grounds which were at one time prolific producers have now become seriously depleted and, in some cases, completely exhausted. The investigation is

Fisheries Research Board
40S7
still continuing to find out the reasons why there has been this depletion, and what corrective measures can be taken.
I could give many examples. Examples have been given in the brief which was presented to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) by the industry in March, 1946, and again in April, 1947. Perhaps I might refer to just one instance mentioned in that brief. There is an area on the west coast of Vancouver island which, a few years ago, produced 15,000 cases of sockeye in one season; in 1944 it produced less than 1,000 cases. In 1939, 213,000 cases of chum salmon were produced off Vancouver island; in 1944 only 50,000 cases were produced. You may blame the biological station at Nanaimo for not having given you more precise information. But I suggest that these scientific examinations of the run of salmon, particularly when the salmon run in cycles of four years, all take time in order that the scientists may arrive at a correct solution of the problem. I do not think the industry would like to be set off at half-cock and to be advised to follow a course of action which would not be definite and satisfactory, where the results would not be conclusive.
We know that the streams on Vancouver island and on the Pacific coast are affected by many other occupations. They cannot be devoted entirely to the interests of the fishermen. Logging operations clash in some respects with the requirements of the fishing industry; and the general development of the country has. of course, militated against the further productiveness of the streams. However I think I can say that the rehabilitation of the British Columbia salmon industry is a major problem facing the fishing industry on the Pacific coast. I also maintain that this rehabilitation cannot be accomplished without the help of the scientists. While I have suggested that perhaps this research board to date has failed to produce results which satisfy the industry, I do not question the sincerity or the ability of the scientists who have been employed. Rather do I accuse the government of failure to support that board adequately in the past, and I hope that this new bill is a step in the right direction.
As I said before, for years overpressure of work and lack of personnel have prevented this board from functioning properly. I know very well that at the Pacific coast biological station at Departure Bay the work has become so congested that seldom is an investigation completed before ten other new problems are thrown at the staff. Again and again they have been asked to carry out a $100,000 investigation for 11,000. Satisfactory research work cannot be carried out in the conditions 83166-262J
under which those scientists are working. The building itself is old and out of date. There are piles of documents which have been collected only after years of long research work. In the past they have been working under the greatest possible handicap, with poor staff accommodation and poor means of storing their records. I know that matter was brought to the attention of the minister when he first visited Nanaimo, and I hope that steps will be taken to provide a new building for that Departure Bay station.
As the hon. member for New Westminster said, general investigations have been conducted on the salmon run in the rivers and streams on Vancouver island and on the mainland between the Fraser and the Skeena rivers. Hundreds of fish have been tagged each season in order to trace their migrations and to test the escapements from the spawning grounds. As the hon. member said, investigations have also been carried out with regard to herring, pilchard, ling cod, clams, oysters, seaweed and many other activities, and I suggest that if it had been possible to carry those investigations to their logical conclusion they would have been of immense value to the industry. But as I have already said, that work has been hampered by lack of staff, cramped accommodation and inadequate facilities.
Biological research is not by any means the only activity this board should undertake. There is the whole field of what might be called technological research. By that I mean research into the methods of production, processing, distribution and marketing, in order to maintain what is referred to in the industry as continuity of quality, that is, continuity of quality of the fish from the time it is caught by the fisherman until it reaches the consumer. It is true that the two major companies on the Pacific coast maintain laboratories and experimental staffs of their own which are investigating these technological matters, but quite naturally the findings of the specialists employed by those companies are not readily available to the smaller companies and the cooperatives. As yet the cooperatives are not in the position where they may maintain staffs in order to carry out this technological research. Therefore they look to the research board for assistance in that way. I suggest that this field of technological research has been hardly touched by the board, though it has a direct bearing on the development of the fishing industry.
The lack of coordination between the department and the research board has, I know, been brought to the attention of the
Fisheries Research Board

minister and the government on many occasions. Again, if this bill is intended to correct that condition it will be beneficial to the industry. Up to now the chief supervisor of fisheries has had no control over the research stations; and as a result of the lack of close collaboration between supervisory and research staffs, much of the work has been duplicated and become ineffectual. I have mentioned that in the past the board has been woefully short of scientific personnel. As a matter of fact there have been few inducements to attract young men of the right type and with the right education into the service. I understand that in this bill provision is made to extend to them some of the advantages of our civil service, and I should hope that, in addition offers of adequate remuneration will be made, and that there may be a system of promotions and conditions of service that will not only draw into this scientific service but also hold in this service the best type of 3'oung Canadians who may be interested in this work. In the past too many of these young scientists who have started out in this scientific research work for the fisheries department have found greater attractions in the United States and have left this branch of the work because the inducements and the security have not been suffieiept to hold them.
At the last annual meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada an educational programme was urged. The hon. member for New Westminster also suggested that an educational programme should be started. I heartily endorse that recommendation. It was suggested by the Fisheries Council of Canada that the department set up a division for assembling and disseminating information on how to care for fish all the way down the line from the fisherman to the producer to the wholesaler to the retailer, and right down to the consumer. It should be remembered that at every stage in that line fish is an extremely perishable product, and there is great scope for thorough investigation and for a thorough educational programme. Further, I think this educational programme would be within the legitimate realm of the board, provided that the board was given the facilities and personnel to carry it out. One has only to remember that for many years other and competitive protein foods have had the support of a vast government educational system. We need only think of the experimental farms which the Department of Agriculture has scattered from one end of the dominion to the other to realize the educational programme that has been undertaken in the past by that department. That has not happened

as far as the fisheries are concerned and, as the hon. member for New Westminster has said, the result is that the average Canadian eats 8-4 pounds of fish a year, whereas he consumes 139-7 pounds of meat, 27 pounds of poultry and even 38-9 pounds of eggs. Surely there is opportunity for an educational programme to increase the consumption of fish; but the industry, assisted by the government, has to find a way of producing and delivering the fish in an acceptable manner. The president of the Fisheries Council of Canada said, at a recent convention:
If the industry could achieve a universally good product, standardized as to quality, and if our fish were prepared and merchandized effectively, our fish consumption would soar.
I suggest that exports would be unimportant, and that lack of production would be our difficulty. He then went on to say:
If our per capita consumption of fish was increased by three and a half ounces per person per week each year for five years, it would keep the engines of our fishing boats and the machines of our processing plants running at overload capacity to meet the demand.
I suggest that this is a realm in which the fisheries research board could carry out investigations along these lines. The same sentiments were voiced to me in a letter from a practical fisherman, secretary of a cooperative, who wrote the other day and said:
The average housewife should foe educated to the fact of what really fresh fish should be. I am certain very few people across the dominion know what really good fresh cod and salmon taste like. I honestly believe that if the average person could get fish in as good shape as we bring it into our local camps we would have very little difficulty in building up a healthy fish appetite in this country of ours.
Then he goes on to say:
We must ensure that the top number one product reaches the consumer at all times.
Unlike the Department of Agriculture, which looks after the foods which compete with fish, no marketing service exists in the Department of Fisheries. And I suggest there is no one in the Department of Trade and Commerce with a comprehensive knowledge of fish marketing and produce. Therefore I say this is a legitimate field for the reasearch board.
Before closing, I should like to urge upon the minister that a representative of the fishermen be appointed to the advisory committee of the board on the Pacific coast, to replace Mr. J. H. Deane who, because of ill health, had recently to resign from the advisory board. During the time he was serving on that board he definitely represented the interests of the fishermen.

Fisheries Research Board
Finally, I should like to commend all those who are connected with the board and who have made a definite contribution to the industry, and excellent attempts to overcome the almost insurmountable obstacles they have had to face, in spite of what I feel has been in the past a rather half-hearted government support.


Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunen-burg):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I
should like to compliment both hon. members who have preceded me, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), upon the high plane of their remarks, and the nonpartisan way in which they have approached this problem. It augurs well for the industry, when we have so many difficulties, and so much in common, that problems like this can be approached on a non-political basis. To me it is always one of the highlights of any fishing debate to listen to the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster, who is the chairman of the standing committee on marine and fisheries. As usual I have enjoyed his speech a great deal, and have found it most constructive. Then, the hon. member for Nanaimo has placed his finger on many problems which are the same as those we encounter in the east, and in what he has said he has made a constructive contribution to the debate.
I believe the hon. member for New Westminster deplored the fact that there was no practical fisherman on the fisheries research board. When he said that, he may have been thinking more particularly of the west coast, because on the east coast, among others, we have Mr. 0. F. Mackenzie from Halifax, who is one of the most aggressive and practical minded fishermen in the industry. His reports on fishing conditions as they affect the maritime provinces are a guiding light, and have been for years back. Therefore I feel the hon. member must have been referring to the west coast when he made that reference.
There is at the present time a great need to strengthen the fishing industry. It was the first to suffer from post-war conditions, and it is now in a difficult position. This bill, which is in fact one to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. It is an attempt to strengthen the board, and as such it is all to the good.
I would also say at this time that in my opinion, from the time he took office, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) has been doing good work in strengthening the fishing industry throughout the dominion.
Basically, as I see it, this bill can be divided into three important divisions. In the first place, it seeks to create the position of vicechairman for the board. That is all to the good. In the second place, it seeks to establish an executive director of the board. Until now that work has been carried out by the secretary of the board, Major Sutherland, who, in addition to doing a good job and a full-time job in the Department of Fisheries, has been carrying on capably as secretary of the board.
But since the board was established in 1937, and even before that, since the time of the old biological research board, the nature of the industry has changed so greatly, and the problems have become so much more complex and the expenditures so much greater, that the board merits a full-time and capable man. For that reason I endorse this proposal completely.
Third, the bill seeks to give the board statutory rights to control certain of its expenditures, and to appoint and dismiss personnel as required. I believe this is a modernization which is required, in the light of modern developments.
Since its inception the board has grown into something really big, as a business undertaking. It now operates stations at Halifax; St. Andrews; Ellerslie, Prince Edward Island; Grand River; Winnipeg; Toronto (for the preparation and publication of information),, and at Vancouver and Nanaimo. In the years from 1939 to 1946 expenditures increased from $240,000 to $636,000, and this year the estimates provide for approximately three-quarters of a million dollars. That is in the realm of big business, and this is an attempt to modernize and to improve the act so as to cope with conditions encountered today. That is all to the good.
As we in the east find it, and as I would gather from the remarks of the hon, member for Nanaimo it is found in the west, the fishing industry is now standing definitely at the cross-roads, and it may well be that the fisheries research board will be an important factor in determining which way it will go. During the war there were heavy demands for fish from foreign markets, with the result that the nature of this traditional fishing industry changed. It rose to great heights of efficiency and production.
Before the war the emphasis was on the production of salt fish, and the major markets were in the West Indies and the Mediterranean countries. During the war the heavy demands came from Great Britain and the United States, with the result that, although there
Fisheries Research Board,

was still a substantial demand for salt fish, the main emphasis was placed on fresh frozen fish and fresh frozen fillets.
The fishing industry in the United Kingdom has now been substantially rehabilitated, as has the industry in France and other European countries, with the result that these markets are no longer available to us. Furthermore, under the impetus of demands arising from the war, the fishing industries in Newfoundland and Iceland developed to the point where they are serious competitors for the United States market.
The United States on its own behalf has expanded its fishing industry by putting into operation many more draggers in the last few months. That nation is therefore in a better position to supply its own needs than it was even a short time ago,- although it is not likely that it will be able to meet demands for its own internal consumption, even now.
We hope that under new trade and tariff agreements the United States will still permit a generous quota of foreign fish to enter that country; but we do not lose sight of the fact that there will be keen competition to determine which nation will provide the bulk of the quota, and low costs will decide the ultimate winner.
In recent months there has been a decided indication that the price of fish might not hold. That is one of the most serious things we have to contend with at the present time. Recently the price of cod slipped off one cent and the industry is trying desperately to hold the price at the present level. There are indications that with the large inventories there are on hand, and with the possibility of overproduction at the present time, the industry may be under the greatest strain to hold the price at the present level. Therefore we are asking the government at this time to provide some measure of support in the event that the price slips off still more. It is fully realized that, even though some assistance from the government may be forthcoming, it can be only temporary in nature and that in the long run the industry must either stand on its *own feet or fall.
There are two solutions to this problem. We must meet competition in order to obtain a fair share of the United States markets and we must take drastic steps to develop our own home market- Even in our own home market we shall be met with competition. We are fully aware that in such centres as Montreal, Toronto and other central Canadian cities those who are able to produce fish for the

least cost will get the market. We feel that cost will be a factor even in connection with our own Canadian market.
In attempting to meet foreign competition we must remember that many countries which produce fish have a standard of living considerably lower than ours. Their fishermen are paid much less for their fish than are ours. Our standards are relatively high and it is quite understandable that every effort must be made to maintain them. But we must face realities. In order to meet competition, and meet it we must if the industry is to survive, there must be a reduction in our operating costs. That is not easy in view of the fact that there have been escalating increases in the cost of the instruments of production, as the hon. member for Nanaimo has so well said. We hope that production costs can be decreased without further lowering the price of fish to our fishermen. All other means of reducing costs must first be fully explored to the complete satisfaction of the fishermen. It is in this field that the fisheries research board may be able to play an important and determining part in finding ways and means of decreasing the cost of production.
The other solution to the problem of protecting our fishing industry is to develop our home market by increasing consumption. I should like to refer to the April bulletin of the Fisheries Council of Canada, as did the hon. member for Nanaimo, and quote the following:	,
Arguments that the war years brought an unprecedented demand for food and that the knocking out of competitive fishing countries gave Canada artificial opportunities, weaken substantially in the face of statistics which show that the 1945 per capita consumption of fish was 8-4 pounds as gainst 139-7 pounds of meat. The ratio is absurd, yet if the per capita consumption of Canadian fish products were increased from only three to five pounds-[DOT]
Presumably they mean by only three to five pounds.
-it would overstrain the industry's productive capacity if pre-war export markets were maintained but the results would soon be quickly apparent and, assuming that prices were held at a reasonably profitable level, such increased demands for fish products would result in a continuing prosperity and steady employment for the industry.
I submit that the situation in Canada with respect to the consumption of fish is absurd when we consider the consumption of meat, eggs and poultry, if the figures quoted by the hon. member for Nanaimo are correct, and I have every reason to believe that they are except that his figures for the consumption of eggs seemed rather high; the low usage of fish is deplorable by comparison. The per capita consumption of fish in Canada is only

Fisheries Research Board
8-4 pounds, and an increased consumption of from three to five pounds per capita would support this industry if exports remained only at the pre-war level. I think that shows the solution to be right in our own Canadian hands.
It seems to me little to ask that every person in Canada should eat from three to five pounds more fish per year, particularly when it has such nutritive value, as the hon. member for New Westminster so ably pointed out. At this time I want to make the strongest plea I possibly can from the floor of this House of Commons that all housewives in Canada see to it that the members of their families are given an opportunity to consume at least three pounds more fish a year.


Thomas John Bentley: Take the bones out.


Robert Henry Winters: That is with the bones out. An educational programme is required in connection with our domestic markets. The fisheries research board could play an important part in such a programme by assisting in advertising and familiarizing the people in inland Canada with the methods of preparing fish. The proper preparation of fish is all important. The hon. member for New Westminster has told us of the trouble he has had in obtaining edible fish, particularly in Montreal. I think the same holds true in any part of Canada west of the maritimes, and probably the British Columbia members will say that it holds true in any part of Canada east of the Rockies.
The industry is not attempting to place the blame on anyone. It realizes that it must take the lead itself by putting on the market a high quality product in good condition. The industry is fully aware that it should assume that part of the problem. I am sure that with proper methods of handling, inspection and transporting that phase of the problem will be solved in due course and good quality fish will be put on the market to attract the housewives of Canada and make it much easier for them to cooperate in increasing the consumption of fish. We feel that the fisheries research board could be a vital factor in that connection. I would ask the minister to give full consideration to the educational aspects of the problem, which are so important at this time.
I will close by saying that, as far as my constituents are concerned, we feel that this bill is a good one since it is a step toward the improvement of the industry, and I shall endorse it.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to say anything in
this debate after having listened1 to the wonderful addresses we have had this afternoon. I had prepared a few things to say but most of them have been said by speakers who have preceded me. It is always a pleasure to me to listen to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) when he speaks about fish and the fishing industry. He seems to have made a thorough study of this matter both as it concerns the western coast and the country generally. The hon. member said that he had not been able to get the quality of fish he desired in the restaurant. If he had turned to the a la carte section of the menu he would have found one of the most delicous fish he would want, namely, Prince Edward Island scallops. I am sure he would have thoroughly enjoyed them.
The hon. member also referred to the fact that the per capita consumption of fish was something like eight and1 a half pounds per annum- If he had looked around the house, both while he was speaking and now, and seen the few who are interested in the fishery problems of Canada he would have said to himself: By another year if there is no more interest shown by the people of this country and in the house in the fishing industry I am afraid that the consumption of eight and a half pounds will shrink considerably.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) has given an address on the fishing industry which was as notable as that of the hon. member for New Westminster. These two gentlemen have presented the problem in such a way as to interest, I hope not only the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges), but the government and the people who will get the benefit of their addresses.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Queens-


An hon. MEMBER:: Queens-Lunenburg.


Mr. McLURE:: Yes. I was thinking more of Queens which had been, I was going to say stolen from our part of the country, but I am glad that the hon. member has annexed it to his constituency. His remarks today were of a high educational order. I was very glad to hear him say that in a debate on fisheries all parties in this house are in accord because of their interest in the fisheries in general. But I can hardly agree with his solution of the problem-to consume more fish, educate the people to eat more fish. He also said that there was no blame attached to anyone but the fishermen themselves. I do not believe he meant just that. While the fishermen may be somewhat to blame I place the greater part of the blame on the government, not the government of the present day but on all
Fisheries Research Board

governments over the past number of years. They have lacked the interest that should have been shown in our fisheries.
The fishing industry is one that many of us are closely associated with and greatly interested in, and I was glad to agree with those who have spoken so far in this debate in favour of the development of the fishing industry.
In rising to speak on the second reading of this bill to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act, I do so, not in a spirit of criticism of the amendments, but in an endeavour to point out to this house the neglect by governments of this great industry of fishing over a period of years. The culmination of the lack of interest, lack of research work, lack of biological work, lack of technological work and the great indifference of our own marine and fisheries committee and of governments has brought about the precarious position in which the fisheries industry finds itself today. This great industry is in the most unfortunate position of all our primary industries, and I should like to contrast for a moment this industry with our great basin industry of agriculture and what has been done for it.
Our basic industry of agriculture has been and is being studied by scientists of every description, by technologists in every branch of farming, by advertising experts, by marketing experts, by processing experts for both production and distribution. Agricultural, schools and colleges are dotted across this country for the training of agricultural scientists and for the educating of' practical farmers. Besides all these schools and colleges, we have many kinds of practical experimental farm stations all for the benefit of the wheat farmer, the fruit farmer, the cattle rancher, the potato farmer and many other types of men who produce wealth from the soil for the food of man and beast. I am not for one moment going to say that what has been done for agriculture is too great an effort. On the contrary, nothing is too great an effort for the greatest of our industries, the basic industry of agriculture.
Now let us look for a moment, by way of comparison, at our fishing industry. No country in the world is more favoured with all kinds of fish of equal quality and quantity than Canada; yet right across this great country from the Atlantic to the Pacific we have only some six or seven biological stations, and I stand to be corrected by the Minister of Fisheries if I am not correct.


Mr. BRIDGES:: Not seven.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There are three or four
supplemental stations, but there are few if any schools or colleges training experts or scientists in the fishing industry. We have no experimental fishing stations for the training of technologists, fishermen, processors and so forth. The neglect of this great industry can be seen at all times and in all places. The fact of the matter is that we are only tickling the industry. We have not as yet even scratched the great possibilities of this great industry of fishing. Let me here say that I do not desire the Minister of Fisheries to think I am placing any blame on him or his department; I am putting the blame on all governments of the past. They have not realized the possibilities of the great fishing industry. There is no salmon in the world like the British Columbia and the Gaspe salmon. There are no lobsters in the world like those on the east and Atlantic coasts. There are no oysters in the world like the great oysters known as the Malpeques from Prince Edward Island. I could mention dozens of the most delectable fish. I just mention these, and I should like to say further to the Minister of Fisheries that during his regime-


Mr. BROOKS:: On a question of privilege, I should like to make a correction in the hon. member's statement. He said that there were no salmon like the British Columbia salmon. I should like to point out to him that it is considered there are no salmon in the world like the New Brunswick salmon, and especially Saint John salmon.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: He was referring to canned salmon. Let us be fair.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am sorry that I omitted to add the words "Saint John". I did say that there were no salmon in the world like the British Columbia and the Gaspe salmon. However I was dealing with the Department of Fisheries as presided over by the minister. No doubt today he finds himself handicapped by lack of good trained men, research men and so forth for the work that has to be accomplished. The fisheries department, its minister and staff are working out plans for the future of this industry, and the government must not cramp their style.
Hoping that I have paid the compliment that is due the department and the minister,
I shall deal with a few other matters. The first step in this great industry is the procuring of the fish, the netting, the hooking, the trapping, the trawling or any other means of gathering the fish from the sea. The first step, namely, the mining of the sea for fish

Supply-Agriculture
is well taken care of by our hardy fishermen. These men who go down to the sea in boats are real men.
The second step in this industry is where we begin to falter, namely, in the cleaning, curing, salting, drying, freezing and processing of the catch. Here is where the fisherman needs, and needs it badly, the assistance of the science of the industrial arts, technology.
The next step is the distribution of one of the chief stable foods of mankind. Any article of food that requires a certain amount of processing must be made to conform to a standard quality.
On motion of Mr. McLure the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Science service-
5. Administration, $35,404.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: A year or so ago in
the discussion I mentioned the problem of the little cherry disease in the Kootenay district and the Okanagan district. At that time the minister gave a short resume of what was to be done and said there was difficulty in obtaining sufficient staff for science service. Will he give the committee a complete outline of what the position is today?


James Garfield Gardiner: Investigations are still continuing here from the central bases, but at the moment we have not sufficient staff to man any further research or experiments on the ground.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
7. Bacteriology and dairy research, $79,498.
Mr. BRYCE:: Can the minister tell us
anything about the research work being done with regard to milk in the Winnipeg district?


James Garfield Gardiner: On this particular
item?


William Scottie Bryce: If this is not the right item, I shall raise the matter at another time.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing being
done in bacteriology at Winnipeg.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
Entomology-
10.	Agricultural entomology, $857,519.
Mr. FRASER:: What progress, if any,
has been made in the last year in regard to the peach worm?


James Garfield Gardiner: The departmental
officers who are concerned with this matter think they have it fairly well under control through spraying and through the use of parasites in order to destroy the worm.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is there any check on the sale of the peaches which have worms in them? I have reference to shipping them out of the province.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The peaches or the
worms?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is, shipping peaches
out of the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not any
quarantine on it now. The only control we have is preventive.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
Entomology-
11.	Forest entomology, $827,297.
Mr. CARDIFF:: Is any attempt being
made to conserve the young trees, and not allow them to be cut under a certain size? Timber men and mill men who buy tracts of timber in the country go into the bush and cut down every tree there. Trees under a certain size are not of any value to them. I would say that it does not pay them to do the cutting of trees under the six-inch size. Is any attempt being made to conserve them?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as our department is concerned, we have control of entomology only as related to the forests. The activities which are spoken of are really under provincial control.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has any progress been
made with regard to pine rust? I notice this year that throughout the country a great many pine trees are dying or have died just within the last six or seven months.


James Garfield Gardiner: No effective way of controlling pine rust has been found. Investigations and research work are being carried on with regard to it, but no system of handling it effectively has yet been developed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the southern part of Ontario this year I noticed that many trees were dying, especially in my own district. I wondered if there was any chance of this disease being stopped.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-A griculture
[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms service-
15.	Administration, $97,448.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I am not sure that this is the right item, but I think it would be. I should like to ask the minister about the later types of wheat, I have special reference to a type Durum wheat which I think is called "Stewart". Will the minister tell us what research has been done with respect to both durum and hard wheat? What are the latest types which the experimental people are now recommending?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the committee is desirous of having full information with regard to that, and I imagine it is one of the most important items that we shall have in the estimates-


James Arthur Ross: Yes, it is. That is why I mentioned it.


James Garfield Gardiner: -I think I had better have Doctor Archibald here. He is not here at the moment.


James Arthur Ross: I quite agree.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would suggest that we allow items 13, 14 and 15 to stand, and go on from there. As soon as Doctor Archibald comes in, I shall get the full information. He will be here in a few minutes.
Items 13, 14 and 15 stand.
Production service-
16.	Administration, $43,855.


James Arthur Ross: What has been done about the production of live stock? The minister should at least make a short statement at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: As hon. members know, there has been some reduction in live stock production pretty well all along the line. There has been, prior to this year, a considerable reduction in hog production. During this last year there has been a slight reduction in the production of cattle; that is, during the year we are now in. There has also been a dropping off in the production of milk. Milk production is down, but not greatly. It was over 17 billion pounds a year ago and it is 16 billion and and some odd pounds now. There has been a considerable reduction in cheese and butter production. The main difficulty in connection with all those products is that we are inclined to compare the present production with the production in 1943 and 1944. As I have stated before in the house, the condition existing at that time was an abnormal one. It was one under which at the beginning of the season of 1943-44 we had 600,000,000 bushels of wheat

in our elevators, and when we had the whole of an average year's producton of feed grains on the farms or in elevators across the country, as compared with the situation in preceding years. Under those circumstances it was, of course, possible greatly to increase the production of all live stock products. As is generally known, hogs can be increased rapidly under conditions of that kind; and within the twelve-month period we were producing hogs at the peak of production. We continued that production pretty well through 1944; then in 1945 there was a dropping off; and there has been a dropping off until this spring when, as was stated in the house earlier this session, production increased in Ontario and Quebec. In fact there was an increase in all eastern Canada, taking the maritime provinces together with Ontario and Quebec. But there is still a decrease in production from month to month in the western provinces. In April it worked out about equal to April of the preceding year all across Canada, taking the entire production of the western provinces and the eastern provinces and comparing it with the entire production right across Canada in 1946. So the department feels that production is on the increase, and probably that increase will continue in eastern Canada if we have the feed grain.
Today I met a delegation representing producers of feed, feed dealers and dairy producers right across Canada. They expressed the view that the biggest problem confronting producers of live stock of all kinds is a shortage of feed grain and that this difficulty existed at the moment, entirely apart from what we might be able to produce in the crop that has just been seeded. There is a considerable shortage of feed grain with which to finish the live stock we now have. So, as was stated a year ago, our greatest problem in connection with production is that of getting feed grain. Unfortunately the area which has been producing about half the grain fed to their live stock and getting the other half from the western provinces-that is, the two central provinces-is having difficulty in getting in the seed this spring. It was stated to me today by these men, who are well informed on the question, that present prospects are that not more than forty-five per cent of the feed produced in Ontario and Quebec last year will be produced this year. If this turns out to be the case it will mean that if farmers are to finish the live stock for which they have already made preparations on their farms, at least fifty per cent more grain will have to be shipped from the prairies than was shipped last year. That is, merely to maintain pro-

Supply-A griculture
duction at the level of last year we shall have to ship about fifty per cent more feed grain to the eastern provinces.
As far as the western situation is concerned, I believe western members and others know it is about three or four weeks too soon to begin to talk about what our crop is even likely to be. However I had in my office yesterday one of the chief authorities in the west in connection with grain production, and he told me the prospects for a crop this year are as good as they have ever been at this time of year, taking western Canada as a whole. So I think it is proper to say that the acreage of coarse grains seeded in western Canada this year is as great as anyone anticipated it would be; and if the season continues to be as good as it has been up to the present -apart from the fact that it is about two weeks late, which may be helpful or otherwise -we should have sufficient feed grain to supply the needs of eastern farmers as well as the needs of western producers if live stock production is kept at about the level of last year. We are hopeful that if we have a bumper crop we can take care of even more live stock than we took care of last year. So at present we are urging farmers not to anticipate shortages of feed grain for at least another month, until we have a look at the western crop and are able to advise better as to what that crop is likely to be.
Mr. WRIGHT; Would the minister say something in regard to the establishment of artificial insemination areas in Canada with respect to dairy animals or other live stock?
Mr. GARDINER; I wish the hon. member would wait and bring up that question when we reach the item concerning health of animals.
Mr. WRIGHT; Very well.


Mr. QUELCH:: Could the minister give any information as to what is likely to be the market for horses in future? I am not referring to the canning factories, but I should like to know if there is likely to be any market in Europe.


James Garfield Gardiner: As hon. members know, our chief market for horses outside Canada during the last two years was in France and Holland. In Holland it was anticipated that a considerable number of horses would be required in the years immediately following the war, and they entered into an agreement with the government under which they agreed to take five thousand. Unfortunately for us, but fortunately for the people of Holland conditions were not nearly as difficult as they thought they would be. I was in Holland in January, 1946, and visited the officials of the
department who were concerned with the importation of horses. They suggested that, although Holland had taken only half the number they had contracted for, they preferred to drop the contract and not take any more, because they expected to be exporting horses within a year instead of importing them. So that market, which about a year and a half ago we regarded quite hopefully, will probaby not be taking any horses from this country.
At the same time we had a contract with the French government under which we were to deliver horses to that country. A year ago last fall we did deliver horses to France; then in the spring of 1946 the French government expressed the desire to deal directly with our private dealers, and sent buyers from France to deal with our people and arrange for a considerable shipment of horses to that country. When the French minister of agriculture was here during the winter months he told me that they desired to get just as many horses this year as they had obtained last year, and that they were sending buyers to look after the purchase of the horses in the same way as they had done a year previously. I am not in a position tonight to say when those buyers will be here or the extent to which they will purchase horses this year, but my understanding is that they are just as anxious to have them this year as they were last year, and that buyers will be here to purchase them.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I understand that the provincial government is undertaking to provide a certain amount of storage in order to build up a fodder bank. Is the federal government cooperating with the government of Saskatchewan in any way along that line?


James Garfield Gardiner: For many years there has. of course, been talk in Saskatchewan of building up a fodder bank, and also of building up a bank of feed grain. So far as I know, most of the fodder, which has been stored up in Saskatchewan under any plan, up to date, has been stored in connection with the operations of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. We had considerable storage of feed at Valmarie in the south central part of Saskatchewan. Some of it was put up as far back as 1938. Some of the feed that was put up in 1938 I saw there a year ago. That feed was in the form of oat straw which had been baled and properly protected from the weather; and that oat straw, which had been there from 1938 until 1945, to all appearances looked to be about as good as when it was first baled and piled up. It is true that only
Supply-Agriculture

a very small part-I would say not more than twenty per cent at the outside-of what had been put up in 1938 was still there in 1945. I would expect that, in view of the nature of the season last year, probably all that storage was disposed of last year.
In addition to that., we had promoted the production of alfalfa both at Valmarie and at Eastend. The hope was that farmers there would take 40-acre or 80-acre plots under irrigation, grow fodder and store it for the purpose of maintaining live stock throughout any drought year which might come along. Unfortunately, when drought did strike them two years ago, we found that the intention which we had in mind in the beginning was not being carried out. Perhaps that was owing to the fact that we had not kept a close enough check on the matter ourselves. When I was driving down to inspect what was going on at Valmarie two years ago I met truckloads of alfalfa coming in to plants in Swift Current, at which point, or at other points to which it would be shipped from there, it was to be distributed to different parts of Canada in the form of alfalfa meal, which could be used for the feeding of live stock in different places.
Of course that was not our intention when, at a cost of $120,000, we put in a dam and made provision for irrigation and the seeding down of land to alfalfa in the centre of the drought area. Our intention was that that fodder would be retained in that district, at least until some intimation had been given that it was not going to be needed there.
This year we did enter into an arrangement with the government of Saskatchewan. I am not certain that the forms are completely signed up; nevertheless an agreement has been reached. Before stating what the arrangement is, I should point out that there is a development under which we drain Rush lake, and seed down part of it. That has been available for the purpose of providing feed. I was going to say that in connection with the Swift Current storage project, or the Swift Current irrigation project which, as hon. members from Saskatchewan will know, extends from west of Swift Current over to Rush lake and the district surrounding it, we have this year entered into an arrangement with the provincial government under ' which they have the first claim upon the feed that may be produced on this land for the purpose of providing forage for live stock. If they do not require it, then, of course, the federal government has the right to dispose of it in different ways, in order to make provision for

securing the feed position. There is complete cooperation between the two governments in connection with that activity.
I may say that is a plan which has been worked out as a result of experience over the years and which, it is hoped, we shall be able to apply in any areas where irrigation is being carried on with the support of moneys provided by the federal government.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The minister has stated that when they began the production of alfalfa it was the intention that it should be used in the area in which it was produced. He stated also, however, that a year ago he found that quantities of it were being shipped out. When that was the intention, did the government make any provision for purchasing and storing it? Otherwise it was only natural that the farmers who produced it would sell it. Until the dominion or the provinces made some provision for the purchase and storing of it, it seems to me it would continue to be shipped, because the people producing it will need the cash, and naturally they will sell it.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said earlier, I think some of the blame for what happened can be placed on the administration of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in connection with that project. But, as I said later, there has been developed a plan under which the provincial government has the right to purchase the feed and make use of it, first; and after they have exercised their right the federal government still has the right to make use of the feed in order to assist people in those areas.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Under these items for production service I am wondering if I might ask whether the special freight rates on coarse grains from the west to the maritime provinces will be continued for the benefit of farmers in the production of live stock?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question does not really come under this item, but rather under the special votes. However I do not know that there is any real objection to discussing it now. It does come under the heading of production. But the expenditure itself, in connection with the paying of freight rates and assistance to farmers through the payment of subsidies does not really come under this vote, and part of it is under trade and commerce.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is there any assurance that it will be continued?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have already
announced that the freight on feed grains will be paid until July 31, 1948. That was

Supply-Agriculture
announced as part of the feed grains policy earlier in the session; and, of course, it is the intention of the government to carry out that undertaking. At least until July 31, 1948, the government has undertaken to pay the freight on all grains moving east for feeding purposes from Fort William. The freight, on grain moving to Fort William is, of course, taken care of in the price paid to farmers in the west. The freight is paid by the federal government from Fort William, east.
From 1943 until March 17 last there was a subsidy of ten cents a bushel paid on oats to the western farmer who produced oats, and a subsidy of fifteen cents a bushel to the western farmer who produced barley. On March 17 not only did we announce the continuation of the payment of freight, but in order to encourage the production of more barley we announced that the price of barley would be based on a floor of ninety cents for No. 1 feed barley. The intention was to have that apply when it was first proposed from August 1, on, in order to encourage the production of more barley in 1947. But we realized that, unless something was done further than that, no barley would be delivered until August 1, 1947. The farmer would simply hold it for a higher price. Therefore we announced that the higher price would come into effect that evening at midnight, and that all barley was then worth, not 64} cents, as it had been prior to that date, but that it was worth ninety cents, basis number one feed at Fort William. And having said that with regard to barley which was not yet delivered, we at the same time said that we would make provision for paying at the same rate all the farmers who had delivered barley during 1946-47. Provision was made for taking over the barley then in elevators, and making that policy effective.
In order to carry out our undertaking with the eastern farmer, in view of the fact that we had said to him that the ceiling price for his barley would be 64} cents during 1946^7, which we were under obligation to carry out down to August 1, 1947, we undertook to maintain the price to the eastern farmer at 64} cents down to August 1, but not beyond that date. This necessitated our paying out by way of subsidy considerably more than the fifteen cents we had previously paid out. We thought that would amount to about twenty-five cents a bushel, but in the process of carrying out the policy it actually amounted to about twenty-eight cents, so that we were paying out thirteen cents more than we paid prior to March 17, and wre now provide it as a drawback to the eastern producer rather
than as a producer's subsidy. We are still paying that subsidy, but we are not under obligation to do so, in so far as any announced policy is concerned, beyond August 1 next. So to that extent there is a possibility that the cost of grain will be higher after August 1.


James Arthur Ross: With respect to the payments on barley delivered prior to March 17, that is the ten cents the minister spoke of, could he tell us how that is to be handled and when the producers may expect those payments? I have had several inquiries about this. Will it be paid direct by the elevator company to the producer?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is being handled by the wheat board which is really not under my department, but my understanding is that the wheat board are making provision for the elevator companies to make payment to the farmers from whom they purchased the grain. They will have a record of the amount purchased, from whom purchased and the method by which the transaction was carried out. The government took delivery of all grain at the price at which it had been delivered to the elevator companies; the government took it over on a certain date on the basis of ninety cents for No. 1 feed or ninety-three cents for No. 2 C. W. barley. My understanding is that the arrangement between the wheat board and the elevator companies is that the elevator companies will pay that additional amount to the farmers. I am not in position to recite the details.


James Arthur Ross: It is just a matter of bookkeeping.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is as I understand it.


Mr. BURTON:: Has the minister given any consideration to removing the ceiling on the five-cent malting premium on barley?


James Garfield Gardiner: Consideration was given to that at the time we announced the policy on March 17 and at that time it was thought wise to do it. However, on examining further into the question we found that there were many things in connection with which malting barley was used. When we were considering the matter first we had in mind the fact that it was used in making beer, but we found that it was used in connection with so many other things which were still under control that at that time it was not thought possible to take off the ceiling. It is anticipated that in due course it will be taken off. I could not state the date, and I do not know whether it would be wise for me to state it even if I _ knew it.
Supply-Agriculture


Edward George McCullough: Last
year I brought up the question of the prices received by our farmers for No. 2 C. W. barley and other high quality barleys which they had shipped to the terminal at Winnipeg. They found they were receiving less than was being paid for inferior quality barleys. The spread between high quality barley and the lower grade feed 'barleys is not sufficient and the result is that many farmers are not producing high quality barley. I would suggest to the minister that he remove the ceiling on malting barleys in order that the price may be higher for these better grades.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, would like to have the committee revert to item 7, bacteriology and dairy research, $79,498. Will the committee consent to reverting to that item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Robert Earle Drope: Would the minister explain the increase of $3,863?


James Garfield Gardiner: The details are set out on page 83 of the main estimates. It will be noted that for 1946-47 there was voted $4,350 for an agricultural scientist, grade 6; there is an increase of $150 in that item. Then the next item, agricultural scientists, grade 5, shows an increase of one, or $3,810. The next item, agricultural scientists, grade 4, shows the same number, but there is an increase in the pay. The next item, agricultural scientists, grade 2, shows an increase in the number and the amount is increased from $5,580 to $8,700. The next item, assistant bacteriologists, is not shown for this year. Then there is a new position, clerk, grade 3, $1,809. Then there are two other positions which have disappeared, stenographer grade 2 and laboratory assistant, the reduction in each case, being $1,380. Then there is a new position, assistant technician, at $1,380. On balance, there is the difference between $32,160 and $35,013.
Production service-
Health of animals-
17.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $2,37 2,599.
Mr. JvICHOLSON: I notice in the minister's report there is a paragraph dealing with tuberculosis which reads:
Assistance to stock owners in the control and eradicbion of this disease is provided under the restricted area plan, accredited herd plan and .

the supervised herd plan. Progress under all plans has been restricted due to an acute shortage of veterinary inspectors.
Could the minister make some statement as to the situation with regard to veterinary surgeons in Canada? I understand that the number graduating from the veterinary colleges is not large enough to fill the vacancies which normally appear in the Department of Agriculture. I understand that in the Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia governments action is being taken to help cope with this problem. Would the minister indicate whether the federal department is considering ways and means of increasing the number of veterinary surgeons in the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: We employ full time all the qualified personnel we can get. In addition to that, we have made provision for utilizing veterinarians all over Canada. Up until this year or some time last year we required these veterinarians, many of whom had taken their examinations thirty or forty years ago, to take another examination in order to qualify to do this work. Since all these men who are being considered have been and still are constantly in practice it was thought they might be employed under existing conditions without the special examination, and in that way we have many more men on now than we would have been able to get even on part time. The work is advancing much more rapidly than before. That is one of the chief reasons for the increase in this item.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: The minister did not answer the first part of my question. I understand that in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia the provincial governments are making grants with a view to assisting students in the veterinary colleges. In view of the minister's statement that a shortage of veterinarians is crippling the work of the department, has the federal government considered making grants to students with a view to encouraging them to attend a veterinary college? I find from page 172 of the report that the percentage of prospective slaughters for each province varies from 24-65 per cent in Ontario to a very small percentage in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It is well recognized now that the inspection of animals has been a factor in reducing the deathrate in different parts of the country. Since a shortage of veterinary surgeons makes it impossible to have proper supervision, it would seem to be reasonable to include an item in the estimates for the purpose of increasing the number of veterinary surgeons who would be available in the near future.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. BLAIR:: On two previous occasions in this house I have pointed out the danger to human beings from becoming affected with undulant fever, on account of using milk from infected herds of cows suffering from contagious abortion, Bang's disease. This disease is common, in all the provinces and affects human beings, and therefore undulant fever is common. As a physician it is only natural that I approach this question from the point of view of public health.
Undulant fever or Brucellosis is a disease which presents problems in control and diagnosis and treatment so far as human beings are concerned. To the dairy farmer, contagious abortion is an economic problem and seriously affects his livelihood. It might be of some interest to the committee to give a short outline of this disease.
In human beings undulant fever was first recognized during the Crimean war when the British army surgeons were unable to diagnose a strange fever which made its appearance among the troops. Undulant fever resembles several other diseases, and this made the diagnosis difficult in those days when it was rather hard to make a diagnosis without laboratory facilities; that is, they had no opportunity of making blood examinations. The British surgeons did not understand the disease because they had never seen it before. At the end of the year there were 8,000 sick men and only half the army was left fit to fight. Nothing further was discovered in the way of diagnosis until Doctor Bruce, a medical officer stationed on the island of Malta, discovered the bacterial cause of the disease. At that time it was called Malta fever. Doctor Bruce reported that the source of the disease was to be found in goat's milk. Goats are the main source of milk on the island of Malta. He discovered that by boiling the milk or pasteurizing it he was able to cut down the number of casualties to practically nil. Natives on the island of Malta who were still drinking the raw goat milk still continued to suffer, because half the goats on the island were infected.
The disease was introduced into the United States in 1905 through the importation of goats from Malta. A Danish research worker, Bernard Bang, discovered a microbe which causes contagious abortion in cattle, sometimes called Bang's disease. In 1918 a United States bacteriologist proved that Bang's disease of cattle and Malta fever, were caused from the same bacteria.
Undulant fever first appeared in Canada about 1929. It is now a fairly common disease, with a mortality of three per cent. Many cases, probably the majority, are not recognized, and are thought to be rheumatism, grippe, or influenza. Synovitis and arthritis, which we have been discussing on the estimates, are common symptoms, and it is necessary to make a diagnosis between undulant fever and infectious arthritis. Not all the cases are reported to the health authorities in Canada, but in one instance where 11,400 blood samples were examined, 600 samples showed the presence of undulant fever. Doctor Alice Evans, an authority on this disease, considers that about ten per cent of the rural population of the United States is affected. It is not a disease with a high mortality-I have already said it was three per cent-but it leaves a patient incapacitated from several weeks to two or three years, and it may leave permanent injury. Time may prove that it is one of the diseases responsible for rheumatic infections in human beings. Pasteurization is a preventive measure, but otherwise there is no cure for the disease. That is why I am concerned about the disease.
So far as cattle are concerned, Bang's disease has a high incidence in cattle throughout Canada. In 1945, among 2,713 herds tested, 905 showed a positive reaction to blood agglutination tests. This figure is taken from the report of the Department of Agriculture of Canada, 1945, at page 7. The loss to Canada's live stock can only be estimated. It has been stated that in Ontario, Bang's disease costs the farmers of this province alone over $20,000,000 annually. The United States department of agriculture has estimated a yearly loss of $80,000,000 for cattle, and $10,000,n00 for hogs.
To prevent Bang's disease in cattle, a vaccine containing the living Brucella has been produced. This vaccine has proven highly effective for immunization purposes. It is necessary that it be handled and administered only by trained workers. Careless handling of the vaccine, and exposure to extremes of heat and cold, spoil its efficiency. The disease is highly contagious in herds, and many owners are living in fear that valuable herds, built up over a period of years, may acquire the disease. Even if every care is used to protect a herd, there is still the danger of infection being carried to a clean herd by dogs, horses, hogs, dealers' trucks, or human beings. The value of Cotton's strain No. 19 lies m the fact that it produces immunity in a high percentage of the animals, and does not permit the disease to spread to susceptible animals.
It would be economically impossible to wipe out undulant fever in human beings by destroying all the dairy cattle that have
Supply-Agriculture


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I do not intend to elaborate further on the explanation given by the hon. member for Lanark with regard to these tested areas. I just want to ask the minister what the government intends to do now that the war is over? Before the war, I understand
Supply-Agriculture

that the government gave considerable consideration to the problem of tested areas. At that time, if a county desired to be in a tested area, it was required to make application to the government. I come from one of those , counties which made application, and I should like to ask the minister now what the government's programme is for this year and what their intentions are with regard to carrying it out.


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to which county?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The county of Huron.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that no testing has started yet in Huron. That county has made application for it. As I stated a few minutes ago, we still have a shortage of veterinarians through whom we can undertake this work as rapidly as we should like to see it going forward. I am not able to state at the moment the actual date at which we shall get started in Huron. It will be started just as soon as we can get around to it with the staff we have and any staff we can add to it.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Did I understand the minister to say that he did have an application from the county of Huron?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Application was
first made by Huron in 1939.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just prior to the war.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: And it has been held
up from that time to this.
I think I should say something with regard to the remarks which have just been made. I believe this is the third time the hon. member for Lanark has brought this question before the committee, and I agree with him that it is one which he is quite justified in bringing before the committee and discussing on each occasion that these estimates are up. The desire of the department is to complete the tests of all the counties just as soon as possible. In the early days of the efforts to test cattle and have cattle destroyed because of their having tuberculosis, we met with considerable opposition in certain areas, but I think that opposition has now pretty well disappeared. When the war started we were getting along fairly rapidly with the bringing of new counties into the certified areas. But, as was suggested, there has been some difficulty in relation to the shipping of breeding stock into the United States. The position now taken in the United States

is this. From any district which has been tested and accredited within the last twelve months, the cattle may move readily into the United States. But where that test has not been made within that time, there must be a re-test before the cattle can move readily into the United States. In other words, any cattle going from an area which has not been tested within the last twelve months will have to be tested; and that test causes delay in the shipping of breeding stock from Canada to the United States. Our desire is to overcome that difficulty just as soon as possible.
The other matter of Bang's disease is just as serious as the hon. member has outlined it to be. As soon as we can get sufficient help to undertake the task, and at the same time get into a position where we are a little farther away from the war and have more money for this kind of work, I hope we shall be able to do more. When I say that, I realize that I am talking about something which probably should be taken care of in spite of the fact that we are spending considerable sums of money; but as soon as we can get around to having staffs with which to deal with it, I hope that we can deal more effectively with Bang's disease than we have been able to up to the present.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not generally considered that there are many agricultural problems in Nova Scotia, but there is a real one in connection with tuberculosis tests. Tests in my own constituency have not been applied for many years, and farmers find themselves under a decided handicap. The minister and I have had quite an exchange of correspondence and I must say that I found him most helpful and cooperative. I know he has done everything he can under the circumstances, and there is an outstanding shortage of veterinarians. I know the farmers of Queens-Lunenburg are anxious to have the minister make some statement indicating whether there has been any change in the availability of veterinarians and when the tests are likely to be applied in Queens and Lunenburg counties in Nova Scotia.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that this
year, in addition to the staff we now have, we are getting an increase of between twenty and thirty veterinarians who can be utilized full time across Canada to take care of this problem. I am sorry to say I am not in a position to indicate just how many of these will be utilized in Nova Scotia.


Thomas Reid: Will they be distributed over all the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. JOHNSTON:: What salaries will they he paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: Normally these men. are engaged in the different provinces where they are now found, but that is not necessarily the case. We may move them from one place to another, depending upon the necessity for undertaking work at various points. It will be understood that special cases develop where tests must be made within twelve months if the cattle are to be exported. Certain areas where exports are very high, where purebred stock is being raised and exported in considerable numbers, no doubt will be taken care of just as soon as we can get to them, and perhaps other areas may have to wait a little longer in order to have their cattle inspected. If we make allowance for that, however, most of these inspectors will be utilized in the provinces and near the areas where they are engaged.


Robert Henry Winters: Could the minister say whether any of this new crop of veterinarians will be assigned to Nova Scotia?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I cannot give that information. The competition closed quite recently, and the only information I have is that between twenty and thirty qualified. I have no information as to where they are located. I can get that information and send it to the hon. member in writing.


Robert Henry Winters: Thank you; I should like to have it. I feel sure the minister will do everything possible to see that these tests are carried out in Nova Scotia at the earliest possible day.


Mr. ROBINSON (Bruce):: Following along the line of the remarks made by the hon. member for Huron North, I should like to read a resolution passed by the Bruce county council in January:
I beg to advise you that at the session of Bruce county council held last week the following recommendation of the agricultural committee was unanimously approved in open council:
"We recommend that testing according to the restricted area plan be commenced in Bruce county at an early date. It is eight years since the canvass was completed. Bruce is in a comparatively isolated position and has only a comparatively small boundary adjacent to tested areas."
Could the minister say whether, since we were almost first in line when testing was discontinued, we shall still be among the first when testing is resumed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Bruce county made application at about the same time as Huron county. Both counties made application in
1939, and the position they held at that time will be maintained. Whatever order they were in then will still be the order when testing is resumed, and they will be taken in that order. Even if the application dates back to before the war, they will still remain in that order.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It will not be necessary to make further application?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it will not.


Edward George McCullough: Following the question asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie, I happen to be a member of the Canadian livestock breeders' association, and our accredited supervised herds are not inspected by competent veterinarians for long periods, sometimes ranging from one to two or three years. The hon. member for Mackenzie asked if the federal government was assisting to bring about conditions which would give us more qualified veterinarians. I understand that the province of Saskatchewan is giving SI,000 to municipalities which have their own veterinarian serving a certain district. The hon. member for Lanark made a remarkable speech here this evening, and I think he can count on the support of all hon. members. I believe the situation is so serious that something should be done about it at once, so I would suggest to the minister and the government that grants be made to municipalities or other areas setting up and maintaining properly qualified veterinarians adequately to inspect our herds.


James Garfield Gardiner: I neglected to answer the hon. member for Mackenzie on this point, and I think I had better do so in order to have it dealt with. The position is that the federal government itself employs all the veterinarians who undertake this work. We have many veterinarians employed full time, and we also have others who are employed to do this work and who at the same time carry on their own practice. So, as is indicated in these estimates, a considerable amount of money is spent for the purpose of utilizing the services of veterinarians after they leave college. As to making provision for them while they are at college, no definite grants are made to the veterinary colleges, of which there are only two in Canada, one at Guelph and one at Oka. There has been some discussion about the possibility of establishing one at the university of Saskatchewan, but I do not think anything has actually been done in that regard, though I am not fully acquainted with what has taken place there. While we have not made grants to these students, over a long period of years-and I think this is true irrespective of what govern-
Supply-Agriculture

ment has been in power-we have made it a point to engage young men who go to veterinary colleges in various of the government services throughout Canada during the summer months. We are constantly receiving applications for employment from these young students, and we try to assist them through college by giving those who wish to work for us employment during the summer months. However, no direct grant is made to assist students to go to these colleges.


Mr. CHARLTON:: Once more I take the opportunity to bring before this committee the gross injustice, not only to the veterinarians employed in the health of animals branch, but also to the farmers and all the people of Canada, caused by this government's programme in relation to bovine tuberculosis and Bang's disease. I wish to endorse heartily all that has been said by the hon. member for Lanark; I feel that this matter is of such vital importance that these things should be repeated over and over again until the government does something in regard to the matter. It is my opinion that the salaries paid the veterinarians are by far the greatest single factor in bringing about these difficulties. I have in my hand three lists recently circulated by the civil service commission. The first, No. 1263, lists veterinary inspectors, male, grade 1, $2,580; grade 2, $2,700 to $3,300. I will admit at once that these salaries represent a considerable increase over 1938 and 1939; but now I take the next list, No. 1282, which is for dental surgeons, grade 2, $4,500 to $5,100. I think we must admit that there is very little if any difference between the university course a man must take to become a veterinary surgeon and that which a dental surgeon has to take. Then I have a list No. 1265, for a medical officer, grade 9, epidemiology; $6,000 to $6,600. Need I go farther to indicate the answer as to why there are not enough veterinarians in the health of animals branch? I think not, with almost $2,000 of a difference in the starting salaries between a grade 2 veterinarian and a grade 2 dental surgeon. They both take four years to complete their course. I do not say this in disrespect of dental surgeons or members of the medical profession, but I must say that, in so far as the veterinary profession is concerned, it is a good deal harder course. I say that because the patient who comes to the medical doctor can tell the doctor where his pain is, and can almost diagnose it himself, after he is asked a few questions.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: It is not so easy.


John Alpheus Charlton: But the veterinary surgeon must diagnose completely with compara-

tively few indications from the animal as to what is wrong with it. As I said before, is it any wonder that there are not enough veterinarians in the health of animals service?
Just a few moments ago the minister said that there were twenty or thirty more veterinarians coming into the service this year. I hope he is right. But I should like to ask him where'they are coming from. The lack of help bogey has been held out for a considerable number of years, at least for the last three or four.
Before I complete my few remarks, I shall offer a few suggestions, the carrying out of which will not require any added help, but which, I believe, will give a better service and go a considerable distance toward controlling the two diseases of which I have spoken. I had not heard of any such number as twenty or thirty new veterinarians. As a matter of fact the last word I had was that there would probably be two or three coming from the Ontario veterinary college at Guelph, the largest school of its kind in the dominion.
Why are they not coming into the service? Because they can get practically double the salary by going to the United States. That is where most of them are going. I believe most hon. members will agree with me when I say that the veterinary inspectors of the health of animals branch can do more toward lessening the incidence of tuberculosis in this country than can the medical profession, owing to the fact that they are working at the base of the trouble, or where a good deal of the disease-not all of it-originates. I refer to their work in connection with the disposal of tubercular infected cattle and hogs.
Of course improved methods of sanitation and treatment have helped considerably. With regard to Bang's disease, or Brucellosis, I wish, first of all, to congratulate the Ontario department of agriculture upon the programme it is carrying on in connection with the vaccination of young cattle and adults in the control of Bang's disease, through the Ontario veterinary college at Guelph.
In that connection I should like to quote a few excerpts from this pamphlet, which I received recently. Various things have been said throughout the country with regard to calfhood vaccination which, I believe, should be made clear. Of course there is still a variation of opinion on the point. I believe the department in Ottawa is on one side, some veterinarians on the other. However I shall just read what Dr. MacNabb of the Ontario veterinary college at Guelph has to say. This is what he says about calfhood vaccination:
1.	Build up a herd resistant to Bang's infection through calfhood vaccination.

Supply-Agriculture
2.	Vaccinate heifer calves at six to ten months of age. A veterinarian can procure the vaccine on application to the Ontario veterinary college.
3.	It is neither necessary nor of value to blood test the vaccinated calf thirty days following the calfhood vaccination procedure with strain 19 B. abortus.
4.	Note that without the practice of rigid sanitation, no control measure can be a success. It is inconceivable for any biological product- a vaccine or serum-to give the desired results in the absence of proper sanitary precautions.
5.	The vaccine used for calfhood vaccination purposes is a living suspension of strain number 19 B. abortus. Must be maintained at refrigeration temperature until used.
6.	Develops animal's resistance during early pregnancies.
7.	The only safe and effective method of establishing immunity in replacements for clean herds, so they will have a degree of resistance against exposure to the disease.
8.	A means of establishing a relative resistance of the cattle population when used as calfhood vaccination programme on an area basis.
9.	Calfhood vaccination will protect about 80 per cent of the animals for from three to five years. It will prevent the act of abortion in about 95 to 97 per cent of the vaccination animals.
10.	There is no evidence accumulated to date which would indicate the transmission of strain 19 B. abortus. Hence calfhood vaccination has been practised in blood negative Ontario governmental herds for the past seven years.
11.	No direct evidence has been shown that calfhood vaccination with strain 19 B. abortus induces sterility amongst the young vaccinates.
12.	Calfhood vaccination is best performed on young calves, dairy breeds at the age of six to nine months; beef breeds six to seven months.
13.	When abortion infection breaks in a herd, vaccination with strain 19 B. abortus at any age up to eighteen months is advisable. It should be borne in mind the older the calf or heifer when vaccinated the more pronounced will be the resistance. The blood will remain positive for varying periods of time in different individuals. Hence an animal vaccinated at twelve or fifteen months of age may be blood positive till it reaches thirty months of age.
14.	Calfhood vaccination on a community basis is a recommended procedure.
Then, I shall read what Doctor MacNabb has to say about adult vaccination. I brought this question up on two other occasions in the house. Of course the health cf animals branch does not agree with me, but I hope it will before many more years. With respect to adult vaccination he says this:
Not yet endorsed as a general routine control measure, adult vaccination lias, nevertheless, been practised; unfortunately, at times without merit. Adult vaccination is justified under certain conditions. The problem of control of contagious abortion is an individual herd problem. Adult vaccination is especially justified in herds where the abortion rate is high-as in the case of herds previously negative and suddenly exposed to infection. It is also justified in
herds where the infection is widespread and the act of abortion has become chronic, resulting in an annual herd abortion rate of more than five per cent.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: What is the hon. member quoting from?


John Alpheus Charlton: A pamphlet issued by the Ontario veterinary college at Guelph, under the direction of Doctor A. L. MacNabb.


Mr. GRAYDON:: From Cruickshank on Bang's Disease?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Cruickshank does not read his speeches like you fellows do.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then Doctor MacNabb states:
Adult vaccination is a possible means of salvaging a herd where the owner cannot bear the economic burden of a test and slaughter method. By vaccinating adult animals and vaccinating all heifer calves at ages from six to nine months in the case of dairy herds, and five to seven months in the case of beef herds, a resistant young herd will replace the adult herd in a reasonable time.
In herds where contagious abortion infection is actively spreading, the adult vaccination of blood negative, non-pregnant females reduces the severity of the infection. Adult negative females when vaccinated respond just as readily as do calves.
Adult vaccination is not a cure for abortion, but is a tool which when appropriately used will reduce the number of abortions, and thus aid the owner in the establishment of a young herd.
What is the policy of the dominion government re Bang's disease? For instance, after cne negative test you can apply for the listing of your herd. Then there must be another negative test in ninety days and a third negative test within one year from the first test. I have nothing against negative herds, as I have said before, but in my opinion they are one of the most dangerous types of herd a man could have. They are susceptible to every infection carried in by birds, dogs, horses and drovers; they have absolutely no immunity, either natural or acquired.
On top of that, they are allowed1 to vaccinate the heifer calves but if, at the end of twenty-four months-the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think recently this was increased to thirty months; I do not know whether it has been made public but I believe it has-if at the end of twenty-four months or thirty months, as the case may be, that heifer is still positive in her blood test she is tattooed with a "B" in her ear. The fact that a heifer reacts to the blood test only shows the presence of anti-bodies in the blood stream. Those anti-bodies are in the blood stream only when the animal has the disease.
Supply-A griculture


Mr. JUTRAS:: I should like to make one brief suggestion to the minister. This shortage of veterinarians is an acute one in my province, and particularly in my district where we have several T.B. tested areas. One has had an application in for quite a few years. My suggestion to the minister is that the regulations of the department might be waived, in view of the acute shortage of veterinarians, to allow the old practising veterinarians to do the work for the department. Irf my district, a few months ago there were two practitioners in the area who were willing to do the work of testing for the department, but apparently the department did not feel that it could employ any veterinarians unless they had written the examination of the department. These men have been in practice and successful practice for many years and do not like to have to sit down at a desk and write a long technical examination, and they refused to do it. For that reason we have not been able to use their services. I recommend to the minister that, in view of these circumstances and the fact that there are no other men available at the present time-and it may be some years yet before we have qualified veterinarians in sufficient numbers- the regulations be waived, so that the services of these men may be obtained without being required to sit down and write the long technical examination of the department. If we could use the services of these men I think we could carry on the work at least in all the southeastern part of the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a result of representations made by members on both sides of the house, including the hon. member for Pro-vencher, the necessity for an examination of the kind spoken of has been done away with within the last year. These veterinarians are not now required to write an examination to determine whether they are competent to do
the work. It is assumed that if they have been in general practice for more than one year they are competent to do the work.
To answer the question which was raised a few moments ago with regard to pay, it is true that two years ago the pay was very low. I think the maximum which most of those in the service were able to get was about $2,520. There was the possibility of the senior veterinarians going up to $2,800 odd. But now they can go up to $3,900, and within a very short time they get up to over $3,000. The result of this increase was reflected in the figures I gave a few moments ago. About twenty or thirty of our veterinarians are old practising veterinarians; quite a few of whom were in the service of the department before but left the service to enter general practice. But now under the new rates they have applied to get back into the service again, which does indicate that a considerable number of them think that being in the service with the present rate of pay has some advantages over being out in general practice. They are not required to write an examination of the kind mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Provencher. They indicate what their experience has been and are classified by the civil service commission as being competent to do the jobs that are available in the department. Not all of them are going to do the kind of work we have discussed tonight, namely, field work in connection with these diseases. Many of them will be employed in packing plants and elsewhere, performing services which the department requires of veterinarians.


Gordon Graydon: May I raise again at this sitting of the committee a question which I raised last session and which attracted considerable attention by the department and the minister at that time. It is a problem which arose in connection with a T.B. test made in the spring of 1946 which resulted in the slaughtering of the animals at the abattoir on May 15, 1946. It was a herd of Holstein cattle owned by a farmer named Donald McIntyre, on rural route Stayner, Ontario. He had a fully accredited herd of Holstein cattle and was engaged in the dairy business there in a very successful way. He had had for some ten years regular T.B. tests made of his herd, and during all that time none of his cattle had gone down in the tests or had reacted positively. But in the spring of 1946 no less than forty-four out of forty-four cattle in the herd reacted unfavourably to the T.B. test, and all went down. All his herd had to be taken to the abattoir in Toronto and were slaughtered there. During the testing of the
Supply-Agriculture

carcass meat in the abattoir only one animal showed any signs of tuberculosis at all, and the certificate of condemnation which I hold in my hand for that one single animal said that the animal was not affected by T.B., but with pneumonia. I raised this question last year and the minister was good enough to go into the matter as fully as he could at that time. This is a problem and an issue which is given a good deal of notoriety in the district. It is one which is agitating many farmers in other sections of the province as well and is what is believed by the farmers in that section and others. Whether it is right or wrong I am not able to say. The minister ought to clarify it. The feeling among the farmers is that a new form of vaccine was used on this occasion, a new form and a new formula for the testing of T.B. in cattle. That would seem to be a reasonable assumption and is supported, I understand, by evidence that a new' type of vaccine was actually used on that occasion. It would seem to me that we ought to have some information other than what was given the committee last session.
I should like to put these questions to the minister. First, what type of vaccine was used in this case? Second, has that type of vaccine been continued to be used by the department in view of the fact that this and perhaps other herds suffered in the way in which I have mentioned this evening? If that is so, then I suggest to the minister, if it is the fault of the vaccine, it becomes a departmental and a governmental responsibility to put that man back in the position in which he was had the vaccine of that strength not been- used on his herd. I make an appeal to the minister. I think we have to go farther in this case than we did on a previous occasion, because I believe there is a definite responsibility somewhere lying on the department to see that more than the. usual compensation is paid for that herd.
Here is a man who should not suffer because of what may be regarded as a departmental mistake or at least a departmental error in judgment. I suggest to the minister that he ought to inform the committee of the case fully, because the department knows all the details of it. It is a matter which has become quite an issue in certain sections of Ontario, and I should like the minister to answer the questions that I have put to him, so that we may have some clear conception of what the real issue is.


James Garfield Gardiner: The explanation is that the vaccine which was being used in the tests 
earlier was one which was satisfactory to the department and is still satisfactory. There are certain states in the United States which use a different vaccine and which is more sensitive than the vaccine we use, and it was thought that in areas where cattle were being exported to the United States it was wise to have the cattle in those districts vaccinated with the United States type of tuberculin test.


Gordon Graydon: Was the United States type used on the McIntyre herd?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it was the type used in certain of the states of the United States. The reason for that was that we were rather afraid of having our breeding stock debarred from the United States because of the number of reactors which were showing up through the utilization of this vaccine in the United States, and we used it for some time. It is true that the herd which is spoken of was one of the herds upon which that tuberculin was used, and a number of other herds were affected similarly. I am not certain of the exact number, but probably some eight or ten. The department decided, to discontinue the utilization of it in making tests of districts, and we have now gone back to using the bovine test that we had utilized.
When cattle are being shipped to the United States we do, however, still continue to test these cattle; that is, if the district has been tested within twelve months and declared to be free we do not test these cattle; but if cattle are going over that do not come from a district which is free, they are tested with this same type in order to avoid having cattle going to the United States which do react to the tuberculin test that they are using. That is the story.
The question of the extent to which the department should assume liability is one that I do not care to discuss here. I am sure that hon. members will understand why, but it is a matter to which some thought is being given.
The utilization of the tuberculin test was, of course, brought about in a desire to avoid having our cattle barred from the United States.


Gordon Graydon: Have any other herds had a similar experience to that of the McIntyre herd since that time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of them were around about the same time. I should not like to say how many were before or after, but they were around about the same time. The result of this general experience indicated that the test was too sensitive. It may be that there is something in the animal, such as the

Supply-Agriculture
pneumonia which is spoken of, which causes the reaction, but when the animal has been taken to the plant to be destroyed veterinarians cannot find that there is tuberculosis extant in the form in which we are looking for it.


Gordon Graydon: I take it from what the minister has said: that the matter is receiving consideration. If so, I shall not press the *matter further.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is being considered.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I noted that veterinarians in the minister's department are receiving substantial increases over what was paid a few years ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: About one-third higher.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I must congratulate the minister upon taking this step. I should like to support the hon. member for Brant who has argued that salaries are still so low that I am afraid, without some grants by provincial or federal governments, we are not likely to overtake the serious shortage. For example, in the estimates I notice that last year there were twenty-six veterinary inspectors, grade 1, who were getting $2,670. That number has dropped to nine. Then, in veterinary inspectors, grade 2, it seems that we have quite a drop. The senior class has dropped from eighty-two to seventy-five. In view of the importance of providing services so that we can accept the meat which is slaughtered and have cows inspected for tuberculosis, the minister should have no hesitation about going to the treasury board to get larger appropriations for this important work.
A young veteran in my constituency who had reached grade 12 spoke to me, after returning from overseas, regarding his plans. He is fond of live stock and discussed taking a veterinary course in the hope that more attractive salaries would be available when he finished. But after investigating the situation carefully, he decided against it. I am told that quite a number of veterinarians, on graduating from college, find that they can hang out a shingle in Montreal and Toronto to look after cats and dogs and be assured of a good income. If they go to rural communities to make a living in looking after live stock they are compelled to accept a low standard of living. Certainly the information the hon. member for Brant has given us with regard to the salaries offered to people with a medical or dental degree bears out his argument. And I think if he had the information in connection with salaries offered to men with a legal degree, he would find further evidence to support his claim.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I could hire dozens for $200 a month. You go on from there.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In the federal department here there are not so many with a legal degree who are working at that salary. Unless the minister can enter into an agreement with the provinces to make grants for the purpose of encouraging young people to go to university, I do not think there is much likelihood of our overtaking that problem. Will the minister indicate whether fie has had any discussion with the provinces regarding the making of grants for the purpose of encouraging young people to take university courses?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any
discussions which have taken place with the provinces in order to bring that about. I can only say that there are about 100 in the third year class at Guelph. Most of these men came back from overseas, and their courses are being financed largely as a result of the fact that they were overseas. In this class I think it will be found that most of the expense of going through is now being provided. I know a number of these men personally, and they had the notion that they wanted to go through the course before they went overseas, even under the conditions which then existed. It is difficult for some of us to understand that because just prior to the war, as everyone knows, live stock were low in price. Most of the veterinarians out in the country districts simply disappeared. Even today most of us have to send twenty-five, thirty, and sometimes fifty miles to get a veterinarian. That is an aftermath of the conditions which existed prior to the war. I imagine what most of these young men were thinking of, when they were trying to make up their minds as to whether they would take up this line or not, was whether we would be able to maintain live stock returns at a level which would make it possible for those who have live stock to call in veterinarians when anything happened to an animal. I am hopeful that we shall never go back to the conditions we had before. The first class that will come out after the war will be the one which comes out in 1948; and there will not be so many then. The big class that will come out following the war will be the one which comes out in 1949. From there on, if we can maintain conditions as they are in relation to the live stock industry, I feel certain that young men will continue to go into that profession. To daie there has not been any real necessity for discussing the question, largely because most of

Supply-Agriculture

the men who are going in are returned men who are getting their assistance to go to university in the ordinary way.


Robert Earle Drope: This matter is of great
concern to ail people who have dairy herds or any kind of cattle. What is the position of a county such as Northumberland, Ontario, where the first test was made in 1936, and a re-test was made in 1939 which, to my understanding, was not completed? Of course the war came along and nothing has been done since that time, as far as my knowledge goes. What is the position of that county in regard to the testing being taken over again? When can we expect that something will be done along that line?
While the officials are looking that up. I will go on with another question which has to do with part-time employees or veterinarians who are located in the county or adjoining counties? What does the department pay them per day or per head? On what basis are they paid, or does the department employ anybody in that way? It appears to me that there are in counties veterinarians who could be employed advantageously and I see no reason why they could not do some of the work. As a result of discussing this matter with a number of these men, my understanding is that the pay is not sufficient to warrant them taking on the work. That situation will not improve unless the scale of pay is raised so that it will attract these men to do this work. I think that is something which should be pursued. As I said at the start, it is of great concern to owners of dairy herds. I should like to hear what the minister has to say in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I now say is subject to correction because I have not the exact figures here; but I will check it immediately after the house adjourns, and if what I am stating is not correct, I will correct the figure in Hansard so that it will be on the record tomorrow. My understanding is that at the present time we pay $15 a day to part-time men and they take care of their own expenses. We pay them $15 a day for this work. There is, of course, some question as to the manner of man who can do this. Since we raised the pay-and the pay was raised about a year ago, I think-we have had the experience of two or three of our own men leaving our service, going out into the field and taking on this part-time work. This would indicate that at least those two or three thought they were better off out in the field taking part-time work than they were with the pay we were giving them. We think the pay is reasonable, and quite a number of men are taking advantage of it.

On the other question with regard to Northumberland, I understand, from what the hon. member said, that one inspection was made.


Robert Earle Drope: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: And that the second inspection was only started.


Robert Earle Drope: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not seem to have here a complete record of Northumberland, but I take it that what has been said is correct. That county would stand in its same order of precedence as before the war when those two inspections were made, or when the one was made and the other was started. It will take its turn along with the others in having the second inspection completed.


Robert Earle Drope: How can we get the information as to how the schedule is set up? Is any list kept so that we can see just how we are coming along from time to time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there is a complete list. As a mater of fact we are supposed to have it here in front of us. We have been examining it to find out what the position of Northumberland is, but have not been able to locate it. However, there is a complete list.


Robert Earle Drope: When the minister says that he has a complete list in front of him and then says he has not anything on Northumberland, I would suggest to him that he has not a complete list.


Mr. TUSTIN:: From the county of Prince Edward, which is a tuberculosis tested area, a great many cattle are being shipped to the United States market. The farmers in that county are having great difficulty in getting these cattle tested. Of course there is a shortage of veterinarians in that part of the country. I have been advised on several occasions that the independent veterinarians or the veterinarians who are out on their own, carrying on their own practice, are refusing absolutely to go out and test these cattle. They say they have not the time or that the price does not appear to be nearly enough for them to give their services in that kind of work. If the rate is only $15 a day, and these men are required to pay their own expenses, I submit to the minister that it is not nearly enough under present-day conditions and that it should be considerably raised. I would ask him to see if it is not possible to raise that in the very near future in order that these people may be able to take advantage of the market in the United States. About a month ago one of my constituents told me he was unable to have a shipment of forty cattle

Supply-Agriculture
tested in time to carry out a sale he thought he had made, because the firm in the United States refused to go through with the bargain. That resulted from the fact that the independent veterinarian would not take on the job at a rate the farmer was able to pay.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be a little more specific in my statement with regard to Northumberland and other similar areas, the position is that the country is more or less divided into blocks. That is, we have a number of veterinarians who are working in certain areas, and the number available will depend on the size of the district. While generally the counties-in Ontario it is counties-are taken in the order in which they apply for their first inspection within that district, when it comes to second inspections and others as we go along there may be some variation for the reason that those who are working on the task of re-testing may find it more convenient and less costly to take the areas as they go along, so that they may work right out of one district into another. That may vary what I said a few moments ago, that Northumberland would come along in the same order as would have been followed if the war had not interfered. But we attempt to keep them pretty much in the order in which they make application.


Robert Earle Drope: With regard to the payment of S15 a day for veterinarians, on an average how many cattle do you expect a man to test in a day? I ask that question because I have heard a good many complaints by veterinarians that the amount the department offered them for this work did not make it worth their while. If it is $15 a day whether they do five or ten or thirty cattle, it might be advisable to change it to so much a head. Probably something along that line would be more satisfactory.


James Garfield Gardiner: One of the difficulties in that connection, as will be understood by hon. members, is that if a man goes into a stable where there are 100 cattle and makes a check it is a simple matter, as compared with going to perhaps five different farmers to test the same number of cattle. The question of whether or not the veterinarians are paid enough should remain on its merits and be considered in that light. My own experience has been that if a veterinarian is fully engaged; if he has all the work he can do or all the work he wants to do in general practice; if he is able to do fairly well at that 'you are not going to get him to take on this other work, and I doubt if he would do so, no matter what you offered him, provided that it was within reason. But if you find a 83166-263J
veterinarian who is not fully employed, whose time is not all taken, he is usually quite ready to take on this work. I think you would find it difficult to get the busy fellow to take it, no matter what the pay might be.


James Arthur Ross: I know there has been quite a bit of discussion on this item, but it is an important one and I want to support much" of what has been said by various hon. members this evening. The area in Manitoba where I live was made a restricted area quite a few years before the war, but in all this time there has not been a second inspection. Those people were quite prepared to wait during the war years, but in the meantime many other municipalities in the west have made application to be brought into the restricted area, and they are also still waiting. I want to offer a suggestion to the minister. I understand that quite a number of students are taking the veterinary courses right now, and I am wondering if this thing could not be reorganized and a number of these students brought in under a graduate veterinarian, in order to expand this work. It seems to me that if it were tackled in that manner at this stage we could expand the restricted areas of this country right now and also reinspect some of the existing areas which were tested five, ten, or fourteen years ago. We must remember that at this time the production of purebred live stock is important in this country. As my good friend the hon. member for Assiniboia has said, the national live stock people are very much concerned about this matter right now. The hon. member and I both live in a fine live stock country, though at one time it was considered the drought area; and we are right on the boundary, with the export market available to us. The minister should be able to give us approximately what expansion is anticipated for the coming year. Surely that must be worked out by now. I would earnestly suggest that students taking these veterinary courses be employed in this work during their holidays, to expand this work further. Our people back home are very much concerned about these matters right now, and if the minister could say that a certain amount of expansion would be carried out during the next year, in order to give these people some concrete idea of what is going on, I believe it would be encouraging to them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have discussed that point with the departmental officials previously, suggesting that we might use these third year students, at least; but there is some hesitation about doing that, for two reasons. In the first place, it is sometimes difficult to satisfy the owner of the herd that a person who is not fully qualified should be given
Supply-Agriculture

authority to condemn his animals. On the other hand, the question is always raised as to whether the Americans would accept a test made by anyone but a fully qualified veterinarian. It might be possible to have the work done more quickly by having one student go along with each fully qualified veterinarian. I am not sure about that, but it is a possibility, and in any event we shall consider it carefully. I am just informed by my officials that they think some of that will be done this year. It has been under consideration, and we may be able to go to the extent of sending one student along with each qualified veterinarian and speed up the work in that way.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: After this beneficial and enlightened discussion of cattle, I am going to change the subject to diseases of horses, nobler animals. We have good cattle in Bruce county but we also have good horses and good cabinet ministers. If any hon. members can come up to the Teeswater fall fair they will see that we have horses comparable with those at the royal winter fair in Toronto.
I am rising now to bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that there is a disease of horses which is not known to a great many. I did not know of it until the fall of 1946, when there was an outbreak in our township. That disease is called infectious anaemia; the nickname is swamp fever, and I think it also goes under about twelve other names. Learning of this outbreak in our township, and that the veterinary surgeon from the provincial department, Mr. Schofield, was there, I wrote the minister here in Ottawa. He was attending to some duties in the west, and in his absence I had a reply, part of which I should like to read:
While the loss to an individual owner may over a period of years, be considerable, there appears to be no tendency for the disease to spread to neighbouring premises. No regulations relating to swamp fever have been established, and the department has no authority to order diseased animals destroyed, or compensate the owner.
In this instance the outbreak of swamp fever meant the destroying of eight horses on one farm. The department at Guelph tried some different remedies which had not been tried before, including penicillin. The owner went to considerable expense, and found that no benefit was being derived. The result was that eventually he destroyed the horses which were infected.
I should like to give a few details I Obtained from a book called "Diseases of Horses," published by the United States department of agriculture. It says that

infectious anaemia was known in Europe as far back as 1843. Since 1900 it has been reported in twenty-nine of the forty-eight states of the United States of America. When a horse is affected with it he is incapable of regular work. Once a horse is infected, even if apparently it gets well, it is a carrier of the disease for life. The germ is transmitted by bloodsucking flies, and it has been reported that in a few instances in Europe men have been infected with the disease. The control depends upon the identification of the virus carriers. Up until now there has been no inoculation for the disease.
I should like to read some correspondence from veterinary surgeons with respect to this disease. The first letter is from Doctor A. L. MacNabb, principal of the Ontario veterinary college at Guelph. He writes:
Dear Dr. Robinson:
Dr. A. R. Campbell informed me that you were inquiring regarding swamp fever infection. As you know this is a condition long recognized; it is caused by an organism which is too small to be seen by the microscope and is transmissible from horse to horse. Age appears to make little difference.
The disease is transmitted by the exchange of horses during the incubative stage. This disease is not infrequent in the central west. There is every indication that it was introduced to the east from shipments of horses from these communities.
In your community I am informed eight horses either died or have been destroyed as a result of swamp fever infection. Dr. Schofield of our staff visited your community, and after postmortem examinations had been made the evidence points that the source of infection was due to the purchase in the fall of 1944 of a driving mare. The citizen who lost these horses was instructed by Dr. Schofield to disinfect the stables.
The eradication of the disease would take place much more quickly if the condition were a reportable one, the infected animals destroyed and the immediate contacts.
If there is any further information you desire in this connection we will be pleased to communicate with you.
Then I have'this further letter from one of our local veterinary surgeons:
In regard to swamp fever in horses I wish to say that I believe this disease should come under the contagious diseases act and when an animal is affected it should be disposed of and the owner paid for it and the remainder of horses quarantined for a length of time until one sees fit to release them.
And this is a letter from another veterinary surgeon in my district:
I understand that you are attempting to have swamp fever in horses dealt with under the contagious diseases act.
This is a move that would be very much in my favour, and I cannot express the necessity of having this disease more closely guarded.
In this territory in the last few years I have been in charge of several outbreaks, and of

,S apply-Ay ric u Uure
these, two were very costly, and not having authority to isolate these animals properly, and dispose of them properly, certainly gave the disease a very widespread area of infection.
Especially in a disease of this kind where diere is seemingly no treatment, and no apparent control measure, I believe it would be a very good measure to have it dealt with under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
I might also add that this disease has been recognized by our chief pathologist. The report of the science service of the Department of Agriculture for the year ended March 31, 1945 states, briefly:
Infectious anaemia of horses has continued to receive attention. A number of vaccines have been prepared but none of these has given encouraging results. For a time there was the suggestion that horses might be protected against the virus of infectious anaemia by inoculating another unrelated virus. The encouraging results in the early experiments have not been borne out.
And the 1946 report goes on to say:
Infectious anaemia - Further experiments directed towards the production of a vaccine were carried on. A crystal violet vaccine, prepared after the manner of swine fever vaccine, did not give rise to any immunity in susceptible horses. Intradermal inoculation of a very small dose of living virus did not produce infection, nor did it stimulate any immunity.
So, according to these science service reports, the disease is giving the chief pathologist some concern. I should be inclined to thnk it would be advisable for the minister to consider placing the disease under the contagious diseases act.
In connection with the local outbreak, may I say that the man who owned the horses deserved much credit. There was nothing to prevent his disposing of those horses to innocent people who would not knorv the animals were infected. The disease had been transmitted to his horses through a driving mare which he had purchased in 1944 and which had come originally from western Canada.
I should be inclined to think that in the event of an outbreak there should be some regulation whereby the disease would become reportable and animals "linically showing symptoms would be immediately destroyed and the owner recompensed for the loss. Probably other ones not showing clinical symptoms could be quarantined, or whatever measures are considered necessary could be taken.
May I point out that the book to which I have referred says there is no way of testing a horse to find out if it is infected with the disease, other than by the process of drawing blood from one horse w'hich it is believed is infected and injecting it into a horse which it is known is not infected, and then watching the results on the uninfected horse. So that whatever conclusion the department arrives at will not be an easy one; they are so much in the dark about the disease at the present time. However I would be inclined to think the minister's department would be well advised to look into the matter to see what can be done in an effort to stamp out this disease.


Percy Ellis Wright: I asked a question earlier in the evening-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is there an answer to the question which has just been asked?


William Henry Golding: Order. Since Doctor Archibald is now here I was wondering if we might revert to item 13.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I point out that items 17 and 18 have been fully discussed. We have been going back and forth, one to the other. Perhaps if there are only one or two questions to ask we might carry them, and then go back to the experimental farms item.
I should like to answer what has been just said with regard to this matter. It is true that swamp fever in horses is prevalent in some parts of the west, and there is a possibility that horses shipped from there have brought the disease along with them. The departmental officials are of the opinion that one of the conditions which brings about swamp fever is faulty sanitary conditions, inadequate or improperly balanced rations, exceptionally hot weather or other debilitating influences which react unfavourably on the animal. No specific diagnostic tests for swamp fever have yet been found. Mercurial chloride tests, while not specific, may be of some value as an aid in the diagnosis of swamp fever. Although swamp fever has engaged the efforts of many workers, no means of prevention or specific cures have resulted1 from their studies. Practising veterinarians employ certain treatments using a number of preparations, especially sodium cacodylate; rest, an abundance of good feed, good sanitary environment and the elimination of all influences that are debilitating in character constitute the best known means of combating the ravages of swamp fever.
As to the suggestion that they should be put in the same class as animals suffering from T.B., that there may be difficulties in that. One can understand why it would be helpful to persons who have animals suffering from that disease, but that is the situation. It is not so general as T.B. I do not know that it is in a class which warrants the same type of action as some of the other diseases in cattle, such as Bang's disease, which we have been discussing tonight, diseases which are more
Supply-A gricul lure

prevalent throughout the whole of Canada. The question of means of eradicating the disease or dealing with it has come up from time to time, but I do not think much consideration has been given to the suggestion of carrying on the same type of battle as we do against T.B. in cattle.


William Scottie Bryce: I am delighted to know
from the minister that he intends to have more veterinary surgeons to carry on this necessary work. I think most of us who were in the house when the hon. member for Lanark spoke found his remarks most interesting. With his medical knowledge he was perhaps able to express his thoughts better than the ordinary farmer. The ordinary farmer thinks of what his own children may get from using milk not obtained from 1 .B.-free cattle.
Another point which has not been raised tonight, is the compensation paid for animals that are condemned when you set up a T.B.-free area. The compensation of $38 a head might have been all right in the days referred to by the minister when we got next to nothing for our cattle. It was about half the price, but today it represents only about one-fifth of what an animal is worth. When we have an animal that reacts and has to go out of the herd it costs us anything from $150 to $200 to replace it. I am referring to the ordinary good grade of milch cow.
If this compensation is not raised I know that farmers are going to be reluctant to let this test go on. The last time I spoke in the house and drew the attention of the minister to this matter, some hon. member said that $96 was paid for purebred animals. That is all right, but we do not all have purebred animals. The average dairy man today is working with grade animals, and I am sure the minister knows that. Compensation of $38 is not sufficient for an animal that is condemned.
When I sit down the minister may say that the farmer has the benefit of the beef as well, which brings quite a good price today. However, in the case of the animal that goes into the tank you get nothing but the $38 and it may be worth $150 or $160. I went * through this in 1939, and in the case of some of my animals I got the whole animal less the head whereas in the case of others I got a couple of quarters.
I think the government will have to revise their policy and make the compensation higher than $38. I want to assure the minister that I am not talking just for myself because I live in a T.B.-free area. I have in my room

a file containing half a dozen resolutions from locals of the Manitoba federation of agriculture urging me to bring this matter before the committee at this time. I hope the minister will see his way clear to revise this schedule and make it fairer than it is at the present time.


Mr. MILLER:: Until the minister spoke a
moment ago, I did not know that we were considering item 18.


James Garfield Gardiner: If there is a desire to discuss item 18 at some length, I think, out of fairness to the hon. member for Souris and to Doctor Archibald who has been brought here to answer some questions, we should deal first with item 17.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I am not going to discuss it at length; I simply want to confirm what the hon. member for Selkirk said. I notice that item 18, compensation for animals slaughtered, is decreased by $150,000. Can the minister tell us the reason for that decrease? I am not a farmer, but it seems to me that if there have not been inspections since before the war the number that would go down on T.B. tests would be much greater than those last year. Perhaps the item should have been increased instead of decreased, but the department would know more about that than I. I should like the minister to tell us why there has been a decrease in this particular item. Like the hon. member for Selkirk, I have been getting resolutions from various farm organizations and, as he said, they emphasize the fact that this compensation is based on pre-war values, whereas the present price of animals is quite high. The farmers feel that some consideration should be given to increasing the compensation paid for animals that go down in the tests.


James Garfield Gardiner: The main reason for the amount of the compensation being down is the fact that much of our inspection this year will be done in areas which have been tested once. We are assuming that there will not be so much cost involved. We may be wrong, in which case we shall have to ask for a supplementary vote to cover it.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Is there any thought in the mind of the minister that the compensation should be increased by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our experience is that in the case of nine out of ten cattle destroyed the compensation plus the value of the meat is obtained and the owner is able to get pretty well the value of the animal, and in many cases more than the value. It is true that there are exceptional cases where the

Supply-Agriculture
condition, indicated by the hon. member for Selkirk exists, but I am informed that, with the price of meat being what it is and the S40, which is the top limit that can be paid for grade cattle, those two combined pretty well take care of the value of the cattle.


William Scottie Bryce: Would the minister consider varying that where there is a total loss? A man's animal goes right into the tank; they keep even the price of the hide for killing the animal, and the owner gets nothing.


James Garfield Gardiner: There might be some reason for that in exceptional cases, but in most cases where you find T.B. in a herd, one such animal may go down but others may be affected. It is difficult to deal with individual cases under a general provision of this kind.
I do not know just how you would go about it. You might say that where the animal condemned entirely and went into the tank was the only animal condemned in a herd, the entire payment should be made, but the matter has not been considered from that point of view up to the present.


William Scottie Bryce: You might do something better in the first test when clearing up the area.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall have another look at the matter and see whether anything can be done.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to support what the hon. member for Bruce has said in regard to swamp fever. Could you not quarantine a small area if it were known that swamp fever suspects were in the district? The present regulations seem unfair to the chap who has an opportunity of disposing of on animal that he knows is subject to the disease, but he is fair enough to have it slaughtered and he gets no remuneration whatsoever. That seems conducive to spreading the disease around other districts, because a rnan who was not honest could dispose of an affected animal to an unsuspecting purchaser.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed that this disease is found on particular farms here and there, that it does not cover an entire district. I know, from all the difficulties we have had in connection with quarantining dogs, that if we started quarantining horses we would run into great difficulty, because the man who had a team which was well would want to use them to drive into town, and so forth. I really do not know enough about the disease to say whether quarantining would be worth while; but, judging from the letter read tonight and from the statement we have here
from the authorities, there is some question whether the disease is carried from one animal to another as some other diseases are.


John Alpheus Charlton: If it were made a reportable disease, that would be of some help.


James Garfield Gardiner: That might be worth while.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I have word from high officials in the department that they would be agreeable to some degree of control being put on this disease. I doubt if it would cost the country much money because there is a vast difference between this disease and diseases of cattle that are widespread and readily detectable. An animal that shows clinical symptoms of this disease should be immediately slaughtered and the owner recompensed, and control should be kept of all the outbreaks throughout Canada. I do not know whether a system of quarantine could be worked out, but there is no comparison between the diseases of cattle and this disease, which is so hard to detect.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: I have had requests from several farmers in the county of Middlesex to have an inspection of their herds so that they could have their herds accredited. We in western Ontario this year are facing a poor crop year. Many of the farmers around me have not- yet sown their spring grain. We hear of things being done for the west when they have bad years, and if the farmers of the east could reap a little more from their live stock by having their herds accredited as soon as possible, if some of these veterinary surgeons who are to be made available for this work could be located in Ontario or western Ontario to speed up the work of testing herds in this critical year, it would be of advantage to our farmers.
We hear of the shortage of United States dollars. Probably the one county in Ontario that brings into this country the most United States dollars through the sale of its good live stock is Middlesex county. Prior to the war, our exhibitors of live stock from Middlesex county took more prize money at the Chicago exposition than any state in the American union. So, speaking for the live stock breeders of the county of Middlesex, I hope that something can be done along this line, and shortly.


Edward George McCullough: Would the minister indicate the government's policy in regard to vaccine used for Bang's disease? On the prairies our veterinarians have to go long distances, owing to the shortage of veterinarians, to inoculate herds. I should also like to know whether the vaccine is free?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the vaccine is not free. We issue it under permit to veterinarians in different areas who utilize the vaccine to test cattle shipped out of Canada to the United States, but it is not free. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that item 18 stand and that we revert to item 13.
Item stand's.
Experimental farms service-
13.	Experimental farms service administration, $97,448.


James Garfield Gardiner: A question was asked by the hon. member for Souris with regard to the new wheats that have been produced. There is a new wheat known as Redman, which is resistant to both leaf and stem rust.


James Arthur Ross: That is a hard wheat-


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, a hard wheat for the southern areas for the western section. There is about 30,000 bushels of it now being distributed to the seed growers' association to be multiplied and distributed, as special strains of wheat and other grains always are. Then there is also a wheat known as Saunders, which is a northern wheat and will replace Garnet for growing in the northern areas. There are about 20,000 bushels of that being multiplied for distribution in the same way.


James Arthur Ross: What have been the results of the latest experiments with durum wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are a number of new selections, none of which is yet ready for distribution.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We are now dealing with the administration of experimental farms. In March I asked a question of the minister *which I think comes under this item. The question was:
When will the appointment of a superintendent at the experimental farm at Charlottetown be made?
The reply was:
It has not yet been made but iB under consideration and, of course, it will be made by the civil service commission.
Since that time I understand the appointment has been made. There has been a great deal of disagreement with regard to the official who had been expecting it and who was acting superintendent for some months after the retirement of Doctor Clarke. While I have no objection to the man who has been appointed and brought in there, yet the man who was acting superintendent did not get a chance to receive the appointment, notwithstanding that his qualifications were equal to all the others. I also understand-and I may

be corrected in this if I am wrong-that the civil service commission did not make the appointment on the records of the examination but were influenced by men in the department. Since it is a matter that should be looked into, I should like to have an explanation, because the young man who had been on the farm for some thirteen years and had given excellent service was recommended and well qualified. He was recommended by Doctor Clarke, the superintendent under whom he had worked, and had all the necessary degrees from the different colleges. In spite of that, he was turned down. When he asked for an appeal it was not granted to him. I should like to have an explanation when the officials are here.


James Garfield Gardiner: The case at Charlottetown is one where the appointment was being made, not by examination, but by a promotional competition; that is, it was not open to applications from outside the service. There was to be a promotion, and under the first tests that were made the gentleman who was finally appointed and whose certificate, by the way, came through today, was placed at the top of the list among those within the service who were interested in the appointment or whom the department was interested in having appointed.
Provision is made whereby anyone who feels that he has not been given proper consideration can make a protest, and when that protest is made an independent board is set up which conducts another examination, not an examination in the sense that persons write, but checking the qualifications of the different applicants. That independent board again placed the same man at the head of the list. That was done through the civil service commission, not through the department itself. The appeal is through the civil service commission.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Who was that independent board?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed that they were appointed by the civil service commission. The officials who are here are not able to give the names of them at the moment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It is a vital question and I should like to have it answered.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can get these names later when we are on the estimates. If we get back to these estimates tomorrow I shall bring in the names at that time. The present appointee was placed again at the head of the list, and I understand that the other gentleman who made application was placed even in a lower standing htat he had been placed' by those who made the first test.

Privilege-Mr. L. Dionne


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Did he enter his protest?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, he entered his protest and the protest was heard under the regulations as provided for the civil service generally.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I shall be interested in finding out who this independent commission was because, if the civil service commission could not appoint this man or could not decide who it should be and then had to call in an independent commission, I think the matter deserves some investigation.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole procedure is set out and has been over a long period of years. The civil service commission appoints persons to the service. That is, men write examinations and get into the service on the written examination. When it comes to promotion within the service the department recommends the promotion of certain persons within the service, and they recommend one over another or over a group of others and say that he is the person we think is the man competent to fill that position. If, as has been done, anyone who thinks he has not been given proper treatment by the department can lodge a protest with the civil service commission, and then the civil service commission determines whether the department made the correct decision. In this case that procedure was all gone through and the civil service commission set up an independent board. That board decided that the first decision was the correct one, and the man, Mr. Parent, I think it was, who was at Fredericton prior to that time, was appointed to Charlottetown.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Does the minister mean by that, that this independent board answered the protest of the man from Charlottetown who had applied for it and reconsidered his case, or did they just decide that the first appointment was the one the department wanted?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; they decided on the qualifications and placed the second man lower than the department itself placed him before.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I shall expect to have the names of this independent board.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; I shall get the names of this board.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 13, 1947