1950-06-13

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on radio broadcasting.-Mr. Maybank.

['When we have had an opportunity to consider them with treasury board, and to dispose of them, we shall be glad to consider tabling them.']
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That votes 267 and 268 of the main estimates 195051, approved and reported upon by the special committee on radio broadcasting this day, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I wish to lay on the table two copies of the text of the invitation from the secretary general of the organization for European economic co-operation, inviting the Canadian government to become associated with the work of that body, and the text of Canada's acceptance of this invitation.


JAPANESE PROPERTY
Hon. Stuari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, consequent upon a number of complaints of Canadian citizens of Japanese origin who resided in British Columbia in 1941 that their real and personal property had been disposed of by the custodian of alien enemy property at prices less than the fair market value, the government, as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities, by order in council P.C. 1810 dated July 18, 1947, as amended, appointed Mr. Justice H. I. Bird of the appellate division of the Supreme Court of British Columbia as a royal commissioner under the Inquiries Act to conduct an inquiry. Mr. Justice Bird's report was received in due course and I am tabling it now.
The government will provide compensation totalling $1,222,829.16 in accordance 55946-224i
with those of the commissioner's recommendations which fall within the terms of reference. For this purpose it will bring down, at the present session, a supplementary estimate.
The commissioner also felt it incumbent upon him to deal with several claims which, strictly speaking, were outside the terms of reference and which he has dealt with in sixteen special reports. The government intends to carefully consider these special claims and the commissioner's special reports are before the treasury board for this purpose at the present time. These claims total approximately $150,000.
I wish at this stage publicly to express to Mr. Justice Bird the government's appreciation of the service rendered by him during the two years and four months which he has devoted exclusively to this important work, carried through, as it has been, in the most painstaking and comprehensive manner.
Mr. Justice Bird's report dealt with a total of 1,434 claims relating to residential, farm and business properties; household effects; agricultural tools and equipment; stock in trade and trade fixtures; fishing vessels, gear and nets and motorcars and trucks, which had been vested in the custodian and had been sold by him. These claims related to 7,086 parcels of real and personal property, and involved filing of 8,996 exhibits. After a number of claims had been rejected and withdrawn, the report finally recommends payment to 1,300 Canadians of Japanese origin of various amounts totalling $1,222,829.16.
Having regard to these facts, and also to the difficulties encountered in eliciting the necessary information from many claimants who were not familiar with the English language, the monumental nature of the task with which the commissioner was faced at once becomes apparent. Only his unlimited patience and clear thought have made possible the report which reflects so much credit upon himself.
In his report Mr. Justice Bird makes complimentary references to the good faith and sincerity with which the custodian of alien property discharged his duties. He also pays tribute to the efficient and co-operative manner in which counsel for the claimants and for the commission carried out their duties, and it is quite apparent that without

Inquiries of the Ministry such co-operation, the report which is now being tabled could not have been as good as it is.


Mr. Fleming:: Does the report of the commissioner the minister has tabled include also the sixteen reports the minister indicates are now before treasury board relating to matters outside the scope of the report?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it does not. As I indicated in my statement, these are simply communications to the government apart altogether from the terms of reference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the government consider tabling those also?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When we have had an opportunity to consider them with treasury board, and to dispose of them, we shall be glad to consider tabling them.



FEED GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
High! Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): At yesterday's sitting the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) commented on a return which had been made to an order of the house, dated May 3, 1950, with respect to freight assistance on western feed grain. It would appear that the hon. member wished to obtain a list of the companies to whom freight assistance payments were made in 1948 and 1949, together with the actual amounts paid. Through a misunderstanding of the question this information was not supplied,	[DOT]
In the public accounts for 1948-49 all freight assistance payments in excess of $5,000 were listed. Some items from these lists were placed on Hansard by the hon. member. In the forthcoming public accounts for 1949-50 similar lists will be published. The comptroller of the treasury has furnished the appropriate copy sheets for the public accounts, and these are now being tabled for the information of the hon. member.
I am requesting the hon. member to note that the information is not complete, because only payments of $5,000 and more are listed. Payments of less than $5,000 were made to 167 companies. These can be produced if the hon. member wishes, but some time will be required to prepare the list.
One further point might be noted, and that is that the reports are for the fiscal years, not calendar years. To classify the payments by calendar years would require some time, and would delay the presentation of the information.
[Stage Direction]
The list of companies to whom freight assistance payments in excess of $5,000 on western feed grain were made in 1949-50 is lengthy, and to obviate the necessity of reading it I would request the permission of the house to table the list to be added to the return.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 303 (from the Senate) to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Labour any comment to make on the possibility of a strike in the lumber industry of British Columbia?


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: That industry does not come within my jurisdiction, although it did for a good many years during the war. However, if my hon. friend wants to have my comment, I shall give it to him. I say this, to both sides, that it is the easiest thing in the world to get men out on the street, but it is a good deal harder to get them back to work.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to
the business of the house, can it be made clear that, in view of the fact that Bill No. 302 has not reached us, the government will not ask us to proceed with its second reading today, as was announced last night
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public
Works):	Mr. Speaker, we intended to bring
it up later this day, after it had been handed to hon. members. If there is objection I suppose we can put it off until tomorrow, but I had thought we could go on with it this evening.
[Mr. Garson.1



METEOROLOGY


Lionel Chevrier: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the convention of the world meteorological organization signed at Washington on October 11, 1947, and tabled on February 14, 1949, and that this house do approve the same.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, following the debate
which took place when this motion was originally made, the convention was referred to the standing committee on external affairs and discussed there section by section. At that time hon. members had an excellent opportunity of getting such further information as they desired, and I think I need not add anything to what I said in my original statement. I recommend the approval of this convention.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it was at my suggestion that this convention was referred to the standing committee on external affairs. As I had expected, the committee gave the matter its usual careful consideration, and has now recommended approval of the convention.
We learned that the world meteorological organization will be a successor to what has been known as the international meteorological organization, which has been functioning for about seventy-five years, and apparently with a considerable measure of success. When I spoke before I expressed some concern about other countries, such as Russia, getting weather information from Canada. It now appears that Canada needs weather information from Siberia, and that Russia needs weather information from western Europe. So that both blocs in the world today require this weather organization, and it is no doubt for that reason that there has been co-operation.
One can only express the hope that it may be possible to convince the two world blocs that they need each other in world affairs generally as well as in connection with weather reports. If they should reach that conclusion, then much of the friction in the world would be removed and the United Nations would be enabled to fulfil its high aim of preserving peace.
I am personally grateful to the committee for giving careful consideration to the convention, and I agree that Canada should join this organization.
Meteorological Convention


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should say a word on the position taken by this party with respect to this convention. Generally speaking this group is very careful in international matters. We were happy when the convention was referred to the standing committee on external affairs. The members of that committee heard the evidence and asked a number of questions, and we gained the impression that the convention is not a binding treaty having the force of international law. It is more or less a co-operative arrangement, a sort of gentlemen's agreement. On that basis we have no objection to approval of the convention, because we think it will serve a good purpose.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has discovered the silver lining in the dark clouds that pass by. It is hoped that with co-operation among the nations of the world we can expect good weather all over.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marketing service
[Stage Direction]
26. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $644,159.
Mr. Pearkes:: There has been a recent development in the northwestern states described as gas refrigeration for the preservation of fruits. This has nothing at all to do with the Alberta pipe lines, but it is a process by which gases are thrown off from the fruit, causing it to go dormant and thereby enabling apples and other fruits to be kept in a better state of preservation than in ordinary cold storage. Could the minister state whether experiments in this connection are being carried on at any of the stations, and if plants are being established for the co-operative use of farmers so that they could have the same benefits as those derived from other forms of cold storage?


Mr. McCubbin:: Before the minister answers the hon. member for Nanaimo, I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre when the cold storage bill was under discussion; I was unable to answer it at the time. I told the hon. member I

Supply-Agriculture
would give him the information when the in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba under estimates were under consideration. The the act. I now have this information, which is hon. member asked what grants were made as follows:
Name
Manitoba
Brandon Creamery and Supply Company	
Winkler Co-operative Creamery	
Crescent Cold Storage Limited	
North Star Cold Storage Company Limited No. 1 .. North Star Cold Storage Company Limited No. 2 ..
Winnipeg Cold Storage Company Ltd	
Manitoba Cold Storage Company Ltd	
Saskatchewan
Moose Jaw Cold Storage Co	
Central Cold Storage Ltd	
Saskatchewan Co-operative Creamery	
Saskatchewan Co-operative Creamery	
Saskatchewan Co-operative Creamery	
Alberta
Merchants Cold Storage	
O'Riorden, R. D	
Alberta Poultry Producers Ltd	
Edmonton Cold Storage Co. No. 1	
Edmonton Cold Storage Co. No. 2	
Central Alberta Dairy Pool	
Approved Subsidy	Year Built	Location$ 9,600.00	1912	Brandon5,931.00	1949	Winkler87,567.93	1947	Winnipeg23,743.20	1943	Winnipeg23,835.60	1946	Winnipeg104,950.26	1949	Winnipeg181,000.00	1939	Winnipeg27,000.00	1913	Moose Jaw48,403.72	1947	Prince Albert14,477.00	1912	Regina32,400.00	1918	Saskatoon6,735.00	1914	Vonda27,000.00	1911	Calgary6,231.26	1946	Camrose31,515.87	1945	Edmonton45,600.00	1913	Edmonton22,500.00	1944	Edmonton10,380.90	1945	Red Deer
The Central Cold Storage Limited at Prince Albert was the particular plant in which the hon. member was interested. The following warehouses are under construction throughout western Canada:
Name
Manitoba Dairy and Poultry Co-operative Ltd.
Winnipeg Cold Storage Co. Ltd	
Davidson Co-operative Association Ltd....
Limerick Co-operative Association Ltd....
Edmonton Cold Storage Co. Ltd	
1 hope that this is the information asked for by the hon. member.


Mr. Gardiner:: In connection with the question raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo, may I say that there is an organization, I believe with headquarters at Vancouver, which has been promoting a plan along the lines suggested. I believe they already have a cold storage plant in Vancouver, but they are hoping to have cold storage plants also at Edmonton, Calgary, Regina and Saskatoon. They will promote the marketing of products in farming communities as well as urban centres.
The proposal was brought to our attention by the promoter, and we think it is good. The only reason it was brought to our attention was to inquire whether they could get the thirty per cent grant. I do not think there is any question about the idea being good; I believe it has been tried out and found to be successful in the United States, and I am sure it would give good service in
[Mr. McCubbin.l
Estimated subsidy	Location

Brandon, Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba Davidson, Saskatchewan Limerick, Saskatchewan Edmonton, Alberta
this country. When an application is made for the thirty per cent grant we check to see whether there are sufficient cold storage plants in the vicinity. If it is determined that there are sufficient cold storage facilities, then we do not make the thirty per cent grant. But that does not mean that the company cannot go ahead and put up a cold storage plant if they desire to do so.
So far as I can recall at the moment, a check was made in Calgary and it was reported from all sources, including provincial government sources, that there is sufficient cold storage in Calgary, and that it would be detrimental to the cold storage that has been subsidized to have more cold storage at that point. There has been some inquiry made at Edmonton, but I do not think a final report has been obtained. My impression is that any reports or investigations that have been made at Regina and Saskatoon would tend to indicate that there could be more cold storage at those points. To my knowledge

that is as far as the discussions have gone. I do not know to what extent the company has been proceeding without giving consideration to possible grants from Ottawa, but the grants are available on the same basis as they are available to cold storage generally- that is, if conditions are such as to warrant it.


Mr. Bryce:: I have had some difficulty in hearing what the minister said. I do not think he is properly warmed up yet. When you advance money to cold storage companies to erect and operate cold storage plants, is there a clause in the agreement allotting a certain amount of space to patrons of the district?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am having as much
difficulty in hearing my hon. friend.


William Scottie Bryce: I would suggest that the minister sit nearer the centre of the chamber; then he will hear me and I will hear him.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will have to suggest that people stop buzzing around us. There is too much murmuring going on. Otherwise I think we could hear all right.


William Scottie Bryce: What I am asking the minister is whether there is a clause in the agreement with the cold storage company providing a certain amount of space for patrons of the district.


James Garfield Gardiner: The old regulation in the provision for securing grants provided that there could not be more than fifteen per cent, but there is a provision in the act now, which was introduced in 1947, that where a strictly co-operative organization organizes locker space for the benefit of the people of the community they can have one hundred per cent if they so desire.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
27. Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian Horticultural Council, $989,000.
Mr. Cardiff:: Are we going to take a little time to ask a few questions, or are you going to railroad these items through without giving us a chance? If you are, we might as well let them all go through and allow things to remain as they are. I see that this item is down somewhat. Are we not getting the service we were getting before?


James Garfield Gardiner: Service on what?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Under item 27. Nearly every item is down. Are we not getting the service?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is an increase of $60,340. I do not think that is down.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I thought it was down. I beg your pardon.
Supp ly-A griculture


William Scottie Bryce: Is the government still carrying any honey?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the government is carrying about 2,800,000 pounds.


Mr. Charlton:: Has the minister any idea as to the honey surplus that is being carried in the country at this time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is about what it is. I have the figure here somewhere. My hon. friend probably wants the story more than just the figure. The figure is just about what I gave a moment ago.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not want a story. I want the number of pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year the persons
handling honey came to us and suggested they had a surplus of 5 million pounds. I asked the house for a vote sufficient to purchase the 5 million pounds. When we started out to search for the 5 million pounds we managed to get approximately 3 million pounds. We have carried the 3 million pounds until quite recently. The honey people came back this year and asked for assistance again. When they came back I asked them whose honey the 3 million pounds was. Of course the fact is that there is one place you can sell honey at the present time, and that is in Canada. This year the production is low compared with last year. There was not any more honey in the country, so far as we could see, than had been sold before. I asked them whether they considered the 3 million pounds was government honey or whether they considered it was their honey. At first they took the position it was the government's honey. I said, "All right, we are going to sell it on this market." That changed the course of the discussion to a certain extent, and it was finally agreed that it was npt our honey, that all that had happened was that they had a surplus of honey and the government stepped in and said that they would take it off the market for the time being until it could be sold. They said it should come -back and be handled by the people who handle honey in Canada. As the result of the discussion we have made an agreement with them that they are going to sell the 3 million pounds, together with their own honey. So far as we know, the honey can be sold in Canada this year.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I understand if, that is all first grade honey?


James Garfield Gardiner: What we have is nearly all No. 1. One of the points involved in the discussion was that the honey they now have was not all as good quality. Some of it is what they call dark honey, and it is

Supply-Agriculture
difficult to sell in this country, but it is sold at a lower price elsewhere. We sell it in Israel, Belgium, Italy and other places.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the minister any idea what quantity of second grade or dark honey is in surplus supply?


James Garfield Gardiner: I expected that more information was going to be asked for, and I have too much here. It is difficult to find the information, but it is here somewhere. I shall have to send out for the exact figures. As I recall it, the division has some 300,000 odd pounds of dark honey, but I have not the figures before me.


Mr. Tustin:: I do not know whether the minister answered this question before, but is it the intention of the government to place a floor price under honey this year, and has the association requested this?


James Garfield Gardiner: Up to the present it has not been considered wise to place a floor price under honey. We think there is a market in Canada for the honey that is available. On the basis of last year's sales there is a market for more honey than is available, with the exception of this dark honey, which is not salable in Canada.


George James Tustin: Has there been any request from the honey producers for a floor price?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there was no definite request. The discussion was along the lines I suggested a moment ago.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Would the minister let the item stand until we get that information?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are many matters coming under this item in addition to honey.


Mr. James:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let this opportunity go by without having something to say about apples generally, and especially the apples grown in Ontario, with particular emphasis upon the excellent apples produced in Durham county; and I could include in that category Northumberland county as well. Had the supersalesmen from British Columbia not started peddling their wares and their grievances here last night I should have maintained my sphinx-like silence and allowed the business of the house to continue without interruption. As it is I must leap to the defence of the Ontario apple growers, whose produce throughout the years has been proven to be the finest in Canada.
For a few moments I would like to deal with the importance of the apple in the development of our world. Even in the beginning there were apples, and poor Eve fell victim to their irresistible charm. She knew that the McIntosh red upon which she gazed would have a flavour incomparable

among all the fruits of the earth. She knew that one bite from the apple would make her healthy and wise. Could the devil have tempted her with a sheaf of western wheat, a bunch of grapes, a gold nugget, or a B.C. fir? No; it had to be that most attractive of all things, the apple.
The great law of gravitation was also discovered because of the apple; for when Newton sat under the trees in his orchard and saw one of those apples fall he began to wonder why the apple did not fall upward. Could he have discovered the law of gravitation by looking at a Prince Edward Island potato or the iron ore of Labrador? No; you and I must admit that the apple falling on Newton's head was of great importance in the progress of our world.
In national affairs the apple plays a great part. If you visit a certain town in Italy you will find a most delightful little chapel erected in honour of William Tell, who won his greatest fame because he shot an apple from his son's head. He never could have shot a grape, or a Winnipeg goldeye; therefore the apple all the way round, religion, science, sport and in every other particular, is the greatest of all the fruits, and we owe it an immense debt of gratitude.
Even in our bodies we have the Adam's apple, and -when we talk of a thing of beauty we say "She is the apple of my eye." Why was it the apple was chosen to set forth those delightful, those entrancing, those incomparable qualities and virtues? Because it has within itself the very essence of value.
But I will give you the best proof of all that the apple plays a part in life when everything else fails. You remember King Solomon. He wrote a love poem at one time; and he had a good deal of experience in love. If ever there was a man qualified to write about love it must be King Solomon. You will find at one time that he got very sick of love, and when he desired something that would be a very excellent substitute he wrote this line in his poem: "Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apple, for I am sick of love." You can picture King Solomon with a jug of cider and a plate of apples, and he found that more consolation than all his wives.
I could go on giving example after example of the importance of the apple in our economy and in the health of our nation. Let us never forget the adage that an apple a day keeps the doctor away. I could tell of the versatility of this fruit. You can bake it, boil it, roast it or fry it; serve it with meats, or preserve it, or jam it, or pickle it. You can drink it; you can eat it. It has many

forms and many uses; that is what makes it so wonderful that no other fruit can be compared to it.
For the benefit of those who have listened so patiently, let me bring you up to date on the apple industry in Canada. For the past several years the industry has been flourishing and happy. The growers in Ontario and Quebec have watched the federal government extend financial and marketing assistance to the growers in British Columbia and Nova Scotia, a situation which was satisfactory to the Ontario people because it kept the British Columbia and Nova Scotia apples away from the Ontario market, giving the local producers a good domestic market which in most cases took care of the Ontario crop. To appreciate the picture fairly well it must be explained that in Nova Scotia and British Columbia the growers are confined to small areas compared with Ontario, so it was a comparatively easy matter to have the western and eastern apples packed and shipped or processed through a central agency. Such central agencies made it comparatively simple to distribute subsidies. In Ontario the growers are spread across the province, and it has been very difficult to set up any centralized control and sales organization.
This year an unfortunate event occurred which has left a sour taste in the mouths of the Ontario growers. Production of apples was high and markets were not too plentiful. Many orchardists in Ontario lost a considerable amount of money. One large grower has told me that he lost $40,000 and that a friend of his lost over $20,000. Others just broke even, and a few made costs but not much more. Early in the spring an announcement was made in this house to the effect that $2 million would be given to the British Columbia growers and $500,000 to the growers of Nova Scotia. There was no complaint from the Ontario people, who in many cases had also taken a financial beating. To make matters worse, a few weeks after that announcement, just when Ontario growers normally market their Northern Spies, it was found that British Columbia had been able to sell the large Ontario and Quebec chain stores on a proposal to give exclusive rights to British Columbia apples for a period of several weeks, during which an intensive advertising campaign was conducted in the press, paid for, as I understand it, half by the British Columbia growers and half by the chain stores involved. Needless to say this program literally wiped out the market for Ontario Northern Spies, which had to be held over and sold later or disposed of in other ways. Now we hear the hon. member
S upp ly-A griculture
for Kootenay West bragging how many apples they sold in Ontario and will sell in the future, to which I reply that had the Ontario growers received a $2 million subsidy, they might have been able to sell apples in British Columbia. But Ontario growers have received no subsidy, and find themselves in a grim position at the moment. Even though the subsidies, we are told, definitely will not extend to cover this year's crop of apples, both British Columbia and Nova Scotia have their marketing and packing organizations well established, due in the main to the assistance provided from federal funds. Certainly had it not been for that assistance they would not have been financially able to build up and maintain such organizations. It should also be pointed out that despite this yearly support from federal funds both British Columbia and Nova Scotia have continued planting young trees so that their production is now greater than it was ten years ago. In fact, as I understand it, the entire apple industry in Canada, is now producing about forty per cent more apples than can be consumed under present conditions in Canada.
The future of the industry appears to be precarious. Ontario growers have recommended that the federal government undertake a program of tree removal, in co-operation with the provincial authorities, to decrease the production of apples, but the minister has stated that any such program must be initiated by the province, which would appear to be the logical place for such a project to start. However, I do hope that the minister will continue to give serious consideration to evolving, in co-operation with the growers and the provinces in all of Canada, some method either of stemming production of apples or of increasing the demand for apples through advertising and other means, so that this industry, which is most important to the economy of our country, will again be able to carry on in a selfsustaining manner without the need for annual hand-outs.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question about honey, I have finally obtained the record, and as usual the record which I had in my mind was approximately correct. The amount of honey which we had on June 1, 1949, was 9,897,408 pounds. The amount which we had in stock on June 1, 1950, was, with the government, 2,949,000 pounds; as of June 10, which is the latest figure available, 2,896,000 pounds. The round figure which I gave to the house was 2,800,000 pounds. The amount which others have, as of June 1, 1950, is 6,502,000 pounds. That makes the total stocks 9,451,000 pounds, or

Supply-Agriculture	.
428,000 pounds less than we had at the same time last year. The amount of dark honey is close to the figure I gave. It is 336,000 pounds, and I believe the round figure I gave was 300,000 pounds.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Is it the
intention of the government to use the prices support act in dealing with other farm products? Is the pattern to be the same as that used in marketing the honey?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; we have not any particular pattern that applies to everything. It is impossible to find a pattern that applies to everything. We consider each product on its merit, and deal with it on its merit. When the honey people came to see us, they did not ask us to apply the plan to this honey-


Harry Oliver White: In 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: -in 1950. They asked us to take all of the dark honey. During the discussion I brought up the question of who owned this other honey, the good honey, and who was going to sell it. When they suggested they were going to sell their own and ours was to remain, I suggested that we would sell ours in competition with theirs. It would have to go on the same market. There was sufficient market for all of it. We were quite prepared to have them market it, but if they were not prepared to market it, then we would market our own. They agreed to market all the honey. We did, however, assist in an advertising campaign for which we are paying $12,000.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is the government carrying any maple products?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we carry no maple products. The only assistance we give maple products is in connection with taking care of the equipment.


Mr. Jones:: I do not know whether item 29 covers the marketing of apples, and if it does, I shall hold my question until that item is called. I notice that item 29 contains an amount for .marketing assistance, and I was wondering whether that included the marketing of fruit.


James Garfield Gardiner: The marketing of fruit comes under item 27, which we are now considering.


Owen Lewis Jones: In reply to the member who has just spoken, I wish to say that we grow apples in British Columbia, and I sliould like to remind him of the fact that half the Canadian apples are grown in that area. The remainder of Canada-Ontario, Nova Scotia and the other provinces-account for the other half, so that the amount produced in the Okanagan valley equals that produced by the rest of Canada.

I wish to deal briefly with the British market situation. I believe the member for Kootenay West and the member for Kamloops have already outlined our difficulties by showing how the British market constitutes our normal outlet. It is the normal outlet because the industry has grown up around it. I was wondering whether a special effort could not be made to market our apples this year. I noted what the minister said last night that we have to talk a different language. Perhaps that is so, but personally I believe there are other ways of doing it than by talking tough. The only way to do it is to have someone appointed especially to do the job. We send trade commissioners and other representatives to Britain to sell our wheat, bacon, cheese, and so on, and away behind come apples. I should like to see funds taken from one of these items to send a special delegation, appointed by the government and the tree fruit growing areas, to Britain. I am not speaking for our own area alone, but for Canada as a whole.
This delegation could go to the United Kingdom for the sole purpose of trying to sell apples and re-establish this market, not just for this year but for all time to come. As I have pointed out, Britain is buying apples from the other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand. I do believe that if a special delegation, with the strength of the government and the knowledge of the tree fruit board behind it, went to England and remained there until they made some sort of a deal, we would be satisfied. Special instructions should also be issued to the trade commissioners in the various countries to exert themselves to assist the growers in marketing their fruit, and pointing out to them the difficulty in which we find ourselves. I hope it is only temporary. The trade commissioners should be instructed to help the growers of Nova Scotia, Ontario, and all the provinces, to sell their fruit in these various markets.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave the committee with the impression that less has been done to sell apples than has been done to sell other products. I venture to say there has been at least ten times as much done abroad to sell apples as needed to be done to sell anything else. We have been unable to sell apples in Great Britain; at least Britain has not wanted to take apples since 1939. We have discussed the matter with them every year to try to obtain a market for apples. When we could not obtain a market we have been called upon to subsidize the apple industry. Our complete subsidies in Nova Scotia have amounted to $18 million; our subsidies in British Columbia have

amounted to $4 million. This has been done in an effort not only to market the apples, but to make it possible for the producers to get a proper return. All the fruit has been marketed in some way or other. At times the apples were canned and given away, and at other times they were dehydrated and given away. We have tried in every way to market apples, and we have succeeded in marketing them. I do not believe the money which has been put into these subsidies has been thrown away. The apple industry is going to be necessary in order to supply the market.
The fact is, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated the other day, that right from the beginning of the war Britain said that the freight on apples was too high as compared with the food value of the fruit. During the time the war was in progress there was a shortage of shipping space, and Britain would not take apples at all. It was only at periods when there was shipping space available that they did enter into arrangements with us to take apples. When the war was over it was another problem. They started out as though they intended to take apples; but since then they have got into the position where they are battling with regard to dollars and sterling, and they are just not taking our apples.
I find it difficult to understand even the figures I gave last night. As I understand it, the British Columbia apple producers gave the British about 1,600,000 boxes of apples. They gave away 50,000 boxes, according to the statement from the press that I read to the committee last night. They gave 50,000 boxes to the school children and to the institutions. What did they do with the remainder of them? If they were sold to the people of Britain at the usual price, I just want to ask one question. Who ought to have the returns? I think that is an obvious question. I do not know what was done with the remainder of them, but I think the people of British Columbia who gave the apples ought to know. If they intended them to be an advertisement to the British people, then I think more than 50,000 boxes should have been given arway. If they intended them to be a gift to the British government on which they could make money to put in the treasury well, all right; that is their own affair. There should be some questions asked about it. That is what I meant by talking to these people a little straighter than we sometimes talk. I do not think that the thirteen or fourteen million people of this country should be attempting in peacetime to feed a population of fifty million in a country that is now actually boasting, and I think
Supply-Agriculture
properly boasting, of the extent to which they have rehabilitated their people up to now as compared with other nations of the world.
I do not think that a little bit of straight talking to them is going to do any harm. If we are to go on assuming that the people of this country are to give away everything they have, I do not know where we shall find the people who are going to buy what we have, because people apparently like having things given to them.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, I was at a committee meeting when one of my colleagues came into the meeting and told me that an hon. member from the province of Ontario was discussing apples. I left the meeting and came here. My riding is not particularly noted for the production of apples, although it is noted for being the greatest agricultural riding in the Dominion of Canada. I am sorry I did not hear what the hon. member from Ontario said, but I shall read Hansard with interest tomorrow to learn what he said about Ontario apples. I can explain even to the member-I have forgotten his title now-who comes from down near London, why we have the great record that we have in British Columbia for our apples. The record of our British Columbia apples is based on our grading and packing. If the rest of Canada, particularly that great old province of Ontario, and to a lesser extent Quebec, would adopt our method of putting out only the best of fruits, and putting them up in the best way possible, they would be able to compete with British Columbia.
I wanted to say one further word on this. I am sorry I had to leave the other committee, but when I am told that something is being said about British Columbia apples I will leave any committee.
I agree with the minister. However, as a private member I can speak more plainly than he can as a cabinet minister. When the people of Great Britain needed our cheese, our butter, our evaporated milk and our fruits, they were delighted to get them to the extent of approximately $3 million as a gift. Since the war has ended they have been quite willing to buy, on a so-called cheaper market, products that have been produced by cheaper labour costs, cheaper production costs, and cheaper costs of all kinds. I think it is time that we talked in plain language to Great Britain. I know all about their foreign exchange control difficulties and the trouble they have in getting money. But after all, if Canada stood behind them in war, as we should have stood behind them, with manpower, financial assistance and assistance in

Supply-Agriculture
every other way, Great Britain should think a little bit more about buying our production, be it agricultural products, fisheries, lumber, or production of any other kind.
I know that the minister cannot say what I can say. I may lose a few votes for saying what I am saying, but I will still have enough to get in. I think my friends over here will agree it is time that we told some of those whom we assisted so much that they owe a little to Canada and to Canadian producers. Coming from British Columbia I do know that our fruit, whether it be apples or other fruits, but particularly small fruits such as strawberries and raspberries of the Fraser valley, are unequalled anywhere in the world.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No flavour.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We want a part of the market. We in British Columbia want a part of whatever the foreign exchange control board permits our production to have.


Harry Oliver White: Can the minister tell us.whether the 7 million pounds of honey that were sold between 1949 and 1950 were sold on the domestic market or on the export market?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount which was sold in Canada last year, as I remember the story that was given to me by those who sold it, was more honey than we have to sell this year, which is around the 9 million pounds spoken of here.


Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: Was this the honey that was held by the prices support board, or by the beekeepers?


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not sell any of it. We bought it toward the end of the season when they thought they had 5 million ppunds left over, but they only had 3 million pounds. In other words the amount sold was approximately 9 million pounds, and the amount held was approximately 3 million pounds, which made 12 million pounds. This year the amount which is held, all told, is just about sufficient to supply this market.


Harry Oliver White: The impression that I got was that the minister said that the agricultural prices support board had sold 7 million pounds of honey.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we never did that.


Harry Oliver White: That is the
effort of the individual producers across the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly; we have not sold any honey at any time in Canada, and do not intend to sell any honey at any time. We turn the honey back to the people who sell honey. We do not go into business.


Harry Oliver White: Did the
minister do that with the butter that he had in storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; we do not sell butter direct to the consumer in Canada; we turn it back to the trade, and they sell it.


Harry Oliver White: It seems to me that the minister is taking a lot of credit for things that he is not doing.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has been
giving us' a lot of criticism for things we are not doing.


Mr. Quelch:: The minister has been carrying on a campaign to increase the sale of apple juice. Recently my attention was drawn to a flier put out by the Canadian Consumers Association-I think that is the right name- in which they stated that there was no food value in apple juice unless it was vitaminized. During the war you could buy vitaminized apple juice in this country. Today vitaminized apple juice is very hard to obtain. Would it not be possible for the minister to increase the campaign to get apple juice vitaminized? If that were done there might be a greater sale for it. If, on the advice of the Canadian Consumers Association, the people are not going to buy apple juice because it has no food value, the minister is not going to have much success in increasing consumption.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think we would take a lot of the pleasure out of life if we consumed only the things that the consumers league thought had food value. It does not make any difference to me whether it has food value or not; I like it, and I am going to drink it.


James Arthur Ross: You will be surprised to learn where some of the food value is.


Mr. Major:: I wish to commend the minister for the attitude he took some time ago when he referred to apple juice in the House of Commons. It occurred to me that if some arrangement were made whereby honey could be used in the desserts in the Ottawa restaurants from now until the end of the session, we could sell a good deal of our honey.


Owen Lewis Jones: Dealing first with the advertising given by the minister in connection with apple juice, may I say that I have received several letters indicating that sales have been increased already this year.
Coming back to the matter of the gift of apples to Great Britain, I understand that the tree fruit growers have been asking why the apples were sold when they reached Britain. Presumably steps will be taken to recover some of the cost of offering the apples for sale.
Mention has been made of the high cost of our apples this year. Naturally we are anxious to do anything we can to place our

apples on the market at as low a price as possible. However, the freight rate is something beyond our control. Anyone who looks at the apples offered in the Ottawa stores will find that the price per box is high. However, in that connection I should like to place on record some figures from one of the best orchards in the Osoyoos district. These figures are interesting in that they give a comparison of the prices received by the growers for the 1949 and 1948 crops. Three apples have been chosen, and the figures concerning them are as follows:
Price per Box [DOT]
Fancy Medium	Fancy	C-gradeWinesap 	.... 1949	$1.13	$0.96	$0.711948	2.12	1.75	1.40Delicious 	
1949	.99	.73	.441948	1.85	1.49	1.09Newtowns 	
1949	1.01	.83	.541948	1.89	1.64	1.28
I place these figures on record because the impression is often left that the price has been extremely high. However, it must be pointed out that the average cost of production is between 90 cents and $1.05, and an examination of the figures I have given will indicate that the price received has been well below a dollar, which is the cost of production.
1 fully appreciate what the minister has done in assisting the industry, but I fear that before the season is much further along an appeal will have to be made for help from the prices support board. However I am not dealing with that matter now. I have risen only to place these figures on the record, if hon. members would care to check them.


John Alpheus Charlton: In view of the fact that the minister has not commented on the observations of the hon. member for Durham, are we to assume that any further policy pursued by the dominion government will be acted upon only when a province has taken the initiative in a tree removal program?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is correct to say yes to that. The only continuous tree removal program with which I am familiar in Canada has been carried on by the Nova Scotia government. It was carrying out such a program before the war started. During the war we were asked to take part in it, after we had begun to assist the apple industry in Nova Scotia because they .could not market their apples in Great Britain. Out of that grew a program under which we assisted in paying for apples people could not sell, and taking the trees out so that they would not be there to sell. That was not a tree-pulling campaign, but rather part of a campaign to assist the apple industry of Nova Scotia. At the end of the war the suggestion was made that we
Supply-Agriculture
carry on with that program right across Canada, but we said we would not. A minister of agriculture in one of the provinces came to see me about it, and I stated to him definitely that we were not going to proceed, but that we would expect the province to make a proposal to us under which they would pay at least half of the cost. He smiled and said that we could not be expected to accept that proposal.
That is the policy we are following. We say to the provinces:	If you wish to have a
tree-pulling program, then you must pay a very considerable part of the cost; present your proposal to us and we will consider it. However up to the present we have had no definite proposal other than the Nova Scotia plan except a brief one from Ontario to the effect that they thought the cost ought to be $3 a tree, and asked us if we would consider a program on that basis.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is, the dominion government was to pay $3 a tree?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have said that we will not pay the full amount. The position taken at first was for $5 a tree, and we said it would not cost that much to pull a tree or to remove it. Then the next stand was at $4, and we said it would not cost $4. Now the sum is $3, and I presume they mean they will pay half and we will pay half. I do not know exactly what the proposal is.


Mr. Fulton:: As the minister has outlined it, the program applies to any province. If a province wishes to institute a tree-removal program it must first put forward its program and a concrete suggestion as to the basis upon which it wishes the dominion to contribute?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this program in the minds of the federal authorities primarily an improvement program, so as to bring orchards up to date and enable the growers to have the kind of apples which are more readily marketable, or is it directed primarily to the removal of trees so as to cut down the overall production of apples?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as we have taken part in it-and all our activities have been in Nova Scotia-our objective has been to assist in the program they had undertaken and established. I believe they had both things in mind. There were many trees in Nova Scotia producing apples which reached the local market. If they were grown, they were offered for sale. It was better to have improved varieties which could find a market outside Nova Scotia to better advantage. So they were promoting both things, namely, cutting down the number of trees, and

Supply-Agriculture
changing the varieties to those which could be sold to better advantage. We helped finance the program during the war. We have not undertaken to do anything about it from then on. The matter is under discussion with the provincial government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand the federal
authorities do not look at this as a program for cutting off production, but rather as an effort to concentrate upon finding markets for better varieties. I am not trying to minimize what has been done in the past, but I should hope the dominion government would try to market the apples rather than follow the questionable procedure of cutting back production because of a circumstance which we all hope is only temporary.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have taken no position whatever in that matter, and we do not intend to take any. We will listen to whatever representations are made to us by the provinces.


Mr. Herridge:: I should like to make a few observations, not only as a member but also as a grower, with a view to assisting with this problem in British Columbia. It is my opinion that the industry itself should soon take a definite stand with regard to unsuitable varieties. We have been producing a large percentage of unsuitable varieties. That was not serious during the war years, but it is serious now. I am of the opinion that the industry itself should lay down a policy f0r the elimination of undesirable varieties and for guidance in future planting of apple trees in Canada. I believe in the individual carrying a certain amount of the load, and the grower should perhaps pay one-third, the province one-third and the federal government one-third of the cost of changing from one variety to another.


Mr. Robertson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Durham with regard to the apple industry in Ontario. Northumberland county adjoins Durham county, and we have many apple producers. These producers have been disturbed by the conditions that have existed, especially during the past year, and many are at a loss to understand why a subsidy should be paid in other provinces while the growers in Ontario receive nothing. I realize that the conditions in other provinces may be different, but I should like to have assurance from the minister that payments will be made under the agricultural prices support program rather than in the form of direct subsidies to the provinces.


Mr. McLure:: Mr. Chairman, much has been said about apples, and I think something should be said about the second staff of life, potatoes. I intended to speak on this matter when the first item was before us, but it was passed while I was out of the chamber. At that time the minister referred to this matter, as reported at page 2694 of Hansard of May 19. The king of potato growers and shippers was to have been here today to speak about potatoes-I refer to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton-but he is unavoidably absent.
Eollowing the minister's remarks there are a few things I should like to place before the committee. The minister did not agree with what had been said by other hon. members with regard to the sale of potatoes. Referring to the prices received by the potato growers, mainly those in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the minister said that the average price for the year was 98 cents per hundred pounds, with a price of 99 cents per hundred pounds the year before. The hon. member for Brant then inquired whether that would be the price at the farm, and the minister replied:
That is the price to the grower, as X said at the beginning of my remarks.
And again:
I suppose he would deliver them at the village or in town or probably at the railroad station, but in any case that is his price.
That does not coincide with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had to say with regard to communications he had received from potato growers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I should like to put the record straight in this regard, and say that our people have not been getting the price they should, nor have they been receiving the best consideration from the department. I should like to quote from a report made by the potato industry promotion committee of Prince Edward Island, referred to in the Charlottetown Patriot of May 18 and reading as follows:
It is impossible to accurately estimate the total gross value of the potatoes shipped this year, but it would run at a little better than 50 cents a bushel.
The cobblers have been running around 75 cents per bushel for seed and the other varieties averaged about 50 cents per bushel to mid-January (1950) and from 45 to 47 cents a bushel since that time.
That was the price the potato grower or producer was receiving. The report winds up by saying:
But the province's potato growers were not too happy about the record. It proves once again that the province can produce a bountiful as well as a top-notch crop. But the growers have been taking a financial beating because of the low price.
There has been considerable talk about surplus potatoes, and the suggestion has been

made that the acreage should be reduced. I do not believe there is a surplus; if there is, it is not caused by overproduction so much as by underconsumption. Last year certain agriculture specialists and leading professors in some of the large colleges in the United States endeavoured to And out the eating habits of the people of Canada and the United States, particularly with reference to the consumption of potatoes. It was found that the per capita consumption of potatoes had dropped nearly one bushel per year during the last twenty-five years. As compared with a per capita consumption of three bushels a year, the consumption had been reduced to less than two bushels. With a Canadian population of 13 million people, if the consumption was back to normal the entire Prince Edward Island crop of 13 million bushels could be marketed in this country.
What is the reason for this drop in consumption? It is due largely to dietitians, faddists and others who state that potatoes are fattening. The farmers at one time had the same idea, and they fed large quantities of potatoes to hogs with the idea of fattening them. While they were of some value as food, it was found that there were other things that were much better for fattening purposes. The farmer does not now believe that potatoes are fattening.
Let us go a little further with this question of the use of potatoes as food, and consider the countries that use them most for that purpose. Take, for instance, the people of Ireland, where potatoes were first used as a food and sent out from there to the whole world. What a great food they were! Let us see the effect that potatoes had on the building of a strong and virile manhood. At the age of twenty-one the young men of that country, after living on potatoes three times and sometimes even five times a day-it was their chief food, and should be in every home -left Ireland and brought their virile manhood to New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, all the large cities of the United States. What are they today? Because of their strong virile manhood they are chiefs of police in ninety-nine towns out of a hundred in the United States. Over eighty per cent of the policemen of the United States were born and bred in Ireland and fed on potatoes day in and day out.
A few years ago flour was more or less sidetracked because some faddist said it was not a really good food, although we know it is a staple of life. The department went to work and advertised the great benefits of flour. They told different stories about what a wonderful food it was, something that we
Supply-Agriculture
all knew. Flour consumption returned to normal. Today what we need is advertising as to the food value of the wonderful potato. Let us break down the ideas of the dietitians and faddists. Let us go a step further and not allow any dietitians employed by the government or the Department of Agriculture to tell people how to cook a potato, because they do not know themselves. The way some of them mash a potato you would not realize what it was. Let the people eating potatoes cook them the way they want to. Let us advertise their food value, and tell the ladies that if they expect a virile race of men they must feed them potatoes. Feed them potatoes, more potatoes, and still more potatoes, because if consumption continues to drop we shall certainly have a surplus. It is not because we are overproducing; it is really because consumption is declining year by year. I hope the minister will see that advertising is carried on to place before the people the benefits of this wonderful food, which is not a luxury but a real food.


Mr. Harris (Danforlh):: If bread is No. 1 and potatoes are No. 2, then perhaps you will permit me to say that apples might be No. 3. I was a little disappointed that the minister did not answer the question raised by the hon. member for Northumberland (Ont.). I do not want to detract from the remarks of my young fifty-year-old friend from Prince Edward Island. In order to save time, when the minister is answering the hon. member for Queens about No. 2, potatoes, he might at the same time answer the question raised by the hon. member for Northumberland (Ont.) with regard to No. 3, apples. Let us get rid of Nos. 1 and 2, bread and potatoes, and deal with No. 3, apples, in answer to the hon. member for Northumberland.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to finish these matters as we go along, I might add to what I said earlier, part of which was read to the committee a few moments ago. I think the position has developed as to potatoes that we expected at that time would develop. There is not a surplus carryover of potatoes at present. The price today is from 50 to 75 cents higher than it was in January. What we said at the time was that we would keep a close check on potatoes as we went along through the season and do whatever we could to assist in getting potatoes marketed to better advantage for the producers than a year ago. My understanding is that the producers and those who handle potatoes have marketed 6,000 cars more this year than they marketed a year ago, and they are obtaining a better return now as the

Supply-Agriculture
result of what we did than last year. Therefore I think the situation has been handled satisfactorily. The fact that we are not receiving, and have not for some time, any further requests with regard to it would indicate that it has been satisfactorily dealt with.


Joseph Henry Harris: What about No. 3?


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks of the senior member for Queens- I can never satisfy myself which he is-I wish to say that Prince Edward Island produced about 10 million bushels of potatoes in 1949. We shipped 11,000 cars, which is approximately 8,250,000 bushels. If we take another million for domestic purposes and another million for seed, that is approximately 10 million bushels. As to the price, I sold potatoes last fall in our own district through a co-operative company, and the price paid in November for foundation A cobblers was 75 or 80 cents. Later on it dropped as low as 60 cents per bushel. I think one week it went up as high as 92 cents a bushel to the farmer, which is no more than the cost of production.
I kept a record of a sixteen-acre field three years ago as to the cost of fertilizer, seed and labour, and it cost $112 an acre to produce an acre of potatoes. I kept a record of a twenty-acre field last year, and it cost $116 an acre. You can understand that the growing season has a great deal to do with the crop of potatoes. The average production in Prince Edward Island is 200 bushels per acre, and some farmers get as high as 350 and 400 bushels. The revenue from the potato crop accounts for about thirty-five per cent of our annual income.
A great many things could be said about the potato business as I look back over my years of experience since we commenced producing certified seed. The first thing we should have is sufficient storage to look after our crop. Last year I made a survey of storage facilities in Prince Edward Island. There are 102 stations on the Canadian National Railway where potatoes and turnips are assembled and shipped, and at those stations there are frost-proof warehouses with a capacity of 1,600,000 bushels. If you compare that with our production of ten million bushels you will see that we are far short of meeting our storage requirements. At our own station of Douglas we can store forty cars of potatoes. That serves a radius of about ten miles, or four school districts. We have been operating that warehouse on a co-operative basis for the last three years to the satisfaction of everyone, and the farmers have had good returns.

I believe the grant of $100,000 which we receive from the federal government through the Department of Agriculture, as well as the assistance we get from the provincial government, should be used to the fullest extent possible to provide warehouses at the points where they are needed. At Summerside, Charlottetown, Georgetown and Souris we have large warehouses that are used for only about two months in the year for assembling potatoes for water shipment. However, those are not cold storage warehouses where potatoes could be kept for six or eight months. Our potato shipments are not made in one or two months; they extend over eight months of the year.
I believe we should have more storage capacity in order that the marketing of potatoes could be better regulated. We need an orderly marketing system. During the last few years a great deal of cutthroat competition has been going on among the dealers, large and small. I keep track of the markets in the larger cities, such as Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, as well as western Canada. Many times I have been in those centres and have seen wires received in the morning quoting potato prices varying from ten to twenty-five cents per bag. You can see how confusing that is to the buyers. If we had an orderly marketing system we would be able to do away with this competition, as well as with the consignment of potatoes to over-depressed markets.
When I was in Toronto this year potatoes were selling for as little as $1.18 for a 75-pound bag, delivered. When you take away the price of the bag and the cost of freight, the dealer back in Prince Edward Island has left only about 60 cents, and you can see what the grower gets after the dealer takes his small commission. In the last eighteen months the freight rate has increased by 16 cents per hundred. For the last ten years the rate to Toronto was 39 cents. Now it is 55 cents. Someone says that can be passed on to the consumer, but I do not know whether that can be done. This high freight rate has made a great difference in the returns to our potato growers.
Over the last twenty-five years our producers have learned all about growing and grading potatoes. As I see it, the only problem now is marketing. As I said a moment ago, if we had an orderly marketing system I believe many of our difficulties would be overcome. We have the finest potato inspection service in existence, both with respect to table stock and seed potatoes. This service has been developed under two able men. One is Mr. Peppin, of the seed department, who I am sorry to say is leaving the service next year because of his age, and

who has done a wonderful job over the last thirty years. The other is Mr. Chester E. Shaw, the chief table stock inspector, who is also retiring in about another year. I am sure everyone who knows what he has done for the potato growers of Prince Edward Island will have a word of praise for him.
I could go on for an hour; in fact I could write a book on the potato business, having been connected with it since 1921. I have seen many ups and downs. Many people have gone broke in the potato business, though for the last few years the growers, and the dealers especially, have done very well. To solve our problems, however, we should have more and better storage facilities, and the growers themsplves should make some suggestions to the government that would bring about a system of orderly marketing. I have been speaking to many people in Ottawa and Toronto who say they would be quite willing to pay a decent price for potatoes, which this year were much cheaper than other foods on the market. I believe we must blame ourselves for this system of marketing, which can be corrected by those in the industry. I do not think we can blame the federal government.
Last year many representations were made to the Department of Agriculture with respect to a floor price. Well, if you start paying floor prices you never get to the end of it. I do not believe in a floor price unless you have control of the acreage, because if a farmer is making the cost of production he will keep on growing potatoes. In Prince Edward Island and the maritimes we are like the people In western Canada; we are great "next year" people; we always hope that next year will be a killer and we will make a lot of money.
I do not believe it is necessary for me to say anything more. The senior member for Queens understands the situation in our little province as well as I do, and I am sure both he and I will be glad to do everything possible to help the potato growers. I should like to give just one quotation that I read in the newspapers, credited to the New Brunswick minister of agriculture, who said: "We are still carrying on the same old antiquated marketing system we had fifty years ago." I thought that was the truest thing I had heard in many a day, and I heartily agree. It is up to ourselves to improve the situation and help our people who, after spending their time and money, after getting up at three o'clock in the morning to spray potatoes, after wearing out machinery, at the end of the year find they have scarcely enough money to pay the fertilizer bill.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr.   Karris@Daniorih: 1 hope hon. members realize that the hon. member for Durham raised a question-


James Garfield Gardiner: If you will allow me, I will answer it. I have tried three times to do so.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am just trying to interpolate something else I think the minister should know, if I may. I quite agree that potatoes are the No. 2 item, but it has been my happy privilege to realize that central Ontario is in the apple business. We have heard only about the apples grown in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, 'but I might say that Ontario is also in the apple business. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are other parts of the world, largely within the confines of the British empire, that are in the apple business. I do not apologize for taking a few moments of the time of this committee to inform the members that I saw an area in Tasmania one mile long by several rods deep covered with red apples. This was during the war, and they were not being harvested because there were no bottoms to handle them. I realize that the socialist government subsidized the farmers who grew those apples. I realize, sir, that the time is coming when those orchards will again be in production, and the markets of the empire will be supplied from Tasmania.
Did I say one mile? Yes, one mile on one side of the valley and a mile on the other side, as far as the eye could see, there were thousands of bushels of apples lying awaiting ships which were not available. Ships are now available in the harbours of Tasmania to bring those apples to the British market. I am putting these facts on the record for the benefit of the Canadian apple industry, because I believe that within the next decade that industry will be in a precarious position. The member for Northumberland (Ont.) asked the minister a question, which has not been answered, concerning the apples grown in central Ontario. I believe that within the next decade our apple industry will find itself in difficulty. It is my duty, Mr. Chairman, to put these facts on the record, so that those charged with the responsibility of the No. 3 item-bread first, potatoes second, and apples third-can give them some consideration.
Since we have to depend on export markets for the revenue to keep this industry going, we must consider the various places that produce this No. 3 item. In my opinion apples will come from Tasmania in the future because that area's production is of such magnitude, and of such a nature, that the producers of central Ontario should carefully consider what they are going to do

Supply-Agriculture
about expanding this industry. My real reason for rising, Mr. Chairman, was that I thought the member for Northumberland (Ont.) should have an answer to the question which he brought up about twenty minutes ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, as I recall the remarks which were made by the member for Northumberland and the member for Durham, they were calling attention to the fact that financial assistance had been given to the apple growers in other parts of Canada but not the Ontario growers. That is true, of course. On a previous occasion I believe I indicated that other assistance had been given the Ontario apple growers during the war period. It was indirect assistance, because the apples from British Columbia and Nova Scotia were ruled out of the central Canada market until permits were issued for the marketing of them. This left the best market in Canada open to Ontario and Quebec apples.
Later the action taken was not quite so drastic, but we did have an understanding with the Nova Scotia and British Columbia apple producers that they would not put their apples into that market until a certain time of the year. This understanding was religiously carried out until last year. The result has been that the apple growers in Ontario, and I think they will agree with me, received the best returns they ever had for their apples during that ten-year period. Last year again there was considerable care taken with the marketing. When the season opened we told both British Columbia and Nova Scotia that we were not making an agreement in advance this year covering the marketing of the crop. We were prepared to consider what had happened at the end of the marketing season, and deal with the situation on the basis of actual results.
When the end of the season arrived, we checked the returns which the Ontario growers received as well as the returns received by the growers in the other two provinces. Even after assistance had been given to British Columbia and Nova Scotia, the returns obtained for apples in Ontario were considerably higher than in those areas. There is no reason, therefore, why the government should assist Ontario in obtaining a higher level than that which has been attained, unless we are prepared to raise the returns received in British Columbia and Nova Scotia to a higher point. The Ontario returns are still higher than the returns in either of the other places.
As I understand the question, it related to whether assistance is to be given in the future. The only legislation under which
assistance could be provided in connection with price levels is the Agricultural Prices Support Act. The apple producer has a right to expect consideration under that act, the same as any other agricultural producer in Canada. The question would be considered on its merits when the application is made. No undertaking can be given in advance. It is a matter that will be dealt with on its merits when the time arrives.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock. Marketing service-
27. Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian Horticultural Council, $989,000.


Mr. Shaw:: Before this item passes I should like to refer for just one moment to the subject of apples. This morning, and upon previous occasions, representatives from the apple growing areas of Canada expressed considerable alarm about disposal of the Canadian apple crop at remunerative prices. At the time that that discussion was going on there went through my mind a recent press dispatch. I looked it up and I found that the Ottawa Evening Journal of Wednesday, May 24, 1950, carried the following dispatch from Montreal:
Port officials said today that the freighter Port Alma carried coals to Newcastle. The freighter brought 30,009 cases of apples from New Zealand to Canada, one of the world's largest apple producers.
My questions are these: Can the minister give us an indication of the total value of apples imported into Canada during the past year, and the total exports during the same period and the prices in each instance, that is, the retail prices of the New Zealand apples as compared with the market price of the Canadian apples?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry but I have not the exact figures on the exports here, but they are very small. I presume-


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is the minister speaking of
exports?


James Garfield Gardiner: Imports, rather. Imports that come into this country from outside are very small. I have not the exact figure here.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Would it be impossible to get it?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it would not be impossible; it could be obtained. I think likely I have it in this pile, but it would take a while to look it up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Marketing service-
28. Livestock and livestock products, $1,204,012.
Mr. Hodgson:: I should like to say a word or two on this item. Since quite a number of farmers and hog producers in my riding are quite perturbed about the way being made possible for United States' meat and meat products to be allowed on to the Canadian market I ask the minister to make a statement as best he can as to how long the market will be left open, and what effect it might have upon our Canadian market.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the first part of the question?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Has the minister any idea
how long the embargo will be off products coming in from the United States, and what effect it will have on the Canadian market?


James Garfield Gardiner: A question was asked the
other day with regard to what the government's intention is in connection with the payment of a premium on pork which goes to Britain following the thirtieth day of June. I said here I was under the impression that from the nature of the announcement made on the 3rd of January probably a further announcement was not necessary. I have read the press reports of that time carefully, and I would say that a further report is necessary. Because of that I have, since discussing it in the house the other day, taken it up with council, and the government has decided that the premium will continue to be paid, or a subsidy will continue to be paid, until we have taken in the 60 million pounds. That means it will go right on just as it is from the 1st of July on; and all other regulations with regard to the handling of pork products will go along in the same manner as they are going along now.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have a supplementary
question. Can the minister give us any reason why bacon took such a big jump just lately from 90 cents a pound to as high as $1.25 a pound?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I suppose it is because hogs took a jump from $26.50 to $32.


John Alpheus Charlton: Since the minister made his
statement with regard to the hog subsidy continuation it probably alters the remarks I have to make at the present time, but it does not alter the fact that at the end of his remarks yesterday in answer to my question and in answer to the question of privilege I brought up regarding a news report by an informed official of the department, he said this, as reported at page 3471 of Hansard:
I see these articles in the press from time to time about what informed officials have said, but I have not been able yet to find the well informed official who gave that statement.
Supply-Agriculture
What I have to say is this:	I doubt very
much whether any one of us who knows the minister as well as we do would have any thought that someone else would be running his department for him. Here is part of the statement, as it appeared in the press on Friday, June 9. It is a Canadian Press dispatch in the Globe and Mail and reads as follows:
On the Farm Front
Support of Bacon Price May Continue After July
Ottawa, June 8 (CP). The government is considering the possibility of extending price-support for bacon beyond the termination date of July 1, and it is expected that in all likelihood the program will be continued for another half-year, an informed official disclosed today.
He said the decision to reconsider government policy arises from requests by hog producers that the program be extended and the fact that the government has not as yet been successful in buying sufficient bacon to fill the 1950 Anglo-Canadian bacon agreement.
The last paragraph of the article reads as follows:
The official said there is now no need to follow through with such a plan immediately. Pork would be in comparatively short supply during the months of June, July and August. Marketings are expected to increase in September, when the government again hopes to be able to make purchase under the agreement and possibly fill the Anglo-Canadian contract before the end of the calendar year.
The minister's reply to me was:
I see these articles in the press from time to time about what informed officials have said, but I have not been able yet to find the well informed official who gave that statement.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: He gave it himself.


John Alpheus Charlton: To me that is utter nonsense, because no official of any department of government, I do not care who it is, would give a statement of this kind to the press without first consulting his minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend either does not know very much about departments, or he does not know very much about the press. As a matter of fact everything in that statement is wrong, every single thing in it, and I do not give out wrong statements with regard to my department. That is simply a guess in order to get my friend to get up in the house and say something. He has got up and said it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am afraid he is-


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not be at all surprised if he discussed it with some of the press before he got up and said it.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is absolutely untrue. I did not discuss it with any member of the press.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend had better listen to my language again. I said: "I would

Supp ly-A griculture
not be surprised"; and I would not be surprised at all. The actual position is that the government never had discussed it until half an hour ago. I took it up with the council since I was here this morning and had it considered; and this is the first time it has ever been considered by the government since last January. Now, read your article again in the light of that.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have read it several times.


James Garfield Gardiner: Your article says that it was being considered by the government. It was not being considered by the government at all. The whole article, as you go through it, is just in the same tone. It is for the purpose of stirring up more discussion so that there will be more news to write. There never was any official who discussed it with me and then gave it to the press. It may have been discussed by an official with the press-I would not deny that-but it certainly was not discussed with any official who ever discussed it with me, or I would know who the official is, and I would know how to deal with him. That statement was never given out by the department at all.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the minister suggesting that the press is simply fabricating these stories and publishing them without discussing them with anybody?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that, no.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: They set up a straw man.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: There is one point I wish to raise in connection with the discussion that has been taking place on this item. I refer to a statement that was made by the minister last night in dealing with the general discussion of this very same item, and repeated again this morning in other words.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid my hon. friend is not correctly informed up till now, because this item came up for discussion just five minutes ago.


George Alexander Drew: I am not referring to this item; 1 am speaking about something else.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I understand the minister was under the impression that I was speaking about the subject he has been discussing. I have no desire to break the continuity of that discussion, if it is being proceeded with, or if there was some question to answer in connection with it.
[ Mr. Gardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: My point was that last night we were discussing item 23. We were on other marketing service items until five minutes ago, when we switched to the subject of livestock, which is the next item.


George Alexander Drew: The general discussion has to do with production and trade in various agricultural products, and what I have to say relates to the general discussion which has been under way.
I wish to refer to a statement made by the minister last night, and repeated in other words this morning, which it seems to me does call for clarification. That is particularly so in view of the fact that here in Ottawa at the present time are representatives of the press from every part of the commonwealth.
Throughout the whole of Canada today the Canadian Press has carried a dispatch based upon a statement made by the minister last night. I quote now from the Canadian Press dispatch:
Agriculture Minister Gardiner indicated tonight he thinks it is time Canada started to talk tough to Britain in trading matters.
It is time, he told the commons, that Canada stopped talking nicely to some people in Britain when she tried to obtain British markets for Canadian food products. It was time for "more direct" talk by Canada.
That statement by the minister may well be a statement that should have been made; but the minister has said either too much or too little. This is the kind of statement which very naturally and very properly will receive considerable attention in the United Kingdom. If this statement was intended to be taken seriously, as I think it was, then it is important that the minister should go further and say exactly what he does mean; and he should indicate whom it is he is talking about.
There is not, I suggest, any doubt, in the minds of members of this House of Commons that the people of Britain have every desire to trade with the people of Canada. I do not think there is any thought in the minds of members of the house that the people of Great Britain would not willingly wish to have arrangements made which would make available to them the products of this country.
The statement is made that there are some people who should be spoken to in a much firmer way than they have been spoken to before. I think we should know whether those are members of the present government of Great Britain, and I do not know why we should be left to guess as to who they are. After all, the way this matter stands today, a very important statement has been made affecting the relationship of two countries in

trade matters, affecting the relationship of two governments, and I think it should be specific.
I think there is an added reason why it should be specific, and that is that there is also carried in today's press a very important statement from Great Britain. The Canadian Press also carries a report of its correspondent newspapers today which reports on a decision by the party which forms the present government in the United Kingdom. This has some possible relationship to the statement that was made, and cannot therefore be ignored. If it has no relationship, then I think we should know it.
In an announced decision of the party from which the government of the United Kingdom is formed it is stated that they last night reached a decision based upon a statement prepared by the Hon. Hugh Dalton, who is a member of the cabinet of the United Kingdom, and was presenting this statement in his capacity as a member of the executive of the party to which he belongs. In this particular case they are explaining the reasons why they reached the decision not to enter into a plan for the pooling of resources of a certain type throughout Europe, with which it had been suggested that they might be associated. And in that statement that was given in support of their decision not to agree to join in that plan, the party which forms the present government of the United Kingdom is responsible for this statement, among others:
Socialists would of course welcome a European economic union which was based on international planning for full employment, social justice and stability. But international planning can only operate on the basis of national planning. And many European governments have not yet shown either the will or the ability to plan their own economies.
That paragraph in the statement issued last night has already been interpreted by the responsible press in Great Britain and elsewhere as a declaration that the government of Great Britain is being guided in certain of its actions by its willingness or otherwise to deal with those countries which are accepting certain doctrines of which they approve.
In view of the fact that this statement appears at the very same time as the statement >by the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that there are certain people who should be spoken to frankly, then I think his statement should go further and indicate whether it has any relationship whatever to the insistence upon the acceptance of certain types of sale and purchase related to political doctrines, or whether there are other reasons. Also he should tell us who the people are
Supply-Agriculture
to whom we should direct these franker points of view, which might have some practical results.
May I say as one member of the House of Commons that in connection with any dealing with Great Britain or any other country' my first concern is certainly the advantage of the people of Canada. If any steps are being taken to our disadvantage, then I think we should have full information, and I think also that all of us should join in a perfectly frank expression of our opinion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, in reference to the words used last night, I do not think it is necessary to take them from the press, because they are in Hansard-and they are much more correct in Hansard than they are in the press. They are not so different, except as to the first term that was used. These are the words:
I think it is about time we stopped talking nicely to some people over in Britain. That does not apply to very many people, just one or two; but until they are spoken to directly I do not think we should look for very much success in the marketing of some of those products in that country.
At that time we were discussing the item relating to apples. I still maintain that that is correct. Coming down to the suggestion that it might result from the attitude of some political party, I would answer that by saying this, that the plan under which we operated from 1940 until 1948 was a plan which was set up under the Churchill government, with Lord Woolton as minister of food. The system of having the government purchase food coming from outside of Britain as well as food produced in Britain was set up by the Churchill government. It was continued in much the same form at least until 1948, and probably is still continued in Great Britain in relation to most countries.
Under that plan it did not make any difference which government was in power, whether it was a Conservative government, a coalition government or the present socialist government. The general plan was to take all the food they could get from Canada-that was their attitude-and our attitude was to supply all the food we could. When we met together to discuss the question it was merely a matter from their point of view of how much we could give them, and from our point of view it was a question of what they were able to pay for it. We entered into an agreement and we then went out to our farmers and asked them to produce enough so that we could at least provide the quantity which they desired to have. That was the general trend of it.
But as I said last session, when we got along to 1947 it was intimated that that was not their general desire, that what they

Supply-Agriculture
would like us to do was to cut out everything but wheat. We suggested that that was going to be most difficult. We were prepared to co-operate as far as it was possible to co-operate in getting our sales made elsewhere or in our own markets at home in order to consume the food we were producing and we did co-operate in every possible way in getting that done. We have been co-operating in every possible way down to the present in getting that done.
Up until now we have been able to market our farm products. We have not very much complaint about the prices of farm products, which are just as good or a little better in this country than they are in most places, with one or two exceptions. For that reason we are not complaining about what the farmer is getting for the products he has to sell. He is doing as well now as he has ever done in selling his products.
I am sure many people, either in this house or outside, have the feeling, and it certainly is true among farmers throughout the country, that we are not always going to be able to eat all that we produce or even as great a percentage of what we produce as we are able to eat at the present time. Some people think that the natural place to sell any surplus we have is in the United States; some think that the natural place to sell it is in Great Britain; but in my opinion the natural place to sell it is in both places to the extent that it can be sold.
I think that when our friends who depended upon us so greatly during wartime for food are going to take the position, "Well, we would like to get food anywhere but in Canada," we should not even attempt to say anything different from what I have said either in this house or outside this house, with regard to their attitude. I do not care whether that attitude is the attitude of the government or of the opposition. The last time I was in Great Britain they invited me to sit in the gallery and there was a debate on food put on. I listened to it and afterward I told them what my impression was. I was told that they thought that that would be my impression when they asked me to sit in the gallery. My impression was there were there many people who were concerned, and properly so, about getting all the food they possibly could produced within Britain. That has been the long-term Conservative policy in Great Britain, and it is still the policy in that country. There was not much difference between the two sides of the house on that particular question. Their first desire, like ours, is to produce in Great Britain all they can. Then their second desire is to have

it sold at as good a price as possible in their own market, and they subsidize the sale of it before it goes to their people.
We are a little differently situated. I personally think most hon. members-and I am quite certain the leader of the opposition thinks likewise-should pride themselves on the fact that we belong to the British commonwealth. For many years we prided ourselves on the fact that we belonged to the British empire, but in more recent years we have called it the commonwealth of nations. I may be wrong, and if I am I am quite prepared to be considered wrong, but I do not think there has ever been a better organization set up in the world, and I include the United Nations, to promote peace throughout the world than the British commonwealth of nations.
I think it most important that our relationships with the centre of the empire should be of the most cordial kind and I believe the manner in which they can remain on that basis as between a considerable part of the population of this country and of Great Britain is for them to take our food in the same free way during peacetime as they did during wartime. That is what I meant by saying that we should speak to them bluntly.
I do not think there is any dollar-sterling question in the world or any dollar-sterling problem as between Canada and Great Britain that is more important than the maintenance of good relationships between those two areas. That is all I meant by what I said, and that is what I still mean and that is what I am still prepared to say, either in the house or outside. I think it is the duty of Canada to produce all the food for Great Britain she can, and I think it is equally the duty of Great Britain to buy all the food she can from us rather than to go elsewhere for it. If they do that and if we keep up our production I think we are both going to be better off even if it does take some dollars that they otherwise would pile up.
It would have required only $30 million last year for Great Britain to have satisfied all the demands of agriculture in this country as to the sale of food. If the $30 million had been proffered, under the plan of cooperation in solving their problems as well as our own, I venture to say that they would not have had to use half of it. Our people would have been perfectly satisfied that they were being treated properly, and their people would have been perfectly satisfied that they were getting all the surplus food there was from this country. With a question as simple as that I do not think we should be carrying on controversy and discussion as to whether Great Britain should take our apples or

whether she should take the little bit of pork we have. When I said a little bit last year some people were inclined to scoff, but it has turned out to be even smaller than I thought it would be. I thought we were going to have 60 million pounds by this time and we have only 12 million pounds. When this problem is such a small one, I think all this talk about its being caused by the fact that there is some dollar-sterling problem just is not the case at all.
If we could get that into the minds of one or two people probably we could settle the question so far as Great Britain and Canada are concerned. We are not going to settle the dollar-sterling question so far as the world is concerned. But I repeat, I think it is important that we produce as much food as we can for Great Britain, and I think it is important that Great Britain should take as much of it as she can take, important from the point of view not only of ourselves and herself but of the whole world over a period.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I for one welcome the statement by the Minister of Agriculture that there is nothing so important as to take such steps as will make it possible to carry forward this trade. As may be recalled, we have introduced a number of resolutions whjch had as their purpose the presentation of that very point of view. When the Minister of Agriculture says that he hopes there will be those who will understand that there is no dollar-sterling problem nearly as important as arranging for this sale, I hope he will convince the Minister of Finance of that very fact, because in answer to our argument along that line we have been told by the Minister of Finance that this is an insurmountable barrier. The minister has not yet answered the question I put to him. Frankness is just as desirable in one's own family as outside, and perhaps more so, and if frankness is desirable in this case then at least put us all in the position where we can join in being equally frank, and tell us who these one or two people are who need to be spoken to. We know it is not the people of Great Britain generally, and I think it is desirable that there be complete frankness.
I certainly concur in all the minister has said about the importance of the trade between Great Britain and Canada. Since this subject has been brought up by the minister, I would go further and say that Canadians cannot look without some measure of concern at the published statements that some of the food products we have been supplying are now being bought from countries behind the iron curtain. There may be explanations for that, but I think we would be less than frank if we did not say quite clearly to these friends
Supp ly-A griculture
who are so close to us that the purchase of things which we produce from countries against which we are arrayed in so many ways can only create uncertainties at this time. Whether we call it an empire or a commonwealth, the main thing is that it is the greatest partnership of free nations that the world has ever known. If frankness will help to remove any ground of misunderstanding, then I think all hon. members will welcome the opportunity to be quite as frank as the minister, but I think it would help if we knew where to direct our remarks.


James Garfield Gardiner: In dealing with the name of the person who was mentioned I will say that Mr. Dalton was one of the most friendly persons I have met in Great Britain on any occasion when I have been there to discuss anything relating to Canada. Whatever his position may be on international relationships, I am certain that he agrees that Canada did a good job during the war, and that she is entitled to have a good job done for her in times of peace. I know he thinks that.


James Arthur Ross: In view of the statement the minister made a few minutes ago in answer to the hon. member for Brant-Went-worth, and coupled with the remarks he made just a little while ago when he stated that members of his department did not issue this information to the press without his knowledge-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


James Arthur Ross: I understood you to say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said they did not issue it with my knowledge, and I had not yet found the person who issued it without my knowledge, if there was any such person.


James Arthur Ross: The minister further said that if they did he would know how to deal with them. I think those were his exact words.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


James Arthur Ross: I presume that would also apply to his parliamentary assistant. Would that be true?


James Garfield Gardiner: My parliamentary assistant was elected by the people of Canada, and he has the same freedom of speech as my friend on the other side.


James Arthur Ross: All members of the cabinet are elected in their respective constituencies by the people. There was a time when we used to think there was cabinet solidarity on certain principles. Has that also gone by the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no.

Supply-Agriculture


James Arthur Ross: Then the same thing does not apply within the department between the minister and the parliamentary assistant? They are not supposed to see eye to eye on government policy?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is not sworn in as a member of the government.


James Arthur Ross: If the hon. member who is saying something over there would care to rise and make a speech I will sit down now and let him have the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are asking me questions and I am answering them.


James Arthur Ross: A great many people where I live thought that probably the parliamentary assistant was flying a kite for the minister last fall in what he was reported to have said by many newspapers, and newspapers right in Ontario too.


James Garfield Gardiner: And he corrected it.


James Arthur Ross: I have not heard it corrected in the house. If he wishes to do so this will give him an opportunity. In British Columbia Country Life there is the following:
Advice of Robert McCubbin, parliamentary assistant to Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, to his fellow farmers, so the Canadian Press reports, is that they develop their own markets and do not rely on the dominion government to help them secure outlets. Under normal circumstances that would be sound advice but under present circumstances it is difficult to understand how such advice could be followed, because the farmers are helpless, in respect of developing markets within the British commonwealth of nations and in foreign countries.
That is the very matter we have been discussing. The parliamentary assistant is in the seat beside the minister, and if he wishes to contradict that statement I think this would be a most appropriate time to do so. If he was not flying a kite for the Minister of Agriculture I think he should explain what he meant by the statement because it was taken very seriously by farmer producers across Canada from coast to coast. As I say, we have been led to believe in the past, if not under the present government, that when a minister made a public statement he was setting forth government policy for the government. Probably that is not the case today. I do not know. I think we should be able to take it that the parliamentary assistant would be stating the policy for his department at least. If the parliamentary assistant wishes to contradict that, this is his opportunity to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, because this is such old straw and has been dealt with so often, the parliamentary assistant did not expect it would be brought up today. He

has sent out for the statement that was made. In due course it will be here and he will make his reply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
29. Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $6,000, $100,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Item 29 includes an amount not to exceed $6,000 which is to be used for temporary appointments that may be required, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act. I have not gone back to the year one, but I have gone back a few years, and I find that this item has been in the estimates at least since 1945. The total amount of the vote has been increased from $25,000 five years ago to $100,000 now. I should like to point out that the portion of the vote about which I am talking, namely, the item for appointments notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Service Act, has been reduced. The amount available for such appointment or appointments used to be $15,000, and now it is only $6,000. I wonder whether the minister is aware of the fact that this is one of the items about which the Auditor General has commented in his memorandum to the Senate and to the public accounts committee of the House of Commons this year. His comment centres around the fact that this is the kind of item in the estimates that has legislative effect without parliament having gone through the normal procedure to provide for such legislation.
The Civil Service Act makes provision as to how people are to be appointed, but in this case apparently some one or more persons are being appointed to allegedly temporary positions notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Service Act. In all fairness I should point out that the Auditor General recognizes the convenience of this procedure for temporary appointments. However, he deprecates the practice of repeating it year after year. As a matter of fact there are some twenty or thirty items throughout the estimates to which the Auditor General calls attention under this general heading. This happens to be the only one that he points out in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, so far as the practice of legislating by items in the estimates is concerned. I would like the minister to tell me how many persons are covered by this $6,000 portion of the item now before us. If it is only one person I should like to know how long that person has held the position. Perhaps I can get that information and then ask .my next question.


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that only one position is set up under this amount at the present time, and that position is on the staff of Mr. Robertson over in London. It was occupied for some time by a lady, whose name I do not have at the moment, and the position has to do with the publicizing our marketing possibilities in Great Britain. This item, which has been increased from $25,000 to $100,000, is the general marketing item in the department. Up to last year we did not use it to the extent we are using it now. The largest item being spent under it is the $50,000 we are using to advertise butter and dairy products. Another item will be the $12,000 we are going to utilize to advertise honey and other products. We set up the amount for the purpose of having money available that can be utilized for that kind of work when it is necessary; and those who might be appointed to such positions, either in this country or in Britain, would be people associated with the promotion of those sales. Judging from the position, the person in Britain occupying it would be engaged in keeping records more than anything else; but this whole amount would not be paid to that individual. It is an amount we could use, if we desired, to put a person on the road in connection with the advertising of butter, for example, to offset the advertising of oleomargarine. We might put a person on the road for that purpose for a. time without having to wait for an appointment under the civil service commission.
If I might give an example, last March we discovered that all over Canada there were stores that had no butter at all. They were selling margarine only. I assume the reason was that they were not fully informed as to what the government was prepared to do after April 1, when there was to be a reduction in the price of butter. They were making absolutely sure they would not have to take the five cent drop, so they had no butter at all in stock at the end of the month. That would have something to do with the size of the surplus we had to carry at the end of the year; and if it were desired to do so, under this item we could send persons out on the road for two or three weeks without waiting for appointments by the civil service commission, in order to correct such a situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has gone far beyond the narrow confines of the question I asked, and since he has done so I might make the comment that I have had complaints from some city people, whose incomes are such that they must buy margarine, and who have discovered that public money is being spent advertising butter. I realis s that if I were to press that point we migh'l get into quite an 5E94ft-225
Supply-Agriculture
argument here, but the fact that there could be an argument indicates that there are two sides to the question, and I suggest there is that other side.
The particular point I raised had to do with this amount of $6,000. The minister tells me that although the details of the estimates indicate three temporary positions under this amount, at the moment only one position is set up under it. My question, then, is how long that person has held that position.


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that the person does not hold it now. That was why I said the position was set up. My information is that the particular position I am speaking of was established in 1949, that it was filled for a time, but that it is not filled at present, and the salary is $1,500, which is only one-quarter of the amount provided here. This is a sum of money which can be utilized if it is required, and if it is not required it is not used. I think there were years when we did not spend any of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then no person has held a position under this vote for a period of years, but it is a fact that the minister can appoint persons to this job or to these jobs without going to the civil service commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no one on continuously, I am told. The particular person I have in mind occupied the position for a short time in 1949 and perhaps into 1950; I am not sure of the exact dates. I am told that prior to that other persons in Britain had been engaged for short periods, and there may have been a few in Canada as well. However, there are no continuous jobs in connection with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is possible to make such appointments under the provisions of this vote without going through the civil service commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not while I am in charge of the department, because that is not the purpose of the vote at all. Its purpose is merely to employ persons temporarily to do a job that has to be done so quickly that it is not possible to employ them through the civil service commission.


Mr. Fair:: This item contains an amount of $91,078 for advertising, and so forth. 1 suggest to the minister that something be done to advertise butter a little more than it has been advertised. If my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is going to bolster the case of margarine I think the people of Canada should be told the food value of margarine, and what they are doing to put themselves out of employment when they buy it. If that were done I think the hon.

Supply-Agriculture
member and others would keep very quiet and not try to increase the sale of margarine in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The farmers themselves are buying it.


Robert Fair: It is not widely known that most of the ingredients going into margarine are imported into this country, and perhaps the people most interested in having those ingredients imported are making a little profit out of it on the side. Then not long ago at the other end of this building it was advocated that the eight per cent sales tax be removed from the ingredients being imported to manufacture this very poor food. Only yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen an article appeared under the heading "Production of butter drops; margarine up" and in it I find this:
The bureau of statistics reported yesterday that production of creamery butter in May dropped from 31,987,000 pounds a year ago to 28,616,000. The total five-month output for 1950 was estimated at 78,791,000, a drop of more than 3,000,000 pounds from last year's January-May production of 81,865,000.
Production of the butter substitute during May increased to 8,019,000 pounds from 7,190,000 last year, the bureau said. In the first five-month period of 1950, margarine output climbed to 42,922,000 pounds from 26,259,000 in the same period a year ago.
A comparison of stocks on hand June 1 showed that holdings of butter are increasing, while margarine stocks are going down.
Something was said a moment ago about the farmers using margarine. I should like to direct a few words to the farmers who are cutting their own throats, and using their own knife to do it. By this time farmers should realize that they have an industry of their own which is well worth saving. The farmers should remember that they are helping out some of our big packers in the country who are importing the raw materials to make margarine. Instead of using butter, which could be made at home and is a better food product, our farmers are using margarine. I believe it is time for our farmer friends, and their friends in the cities and towns all across this country, to get busy and use our own homemade product, butter. They should leave margarine to the people who can and should use it in other countries.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I put on the record the information that was requested earlier, and which I think should be given in order to correct any false impression that may go out from here. No apples were brought into Canada from Tasmania last year or this year. In 1949 apples were brought in from New Zealand, and these may have been the apples that were discussed, amounting to 32,210 boxes. So far in 1950 there have

been 12,000 boxes imported from New Zealand and there is about one bushel to the box. I am informed that this figure covers all the apples that have come in from those places.


Mr. Ferguson:: There seems to be a great deal of talk about the high cost of living and heavy taxation. On the other hand a great number of people have been agitating that we tell the farmers of this country how to produce a lot more milk with less effort, and more butter with less effort. These people are advocating the spending of a great deal of money to tell the farmers how to sell it. I want to say that more money should be spent in telling the farmers how to co-operate amongst themselves in putting forth their own publicity. They should be told how to organize properly so that the people will know the value of their products and will buy them.
I have advocated this in my own riding. I have told the farmers to get together and tell the world what they produce. I have suggested that they call meetings to see if they can get some constructive ideas, and that they should bring in marketing experts. I am sorry to say there has been little response to that suggestion. This has to be a two-way street. If the government is going to spend a lot of money helping the farmers-and I am sure the rest of the farmers in Canada are no different from those in my constituency-then those farmers have to pull their weight. They should try to see that taxes are cut, and that the price of food is lowered so that people can buy it. Nobody can buy their products today. There should be more people advocating more effort on the part of my friends the farmers. I have said this directly to the farmers. We can give these farmers too much. Soon they will be spoon-fed and cradle-rocked. They have to go along with the government, and try to reduce taxes and produce better results. They have to sell a greater quantity with more effort contributed by the farmer.
Now some members who represent purely rural constituencies are going to glower at me and say, "He should not talk that way; he will lose votes." I do not think I will lose many votes. I shall have the votes of better farmers and richer farmers if they will listen to reason, and get together to market their products. The finest apples in the world are produced in my county. There is no argument about that, because they won all the prizes. I have suggested to those men that they sell the apples in smaller cartons, so that a woman would not be asked to go out of a chain store with 105 apples under her arm; something she could not possibly do. At the

same time, she would have liked to buy ten apples. A woman living in an apartment cannot possibly consume 105 apples before they go bad. There is no place to keep them. Yet these men have gone on for years trying to force down the throats of the people large hampers of apples. Their attitude is: take them or leave them. For years I have advocated that the apples be packed in small cartons containing ten or eleven apples, so that a person could put it in a basket and take it home. The apples could be kept in the cold storage plants until needed, and packed in these small cartons.
Last fall the farmers were whining about whether they would get rid of their apples. I tasted Northern Spies from the cold storage plant at Thornbury not more than three weeks ago, and they were as fresh as when they were picked off the trees last fall. As a matter of fact they were improved. Last fall these men were trying to market them in barrels or hampers. A woman could not possibly take home a barrel or hamper and keep the apples without the proper refrigeration.
I do hope the government will do something to tell the farmers of Canada how they can start helping themselves to some extent. A large number of them do work together and sell their products intelligently, but there are still a large number who will not get on the bandwagon. They want to be outlaws; they want to cry and whine. They do cry and whine. May I suggest to the minister that, on the cheapest, unglossed paper, he tell the farmers in no uncertain terms about the lack of common-sense business methods used by the farmers in their selling. I hope that will be done. Then less of the general taxpayers' money will be spent in publishing "Five Ways to Cook Apples". I saw one pamphlet with that title, published by the department. If the people of Canada have to be told how to cook apples, I think they had better go without them.


Robert Fair: I am afraid the member for Simcoe North is trying to push baskets of apples down the farmers' throats, and they are not going to stand for it. Apparently he is not aware of the fact that those who produce milk, cheese, and butter are spending large sums in advertising their products. Apparently he is not aware of the part the farmers have played in our economy ever since they began to work the land. He is not aware of the fact that no group of citizens in this country made greater sacrifices during the war years to the end that our own people as well as the people overseas might be fed. In spite of these facts, which he has not yet 55946-2251
Supply-Agriculture
learned, he continues to put forth the gas he has been putting forth for the last few minutes.


Mr. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is the place for hon. members to begin quarrelling about the farmers and saying things against them. I am the best person to advise my good friend who spoke a moment ago if he wants to know what the farmers of Canada are doing. If he can find more successful farmers than the Canadian farmers, I should like him to show me. I know enough about farmers and the job they are doing to know that they should not be criticized by any member. If the hon. member thinks the position of the farmer is better than the position of member of parliament, he ought to try it. He will soon find out. The farmers have no complaint against this federal government; they have only thanks for the best Minister of Agriculture we have ever had. Every dollar that has been spent to help the farmer of this country is money well spent. My riding is a little more urban than rural. I have to speak on behalf of both sections. We have not too much production. If our farmers lose money on their production we have to help them out. If they are losing money on the production of butter it is because of margarine. The labouring people of this country are sufficiently well off to eat good food. They should eat butter, subsidized by the government if it is necessary to sell it at a cheaper price. People should not eat that old margarine which is going to cost millions and millions of dollars because of its effect on butter production. It has been suggested that the less fortunate people have to eat margarine. Our people should all eat good butter and not margarine. I am not in favour of labourers being obliged to eat margarine. They should eat good butter. Excuse me; I resent what was said about the farmers, and I am glad to defend them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell the farmers to eat it, too. They are buying margarine.


Joseph-Omer Gour: The hon. member
believes he is intelligent enough to tell everybody what he should do. Try to do your best yourself and do not try to tell everybody what to do. You are at the point where you will soon try to tell God what to do. Farmers are just as intelligent as you are, but they have not the same advantage of being here in the house to defend themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't worry, I eat butter in preference to margarine, but many people cannot afford it.


Joseph-Omer Gour: My hon. friend is always telling everybody what they should
3558	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture
do. I think we should thank God that we have farmers producing the best products. They are working. They are not talking. If the hon. member knows what the farmers are doing he should be ready to help them to a certain extent. I do not want to spend money unnecessarily but if the farmers lose their market they will not have any money to buy the produce of labour and labour will be out of work.
When there was unemployment last winter the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was one of those who talked the most about it. If the farmer cannot sell his produce at a profit he cannot buy the produce of labour and labour will be out of work. The labouring people should eat good butter.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I never suggested for one moment that nothing should be done toward helping the farmer. I simply suggested that additional aid be given him to instruct him how to help himself. At no time did I say anything against the farmer. My only suggestion was that advice be given him on how to market his production. There was no suggestion that they should eat margarine rather than butter. I have never eaten an ounce of margarine since it has been produced. I strongly advocate eating Canadian produced butter, and that the farmers be aided in every possible way. I also suggest that the farmers as a class be told how to help themselves. That is construction, not destruction or criticism of the farmer.


Mr. Anderson:: I wonder if this committee knows that of all the money collected in Canada by taxation the farmer gets two cents out of every dollar. There has been a lot of criticism hurled at the farmer this afternoon about butter. I want the committee to know that if it does not rain, and rain very soon, in some parts of Ontario there will be a lot less butter produced than has been produced in the past. The farmers had a late season; they are short of hay; they are short of grain, and the grass is three weeks late now; in my own section of Norfolk county the pasture is very poor. Our milk production is going down, and I contend that it will go down still further. Before the year is out the price of butter and cheese will have to be increased because they are selling below the cost of production today.


Mr. Caiherwood:: Under this item there is one point I should like to mention, namely, the marketing of our poultry products. This is an item that is of great concern not only to the people of Ontario but to all the provinces in the Dominion of Canada as well. Last year we marketed something like 40 million
[Mr. Gour (Russell).)

dozen eggs in Great Britain. Today we have not that market. Our imports from Britain are now pretty well equal to our exports to Britain in dollar value. Can the minister make a statement with regard to the possibilities of the resumption of our British market for poultry and poultry products?


James Garfield Gardiner: The same thing applies to this question as to the other products that we have been discussing, except that apples always were sold in Britain. Beef in quantities was sold to Britain. Bacon has been sold in Britain for many years, but prior to the war we sold very few eggs. We were selling a million dozen a year before the war. During the war we sold as high as 86 million dozen in a year. Recently Britain has said we had not been the main supplier before the war and they were not so much concerned about buying eggs from us. They refused to buy eggs from us. We are doing the best we can to overcome that difficulty and will get back into the British market as soon as we can, but so far as I know there is no hope of our getting back that market immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-[DOT]
30. Freight assistance on western feed grains, $5,000,000.
Mr. Brooks:: I notice that this item is for freight assistance on western feed grains. In 1949-50 the amount was $17 million. This year it is $5 million, a difference of $12 million. As the minister knows, we are greatly interested in eastern Canada in assistance on feed grains, especially in the maritimes, because to a great extent the success of our farmers depends on getting cheap feed for their hogs and their cattle. Do these figures mean that there is less feed grain for eastern Canada or that the government has decided to give less assistance in freight rates on feed grain to the eastern farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it does not mean either. The amount of $5 million is the amount necessary to cover the cost down to the 31st day of July, because this is the way it has always been voted. The original vote has always been an amount to carry it through the crop year we are in. The year spoken of is the grain year which begins on August 1 and ends on July 31. I have proposed that there be $13 million in the supplementary estimates to cover the remainder. It has come down previously in two votes, one for the main vote and one for the supple-mentaries. That question is another which was discussed at the same time as the

previous question that I brought up with regard to hogs. It has been decided just today so that there was no possibility of making the announcement earlier.
This is not a vote which necessarily goes on from year to year. It is voted annually, and has been ever since the beginning. The origin of the vote is that the maritime provinces were very anxious to have part of their freight removed because of the high cost of getting feed from western Canada to the extreme east of the country. There was an agitation for that before the war started at all. We were considering the possibility of doing it in the maritimes. I think it was early in 1941 we decided to pay a quarter of the freight. Very shortly after that we brought in price control, in the latter part of 1941, and then we changed over from paying a portion of the freight to the paying of what we expected would be nearly all the freight in all of the eastern provinces and in the province of British Columbia. The freight is paid from Fort William to a location in the eastern part of Canada, and from Calgary and Edmonton into the province of British Columbia. This vote has been, as I say, renewed from year to year. We said a year ago, and I think the year before that, that it was the intention to have the whole question of discrimination in freight rates studied by a commission and a report made upon it. We have always called attention to the fact that this policy will probably be given fuller consideration when that report comes in. It will then be determined whether we are going on with the policy or whether we are going to have some other plan of equalization which will bring results. In any case what I wish to emphasize is that this is just a year to year vote. It is made in two amounts because we continue it until the end of the crop year. We have enough money to take us from April 1 to the end of the crop year, in the regular estimates, and then if we determine to go on for the complete crop year we put an amount in the supplementary estimates. That amount will be in the supple-mentaries this year.


George Randolph Pearkes: Everything the minister has said about the maritime provinces will apply to British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: How much of the freight allowance is paid on grain to central Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is about $6 a ton. Does the hon. member want to have the total amount?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What is the total amount, and how much is paid by the government?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: We pay about $6 a ton. The freight averages about $8.40, and we pay $6 at the present time. Some of the $8.40 is due to the fact that there have been recent increases in freight rates.


John Alpheus Charlton: That $8.40 is the all-rail freight, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: The system by which it works out at $6 is that we pay the lake rate to the port. Then we pay the rate into the interior, which does not exceed $6 from Fort William, down.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand the provision last year was a straight $5, regardless of where it went in Ontario. Then there was a change by P.C. 3803 so that there was a sliding scale applied with so much being paid to Owen Sound, so much to Goderich, so much to Port Colborne, to Sarnia and to Toronto. Would the minister give the rates for those various ports? Then they pay the rail freight from those ports, inland, to a maximum of $6 a ton, as I understand it. But there is nothing at all paid now for trucking.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is approximately correct. Some time ago the rate was $4.50. Then later on it was $5.50, and now the maximum is $6. Georgian bay ports, Sarnia and Walkerville, it is $3.50, per ton; Port Colborne and Humberstone, $4.10 per ton; Toronto, $4.30; Kingston, $4.50 and Prescott, $4.65. Those are the rates. It is when no further rail haul is involved that that payment is made.


John Alpheus Charlton: But on top of that they pay up to $6?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, on water shipments from Fort William or Port Arthur to ports designated in paragraph (b), when distribution is made to inland destinations by rail, payment shall be made on the basis of the amount payable at each port plus the actual rail freight charges to destinations within the Montreal freight rate zone, but not to exceed $6 per ton. And when the destination is beyond the Montreal freight rate zone payments shall be made on the same basis as is designated in paragraph (a) of the order. Paragraph (a) says that on any rail shipments from Fort William, Port Arthur and Armstrong the payment shall be the sum of $6 per ton when the destination is within the Montreal freight rate zone, and the sum of $6 per ton plus the remainder of the actual through carlot rail freight charges to destinations beyond the Montreal freight rate zone, actual carlot freight rate charges not to exceed $6 per ton to destinations in northern Ontario to which the local freight rate is less than the Montreal zone freight rate.

Supply-A griculture
In other words, it works out at what my hon. friend says.


John Alpheus Charlton: Prior to the time the order in council was passed, feed companies on the lakes were getting the same subsidy as those inland. I understand in some cases it was away above the actual amount of the freight paid. Now, with order in council P.C. 3803, a feed company located forty or fifty miles from a lake port either has to load the grain on a car and take it in by rail, or be content not to receive any compensation whatsoever if they bring it in forty or fifty miles by truck.
Mr. [DOT]Gardiner: That is right.


Mr. Bater:: Does this freight assistance on western feed grains apply to feeders in British Columbia as well as those in the east?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. Kickham:: May I take it from what the minister said in reply to the hon. member for Royal that the freight assistance measure will be carried on after July 31 this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, for this crop year. I am referring to the crop year we are about to enter at August 1.


Robert Fair: What quantity of grain has been shipped to the east each year since the freight assistance was brought into effect, and what subsidies have been advanced? Would the minister give similar information with respect to British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement I have here shows the quantities on which freight assistance has been paid in respect of grain and feed shipped during each crop year, August 1 to July 31. Does the hon. member wish to have all the crop years, or just some of them? He would not wish me to read this whole book?


Robert Fair: Just the crop years since the freight assistance policy has been in effect. Perhaps if the minister does not wish to read it, it might be placed on Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: It begins in 1941, and the information is given for every year.


Robert Fair: Give us the grand totals.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps the information for the last year would be satisfactory. It will be noted in these figures that the freight in respect of Quebec is approximately $2 million more on a million less tons. That of course is because of the greater distance.

These are the figures showing the total tonnage and the total amounts of money paid out in freight assistance:
Tons	Amount
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island
British Columbia ....
Newfoundland (from April 1, 1949 to date)
10,732.578	$50,463,111.61
9,254,362	52,298,293.60
1,105,545	8,675,844.65
1,289,466	11,007,743.40
368,209	3,174,603.85
2,163,350	13,889,738.49
13,934	280,237.38
Taking the figures of last year the average rate per ton was as follows:
Ontario	 $ 4.62
Quebec	     7.61
New Brunswick	 10.30
Nova Scotia	 11.20
Prince Edward Island	 11.20
British Columbia	 6.42
Newfoundland	 20.11


Robert Fair: Do those figures bring it fairly well up to date?


James Garfield Gardiner: To May 31, 1950.


James Arthur Ross: Has the minister the total?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total tonnage is 24,927,445 and the total amount is $139,789,572.98.


James Arthur Ross: The minister was going to give the names of the firms and the amounts paid in 1948-49.


James Garfield Gardiner: I tabled that to be added to the order for return.


Harry Oliver White: One of the
greatest objections to this assistance comes from those who are located at points not accessible to the railroad and which are serviced by truck. They do not get the benefit of this assistance and I was wondering if there was any way that could be given?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is hardly correct to say that they do not get the benefit because most of the freight is paid from Fort William to the point of distribution. It is assumed that from there on the individual will bear his own cost.


Mr.   Baler@: If a dealer brings down a carload of grain is there any way of seeing that this assistance is passed on to the feeder?


James Garfield Gardiner: He must produce his vouchers or invoice to indicate that it was paid to the producer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
32.	Dairy products board, $22,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: Could the minister tell us
the quantity of butter of the 1949 production that the government is carrying, and also of the 1950 production?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the information
at hand in that form, but I will give the hon. member what I have. The purchases of 1949 butter amounted to 48,600,000 pounds; the sales down to June 10, 1950, were 37,900,000 pounds, leaving a balance of 10,700,000 pounds. Butter purchased in 1950 down to April 30 at 58 cents per pound amounted to 5 million pounds; butter purchased from May 1 to June 10 at the 53 cent level, 4,225,000 pounds, or a total of 9,225,000 pounds.


John Alpheus Charlton: You still have the 10,700,000 pounds of the 1949 butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but there is only
7,700,000	more in store than at the same date in 1949.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
33.	Meat board, including quality premiums on A and B1 grade hog carcasses, $5,854,633.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to direct the
attention of the minister as I did last year to the fact that hog raising in Prince Edward Island is still ahead of all the provinces in Canada for quality. I have the hog grading results given in the monthly market review which show the following results for March:
per cent
Prince Edward Island	 53-3
Nova Scotia	 45 1
New Brunswick	 40
Quebec	 32-2
Ontario	 38 1
Manitoba	 25
Saskatchewan	 29
Alberta	 28-3
British Columbia	 26
No one knows better than the minister the quality of Prince Edward Island hogs and I hope he will see that the grading of hogs in other countries is brought up by the purchase of the proper stock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
34.	Special products board, $11,575.
Harry Oliver White: How much
cheese has been sent to Great Britain so far? How much cheese has been requisitioned? How were the details worked out between the eastern Ontario producers of cheese and the producers in western Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of cheese purchased in 1949 for the ministry of food was 50 [DOT] 1 million pounds. As you will recall, the British contract for that year was for 50 million pounds, and we delivered it. Then we bought another 20 [DOT] 7 million pounds after we had filled the contract for which we paid the same price. The total was
Supply-Agriculture
70-8 million pounds for last year. We shipped to the ministry of food 50-1 million and sold to the trade 7 [DOT] 2 million, a total of 57-3 million. The balance on hand as of June 10, 1950, was 13-5 million. I do not think that exactly answers the question asked as to the requisition of cheese now. I do not think that has proceeded far enough to mean very much to us at present. As near as I can give the figures, this is the situation. The agricultural prices support board had no cheese as of June, 1949. Others had
29,454,000	pounds, or a total of 29,454,000. At the first of June this year the agricultural prices support board had 14,400,000 pounds and others had 22,610,000, making a total of 37,010,000 pounds. In other words, there are about seven and a half million pounds more in Canada this year than there were at this time last year. As of June 10, 1950, the position had changed to the extent that the agricultural prices support board had 13,500,000 pounds, or almost a million pounds less than we had at the first of the month.


Harry Oliver White: How much has been sent to Great Britain under this year's contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 8 million pounds have been sent up to date.


Harry Oliver White: What about arrangements between eastern and western Ontario producers so far as the requisitioning of cheese is concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are requisitioning all of it. I am not sure of the make as between the two.


Harry Oliver White: It was going to work to the disadvantage of the western Ontario producer.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are trying to see that it does not.


John Alpheus Charlton: You are just requisitioning 90 pound Cheddars, are you not?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are requisitioning all Cheddar cheese, but we are only sending that particular type of cheese to Great Britain. We utilize the other in taking care of the requirements of processors and others in the trade in Canada. The arrangements we have with the trade is that we turn back to them as much cheese as they used last year in their processing of fresh cheese, and they utilize it along with the old cheese.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Special-
35.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,400,000.
George James Tustin: I notice that the item has been reduced by $300,000 this year. There is a reduction of $100,000 in the amount for the improvement of factories, and a reduction of $200,000 in the quality bonus for cheese. Why has there been a reduction? Is it the opinion of the government that we are going to have less first quality cheese produced this year or does the government think that we are going to have less cheese produced on the whole this year than we had last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer to the first part of the question is that we are more or less catching up on the factories that require adjustments in order to bring them up to standard. Therefore there is less money required for that purpose. As to the other point, it is only an estimate of what we are going to spend. It is a statutory amount, and if there is not sufficient here we will have to supply it. I presume it has been cut down from time to time because of the actual expenditures in preceding years.


George James Tustin: It is actually $200,000 below what it was last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Below the estimate.


George James Tustin: Below the estimate for last year. Can the minister tell us how much was paid last year for quality subsidies?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount paid in 1949 was $905,791.91. As a rule it runs around a million dollars.


George James Tustin: Have you separate figures for 94 score and 93 score?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have them in pounds. There are 41,740,029 pounds of 93 score, and 24,419,581 of 94 score. Of course there is one cent for 93 score and two cents for 94.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
36.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $500,000.
Mr. Lennard:: We again have this item, and I should like to ask the minister when it is going to end. An item to replace maple production equipment has appeared in the estimates in various amounts for the past fifteen years. As I said last year, if this goes on much longer we will be replacing the replacements. It seems ridiculous to me. If the equipment was not right and did not measure up to qualifications fifteen years ago it should have been replaced in a period of five years at the most, and that should have been the end of it so far as the province is concerned that has taken advantage of this subsidy. It

has run along for fifteen years with no apparent relief from it. I should like to know from the minister when it is going to end, and how much of this amount was spent last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the first place it is not fifteen years. The first payment was made in 1940-41, which is ten years ago.


Frank Exton Lennard: Was it not started late in
1938 or in 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: The policy was adopted at that time.


Frank Exton Lennard: Even earlier than that.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it could not have been much earlier. It was after I came here, and that is fifteen years ago. Therefore it is not quite fifteen years. In any event, the first payment was made in 1940-41. The expenditure that year was $106,198.41. Probably I should first remind the committee of the purpose of the expenditure. It was found that maple sugar and syrup which were being produced in the province of Quebec were being produced in equipment which had been lead-covered to avoid rust. When this was checked in the United States it was condemned because it contained some lead. They were going to refuse to take it, but we persuaded them to accept it for the purpose of sweetening tobacco for cigarettes, and it was accepted for that purpose. Then we agreed with the province of Quebec that we would pay one-third of the cost of replacing this equipment, Quebec would pay one-third and the farmer would pay one-third. We started replacing the equipment in 1940-41, and it is being replaced I think largely by aluminum.
As the figure indicates, we were at it only a short time before we had to stop. In other words, we could expend up to $300,000 a year, but we spent only $106,000 that year, which indicates that we had to stop early in the war. In 1941-42 we spent only $12,000; in 1945-46 we spent $87,784 and in 1946-47, the first year after the war, we got it up to $194,271.49. So I would point out that it took us four years to spend what we had intended to spend in one year. There was only one reason for that; aluminum was being used for war purposes, and we could not get it. So the utensils were not changed during that period. We started again as soon as possible after the war was over, and in the next year we spent $203,000. The following year for the first time we got above the amount we had undertaken to spend in the beginning, and spent $360,000. Last year we spent $471,000, and this year we have put $500,000 in the estimates. As to

when we will be through with this undertaking, I am not absolutely certain. It is being administered by the Quebec government, and we are paying our share.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister tell us the total amount spent so far?


James Garfield Gardiner: 


Mr. Lesage:: May I ask the hon. member for Wentworth if he is outlining the Progressive Conservative policy when he objects to this item?


Frank Exton Lennard: Smart aleck!


Jean Lesage: That is what you are. You object to it because it is for the province of Quebec. We know you.


John Alpheus Charlton: Almost $2 million has been spent so far, which is one-third of the total amount?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Harry Oliver White: The minister said a small amount of lead was supposed to have been found in the syrup that went to the United States, and that is why it was found necessary to undertake this program. If that syrup was not good enough for the Americans, surely it was not good enough for Canadians either. If you are going to make this program applicable in Quebec, let us have it right across the country. I bought new maple syrup equipment this year, but I did not get any assistance. I know of many others in my county who would be glad to take advantage of this. If we are going to have that unity in this country that we talk about, let us do things fairly and squarely, across the board, or not at all.


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Harry Oliver White: No; I want to hear what the minister has to say about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any way of correcting that situation unless you get a new government in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
38. For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under regulations to be approved by the governor in council, $100,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Where are these potato warehouses being constructed, and what assistance has been given each province in connection with their construction?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are eight warehouses under construction in Prince Edward Island, of which I believe only one or two are completed. We have not been billed for any
5594*6-226
Supply-Agriculture
of them yet, so we have not much information about them. This is another of those arrangements between the province and ourselves. We do not pay until we are billed, and we have not been billed. I understand one in Saskatchewan has been paid for, at a cost of $12,654.62. I believe it went up in 1949-50.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are there any in New Brunswick?


James Garfield Gardiner: Inquiries have been received from British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland with regard to the application of the order in council, but no construction has been commenced.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why has there been so much construction in Prince Edward Island and none in New Brunswick? I am not outlining Progressive Conservative policy, nor am I criticizing Prince Edward Island, but I should like to know the reason for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The policy was first advocated by Prince Edward Island. They came here and presented the case, and we accepted the plan. It has been taken up by other provinces as well, but they have not got as far along with it as Prince Edward Island.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: As I understand it the only outright grant the committee in charge of the construction of a warehouse may expect is the 37J per cent from the federal government. I understand that does not have to be paid back, but that the grant of 37J per cent from the provincial government must be paid back, while the remaining 25 per cent must be raised by the committee. I am glad the other hon. member for Queens is here; he knows all about these warehouses. As a matter of fact I believe he or his friends have built half a dozen of them, and he knows the cost of construction. The point on which I should like information is this. What grant is given the committee in charge of one of these warehouses? As I understand it, in the one case the 37J per cent is a grant, while in the other case it is a loan.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that when the proposal was first made by the government of Prince Edward Island they suggested that the farmers put up 25 per cent and the two governments split the other 75 per cent equally, which would be 37J per cent each. We proceeded on that basis, and I think one or two warehouses were built. Then the provincial government decided it wanted to collect its 37J per cent. We sort of suggested that we had just as good reason to collect our 37J per cent if they were going to collect theirs, and the

Supply-Agriculture
result of the discussion was that they decided to collect 371 per cent and we would get half of what they collected. So the present position as I understand it is that the grant amounts to 37\ per cent. Then the farmers must raise 25 per cent themselves, and the other 37J per cent must be paid back.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: And that grant is shared equally by the provincial and federal governments?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
39. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,750,000.
Mr. Sluder:: Mr. Chairman, in the national interest I believe that, on an item of such magnitude as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, any member who is in a position to offer any suggestions whereby some of this expenditure may be eliminated in the future in connection with this item as well as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should endeavour to make whatever contribution he can. I should like to state briefly what I have to say because I do not wish to prolong the session. From my observations most of the time has been taken by the opposition, so I would ask them please to bear with me for a few minutes in order that I may put the conditions at home before this house.
I have been existing, and I repeat "existing", in the constituency of Maple Creek for thirty-three years. Many of those years have been spent in scanning the horizon in the hope that it would rain. Most of the people living in that area have been doing the same thing. As a consequence it is my duty, as the member representing that district, to say a word in connection with the rehabilitation of those people. It is not my intention to repeat what the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has already accomplished in connection with the building of thousands of small irrigation projects and small dams in that area. I know they number in the thousands. Community pastures number nearly a hundred. Then there has been the moving of the people and the regrassing that has taken place in that area under this item. I believe that if a member can suggest anything that might possibly hasten the process of rehabilitation of these people he should certainly do so.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was established to correct in the future the mistakes of the past. This act, or its counterpart, has been in existence in some part of the world ever since the beginning of time, because it is part and parcel of agriculture.

It is only history that tells us whether agriculture is feasible in any area. If after the people are settled in an area for a period of time it is determined the soil is. not suitable for agriculture, then the rehabilitation of those people has to take place. We have heard much about the floods in Winnipeg and the other disasters that have happened in this country. I do not know of a greater disaster that can happen to people than that those people should live in an area for a lifetime and not be in a position to earn their living. They then find that they will have to leave that area in which they have laboured so long and begin life anew in some other area; that is what the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act proposed to do and has done for many people in that area. If it is to be done, the sooner the better.
For many days we have been talking about areas in the central part of Canada that have had too much water. As everyone knows, the area of which I am speaking has too little water. The problem this presents is too great for the individual, so society, through this government, comes to the assistance of the individual. Mr. Chairman, we wish to hasten the process of alleviating suffering in that area. Again this spring in the municipalities surrounding my home over
510,000	bushels of seed grain had to be supplied to these people. Vegetables were shipped into some parts of the area during last fall to enable the people to live through the winter. This means that under the P.F.A.A. the people are not receiving sufficient to keep themselves for a year. The cost of living today is entirely different from the cost ten years ago, yet today the maximum amount obtainable under the P.F.A.A. is exactly the same as it was ten years ago. I have heard it stated that some of the farmers in the drought area are living and farming for P.F.A.A. benefits. I would make it clear that there is not one farmer in that area doing that because to operate the average farm it costs between $2,500 and $4,000. The maximum amount any farmer can receive in one year under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is $500. One can imagine, therefore, what would happen in that area over a period of years, if anyone was farming for P.F.A.A. alone.
In the area of which I am speaking there is a rainfall of from twelve to fourteen inches. The situation is entirely different from what it is in other areas such as Ottawa, where I understand the rainfall is between twenty and thirty inches. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments, methods have been devised whereby the people may

be able to live there in the future and make their living. I am saying that because I wish to leave this committee with the idea that the money which has been spent thus far in dealing with the matter has been well spent. I wish to tell the committee that the larger the appropriations are under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the smaller the appropriations are going to be under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the future. It is that ideal towards which we are striving. We want to enable every farming community throughout the length and breadth of Canada to stand on its own feet. Then, crop failure assistance will not be necessary. The farmers living in those areas, wherever they may be, would be able to take their place along with the rest of the people of Canada, and make their contribution to the country as a whole.
In these areas we have the triple S system of farming, that is the summer-fallow system. It means that we have to allow the land to rest one year to accumulate moisture so that we will have enough moisture for the next year. We have to have two years' moisture to grow one crop. Under this system we have to summer-fallow the grass also. We have not been doing so well at that, and last year the grass did not come up on my farm at all. As I say, we have to summer-fallow the grass so that our stock will have something to fall back upon. We have to summer-fallow the water because we have about 6,000 small irrigation projects. I am not speaking of the larger ones because even at the best, with all the larger irrigation projects one hears about, only about one-tenth of the land can be irrigated. What are we going to do with the rest of it? The altitude of my farm is about 2,880 feet, and that is about 900 feet higher than the average land in Saskatchewan. How is water going to be forced up to that land? As I have said, in spite of these large irrigation projects, only about one-tenth of the land can be irrigated.
We are interested in knowing how these farmers can assist themselves in places where the land cannot be irrigated, and cannot be looked after by means of this summer-fallow system. I suppose it will have to be done by impounding the water on a small scale on the various farms. This will mean that if one dam is built and that fills with water, you will have to build another one because there will be some years when the first dam will not be filled with water. You have to summer-fallow water as well as everything else. On that basis it will mean larger farms. We have heard in this committee that it takes from forty to fifty acres of pasture to sustain an animal, and that is possibly true. As the Minister of Agriculture pointed out, sometimes 55946-226J
Supply-Agriculture
cattle can subsist on a smaller number of acres in other areas so our farms will have to be larger to make them self-sustaining. In that case I suppose some of our people will want to move to other areas.
I do not want to be too long, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to say that in my opinion not enough attention has been paid to grasses. Any member of this house who has had anything to do with agriculture can identify wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax plants if I hold them in my hand, but how many could identify the plants of five of the native grasses? I do not suppose anyone could name those five native grasses; at least I know I could not. This fact was brought forcibly to my attention by one of the scientific men at the Swift Current experimental farm whose name was Heinricks, and it has stayed with me because I believe it is more important in the general agricultural picture throughout the world than we realize. We should realize that it is grass that keeps the earth in place. I think more money could properly be expended in a scientific inquiry to determine what improvements could be made in these various grasses. Grass is the only possible crop in so many of our areas.
I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that some of the townships in the western part of Saskatchewan, the southwestern part, and in Alberta have been receiving crop failure payments for ten years. If the past is any indication of the future it would appear to me, and to many others, that possibly for the next ten years these same lands will receive the same amount of money in crop failure payments. Therefore if these 44 townships over the past ten years have received $5,000 it would mean that this government, or the government of Canada, if history repeats itself, will have to pay the same lands that same amount of money, namely, $5,000 in the next ten-year period, or in the next fifteen or twenty-year period, whatever the case may be. It is well known that history always repeats itself.
I understand that there are thousands of applications from people who want to move to other areas where they may make a living and absolve themselves from this unhappiness that has been going on there for years. The land where these people are to move on is not available at the present time. We hear members of parliament and others suggest that there are hundreds of acres here, there and elsewhere that they would like people to move to. But you cannot take people who are fifty and sixty years old and who have worked all their life and put them in a bush area that is not cleared, and where they have to start all over again to make

Supply-Agriculture
their living. You have to provide some other means tor them. Therefore I was wondering whether we could not change the basis of movement and bring in a voluntary movement. By that I mean instead of the government undertaking to move them it could be done in this way. Let us assume that in the 44 townships I have mentioned we are going to have to pay $5,000 a farm for the next ten years. Why not make the $5,000 available to those people in one lump sum? If that were done I am sure they would find a place to move to and make themselves self-sustaining on their own, without any additional assistance. They would find a place somewhere in this country of ours to which they could go, and not have to go where the government would have to place them. If that system were inaugurated they could go voluntarily.
The reason these people are not moving is that they have not enough money to move. It takes money to move. They have to depend on the government assisting them. If this were made voluntary they could move on their own and the government would not be spending any more money. I am sure it would relieve the situation to some extent, a situation which is going to be aggravated if there is another extensive crop failure this year, if means were provided whereby they could move voluntarily and make their own living.


Mr. Wylie:: I was wondering what item we are on? Are we discussing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Item 39.


James Garfield Gardiner: Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


Irvin William Studer: It involves the whole thing.
You cannot separate one from the other. One causes the other. You have to take causes and effects. If we did not have the one the other would not be there at all.
I suggest that possibly this could be done. A system could be devised whereby these people could go on their own. They would be much happier and the government would save money, and no doubt the general situation would be better.
There is one other point I should like to mention. In most of these places out there where dams and dugouts have been built a lot of the soil is light. The dams and dugouts hold the water for a short period of time in the spring and then the water seeps away. I would suggest that a considerable appropriation be permitted under this item for a scientific investigation to provide means whereby the water can be retarded in its seepage by an ingredient that could be placed
[Mr. Studer.J
in the water. I suggest that something like what is done in road building be carried out. I suggest that something be devised that would prevent the water from leaking out of these dams. During the war the scientific men could provide almost anything for any purpose that was necessary. I believe that if a determined effort were made and a sufficient appropriation given for determining ingredients for the retarding of the seepage of water, a means to that end could be devised.
If something could be done to keep the water where it is originally impounded in the spring it would be a great help to those people who stay there, and they would be able at least to provide water for their gardens and their small irrigation projects, and that would at least make it possible for them to stay there.
This is all the time that I would dare ask the chairman to give me at this time. We base it all on the assumption that in the future in that area of ours we are going to develop a system through P.F.R.A. whereby the people can make their own living and be happy along with the other people in Canada.
That means the summer-fallow system that I have outlined, the scientific sealing of dams, the economic unit of farms and ranches, contour farming, which is being practised in this country at the present time, and all in all to bring about a system and a policy whereby these people, working along with the other people of Canada, will make their contribution, which is the effort and the desire of all of us.


Ernest George Hansell: I very largely agree with the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Maple Creek, although much that he has said has been said very often in the house over the past number of years. In connection with this particular item, prairie farm rehabilitation and water storage, I notice that the amount of the vote is $3,750,000. When we turn to the explanatory note on page 96 we find that $1,346,000 of this amount is for small projects. That is rather a big item without any further explanation. I was just wondering whether the minister could give us a break-down of the $1,346,000 for small projects. Would it be possible for us to get the break-down say of all these small projects that would cost about $20,000? If it is handy, can he give it to us, or would it take time?


James Arthur Ross: Before the minister
replies I should like to add a question or two and he can reply to them all together, or would the hon. member sooner have his answers right now?


Ernest George Hansell: That is all right, but I have one or two other questions.


James Arthur Ross: I want to endorse a great deal of what has been said by the hon. member for Maple Creek as well, and to agree that it has often been said in the past years. It is quite a problem out there. It involves the lives and happiness of a great many people in that particular part of the country.
Following what the hon. member for Macleod has just said, I have checked the increase. There is an increase of $750,000 over last year's vote. In checking it over on the pages where it is broken down I And that $630,000 is for community pastures, reserves and grazing areas, and about $105,000 is for large irrigation and water storage.
When the minister is replying to the hon. member for Macleod will he tell us where these community pastures and grazing areas are to be located, and where the irrigation projects are to be undertaken?


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the hon. member for Macleod, I think he will realize that to give a break-down of the individual projects would be almost impossible when I read him the figures. To begin with, none of them costs $20,000. Most of the projects cost $125, so far as we are concerned. There are 4,718 small projects. That is the number of dug-outs. The total number of the different types is 5,246, some of them being for small irrigation purposes and some of them for other purposes.
The financial assistance paid in 1949-50 on these small projects numbering 5,246 was $626,836.87. The total number, to begin with, is 43,042, and the total amount expended is $4,810,824.91. It will be seen from that that the amount is very small. These dugouts we assist in digging on farmers' lands are either dug by the farmers themselves or the municipality brings in equipment to dig them and we pay four and a half cents a yard on the earth moved. The remainder of the cost is paid by the farmer himself in most if not in all cases. So, to break it down, it would take in 43,000 farms in the three western provinces. That, of course, would be a very considerable list.


Ernest George Hansell: The answer is more or less what I expected. I have wondered if there appears in these projects what is known as Beauvais dam near Pincher Creek. That is the reason I looked up the explanation and details of the item. I could not find anything there to indicate the various projects 'in which one might be interested. I understand that we cannot ask the minister to put on record the information in respect of four or five thousand projects.
Supply-Agriculture
However I understand this particular one is estimated at about $25,000. Is that project to be proceeded with this year? I have worked on this matter for a good many years. I remember first taking it up with the government before the war. If my memory serves me correctly I mentioned it first in 1937, because it was a project which would not only assist the farmers in that area but would raise Beauvais lake high enough to provide a reserve of water for the town of Pincher Creek. I even took it up with the government in those days on the basis of proceeding with it as a public works relief scheme. However we made no headway at that time.
The war came along and many of these projects were left for the time being. Men and machinery were not available. Now the war is over and some of these projects have come under review. Is it expected that this one will be proceeded with this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Beauvais project is under investigation at the present time, and is listed among those we hope to get started this year. However that does not guarantee that we will get started. We have it listed and the money set aside for it. If we get the final report and are in a position to proceed, in all probability it will be proceeded with. I understand it is a combination of irrigation and water for Pincher Creek. The intention is to proceed with it in due course, but we cannot be certain if it will go on this year.


Ernest George Hansell: I hope it may be proceeded with, because when the minister was out west a few months ago the report was circulated, on the basis of his visit, that it would be proceeded with this year, and that the work would commence in the spring. We are now beginning to leave spring behind and summer is upon us. If these things are not started earlier in the year they generally are not completed before the work season is over. The people's hopes have been raised through the minister's visit. I hope they will not be dashed to pieces on the rocks of disappointment. I have recently received further communications asking if it would be possible to-have the project completed this year. That is why I was particularly anxious to have the minister's definite pronouncement upon it.
For the purposes of the record, and so that the country may know, would the minister tell us the procedure followed when a small project is desired. I am not referring to a small pothole, but one similar to the type I have mentioned, involving some $20,000 or $30,000. What is the process by which one eventually realizes a project? I would understand that the government must first be approached. From there on, what happens?

S upply-A gricu Uure


James Garfield Gardiner: What happens is pretty much what is happening in connection with the project to which the hon. member has referred. The engineers have been there since the spring. That is the beginning of any construction. As has been said, first an application is made. Then we send men there to make a survey of the possibilities. They go and look the country over. They may or they may not be engineers. Then they will decide whether the plan is feasible. Once we decide a project should be proceeded with we call in the engineers so that they may go over it, check the whole area and give us estimates as to costs and other related matters. Then, as a rule, we have soil surveys to indicate whether water can be put on it successfully. We ascertain the necessity for drainage, and all that kind of thing. We do not say definitely that we will proceed with any project until all that work is done. If that work reveals that it is a project which will be helpful to the community, we then proceed with it.
So far as this particular project is concerned, I believe it is drawing to the point where the report will be made by the engineers as to the possibilities of the whole plan. Reports to date are favourable. I think probably the plan will be proceeded with. In the beginning the engineers must discover whether there are any conditions which make it impossible to carry out the plan-either soil conditions or conditions of other kinds. Then, where it is a matter of irrigation, it must be decided whether we can provide the water.
All those different questions enter into the matter. I might say that I have here a type of project which perhaps is similar. We deal with it by watersheds. The South Cypress watershed of Saskatchewan is in much the same classification and is not far removed from the district mentioned. These projects are as follows:
Adams Lake 		
Eastend 	 iriVwm	
Valmarie 		
Valmarie west 		
Richardson-McKinnon 	 Consul-Vidora 	 Middle creek		
Spangler project 	 Cypress storage 		
That is the large lake that	is really the
source of the Missouri river. That group is located in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan and just across from where it is anticipated this other work will be done. Then there are works in the North Cypress watershed-Maple Creek, Swift Current and North Herbert extension ranging from $14,000 up to $350,000.
[Mr. Hansell.l	.
The Wood river is another watershed which is being covered with smaller projects, and then there is the Qu'Appelle watershed with projects ranging from $4,000 up to $83,000. There are other irrigation projects covering a considerable area and numbering 20 or 25.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not ask my last question just for my own information because I have not been sitting here for 15 years without getting to know this procedure. I thought it would be well if hon. members knew what the procedure was. Just one more question and I shall be through. I asked that a return be brought down covering this project six weeks ago, and I inquired about this ten days ago and asked the minister if he would facilitate it. I want to familiarize myself with what is going on backstage. Sometimes when we want information we have to dig it up and I wonder if the minister would see that that return is brought down before we close?


James Garfield Gardiner: It came to my desk for the first time this morning but as my estimates have been on ever since I have not had a chance to read it carefully. I read part of it and that is why I know something about this matter. I am afraid that when I do read it all there will be some things which will have to be considered a matter of privilege and would require to be taken out because there are reports from one official in the department to another.


James Arthur Ross: I asked the minister if he could tell us where this $530,000 additional is to be spent on community pastures and reserve grazing areas and where the $100,000 additional is to be spent on large irrigation projects.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not too sure that the plan under which this vote is handled is fully understood, although I know it is understood by the hon. member for Souris, who has been associated with it for a long time. In view of the criticism that has been offered in committee meetings and elsewhere I think perhaps I should say something with regard to it. Ever since this vote has appeared in the estimates suggestions have been made that it should be broken down like other votes, but we have always objected on the ground that we are dealing with a problem which depends largely on weather conditions and which must be carried out in an area where you can operate only from five to six months in the year. Two or three months might be lost if you had to wait for a decision as to the transfer of money or anything of that kind and we might end up this summer with very little being done.

We have always insisted that this should be a single vote, and this year it is for $3,750,000. It is only one vote; it is not half a dozen votes or a dozen votes. If I were to read off a list of the pastures we are going to build this summer we might have to stick to that list. If someone were to read in the paper tomorrow that we intend to build a certain pasture, he would consider that that was going to be done.
In connection with these pastures you must decide first to build them. There may be a dozen people living in the area and you may have to move them off. There may be no difficulty, but then again you may have one or two obstreperous people saying, "if you are going to move us off, you move us." That takes a little longer and the result may be that the pasture would not be built this year.
These pastures are scattered pretty well all over the area. There are 232,000 acres and they are spread pretty well all over the western section of Saskatchewan. In some cases pastures that we already have are being enlarged, but there are a few new ones, one being in Manitoba.
I would be pleased to let the hon. member see this but I would hesitate to have this list appear in the newspapers for the reasons I have given.


James Arthur Ross: There is a breakdown on page 96. For instance, an amount of $891,380 is shown for community pastures as compared with $361,400 last year. Is that amount allocated for that definite purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. We have insisted that it should not be, but the treasury board and the comptroller of the treasury asked us to make an estimate of what we think we are going to do. We do make that estimate so that there will be some guide, but it is not a vote. The vote is in the form of a lump sum; there are not votes for wages, and other items.


James Arthur Ross: I agree with the minister's statement that it is one vote and I know how it operates, but why is this breakdown shown?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have no control over the writing of this document. The treasury board, the comptroller of the treasury and others having to do with these matters have suggested that we estimate what we intend to do and then they put in the breakdown. We are not bound by that as we can go to treasury board and get these things changed.
If we were voting that amount separately we would be tied to the vote and would not be able to change the money from one thing
Supply-Agriculture
to another during the season. That is just our idea of how the money is going to be divided up. We stick pretty closely to it but there are occasions when we must ask them in midseason to change money from one to the other and we always get that done.


Mr. Ferrie:: I want to say how pleased we are in our part of the country to have the P.F.R.A. So far as the land is concerned it is good soil and will hold water. In past years there was plenty of surface water but as the years have gone by we have had to go farther and farther north to find such a condition. The northern part of my constituency used to be well supplied with all kinds of water but the water level has dropped, and today the people have to dig dugouts. These small projects are dugouts 65 feet wide, 175 feet long and 12 feet deep involving the removal of 2,500 square yards of earth in their construction. The water there is sufficient to cover an acre to a depth of a foot. The water is gathered in the dugout mostly in the spring of the year, is stored there, and generally there is enough rain to keep it up to that level. It provides water all summer and all winter for the people, and enables them to keep stock in that part of the country that otherwise would not be there. They would have to get rid of them.
It is not a grain growing country. It is bush, but for some reason the water level has gone down over a period of years. In one part of my constituency they are drawing water a distance of twenty miles, and they are not in a P.F.R.A. area. I should like to ask the minister to try to extend the area covered by P.F.R.A. farther north so that these people can receive some assistance and retain their stock. The assistance is only small but it helps the farmer to co-operate with the man who has the heavy machinery necessary to dig the dugout.
The people in the area are on small homesteads of a quarter or half section. A lot of the land has bush on it. Some of the people only have 25, 30, 40 or 50 acres of land broken, but they have to have water for their stock. I would ask the minister to do something about moving the line farther north so that these people can receive the benefits of the P.F.R.A. I am not going to take any more time. I have a 16-page speech that I had intended to deliver on the subject of P.F.R.A. In our municipality we have 600 dugouts, and I will not rest until we have one on every quarter-section in the municipality. If there is any salvation for such a community it is water. When you have water you have a certain amount of protection from insects. Birds will remain in the region if you have bush and water, but if

Supply-Agriculture
you have no water the birds will leave. They attack all kinds of insects that destroy crops. If you do not have birds where you grow grain sooner or later you will suffer from the attacks of insects, because that is what happens in the long run. Over a period of years it has happened all over the world. Where you do not have birds you have poor crops because insects ultimately come along and devour them.
I want to say a few words about crop conditions in that part of the country, conditions that may come some day to the people of eastern Canada. I heard one man say today that they needed rain in this part of the country, and if they did not get rain they would soon be in a pretty bad condition. That is often the case in western Canada, and it was for that reason that P.F.R.A. was started. I should like to say that instead of the item being $3 million it should be $30 million. It should be available to help all the people of Canada, and the sooner we start to develop Canada in that spirit the better it will be for us. The farmer is the foundation of the country. He is the one who provides food for the people of Canada to eat, and the amount that the people of Canada spend on him is very small.


Mr. Harrison:: I should like to say a word about prairie farm rehabilitation. Unlike the hon. member for Maple Creek I am not so much interested in rehabilitation as I am in the small projects mentioned by the hon. member for Mackenzie. When the P.F.R.A. legislation was introduced in the west in the first place, and in Saskatchewan, in which I am particularly interested, it was brought in to cover what was then the dry part of the prairie provinces. As the hon. member for Mackenzie has said, the dry area has extended somewhat farther north. In the constituency I represent it now affects the southern part of my riding to a depth of 50 to 100 miles. The top 250 to 300 miles has a good supply of water but the bottom 50 to 100 miles is getting fairly short. The water table in the latter region has dropped some 20 or 25 feet, and it is beginning to affect the people who are raising livestock. We are not in the same position as people farther south in Saskatchewan who raise grain entirely, and who are in a serious plight if they do not have a crop. As long as we have some feed and water, there is always plenty of livestock to keep the people in good shape financially.
The point I want to make is that the money spent on these small dams is not something that is poured into the west and never comes back to the east. So long as these people are able to raise livestock they are always in
[Mr. Ferried
good financial condition and are able to buy the products of the east. I want to bring this point to the attention of hon. members because sometimes it appears from all these votes for P.F.R.A. that we are pouring money into a pail with a hole in the bottom. So far as small projects are concerned in an area of that kind, that is definitely not the case because livestock constitute the insurance policy of these people. The expenditure on these small dams only amounts to about $150 each, but when each farmer has water he knows that his stock are going to be taken care of, and that he will not have to get rid of them on short notice.
Practically every municipality in an area of some 50 to 100 miles in the southern portion of my riding has brought it to my attention that they are in need of assistance under the P.F.R.A. in the form of small water projects. We have never had such assistance in any part of my riding, but the time has now arrived when we feel it should be extended to cover an area 50 to 100 miles farther north than is now the case. It varies from east to west according to whether you are on the east side or the west. As you go farther west it extends farther north. It would have to extend possibly 50 miles farther north on the east side and 100 miles farther north on the west side in order to be effective. It is not my intention to delay the committee, but I thought this matter should be brought to the attention of the government. I know the minister is quite conversant with this situation, but many hon. members who are being asked to vote on the proposition as to whether this area should be extended are not acquainted with the facts. I am making these comments in order to present the point of view of the people of that area, and to assure the committee that we are not asking for something that will not be returned tenfold.
In conclusion I would like the minister, if he would be so kind, to tell us what he thinks we may expect in the future with respect to the extension of this area, and how soon we may expect it. I know my people in Meadow Lake will be greatly interested.


Robert Fair: Before the minister replies, I should like to join with the hon. member who has just spoken in asking that the area be extended further north. Many of the people in the northern part of my constituency are not able to come under this plan, and I have had several requests that something be done along this line.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I explained earlier in the session that two bills we had intimated would be brought down this year would not be brought down until next session. One of

those bills is based upon P.F.R.A. in the west; the other is based upon the marshlands operations in the maritimes. The one is based upon the need to procure and conserve water; the other is based upon the need to control water. It has been said here from time to time that- we should extend P.F.R.A. right across Canada. Well, that would be difficult, because after all that has to do with prairie farm rehabilitation and has particular application to irrigation, stock watering dams and dugouts such as have been described by the last few speakers. On the other hand a considerable portion of the work in which this government might assist in eastern Canada would be in connection with rescuing land from the ocean, as is done in the maritimes by means of dikes. The same thing probably would be necessary at certain points along the St. Lawrence river, and even at other points around the great lakes.
Another activity which might be undertaken is the development of the black marshes in eastern Canada. There are such marshes on many farms in Ontario. I remember there was one on the farm my grandfather homesteaded when he came to Canada a hundred years ago. That black marsh is still there, and I remember that we used to spend our Sunday afternoons going down and pulling livestock out of that bog. Mr. Hepburn, who used to be premier of Ontario, has developed one of these black marshes on his own farm; that is where he grows the onions we hear so much about. It is one of the best producing areas in Ontario, requiring the work of as many as sixty men in the summer months, though a few years ago it was more or less of an eyesore on his farm. His cattle and horses used to get bogged down there, too; but he drained that swamp. As a result he has one of the finest fire fighting systems I have ever seen on a farm. The water is piped into his buildings, and then is taken below his place where it feeds one of the finest lakes I have ever seen. He does not have to go somewhere else in Ontario to find a summer resort; he has one just outside his door. That sort of thing on a farm makes farming really worth while, and there are black marshes like that all over eastern Canada, particularly in Ontario, which can be developed into highly productive areas.
We think work of that kind could be assisted from Ottawa over the years to come. So the legislation we intend to bring down next session will include two bills, one of which will provide for an extension of the work in the west while the other will deal with work in the east. I think I can say both those bills will be brought down next session.
Supply-Agriculture


Edmund Davie Fulton: I remember that three or four years ago the minister told us it was his desire to do just what he has described now; that is, bring down two bills, one of which would extend the P.F.R.A. in eastern Canada and the other which would extend P.F.R.A. in the west. Then there was a compromise, for reasons which I do not think were clearly stated, and the minister outlined another program. Under that program, if the provinces put forward specific projects for reclamation or irrigation, the dominion government would consider them and would be prepared to make a contribution toward the cost if the projects were approved. I understood that program was to go on for five years, and I do not believe the five years have expired.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid my hon. friend has not quite followed that through, probably because it was not made too clear. These bills I am speaking of were actually drafted four or five years ago but were dropped at that time because of the difficulties experienced at the dominion-provincial conference. They have stood aside ever since, and I am saying they will probably come down next session because we hope those difficulties will be overcome in September and we will be able to get along with the job. The larger projects we have with the provinces are the large irrigation schemes in the west, and that is something quite different. We are working on those with the staffs of the P.F.R.A. assisting, because there are engineering staffs suitable for that work. As hon. members can see, the two votes are separated in these estimates, and they have always been kept separate. They are different types of projects.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the present time P.F.R.A. does not operate in British Columbia on a wide scale; the only things done are these special projects to which the minister has referred. One of them is at Lillooet lake, and I think it was started even before 1945. The other project at Kelowna, and one or two others in the dry belt in the interior, were not commenced until after the minister made his announcement as to the general principle that would be applied, which I think was in 1947. That principle was that the province would bring forward a project; the dominion authorities would review it and, if they approved, would contribute to the cost. It is under that scheme that these things are being done; and, as the minister says, they are separate votes. Under the new legislation the minister has mentioned, will the operation of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration extend to the whole of western Canada, or will we still have to deal with these individual small projects? In other words, will the P.F.R.A. administration be

Supply-Agriculture
permitted then to engage in large scale irrigation undertakings in British Columbia on the same basis that it is now engaging in such undertakings on the larger rivers in the prairie provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: The projects on the prairies are being undertaken in much the same way as those under vote No. 38 and vote No. 42. Those are the two votes that were put in the estimates first about 1947. They were put in deliberately, because we were not then in a position to proceed with the legislation I have mentioned. We thought these works ought to be moved along, and that in the meantime we should get some experience in handling them; and we have had considerable experience. These votes I think will be brought under the new legislation, but it is sometimes thought that in this work we are doing on the prairie we just go out there and do the work; that is not true. In connection with these dugouts we only pay 4J cents per yard for the removal of the earth. It often costs three times that to move the earth, and the farmer payg it himself.
In other cases where we have put in water for irrigation, as for example the Swift Current project, the provincial government actually promotes the irrigation of the land, that is the utilization of the water, and the farmers themselves pay a considerable part of the cost. Practically all we do is put in a dam, and then put in a ditch to distribute the water to surrounding points. From that point it is taken up by the provincial government and by the farmers, just in the same way as we started in the Pemberton valley in British Columbia. The first project we had there we started because it was a returned soldier settlement. I was taken out there and looked at it, and I thought it was one of the finest valleys I had seen and could be made habitable. It was being flooded every spring, and these returned men were practically being put off their land. The government did spend a considerable amount of money there, and spent it directly, in order to determine whether anything could be done. We wanted to get to a point where we knew it could be done. We knew the province had land there and if it could be taken care of an arrangement might be made. We entered into an arrangement with the province whereby we paid one-third, the province paid one-third, and the farmers paid one-third. We feel that this administration will have been improved by the time the bill is brought down, and we can bring all that under this legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the minister is out in that area this summer looking at the drainage project, there is another project near Lillooet which I should like to have the opportunity of showing him so he can consider it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
40. Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,719,500.
Mr. Thaicher:: On this particular item will the minister state the amount of money, if any, which is included for the south Saskatchewan irrigation project? I wonder if he could bring the house up to date on the present status of this project, and whether or not construction is going to start this year. If it is not going to start this year, perhaps he would give the reasons.


James Garfield Gardiner: The south Saskatchewan project is at the point now where I can discuss the matter with the province. I hope to make an appointment to see them at the end of next week. I am going out there to attend a function which has something to do with the south Saskatchewan, so I hope to discuss the matter with the provincial representatives at that time. We are in a position to make suggestions and recommendations, but we want to have a discussion with the province before we proceed further.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Will the minister state
whether there is any amount in these figures for the south Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a million dollars.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is that for survey work or construction?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is for the completion of the survey work. No matter what discussions we have, I do not expect it will be possible to actually get the construction work started this season. There is some work to be done there which will not take more than the amount in these estimates, but even if we decided definitely to proceed this fall, a decision of that kind cannot be arrived at until this work that has to be done is completed. That will take until October and by that time, even if the decision were favourable, there could not be any more money spent this year.


Victor Quelch: In this vote there is an item of $995,750 for surveys and engineering costs on major irrigation and reclamation projects, including the Red Deer diversion. Can the minister give any idea when the surveys on that project will be complete?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe we can complete
any surveys that need to be made in order to

Private Bills-Divorce AFTER RECESS
arrive at the position where we can make a final decision this year with this amount of money. I do not think it will be necessary-


Victor Quelch: What do you mean by "final decision"? Is that a final decision as to whether or not you will go ahead with the project?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we have to have the
same kind of discussion as we had about the St. Mary. We are not going to start on a project and discuss it for four years afterwards. If we start this one it will be after we have had a discussion, the same as we are doing with the south Saskatchewan. I am not blaming anyone, but in order to meet a situation which developed during wartime whereby we had to put water in reservoirs if we were going to claim it as against our United States friends, we proceeded without having a full discussion about it. I think both sides realize it is better to have this discussion before we start, and I hope we will have the discussion with the Alberta government this fall and get the matter settled so we can proceed or do whatever we are going to do.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I should like to ask a question about this item. Quite recently an agreement was signed between the dominion government and the provincial government in connection with the St.Mary-Milk river project. In view of the fact that this is considered a master agreement, could the minister give the committee some of the details of that agreement, that is how the arrangements are to be made between the two governments?


James Garfield Gardiner: The arrangements are completed between the two governments, and we are covering all the costs from the Water-ton storage, which is near the United States boundary, until we come to the Ridge storage, which is just outside the areas that are to be irrigated. Now all the costs of this part of the project are to be borne by the dominion government without any cost to the province at all, but from that point on the province is responsible for all the costs. According to the estimates, that means we will be paying a little more than half the cost, and the province will take care of the remainder. We have not attempted to say that the province must pay it. They can suit themselves as to whether they pay it or charge it back to the farmer, but in any case they have undertaken to be responsible for having the work done.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Joseph Lucien Andre Bergeron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Thelma Leggo Chicoine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Anna Kathleen Olga McCone Shaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Martin Luke Marlow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Helena Wil-helmina Thornburg Lawton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Bonnie Ruth McNab Sarrasin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Lyndia Betsy Mayes Bernier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Sarah Mod-linsky Markis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Anna Patiris Sarakinis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Julia Ann Ramsell Blane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Cyrile-Orance-Horence Presseau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Paul Edmond Meerte.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	282,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
George Storey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Mary Muriel Inez Larman Jarry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Mary Zilda Alix Runcie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Aili Esteri Kankaanpaa Toebben.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Pierre Bouchard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	287,	for	the	relief	of	William
Aubrey Ricardo Aird.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Marguerite Carmen Samson Wrigglesworth.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	289,	for	the	relief	of	Andrew
Cerat.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Marie Lucille Giselle Roy Veilleux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Mabel Pearl Speirs Lazor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Lena Grace Connolly Hibberd.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Lilian Ferguson Gardner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	294,	for	the	relief	of	Marion
Leonard Ryan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Joseph Georges Neville Poirier.-Mr. Winkler.

Divorce Jurisdiction
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Marie Gisele St. Laurent Therrien.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Norah Nichol Meighen Allan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Dora Eleanor Chalmers Grisley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Ruth Desiree Morrissette Chevalier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Richard Martello Johnston.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Ernest Beliveau.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Gagnon:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bills read the second time.



WESTCOAST TRANSMISSION COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 131, to amend an act to incorporate Westcoast Transmission Company Limited-Mr. Sinnott.
Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that this, bill be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have this bill withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill withdrawn and order discharged.



DIVORCE JURISDICTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 13, to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce.
Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now he will close the debate.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, for the second time I am availing myself of my right, as a free man and as a representative of a Quebec constituency, to discuss a divorce bill. Indeed, whatever aspects it may deal with, it still is a divorce bill.
The hon. member would like to have referred to the exchequer court those bills that are now being dealt with by the Senate. Even if such a measure did in effect tend to 
rid us of a disgraceful list of bills submitted for our approval periodically, we cannot agree with him. Nor can we agree with his claims that reference of those divorce bills to the exchequer court would not set up, in so far as Quebec and Newfoundland are concerned, a divorce court. On the contrary, I believe it would set up such a court for Quebec and Newfoundland. My hon. friend from Newfoundland has explained the situation very well when he gave the reasons why they had not agreed to this change proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I have here an article written by a Quebec Jesuit, Reverend Father Louis C. de Lery, an expert on such matters. He mentions several reasons why Quebec opposes any change in the present procedure. Father de Lery states:
Quebec has never recognized divorce. When our ancestors came to this country over three centuries ago, they had their own religion and their own laws, which recognized the indissolubility of marriage. This indissoluble character was recognized by the organic law of 1774. In 1865, the union parliament sanctioned in Lower Canada the use of our civil code, recently consolidated. Section 185 of that code asserts the indissoluble character of the marriage ties. Again, according to the British North America Act (1867) the provinces have exclusive legislative authority in the matter of civil rights. Those rights are contained in our civil code.
In transferring the authority in the matter of divorce to the exchequer court, we would infringe upon provincial autonomy, because the provinces have exclusive rights to legislate in that field.
The constitution of 1867 therefore sanctioned our civil code, and in section 185, recognized the indissolubility of marriage as law of the province.
To those who claim that regard for the minority groups of the province of Quebec and of Newfoundland entitles them to divorce courts, I reply that the establishment of such courts in the province of Quebec would affect not only minorities but everyone else.
According to the Act of 1867, the dominion parliament is empowered to legislate with reference to marriage and divorce while the provinces have the exclusive right to pass legislation concerning marriage within their respective provincial sphere and to organize provincial and federal courts dealing with divorce. However, by entrusting any court with the duty of hearing divorce cases, the federal parliament would violate the indissolubility of marriage recognized in our province.
As is pointed out by Father de Lery, we have, for the past three hundred years,

believed in the indissolubility of the marriage ties. This conviction does not stem from bigotry or narrow-mindedness; we hold it because, knowing marriage to be indissoluble, we refuse to open the door to those who would strike at our democratic institution by weakening the family, the foundation of our national and social structure.
Other attempts have already been made in this direction, in order to make it easier to obtain a divorce. If the bill introduced by the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre were to pass, divorce would, of course, be much easier, since this would be a general act that applied to all. However, I am of the opinion that we cannot pass it without changing the British North America Act.
I have here a quotation from a speech delivered in this house on March 24, 1944, by the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The quotation reads as follows:
In Quebec not only is there no jurisdiction to deal with divorce, but there is a pre-confederation law, which was continued in force by the British North America Act, and which will remain in force until this parliament chooses to deal with it, as it has jurisdiction to do under section 91 of the British North America Act. This pre-confederation law declares that marriage is dissolved only by the natural death of one of the spouses. No matter what jurisdiction you set up, so long as that is the law of the province, no divorce could be granted by any court.
Consequently, if we were to pass the bill introduced by our hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, we would be obliged to set up an entirely new general law which would grant those provinces that are opposed to divorce, Quebec and Newfoundland, greater facilities to that end. Such a law would provide changes not approved by everybody and would therefore create new problems from the constitutional point of view, in regard to the rights enjoyed by the provinces and the federal government.
Another minister of justice, the Hon. Charles Doherty, stated in 1916:
The parties come here asking for it, just as they come with other private bills when they want to get something that the general law of the country does not give them. And it is precisely because the general law of the country says: once you are married you cannot marry again while your consort is alive, that when one wants to be relieved of the operation of that general law, he comes to the parliament of Canada and asks for a law for himself.
Then, if the power to grant divorce was taken away from the Senate, we would commit the very mistake to which the minister of justice, the Hon. Mr. Doherty, was referring. On the subject of our belief in the indissolubility of marriage, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent said on March 24, 1944:
There are applications for legislation which come before this parliament, and where divorces are
Divorce Jurisdiction
enacted. This is not a matter of right; no one has any right to a parliamentary divorce. That is a special legislative grant that is made under special circumstances revealed by the investigation carried on before a committee.
And to those who ask: "What about the minority?" we would answer:
Courts cannot be set up only for those who feel they might use them. To set up a divorce court for Quebec would in effect give to the people of the province the right to apply to it. If a court exists, anyone who feels he has been wronged may apply to such court for relief. Setting up a court would be tantamount to recognition of divorce.
So that, if it were passed, the hon. member's bill would in effect set up a new court for the province of Quebec and Newfoundland, and divorce would thereby be recognized. For this reason, we from the province of Quebec are opposed to the passage of this bill.
In making it easier to secure divorce we can only fall into a kind of exaggeration that has distressed other countries and in respect of which I have given figures.
You may say that we have not yet reached a point where divorce is granted with excessive liberality, but I do believe that such a stage would necessarily be reached if we go at it step by step. If we don't resist the manoeuvres and the requests of those who seek to make divorce easier, we will make a step forward today and another one tomorrow. But I don't believe that this is intended by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. What he wants is merely to free the Senate and the House of Commons from all those divorce bills. I understand his intentions. However, he will never reach his objective. On the contrary, he will lead us into another mess and we will never be able to get out of it, because he cannot understand our way of thinking in Quebec or the way of thinking in the new province of Newfoundland. I have already quoted figures on juvenile delinquency in a country where divorce is free.
I was quoting the example of Russia. I am aware that by referring divorces cases to the exchequer court the provinces would still retain the right to legislate in the matter of forsaken children. I think that children should not be left in the care of parents who are so little concerned about their duty.
Soviet Russia gave much freedom in the matter of divorce. In fact, even Lenin's wife realized one day that thousands and thousands of children,-I believe there were millions,- roamed about after being forsaken by their divorced parents. Of course, they were roaming about the streets of Moscow and other

Divorce Jurisdiction
cities in Soviet Russia, stealing, attacking and even killing passers-by to such an extent that when the so-called popular commissaries in Russia realized the situation they were compelled to introduce restrictions and to amend the divorce laws and even the laws concerning abortion.
In addition, they had to enact a very restrictive law and to inflict upon these vagrant children severe penalties in order to eliminate this public menace. They had to turn back. They had embarked on a very costly experiment. They had to depart from too easy divorces and come back to normal.
When I stated in this house that this experiment could be used by the Russians against the democracies, I believe I was perfectly right. When the family is broken by divorce, it becomes an easy prey to communism, which thus creeps into our democratic community.
As a result of that experience, there is no doubt that communists, knowing where the weaknesses are and how they can best spread their doctrines, will try to impress upon our modern democracies that there can be no harm in facilitating divorce.
Those who are caught in the trap are surely not aware how greatly the stability of the family can strengthen the whole democratic structure.
Quebec's position in the matter of divorce is sufficiently clear and firm, I believe. Therefore, those that wish to help that province or seem to think that dissolution of the marriage ties should be facilitated, will know exactly where we stand in this connection, since our position has been clearly defined.
Here is an article taken from the Toronto Daily Star of June 12, 1950. I shall read it all, because I think it is excellent. It deals with an opinion expressed by communist Russia on the matter of divorces imposed upon foreigners who marry Russian women.
(Text):
I hope I will not be out of order if I quote an article from the Toronto Daily Star which shows what can happen if we do not take the necessary precautions to prevent an increase in the dissolution of marriage or against the providing of additional facilities for the obtaining of divorce. This article which supports the argument I have expounded in French reads:
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf).l
The nullification in England by the appeal court of a marriage in Russia between a British citizen and a Russian woman serves as a reminder that the soviet union, although she professes to be above racial discrimination and to have respect for human rights and personality, possesses the narrowest and cruelest policy in the world with respect to marriage and emigration.
The soviet forbids marriage between her citizens and foreigners. In that respect she is in a class by herself. Worse still, she refuses to permit the Russian wives of peoples of other nationalities to leave soviet territory.
In 1947 when a Canadian bacteriologist who had been in the Canadian legation at Moscow as military attache sought to bring his Russian wife to America, he having been transferred to Detroit, the soviet government refused to let her go.
Vyshinsky, now Russian foreign minister, explained that this was no indication of racial prejudice on the part of the soviet union; that it was "the duty of a Russian woman to produce soviet children, not children for the Canadian government." He also said, and this was nearer the true explanation: "Women talk too much and give the wrong impression of the soviet union."
As I have stated already in my brief remarks in French, they realize the weaknesses in their system of dissolving marriages because they know that that in turn breaks up the basic family cell. The article continues:
It is believed that mere than 800 persons who claim United States citizenship have been denied permission to leave Russia. In addition, 350 Russian women who married western soldiers or diplomats have been held by their homeland. During the past 17 years only 50 women who wished to stay with their American husbands were permitted to leave. At least 15 British husbands have tried in vain to get their Russian wives out of the soviet union. Many hardships, much distress of mind and broken marriages have resulted.
I realize that in quoting that article I am not entirely in order and I thank the hon. member fpr Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for not having raised a point of order about it. I realize that he is sincere in introducing this bill, and while it may not provide additional facilities for the obtaining of divorce it does create a new court for divorce in Quebec, the exchequer court.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I think the hon. member will admit that the bill does not provide any new facility for divorce to the people of Quebec and Newfoundland?


Pierre Gauthier: In taking the power to grant divorces from the Senate and giving it to the exchequer court the law of Quebec is being changed. You are instituting a new court of justice for divorce in that province and that is why we oppose it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But no new facilities are being provided.


Pierre Gauthier: I just stated that in French and I am glad my hon. friend understood me so well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merci.


Pierre Gauthier: Just to show how far this can go, just to show how it has reached the point where it can be referred to as a national disgrace, I should like to quote from another article in the Toronto Daily Star of May 2, 1950, as follows:
Riverside, California, May 2-If she follows her schedule, Mrs. George W. Ettinger soon will divorce for the fourth time a husband who has spent 18 of his last 22 years in various prisons.
Ettinger, 37, is headed for San Quentin today after being convicted on bad cheque charges.
Probation officers told the court yesterday that each time he has gone to prison, his wife has divorced him and married someone else. But upon Ettinger's release, she always has shed her interim husband to remarry him.
That is the kind of record they are creating in the United States and I would not like to see Canadian parents give their children a similar example. That is why we always oppose additional facilities for the obtaining of divorce. I am sure also that my hon. friends from Newfoundland would not want to change their present procedure.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I believe my position with regard to a bill of this kind is well known because I have spoken on this subject in this house before. However, I feel that I would not be doing justice to the people I represent if I did not say something about it. I think I understand the motive that actuated the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he introduced this bill. I am sure he did it with the best of intentions. Hon. members may not be familiar with the proviso in the bill that when an application for divorce is made to the exchequer court the court may decline to grant it when it is satisfied that the petitioner or the plaintiff has committed either adultery or acts of cruelty toward his spouse. I think the chief motive actuating the sponsor of the bill was to rid parliament, and especially the House of Commons, of the embarrassment that comes to it so frequently during a session when a large group of divorce bills is brought before it and we are faced with saying yes or no to granting the dissolution of these marriages. I think there is a great division of opinion among hon. members as to what should be done about divorce. So far as I am concerned, I regard marriage as indissoluble. Once it has been properly formed it is indissoluble. I think hon. members are fairly familiar
Divorce Jurisdiction
with the arguments advanced by Catholics as to the only grounds upon which annulment may be granted.
As has been explained, there is of course a distinction between annulment and divorce; annulment applies where no proper valid marriage has taken place. Divorce occurs when there has been a valid marriage, and parliament, by a right which it assumes to itself, intervenes and says that the valid marriage shall no longer be a valid marriage because one of the parties thereto has violated his agreement.
We are all prepared to recognize that marriage is a very solemn event in anyone's life. It should be very carefully considered before being entered into, and it seems to me in many cases that come before the courts the trouble between the parties has arisen because they married too hastily. I have read some of the evidence in the cases that have come before us, and I find that the people did not know each other properly before they went through the marriage ceremony. Again, when they have been married and have lived together some trouble has arisen. Sometimes you will read evidence where one party has left the other and never gone back, and the other party has made no effort at reconciliation. Nobody has intervened to try to bring about a reconciliation.
Therefore I say all hon. members are faced with the question of how we regard marriage. I am a little astonished that the sponsor of the bill, who I believe is a clergyman in private life, should be the one to introduce a measure of this kind even though it has as its purpose the sending of divorce cases to the exchequer court. If we regard the marriage contract, as the words of the ceremony put it, "for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer until death do us part," I cannot understand how anyone can reasonably argue that such a contract can be dissolved even by parliament.
One must regard marriage as a sacred thing. It was instituted by Our Lord himself. We are Christians, and therefore we ought not to interfere with it. There have been cases where marriages have gone on the rocks and people have been forced to live apart, but is it not better that they should live apart than that they should bring about a condition of society that might mean its ruin? I suppose the Roman state was the greatest state the world has ever seen. Rome was mistress of the world without a rival for hundreds of years. The material, literary, artistic and architectural accomplishments of Rome have not been equalled by any other

Divorce Jurisdiction
state. We may build greater things but I doubt whether we have built the better things, things that after 2,000 years will still win the admiration of those who will be alive at that time as the art and architecture of Greece and Rome still win our admiration. Yet that society, strong as it was, was destroyed.
It seems to me we are making all kinds of provisions for the material happiness of people. We are providing family allowances to help families overcome the difficulties that they encounter. We are providing for their old age, and in spite of all these material advantages,.that people have today we find that many of them are not a bit happier, that some marriages are not being observed in the way that they should be, and that divorce is becoming more frequent.
In the debate that took place on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) during the first part of the session I pointed out-and I think he recognized- that divorce has been increasing, and until the last year or so was increasing at a very rapid rate. It was not a question of two or three extra a year but two or three hundred. In the space of fifty years or so the number of persons seeking divorce has risen from almost zero into thousands. At the beginning of the century there were very few people applying for divorce, and in some of the provinces there were none. Therefore when you provide more methods by which divorces can be granted and make it easier to secure a divorce you are going to have more divorces. That was the purpose of the hon. member's motion and he was good enough to withdraw it.
I think we all agree that, in addition to material benefits to the family, we would like to see spiritual benefits as well. We would like to see families happier and marriages more enduring. Therefore we have to consider what the purpose of marriage is. It is not only the procreation of children but also the spiritual attachment that exists and the spiritual benefits that come to each of the spouses when they have gone through the marriage ceremony. There is a complementary and natural relation between husband and wife, wife and husband, and parents and children, so that in a normal family there should be children. There will be continuity of the tradition of goodness and a way of living passed on from parent to child. When we have divorce the continuity is broken, and from our own experience we know many families where that has taken place and the children have become more than orphans. When parents marry again we get even greater complications. That may not seem to be very

serious at the present time because the number of divorces granted in Canada only reaches about 6,000 or 7,000 a year, but in the United States, the number is seven times as great today in proportion to population as it is in Canada. We can feel confident that the rate of divorce is going to increase in Canada as well.
I think the time has come for us to realize that we must face the question of whether we are going to permit divorce in Canada, and not only the question of whether we are going to make it more convenient by having divorces dealt with by the exchequer court. Are we going to abandon that system? Is every hon. member really satisfied that divorce is a good thing in itself? I do not suppose many people in this house really think it is a good thing; they are happy in their married life anc^ would like to see their children happy in the same way. I do not suppose many of them would care to see their children suffer the public scandal and unhappiness that so often follow divorce. I suggest, therefore, that we should see that our young people take greater care in the selection of a partner before marriage, and that if difficulties arise afterwards provision should be made for counsel and advice to help overcome those difficulties. I have already mentioned the fact that many times I have seen people who never wanted to speak to each other again, .but who, after a little time had elapsed and as a result of good advice, became reconciled and lived happily together again.
In my opinion it is not possible for two people to live together and always be happy. They are bound to have difficulties; but with the proper attitude they will be given the necessary strength to overcome them.
When Admiral Byrd was going to the south pole he refused to take a companion with him because he said it would be only a short time before they would be quarrelling. He spent six months in isolation rather than have a companion because he appreciated the problems that would arise. When a husband and wife have trouble of that kind there are ways of overcoming it. At the university of Notre Dame there is a priest, Father O'Brien, who was once called by a family where a terrible dispute was going on. He found that the cause was nothing really serious, and at that time made a resolution that from then on every time he performed the marriage ceremony he would make the parties promise never to say an angry word to each other. For thirty-five years he carried out that resolve. After the wedding ceremony was over he would take the parties aside and make each promise the other never to say an angry word. I know that is a very hard promise to keep, but he says it has worked.

In my view divorce is one of the great evils of our times. What we should do is try to build up a good family life and family solidarity, as the last speaker said. I believe we would be better occupied if we spent our time looking for ways to improve the conditions of family life, perhaps on a higher plane than has been the case in the past. There is no doubt that family allowances and old age pensions have removed some of the economic causes that led to divorce, and have helped families to get along better. In my view there are other things that would also help, and I believe we would be better occupied if we spend our time considering them instead of considering ways of making divorce easier.
As far as my province is concerned, we have not asked for this legislation. As a matter of fact, in the constitution of Newfoundland as it existed prior to confederation there was a provision that the governor should not permit a divorce bill to be passed. I am not sure, but it seems to me questionable whether persons resident in Newfoundland can be divorced. It could be done only on the authority of parliament; and that brings me to another point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are being divorced here.


William Joseph Browne: I know they are. The hon. gentleman has brought in this bill to give the Exchequer Court of Canada power to grant divorces. That still would not take away the power of parliament to consider bills of divorce, as we sometimes see divorce bills going through concerning persons resident in Toronto, or other parts of Canada, as well as those living in Quebec and Newfoundland. Parliament cannot divest itself of that authority. Even if this bill were passed there would be nothing to prevent anyone applying to parliament for a divorce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not a fact that when one of the parties is resident in Toronto, as the hon. gentleman says, the other party is a resident of Quebec or Newfoundland?


William Joseph Browne: I am not
sure on that point; I have tried to study this matter, but I cannot remember that. Sometimes, of course, the other party cannot be found. The other day I read the evidence in a couple of cases coming from Newfoundland, and I was very much surprised at the method adopted to prove adultery. The main evidence was given by counsel for the petitioner, who visited the home of the respondents and interviewed the two persons who were living together in an illicit state. That was the evidence upon which the
Divorce Jurisdiction
divorces were granted by the other place; and of course when those bills came here the evidence was not read at all. As far as the matter of evidence is concerned, I have no doubt that the method proposed by the hon. member would be much sounder from the legal point of view, but I am afraid it would have the effect of making divorces easier to obtain.
This bill does not touch the fundamental, basic issue at all, as to whether or not we should have divorce. I am opposed to divorce in any form, and for that reason I am opposed to this bill.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, apart from the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), all those who have spoken have been in opposition to it. My purpose in speaking this evening is to offer support, and I shall give my reasons for doing so as I go along. I have been a member of this house for more than ten years, and this is the first occasion on which I have uttered a word with respect to our method of handling divorce cases. Whenever the opportunity presented itself to vote against our procedure, I have done so. When I came here over ten years ago and witnessed the way we handled divorce cases from Quebec and Prince Edward Island, I was amazed. After having been here a while and witnessed that procedure during several sessions, I became shocked. Now, in the course of my eleventh year, I am completely disgusted.
I should like to _ stress one extremely important fact in connection with this bill. In no sense does it broaden the grounds for divorce. It seemed to me that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), consciously or otherwise, conveyed the impression that the grounds for divorce were being broadened by this legislation, but that is not the case. As a matter of fact I can easily appreciate that divorce might be made more difficult as a result of transferring jurisdiction to the Exchequer Court of Canada. Perhaps I should say at this point that I dislike divorce just as much as any hon. member of this house. I think it is appalling when one examines the statistics in Canada, and learns the extent to which divorce is increasing within our nation. Thank goodness it is not as bad as it is in the United States where divorce, in my opinion, has made marriage nothing more than legalized adultery. I am not too certain that transferring the jurisdiction to the Exchequer Court of Canada is the best method of dealing with the question, but certainly there is no doubt in my mind that it is preferable to the method which we are applying at the present time.

Divorce Jurisdiction
I would be the last one to offer any suggestions or any hints that hon. gentlemen in the other place do not do the best possible job, having regard to all the circumstances. But, Mr. Speaker, not so long ago we had occasion to discuss in this chamber the work of the other chamber. The thought that entered my mind at the time was that if we would not tie them up by forcing them to deal with over 300 divorce cases in the course of one session, possibly they would be in a better position to render more effective service on behalf of the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of June 13, and I think I should refer to it because it is extremely significant. It is under the dateline, Ottawa, June 12, and reads as follows:
The Senate committee on divorce presented its final report of the session today and with a last flourish, protested again the system that annually brings hundreds of divorce seekers to the doorstep of parliament.
The report then refers to the fact that Senator W. N. Aseltine, sixty-four year old Rosetown lawyer and wheat farmer and father of five children, who has been a member for sixteen years and chairman for ten, now finds it necessary to resign. Here is a further paragraph from the report:
The report disclosed that in granting divorces to 235 Quebec petitioners and 5 from Newfoundland- other provinces have their own divorce courts-the dominion treasury would get $47,330 in fees. But it indicated the work of hearing petitions was getting tougher every year and it wasn't worth the money.
In concluding the report states:
Your committee regrets that parliament has not yet seen fit to solve the problem of parliamentary divorce by setting up suitable tribunals before which these numerous cases from Quebec and Newfoundland can be heard.
It is to be hoped that something will be done in that regard in the near future because members of the divorce committee are compelled, under the present set-up, to spend the greater part of their time in hearing evidence, thus leaving little or no time for the performance of their other important duties.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that as long as we leave that growing burden on their doorstep we have little justification for criticizing them if they do not happen to do as much as we believe they should in other spheres of activity.
I should like to quote one more paragraph from this article:
Senator Robertson said whether or not another method of dealing with divorces from Quebec and Newfoundland could be found remained to be seen. But at the moment this was a responsibility of the Senate and he believed Senators should be willing to shoulder their responsibility.
I hasten to add that I believe they have shouldered the responsibility, but I certainly believe it is a responsibility that should no longer rest upon them.

In summarizing let me repeat that I am as much opposed to divorce as any other member in this house. I repeat also that I think the statistics which are available to all should present cause for alarm, but certainly in imposing upon parliament this onerous task we are doing nothing to cause any decrease in the number of divorce applications from those two provinces. We are becoming a joke, as it were, in the method by which we deal with these petitions. Today we pick them up in blocks, whereas ten years ago we at least gave some consideration to each individual divorce case. We have now reached the stage where we say, shall section 1 of a group of twenty-five or thirty divorce bills carry? Shall section 2 of a group of twenty-five or thirty divorce bills carry? I ask hon. members what could be more ridiculous than that?
Someone may say that these cases are thoroughly considered by the divorce committee, and that is true. Some say that the committee on miscellaneous private bills goes through the evidence and makes recommendations. That is true, but we cannot escape the responsibility that arises from the fact that these divorces cannot become final unless they are approved by this house, and it is the method by which this house handles these divorce cases that I am protesting very vigorously. Certainly, sir, in speaking thus I am speaking for myself. I have not consulted my colleagues. I do not know what they think about this matter, but certainly I have no hesitation in advancing my personal support of the bill now before us.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is a bill which should receive a great deal of consideration. I do not know whether the mover of this bill had in mind the fact that the bill might be voted upon tonight. I intended to speak in favour of the bill, but since it is nine o'clock and I have not time to make any lengthy remarks, I shall merely register my approval of the bill, and ask to adjourn the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter undei discussion at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Special-
40. Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,719,500.
William Duncan McKay Wylie: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with the Bow River Development and Irrigation Company. Have final arrangements been made for the government to take over that company, or are negotiations still being conducted?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as the discussions with the company are concerned, and the discussions with the provincial government, final arrangements have been made. As my hon. friend knows, these companies went into receivership, and the two companies have not been cleared from the records over in Great Britain. We thought that would be accomplished by April 1, but there have been some delays on the other side. We do not feel we should proceed with any development work until the titles are clear. I do not believe there will be any trouble about it, but it is a matter of delay. We regret the delay, but we cannot do anything about it.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: What I object to is that over a year ago it was announced that the company had agreed to sell to the dominion government. At that time most of us were anxious that that should be done so that we could get ahead with the irrigation projects in Alberta, especially west of Medicine Hat. However, another year has gone by, and nothing has been done; that is two years of inaction since the election. Surely they are not going to wait until another election comes around before they tell us that they are going to do something in connection with the scheme. May I say we in that corner of the province have listened to these promises for years and years. We are still listening to them. Canada is lagging far behind in irrigation in comparison with other countries. I am going to put on record what some of the other countries have done in connection with irrigation. In India they have 60,100,000 acres under irrigation. In China they have 47,500,000 under irrigation; in the United States they have 21 million; in Russia they have eight million; in Japan, 7,600,000; in Egypt, 6,500,000; in France, 5,720,000; in Mexico, 5,700,000; in Italy, 4,900,000; in Iraq, four million; in Spain, 3,500,000; in Java, three million; in Chile, 2,970,000; in Brazil, 2,200,000; in Morocco, 1,500,000, and in Canada we have one million acres under irrigation.


James Garfield Gardiner: How much have they in Babylonia?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: In so far as irrigation is concerned, we are at the bottom of the list of these countries. In Alberta we who have suffered one loss after another are beginning to realize that the government is not very anxious to put in irrigation.
Supply-Agriculture
I want to refer to a very important speech that was made in this house on May 31 by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. What he had to say certainly applied to this country. I am reading from page 3043 of Hansard:
But democracy, in Pakistan or elsewhere, is of little use to the common man unless its advantages are made available to him in his daily life and his standard of living is raised at least to a level which gives him a substantial stake in the way of life which he has chosen for himself.
We are fully conscious of this, and consider it our foremost duty to develop the resources of our country at the greatest possible speed. Even in the days of our greatest anxieties we were able to go ahead with this task, and though much remains to be done we are glad that we have been able to revive our trade, to plan the development of our irrigation, the expansion and modernization of our agriculture and the utilization of our power resources: to keep our budgets balanced and to throw the gates wide open to private enterprise in our industrial development. For this task there is nothing more essential to us and nothing that we could or do desire more passionately than peace.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan realizes, as I am sure we do, that we must advance the development of our resources. We in southeastern Alberta, an area which this year has been hit by one dust storm after another, and an area in which crop conditions at the present time are not good-as the minister knows, the whole of the province is only 57 per cent of normal, which is a serious situation because when the whole of the province is 57 per cent of normal one realizes that the southern part is the driest and especially the southeastern part-look upon this irrigation development as something that we want to see go ahead. Nothing has been done on the Canada Land and Irrigation Company or the Bow river development last year, and nothing will be done this year. We are still waiting for someone over in London, England, to agree to the price that the government wants to pay for the land. I think it is absolutely ridiculous, and we are still-


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be ridiculous if it were true; it is not.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The minister make a remark. I did not hear what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said:	"It would be ridiculous if it were true; it is not."


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It certainly is true. I will be glad to sit down if the minister wants to tell me what is going on, and what is going on in connection with the development of that project.


James Garfield Gardiner: You would not listen, anyway.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I will listen. I will listen to the minister at any time if he can tell me where there is any development going on in

Supply-Agriculture
that project whereby the cities of Redcliff and Medicine Hat are going to benefit by the extension of that irrigation project. I will be glad to sit down and listen to him, but nothing has been done. The minister knows as well as I do that nothing is being done.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I do not. My hon. friend and his friend up there, who is one of the local members, are spending considerable time spreading rumours that keep the people more or less worked up about it all the time. By coming here and saying that nothing is being done about it he is obstructing it all he can.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I certainly disagree with everything the minister has said, because I do not know to whom he refers as the local member. If he refers to me I am certainly willing to debate it with him at any time; but so far as talking to some local member is concerned, I do not know who the local member is. Perhaps the minister knows more than I do about what is going on.


James Garfield Gardiner: You know all about it.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: If the minister knows I wish he would tell us. It would overcome the worry, and many people are worried today. There are letters in the Medicine Hat News almost every week wondering what is happening to our irrigation project. A big debate went on between the Medicine Hat News and the Lethbridge Herald about bringing water down from the St. Mary dam, which I stayed out of completely. These letters are appearing every week. People want to know what is going on. I would certainly like to hear what is being done on the Bow river development scheme.


Mr. McCusker:: Perhaps this is the item on which I should say a few words. Hon. members will recall that in the house last year I told of the sad plight of Regina city owing to the government in the early days having located it in the wrong place. I gave hon. members a picture of the rapidly falling water table; I told of the difficulties we had in obtaining a supply of water and of having to go to the Saskatchewan river to seek one.
Last year a conference was arranged between the provincial authorities, the city of Regina and the dominion government in Ottawa. At that conference the city was willing and said it was able to pay one-third of the cost of bringing a water supply to Regina. The provincial government denied any responsibility. I remember the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was at the conference, stating that had the provincial government been willing to assume its
[Mr. Wylie.1
responsibility he would have found it very difficult to have refused to assume the other one-third.
That conference came to naught. We went back home and this summer we studied our problem and carried on, and again we came back for another conference. There is one principle I want to make clear, namely, that the first responsibility rests upon any municipality for a water supply of its own. First, the municipality, then the provincial government and lastly the dominion government is responsible. If it is beyond the means of the municipality to supply its own water it can get assistance from the others. But the provincial government is one that is next responsible for that assistance. This whole issue is being obscured today because it is being charged by provincial authorities that when I was seeking election in Regina City I claimed that I alone would get the city of Regina a water supply. I am not quite equal to that; but I wish to say today that out of the last conference has come an offer to the city of Regina and to the province of Saskatchewan that the dominion government will place water in Buffalo Pound lake, which is about forty miles from Regina. That means that the dominion government will bring water from the Saskatchewan river to Buffalo Pound lake, which is north of Moose Jaw, and about forty miles west of Regina.
Here they offer to maintain a supply of water until such time as the dam is built at Outlook, and water will flow by gravity down the Qu'Appelle river. They offer to put it into Buffalo Pound lake, and stand the cost of maintaining the water supply there, but I do not think they have gone far enough. That would probably mean an initial outlay by the dominion government of $650,000 or $700,000. There would be a yearly outlay for keeping it there by pumping of about $12,000 or $15,000-perhaps even $20,000.
But that water is not being kept there for Regina and Moose Jaw alone. It is being kept there to supply irrigation projects, stockwatering projects, and irrigation all down the valley to Brandon. So that by doing this there is not a great deal being done for Regina and Moose Jaw. What they are doing is saying that they will replace any water out of Buffalo Pound lake that Regina and Moose Jaw will use. As urban municipalities Regina and Moose Jaw are perfectly entitled to go to Buffalo Pound lake, take all the water from there and leave the farmers high and dry.
However I think, though I wish to thank the government for what it has done in assuring us of a supply of water, and while

the people of my city are vigorous and willing to face problems-I repeat that-I think the cost is too high. The second step of that project is to bring the water out of Buffalo Pound lake up about 175 feet to filtration beds, and from there it can be taken to Regina and Moose Jaw. That will entail another expenditure of about four million dollars. Surely hon. members sitting in the House of Commons this evening do not want to see Regina and Moose Jaw have an insufficient water supply.
Hon. members will agree with me when I say that it is the duty of the dominion government to pump that water out of Buffalo Pound lake and bring it up to the filtration beds, and say, "Here is your fresh water supply. You can pipe it in yourselves." That is what should be done, and that is what I am asking the minister to have done, if at all possible.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two comments I should like to make on this item. If the Minister of Agriculture meant what he said before six o'clock, it might mean a good deal to western Canada. Because if I understood him correctly he said that next week, when he goes west, if a suitable agreement can be signed with the provinces construction work might be started next year on the south Saskatchewan irrigation project.
I am disappointed of course that it is not being started this year. But if it is actually going ahead next year the minister will have accomplished a good deal, and I shall then be happy to congratulate him. There is one word of admonition I should like to express. I understand the agreement he will probably try to make with Saskatchewan will be based upon the master agreement of the St. Mary project, which he made with Alberta. If that is so, I hope he will not be too difficult with the Saskatchewan government. Alberta might be able to sign an expensive agreement because of their oil wells and oil leases, but Saskatchewan may not be able to do quite so well.
I hope the minister will take all that into consideration when he is drawing up this proposed agreement with Saskatchewan. 1 do not know whether eastern members realize just how badly the south Saskatchewan irrigation project is needed, but I can say I was in western Canada last week. Between Moose Jaw and Saskatoon I had an opportunity to look down from an aeroplane, but could not see the ground because of the dust that was blowing. The tragedy of the situation is that through the middle of the dust bowl area the south Saskatchewan river flows, and it hardly
Supply-Agriculture
seems sensible that we as a parliament should permit that condition to continue. The water is there, flowing out into Hudson bay.
If we would put a dam there, or several dams, and utilize that water we could eliminate many of these P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. expenditures which we now have. So far as the statement made just now by the hon. member for Regina City is concerned, he pointed out that the Buffalo Pound lake project would cost too much. I do not think the people of Regina or Moose Jaw feel that the federal government made a proper offer recently at all. I speak from memory, but my recollection is that the federal government offered to pay about half a million, while the total cost was five or six million. The mayor of Regina expressed great disappointment in that.
I do not think that the Buffalo Pound project is a proper solution. If the minister and the government would proceed with the south Saskatchewan irrigation project next year, Regina and Moose Jaw would get a proper water supply and we would have the whole area irrigated. I must emphasize again that this is not the only western project, because if the west has another recession, or if they hit another drought period, the eastern manufacturers who sell merchandise in that part of the country will suffer, as well as anybody else. I say again to the minister that if he does what he promised about this south Saskatchewan irrigation project, then he will go down in history as a great westerner.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Alpheus Charlton: Is the parliamentary assistant going to answer the question asked this afternoon by the hon. member for Souris?


An hon. Member:: Too late.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Everything is carried.


Mr. Graydon:: I think the parliamentary assistant would like to answer. He should not be denied that opportunity.


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to answer the hon. member for Souris in respect of the statement he made a while ago. However, before doing that I should like to answer the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth who asked yesterday about the number of t.b. reactor animals condemned to the tank, and the amount of money paid in the counties of Brant and Middlesex. I should like in that connection to place some

Supply-Agriculture
figures on record. The figures in the following table give the numbers of animals condemned, and the amounts expended in connection therewith:
	No. of animals	Amounts
	condemned	expended
County of Brant: 1947-48 			$ 2,202.43
1948-49 	
9	1,305.281949-50 	
3	444.05County of Middlesex:	1947-48 	
2	235.241948-49 	
763	118,723.361949-50 	21,549.83This afternoon the hon. member for Souris	
referred to a statement that I had made between Christmas and New Year's in 1949 and in connection with which I was quoted as saying certain things in respect to government controls and the marketing of farm products. I did make a statement at that time to a group of young people at Western university and I am not backing up one bit in what I said. When I spoke I was not speaking for the Minister of Agriculture nor was I flying a kite for him; I was speaking as a member of parliament and as a farmer. One headline in the London Free Press read:
Extension of marketing boards, McCubbin plan.
I have other quotations here, one from the Winnipeg Free Press:
More marketing boards defended by McCubbin.
I have always felt and I feel now that the marketing boards that have been set up in the different provinces can do a good job in marketing farm products. I think that such boards offer a part solution for the problem of marketing farm products in the future. I am not opposed to subsidies or floor prices. I am in favour of them and always have been. As I said at London, I think we should have subsidies and floor prices to help the farmer through periods such as the one he is passing through at the present time. During that speech I urged the government to put a floor price under eggs as we had lost the British market and egg prices had fallen to a low level. I felt the government should step in, which they did, and a floor price was placed under eggs.
There has been some discussion about what I said there. I attended many protest meetings during January throughout western Ontario at which were repeated many of the statements I had made at Western university. I will admit that some people were opposed to what I had said because they felt that the government could market our farm products perhaps better than marketing boards. I congratulate those farmers because it shows that

the farmers of Canada have faith that the Liberal government will do a good job for them.
But I feel also that marketing boards with the assistance of the dominion government can do a good job in the marketing of farm products and I urge the farmers of Canada to set up these boards so that our agricultural producers may be assisted.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
48. Departmental administration, $90,620.
Mr. Croll:: Mr. Chairman, some time ago I joined with many hon. members of this house in expressing my good wishes to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration upon his appointment to this new office and, like other hon. members of this house, I looked forward to his first official address. On April 21 the minister outlined the departmental policy. I have always had much regard for the minister's ability and integrity; I thought that his appointment was a mark of recognition that was well deserved and I looked forward to hearing the government's immigration policy. I must confess that like other hon. members I was disappointed.
On reading the minister's speech I found that he said what every other political party has been saying since 1945. As a matter of fact, he did not go one step further. He said that he was in favour of immigration, but as I read Hansard I find that every party in this house is in favour of immigration. The Tories were in favour of it; the Conservatives were in favour of it; the Progressives were in favour of it; the C.C.F. were in favour of it; the socialists were in favour of it; the Social Crediters were in favour of it, and I gather that the Liberals were in favour of it. That seems to be the signal for real action.
Yet to date we have heard very little about any new immigration policy enunciated by this government. The minister said in his statement that the country has benefited in the past from immigration. That proposition has been around for a long time because I have been hearing it ever since I can remember and I imagine my father heard it also. The minister said also that this country could support a larger number of people than we have at the present time. That has been around for some fifty years. We have believed in that. Then the minister repeated the words of Mr. King, as prime minister, in 1947 as follows:
The policy of the government Is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation and vigorous administration to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed in the national economy.

I think it will be admitted that that is not a new policy or a very forthright one. In fact I am inclined to agree that it is not a policy at all. The best you can say for that statement is that it is a pious hope, except for the use of the word "vigorous" which perhaps does something to save the situation.
The only virtue about the suggestion made at that time which might be called a policy is that it had aged for a long time, but I am not at all sure that age is a necessary requisite of an immigration policy although it may be an advantage with other products. We have heard that for some thirty years and so far it has not got us anywhere. Speaking in this house in December, 1949, I said:
I ask this house, by what stretch of the imagination is a nephew 25 years old less desirable as an immigrant than his younger brother of eighteen? He is still excluded, however. Why should we admit a niece, but not a cousin? Why may a single man come in, yet we exclude married couples. I believe these categories are unrealistic. They should be abolished.
And again:
I think the test of admissibility to this country must be twofold. First, is the immigrant a useful citizen; and second, is there someone in Canada who will accept responsibility for him, who will guarantee accommodation and maintenance until he becomes self-supporting. Then, providing they are in good health, physically and ideologically, they should be encouraged to come to Canada to build new lives here.
We have set up a new department, and all of us were happy that that had been done. But there is just one thing that has been left out, a new policy. We expected the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to be an improvement over the old immigration department that was tucked away in the department of mines and resources. Instead in its first statement of policy we find that it hesitates, falters " and stumbles. When it speaks now on immigration it has a hollow sound because its policy at the present time is an echo of the past. Canada's immigration policy over the last thirty years has in fact been a "no immigration" policy. I hope we shall have a better policy in the third quarter of the twentieth century than we have had in the second quarter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We had better get a new minister.


David Arnold Croll: The minister is doing very well and performing satisfactorily. I have no complaints against him and neither should the opposition. If we do not have a more vigorous policy then we shall be hard put to justify our exclusionary laws both to our own citizens and to the world at large. As has been pointed out by a member of the house, we have in Canada the last great
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration reservoir of land in the western world today. With a larger land area than the United States we have a population one-tenth of that of the United States. Yet our total immigration last year amounted to only 95,000 people. On May 27 the minister spoke before the Kiwanis club, and the Ottawa Journal has the following report with reference thereto:
It was estimated that Canada could absorb approximately 140,000 immigrants yearly into her economy . . .


Edmund Davie Fulton: Shame.


David Arnold Croll: I really do not need any help from the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, you do.


David Arnold Croll: No, I am not that hard up. Here are some statistics.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Get a new minister and a new government.


David Arnold Croll: In 1948 the monthly average of immigrants entering Canada was 9,352. In 1949 it was down to 6,966, and in 1950 it was down to 4,823.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the hon. member for Kamloops got that information for you.


David Arnold Croll: I thought the press party was over. Let me give the committee some interesting statistics with respect to British immigrants. In 1948, 46,000 British immigrants came to Canada, in 1949, 22,000, and in 1950, on the basis of the first three months, only
15,000	will come to this country. The total number of immigrants in 1948 was 125,414, in 1949, 95,215, and in 1950, on the basis of the number that have come to Canada in the first three months, it will be 60,000 at the most. I think that is a very sad picture indeed from our point of view. When we deduct from that the number of people those who have been emigrating to the United States, we realize that our net increase is a pretty insignificant number.
The minister tells us that the policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. My purpose in speaking tonight is to try to build a fire under the minister and the department so that he may get on with his job. One hon. member referred to an article by Sir Norman Angell which appeared in the London Observer. The article pointed out that at the time of Lincoln's death the population of the United States numbered little more than 30 million. Today it is a nation of 150 million people enjoying the highest standard of living in the world. In the fifty years following the civil war the United States has admitted over 33 million immigrants, or almost two and a half times

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the number of people in Canada today. I think it is well for us to reflect what would have happened to the United States and to the world if her population had remained at 30 million or thereabouts. I doubt very much whether we would have been here today to even talk about this problem.
We in Canada are facing the same challenge in 1950 that the United States faced in 1865. At our present rate of increase our statisticians predict that we will reach a static population of only 18 million by 1980, and that beyond that we can only hope for a decline. I, and I hope other members, will not accept what appears to be the fact that Canada must reach the peak of her development in 1980. Not only our prosperity but our very existence compels us to prove that the statisticians are wrong. There is only one way to prove they are wrong, and that is by more and more immigration of the desirable ' kind. We cannot have an immigration policy based on a tailor-made labour program. I call on the minister to take a leaf out of Australia's book. There is a country with half the population of Canada and only a tiny fraction of our resources. They are taking in 200,000 people a year. I refuse to believe that we cannot absorb any more than 95,000. I think Canada can and must admit a minimum of 200,000 immigrants a year over the next thirty or fifty years. If we do less we are deliberately stunting our growth. If we deliberately fail to build up this country's population then we deserve whatever the consequences may be.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has inherited an able and conscientious department but I ask him not to inherit the old hand-me-down policy as well. It served us badly in the past and it does not look any better for the future. Times have changed with regard to many things, and as to immigration as well. The people of the world are no longer clamouring at our doors to come here in the same way that they used to. Many have grown tired of waiting and have gone to some other place-and I do not mean "the other place", as you well know. It is up to us now to go out and get immigrants, to sell them the idea of coming to Canada in the same way that Australia is doing at the present time. We must have more British immigrants. I have an article from the Windsor Star of June 6, 1950, which reads:
Canada's parliament now is in the last great rush to conclude the business of the present session. It should not be in such a hurry, however, that no attention will be given the problem of immigration from the United Kingdom. In the past, that has been the most important source of immigration. It should be also in the future. But it won't be unless some action is taken to unblock the dam holding
[Mr. Croll.l
back a flow of immigrants, the fact they are unable to bring their money with them due to currency restrictions. Meanwhile, the British are going in great numbers to Australia and New Zealand. This should not be so. It isn't good for Canada or for the commonwealth. The government should devise, if at all possible, some way around this obstacle, and do it this session. Otherwise we will be missing out on some of the most desirable immigrants who will go elsewhere.
According to an article which appeared in the Toronto Star of May 15, a Gallup poll in Great Britain indicated that 48 per cent of the people between the ages of 21 and 29 were prepared to emigrate, and that 41 per cent of those between the ages of 30 and 49 were also prepared to leave that country. Their first choice, of course, is Australia; their second choice is New Zealand, and their third choice is Canada. They are very anxious to come here. In 1949, as I have already indicated, there was a decline of almost 50 per cent in immigration from the British isles as compared with the previous year, and we may expect that decline to continue unless we do something about it and do it now. Britain has been traditionally a source of very good citizens, but at the present time we find them fenced off by currency regulations. Somehow we must break down those barriers; and I am sure if there is the will to do it it can be done. I feel that in future we shall regret our failure to stock this country with more people from the British isles.
Australia is actually subsidizing British immigration. As a matter of fact an immigrant leaving Britain today for Australia can save a thousand dollars, because he has all transportation costs paid for himself and family, while he must pay for his own transportation to this country. It may be that we will have to do the same thing, or work out some method of unfreezing a man's assets in Britain. Perhaps the answer would be for the government to take over a certain proportion of the assets in Britain of a prospective immigrant, and advance him the money in this country. Whatever the solution, we must find it; it is our bounden duty to do so.
There are other countries where we have to go shopping for immigrants. We are doing very well in Holland at the present time, and fairly well in Italy. The Benelux countries are available to us, as well as Norway and Sweden. For almost sixty years we have drawn people from those small countries, and they have helped build up Canada. They have given us farmers, artisans, technicians and labourers, and we could use very many more if only we would get out and encourage them to come to this country.
My chief purpose in rising this evening was to point out to the government that we seem to have completely overlooked one

great source of immigration. On May 10 an answer was given to a question asked by the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) as appears at page 2356 of Hansard. The question was:
1.	How many displaced persons were brought to Canada during the year 1949?
2.	How many other persons immigrated to Canada during the same year, and from what countries?
3.	How many from each country?
The answers are very interesting. During 1949 England provided us with 14,403 immigrants. The next largest number came from the United States, 7,756. Then came Italy, with 7,654; Holland, with 6,812, and so on down the line. From 1945 to the present time over 45,000 Americans have settled in this country; and they have come without any particular encouragement. For many years, as everyone knows, we have been losing population to our neighbour, simply because we have not made any very serious effort to reverse the flow. In the United States are a great number of potential immigrants; people who want land, people who want opportunities that to some extent are denied them in what is becoming a very crowded country. I have met a great number of Americans who have found in Canada the room, the easier pace and the opportunity to develop that to some extent do not exist across the border. There are thousands like them; and, what is more important, they are our kind of people. There is no question of integration, or of education for citizenship. They are well versed in it. These people are not only good citizens; they are good democrats, and we should encourage them to come here to make up for the many people we have given to the United States over the years. I believe there is available to us in the United States a great untapped source of immigration. Farm land is available here, and there are farmers on marginal land in the United States who would like to come here. There is no question of security, no question of living standards. They are accustomed to about the same thing we have here, and I think it would be far wiser for us to attack that problem instead of moving our employment offices over to Europe and attempting to obtain immigrants in that fashion.	.
Before the war we maintained immigration offices in the United States. I believe the time is overdue for us to reopen those offices in California, in the middle west, and in the great congested areas of the east. I am convinced that we can attract from the United States tens of thousands of people if only we have the initiative to go after them. I urge the minister to frame a bold immigration policy, to make that policy realistic, and to make it produce. I hope the 55946-227
13, 1950	3587
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration minister is not going to be frightened by a few anti-immigration resolutions from here or there, or by the insignificant noise of small groups. The Globe and Mail of February 14 reports the minister as saying:
Mr. Harris said labour unions did not oppose Canada's immigration scheme. Nor did they think they were being hindered in any way. They were willing to accept these people.
I want this house to understand that labour in this country has grown up; labour knows that what is good for the country is good for labour. In immigration we must adopt a national outlook. We must put into effect a truly vigorous immigration policy that will benefit every part of the country from the lumber camps of British Columbia to the fishing banks of Newfoundland. More than anything else in this country we need people of every kind and description. I agree that we must choose wisely and carefully, but on the other hand we must also choose generously. I believe the time is overdue for the minister to tell us in unmistakable language what we are going to do about immigration.
I want to conclude with this quotation. James S. Duncan, the president of Massey -Harris Limited, is a great Canadian, as this house will agree. Speaking in Toronto on June 6, as reported in the Globe and Mail of June 7, he had this to say:
"It is necessary for us to carry our products to a wider group of countries," he said.
He was speaking about trade. Then he went on:
"Almost of equal importance, we should open wider the doors of immigration, welcoming to Canada worthy, self-reliant immigrants in ever greater numbers, so as to build up our national strength and to provide a larger consumers' market at home."
Mr. Duncan warned that people should not be fearful that a rapid growth in population will lower our living standards. He pointed out that today, in terms of pre-war purchasing power, our real national income per capita is 71 per cent higher than in the boom period of 1926-1930.
I hope other hon. members will join me in asking this government to come to grips with this problem here and now, and to declare itself.


Mr. Decore:: I should like to make a few observations in connection with Canadian citizenship as I see it. First of all, may I congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration upon his elevation to the important post which he now occupies. The responsibility placed upon him is great, and those of us who know him, especially the new members like myself, are impressed with his sincerity of purpose and his sympathetic attitude. I believe those are important qualities in discharging obligations such as he has.
3588	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Today when we consider our position as citizens in this country of Canada, as well as members of the British commonwealth of nations, I believe it is clear to most of us that subtle and insidious indoctrinations emanating from without, and cleverly worked out propaganda from within, are at work today trying to undermine the very foundations of our way of life. I feel confident that we need not be much concerned about the potential forces from without which threaten to destroy us, providing that we as Canadians clearly understand our duties and responsibilities to Canada. With a common unity of purpose to common ideals, come what may we can always face with confidence any threat to our existence. That is where good citizenship plays such an important role. Even if the forces from without which are threatening our existence did not exist, it is only through good citizenship that we can improve the conditions under which we live, and bring happiness and well-being to our people.
The essence of good citizenship is one's love or loyalty to his country, or what is termed patriotism. Patriotism welds all the diversified elements which we have in this country into a hard core of resistance should outside forces not only threaten but challenge us. I think it is fortunate that the genius of the British and American peoples lies in their gift for successfully integrating various stocks, and in making the citizens conscious of their duties and responsibilities to the country in which they live. I say it was for this reason they were able to build up strong nations within the commonwealth, and within the United States. That is why Canada, after the last two world wars, has emerged much more powerful and is able to play a greater role in international affairs; that is why, during the last war, Canadians made a contribution to the war effort which was noble and enduring.
Although we have reason to be proud of our achievement in our unity of purpose, yet I think we must admit that our record of good citizenship is not without blemish. Although we take pride in championing the democratic rights of the individual, yet too often in the past have we found ourselves, or have we seen people, the victims of prejudices. Too often in the past have we found people prejudiced because of a man's colour, or because of the church he attends, or because of his racial origin, or because his name does not sound Anglo-Saxon. It may be Petrosky, or Eisenhower, or pronounced "Yonson" instead of Johnson by his friends. Too often have we seen various clubs refusing the applications of applicants because they were considered to be foreigners or of foreign extraction, although they may have been naturalized in


this country many years ago or may have even been born in this country. Too often in the past have we heard statements made with a certain undertone of contempt when reference was made to a Jew, or a Catholic, or a damn Englishman. I know some choice expressions, Mr. Chairman, about the Scotch and Irish, but I think my better judgment tells me not to use them at this time. At any rate too many people have entertained in their minds a dislike for the unlike. Fortunately this is now becoming past history, and I think we are getting away from that.
I believe our fault was that we were not building a strong Canadian conscience. We were not selling Canadianism to Canadians. During the course of this debate the member for Lake Centre made reference to the difficulty with regard to the census regulations as they existed prior to the passing of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Incidentally, although we may not all agree with everything the member for Lake Centre may say in this chamber, yet I do say that that was one of the finest speeches on citizenship I have ever heard. To those who did not have the good fortune to hear it, I would suggest that they read it in Hansard. In any event he pointed out the difficulty that existed with reference to the census regulations prior to the passing of the citizenship act. That is why I feel that the Canadian Citizenship Act was one of the greatest pieces of legislation ever enacted by this parliament. Under it, regardless of our racial origin, regardless of what church we may attend, regardless of what occupation we may follow, one thing we have in common with our fellow Canadians is Canadian citizenship. At the same time we remain as members of the British commonwealth of nations, and retain our status in that great organization which I believe is the greatest organization the world has ever seen.
After the last war considerably over a quarter of a million immigrants came to Canada from various parts of the world. I should like to speak particularly of those people who came from continental Europe, many of whom were formerly in displaced persons camps. The interesting question arises, what do those newcomers expect and hope for in Canadian life? What do we, as Canadians, expect from them? Are we to regard the newcomer as a queer individual with a name that is hard to pronounce, unable to speak English, and leave him to his own devices; or do we as Canadians have a duty and obligation to those people? I believe all hon. members will agree with me that, no matter where one goes, people's wants and desires are similar. The newcomer's desires may be

summed up as follows: First, he wants to learn the language. Second, he wants economic security. Third, he wants to be accepted socially in the community in which he resides. To the newcomer the language is of the utmost importance. If he is to obtain and retain a job; if he is to follow or understand instructions from his employers; if he is to get along with his associates, he must know the language. If he is to know what is taking place in the world, he must read the newspapers and follow what is being said on the radio.
I have had occasion to personally interview many of these newcomers. One of the first things they set about learning is the language. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised in finding many of them have made progress in learning the language of this country. Economic security is also a major desire on the part of the newcomer. After having spent years in concentration camps or displaced persons camps he wishes to find a job, to do some work, which will give him and his family a fairly happy surrounding and a decent home life. Only by their achieving this can one expect those newcomers to retain their self-respect.
The third desire, namely, social acceptance in a community, is such that the newcomer wants to be on an equal footing with his fellow citizens. This probably is the most important factor in developing in him a love for the country which he has adopted as his own.
In general, a newcomer has a feeling that he will not only enjoy the privileges of his newly adopted land, but be able to do his share in contributing to his community and to the Canadian national life.
We, on the other hand, want people with new skills and new devices for the development of our natural resources, and who will supply us not only with unskilled but also with skilled labour, who will increase our national income, and who will help to defend this country should the need arise. 1 believe that probably the strongest defence program that we could have for this country of ours is by getting more people into this country, although I do not intend to dwell on the question of immigration at this time. In any event we want immigrants who, when they come into this country, will become good Canadians.
The question therefore arises: What part are we as Canadians going to play in helping newcomers to become good Canadians? Many people are concerned about some of these people who come into Canada; they are concerned about teaching them the basic principles of democracy and the freedom to the 55946-2274
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration individual that democracy implies. My submission is that these people who come in from displaced persons camps are probably more conscious of the value of democracy than we ourselves are. We take too much for granted. Let us not forget that these people have actually witnessed and have experienced the very converse of democracy in its worst form. Let us not forget that they have spent years in concentration camps, in Russian and German slave camps; that some of them have actually seen the liquidation of their brothers, of their sisters, of their neighbours and of their friends. These people after being chased all over Europe, and not being certain at any time whether they were going to live the next day or not, made a desperate attempt to reach the shores of Canada, leaving behind them everything that may have been dear to them.
The principle of democracy as we understand it is the foundation on which citizenship is being built. I say that that foundation with these newcomers is already there. First, it is for us to help in building up the structure of citizenship on the foundation that already exists. If these people are to become real citizens on an equal footing with us in the shaping of the destiny of this country a lot will depend on the way you and I play our part in helping them to become real members of our respective communities.
I have already pointed out to this house that considerably over one-quarter of a million people from various parts of the world came to this country and wished to become Canadian citizens. Let me remind you that each and every year in Canada one-quarter of a million boys and girls attain the age of 21 years and thereby through the operation of law reach full status as citizens. The destiny and the future of our country will to a very great extent depend on them. We as Canadians therefore have a duty to Canada in assisting not only the immigrant in order that he may properly adjust himself to our way of life, but also in being more effective in selling Cana-dianism to Canadians and especially to our young boys and girls right here in Canada.
Citizenship is something that must be acquired through education, through experience, through training, and through a desire to subordinate one's own wishes to the common good. However, we must ourselves have a clear conception of what we mean by good sound citizenship.
In order to be a good Canadian, does it mean that a person coming in from, shall we say, continental Europe must immediately go through some wholesale transformation Whereby in the shortest period of time he has to think as we do, act as we do, dress as we do and speak as we do? Does it mean
3590	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration also that this person, immediately upon arrival in Canada, will have to give up all sentimental ties with the land of his birth, give up his customs and his traditions, abandon all arts and culture and even religious faith for something that we think is good for him? Does it mean that he must even give up his language as something unworthy? If so, we Canadians are going to lose a lot. We have a lot to lose. If so, you can expect bitter and determined resistance to that type of Canadianism. If so, we are letting loose forces of disunity instead of unity.
Some people feel that the use of other than the English language is not conducive to sound Canadian citizenship. The question of language has never been a serious problem in Canada, and most certainly is no longer a problem today among smaller ethnic groups.
In western Canada, and I may use my own constituency as an example, you will find people of various ethnic groups, Poles, Scandinavians, French, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Roumanians and Ukrainians. Anyone who knows these communities will agree with me that regardless of where you go there is hardly anyone who cannot use the English language and use it effectively. I think you will also agree with me that it would be a pity and a loss to the contribution of our Canadian national culture if these people completely forgot or ignored the language of their forefathers.
Nearly all modern languages are being taught today in our Canadian universities. Should we insist that a group, a certain ethnic group, give up its language, we are in effect insisting that that group give up the key to its culture. Any culture without its own language would be bare and insignificant. Even religious faith would lose its value. Moreover, I think hon. members will agree with me that anyone who knows more than one language certainly has the advantage.
With regard to the question of assimilation, and I prefer to use the term "integration", there are two schools of thought. The first is the so-called melting pot program which would give us a uniformity in our cultural life and make us all the same in the shortest period of time. The other is what is now becoming known as cultural pluralism, which encourages a variety of cultural patterns, and may be defined as a variety of groups with diversified cultures living together as Canadians with a common purpose. It is my belief that the theory of the melting pot is becoming outmoded and is no longer desirable.
fMr. Decore.1

Culture is never static but is dynamic and is forever changing and gaining new light in this ever changing world. It is in effect an expression of the life of the people. It is taking the best which each ethnic group in Canada has to offer, thereby giving to Canadians a more vibrant and a richer way of life.
I strongly hold the view that the various ethnic groups in Canada, with their diversified backgrounds, have each a contribution to make to our Canadian way of life. Our strength lies in our diversity. I think Canada would have a lot to lose if my fellow Canadians of, shall I say, Irish origin, did not celebrate St. Patrick's day, or the Scotsmen did not celebrate their beloved bard, Robert Burns, or the Canadians of Ukrainian origin their national poet Taras Shevchenko.
I am not a Scotsman, but I certainly like to hear-and I am sure most members in the chamber feel as I do-the music of the bagpipes from the sixth floor of this building, played by Senator Reid, better known to all of us as Tommy Reid. I think the music we hear from those bagpipes in the parliament buildings at Ottawa is symbolic of a true Canadian spirit.
The differences in culture of the various ethnic groups in Canada, with the contribution of each to our national way of life, may be compared to an artist painting a picture. When the artist paints the picture he uses various colours, and tries to harmonize them. The harmony of those colours gives the picture its beauty, just as the harmony of the various cultures we have in Canada gives Canada her strength. You and I are the artists who are today playing an important role in the painting of that picture, or the harmonizing of these various cultures into a truly strong Canadian national life.
After all, what made the British people so strong and made it possible for them to contribute so much toward the civilization of the world was the diversity of stock originally found in England, which diversity-still present today to some extent-has made it possible for those people to contribute so much for the good of mankind.
Canada I think is a model nation in the eyes of the world. We have here over thirty different ethnic groups, and these people have given to Canada their skill, their determination and their talents. That is at least one explanation why today Canada occupies such an enviable position among the nations of the world. Let us therefore pursue with renewed and determined vigour the building of a strong Canadian consciousness.


Ernest George Hansell: I have no intention of making a major speech on immigration. Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell the committee what the present policy of the government is in respect of immigration from Italy, and whether it is expected .that that policy may be changed in the near future?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to answer the question any time it suits the committee. However I have thought that I might wait until we reached the immigration item before discussing questions such as that just asked by the hon. member.


Ernest George Hansell: That is quite satisfactory.


Mr. Rooney:: Will the minister take into consideration making it possible for Canadian girls, who married boys from other countries during the war, and thereby lost their Canadian citizenship, to regain that citizenship? Many of them belong to Canadian families of three and four generations, and many married prior to 1947.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps I should give the same answer to that question as I gave to the hon. member for Macleod. I shall be prepared to answer it when we reach the citizenship item.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about immigration. I appreciate, perhaps more than I can express, the words of the hon. member for Vegreville. Undoubtedly either he or his parents came to this country by choice because of the freedom it offered at that time-a freedom they have enjoyed down through the years. I noted that in his words of patriotism and loyalty he referred to Canada as part of the British commonwealth. That was an apt reference, but I should have been pleased if, when he was speaking of Canada, he had referred to it as the Dominion of Canada, that great land reaching from sea to sea.
I have had considerable contact with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, reaching back to a time before the minister took office, and since. I have received at all times from the department the greatest degree of courtesy and efficiency, within the bounds of the regulations governing the functioning of the department. But there are some of those regulations that could be improved upon to some extent.
I have been instrumental in helping to bring to Canada in the last four years a number of Italians, some from England and a few from Scotland, some from Norway and some from Holland. I want to say tonight that that is the proper mode of immigration in my view, so far as Canada is concerned.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I am not in favour of dumping d.p.'s into this country. This process of admitting so many d.p.'s is not going to be successful, from the Canadian standpoint. About twenty or twenty-five per cent of them will be good Canadians, but I have grave doubts of the other seventy-five per cent.
A number of these displaced persons have been in my constituency for the last three years. One day last year a fire broke out close to my home. My boys were out fighting the fire, and a number of these displaced persons went along with them. But they would not fight fire in Canada; they did not care if Canada burned up. In fact, fifty of them threw their shovels on the fire so that the handles burned out of them, while our Canadian boys fought for the lives and property of their countrymen.
That class of displaced persons will never make Canadian citizens. However, the other twenty per cent may do so. We have some of them up there who have built their own homes and who are working well. I have in mind one man who happened to be working on a hydro project, one of the greatest we have in Canada today. When he first came to Canada he started out by digging footings with a pick and shovel, but he learned some English. It developed that they were doing some technical work on a diversion project and were more or less at a loss to know what to do. He said he could do the work. They gave him a try-out, and it turned out that he was the best man on that project.
After the war my leader, who was then premier of Ontario, started a selective immigration program which operated most successfully for immigrants from the old land. Those immigrants knew where they were going and for whom they were going to work before they left their native country. In fact, we have five families in Victoria county, good Canadians, who I am proud to say came in under that scheme. They brought in their wives and families since that time, and have become prosperous. After working their terms they have gone on with those farms. Some of them have made deals with the men who brought them out here whereby, in another few years, they will own the farms. They are a real asset to our country.
The problem of bringing out Italians presented some difficulty in the beginning, but the immigration branch has loosened up to some extent-and I do not know whether the minister can take credit for that. The fact is that there has been some change there, with the result that there is a settlement of Italians in my own village who, I am proud to say, are good Canadians. I was the
3592	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration cause of their coming out some 20 years ago. They came here to work as ordinary labourers cutting cordword; in fact, I cut cordwood with them. Since that time one fellow started and developed a good fruit store in my village; another one started a transport business which has been very successful; another one of these boys owns a saw mill while another one operates a little planing mill; several others have small farms. Many younger Canadians would not stay on those farms but these boys went in, cut a little wood, got a few cows and made a go of it. They own their own cars and they pay their taxes. During the relief period, the hungry thirties about which the Liberals talk so much, not one of these Italians took one cent of relief. They paid their own way and they came out with flying colours and we certainly appreciate it as citizens.
I was endeavouring to get some of their friends out here. There were many people they felt sorry for who had been left in the old land after the war. They were hard up and did not have enough to eat or wear. These boys were willing to put up money to bring their friends to Canada. The immigration inspector came up to see them and said, "You have got one out, you get another out; that is all you can get." They were told they had better go down to try all over again. I have brought five out in my own name because I am not afraid of bringing that kind of man to Canada, especially when his friends or relatives have been in this country for 20 years and had come through a period of hard times with flying colours and without asking for one cent of relief.
I had a little difficulty in connection with one Italian who had come to. Canada some 40 years ago and who now lives in Lindsay. He married a Canadian girl, raised a family in that town and now owns his own home on a half or three-quarter acre of land in the best part of the town. His family has grown up. The oldest boys served in the first war while the younger ones served in the last war. They are all prosperous and have good jobs. Two of the older boys are engineers with the Canadian National Railways and have been for years. The younger boys have probably had better education and are holding better jobs. But they are all good citizens.
I have been endeavouring for nine months to bring out a nephew of that gentleman to Canada. I will agree that in the first place he made a mistake when he said he wanted this nephew to come out as a gardener. When the inspector came up and and saw only three-quarters of an acre of land he knew that that would not require a gardener. Then they got a farmer who is anxious to have


this nephew come out to work for him. But so far permission has not been granted. This young man fought with the Canadian army in Italy and can speak English quite well but through some hitch in the department he is not permitted to come.
His relatives here are ready to sign papers that they will look after him for one year, five years or for the rest of his life, and besides that there is a job ready for him on a farm. The department has written letters and said that they are going to try to fix this up in a few days, but nearly nine months have passed. Having received such courteous treatment from the department I have been hesitant to go to the minister with the first bit of difficulty I have had, but if we do not get this man out I am going to the minister before the end of the session.
I should like to see selective immigration. I should like to see brought in English, Irish, Scotch, Dutch, Norwegian, Finnish and Italian people, but they should be carefully screened on the other side. There are thousands of these people who want to come to Canada. Millions of people in the old world know that Canada is the best country in which to live. They know that it is part of the old British commonwealth of nations. They know that when they come to Canada they are coming to a country that has freedom that cannot be equalled in any other country in the world.


Mr, Gauthier (Porineuf):: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been delivered, especially that of the hon. member for Spadina. It is not my intention to make lengthy remarks on the subject of immigration, but I cannot say that I agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Spadina when he asks for what I would term mass immigration. I have always been opposed to that kind of immigration and I still am. My stand in that connection has been well known. There are too many economic, political and social considerations involved in the matter to permit throwing caution to the winds.
A well organized, disciplined and cautiously worked out policy of immigration is necessary for any country. After practically every war there have been strong and urgent appeals for immigration, even for mass immigration such as has been advocated tonight by the hon. member for Spadina. Some of those who have been responsible for such appeals do not seem to think them out. For reasons which I shall not attempt to analyse here there seems to have existed what the medical profession would refer to as a neurosis. There are many neuroses in the world. Some are

known as social neuroses, others as revolutionary neuroses and there are other types of neurosis developed by national disaster. Then I think it might well be said that a certain neurosis exists in connection with some immigration policies. A human being is bound to be the victim of his own imagination if in time of trouble he does not look to the true source of relief, hence the reason he is at a loss so often when he needs the complete possession of all his faculties.
I remember that after this war considerable pressure was exercised upon the government,
I shall not say to institute mass immigration but certainly to adopt a strong policy on immigration. I would not dare to say that that was a neurosis, but there certainly was a strong offensive to bring in immigrants by the hundreds of thousands. At times one would think that even air transportation was not sufficiently swift for certain people.
I think the government was wise in not yielding to the pressure for strong immigration. Quite apart from the lack of ship transportation, or even air transportation, the reasons could be easily and properly assessed when one stops to think of the state of the souls and minds of people in Europe at that time. Economic, political and social conditions were bad and while a country might be willing for humane and charitable reasons to receive unhappy and displaced persons, nevertheless it has a moral obligation towards its own citizens and should not lightly consider the bringing in of new citizens. I believe Canada did more than any other nation to provide relief and solace for thousands of human beings. If Churchill was amazed at our war effort, many others must have been amazed at the helping hand we offered to devastated areas as well as to devastated souls. But I think we still have as our first duty the protection of our country. We still have the right to choose those whom we are ready to receive, to whom we are ready to extend hospitality and make them new citizens of the happiest country in the world.
When I was listening to the hon. member for Spadina I was glad to hear him quote the words of the former prime minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. I am going to quote Mackenzie King myself. Speaking on May 1, 1947, he said, as recorded at page 2646 of Hansard:
With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination. I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration He also said:
There will... be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.
I believe those are very sound and accurate words as to the kind of immigrants that Canada should receive. If the country has a moral obligation towards its citizens as to the kind of immigrants they are ready to accept, at the same time we must not lose sight of the very important fact that we cannot receive more immigrants than the nation can absorb.
I was quite surprised to hear the hon. member for Spadina say tonight that 95,000 immigrants a year are not enough. If Canada is absorbing 95,000 immigrants a year then I say it cannot absorb one more without disrupting the economic and social conditions of our country to some extent. I think Mackenzie King was quite right in stating that we have a right to choose and that we cannot disrupt the fundamental features of the population of Canada. At the same time we must not forget the physical examination that all those selected as immigrants should be required to undergo. I have great confidence in the minister. He is a hard worker, and I think every aspect of the work under his jurisdiction is as vital in importance to the country as it can be. I ask him to be most severe in the orders and regulations given to officials here and abroad for complete and persistent attention in the process of screening immigrants so as to have a complete picture of their religious, political and social affiliations, past and present, and also of their political activities and business connections. I emphasize the word "religious" because I believe that communism is a religion, and in screening immigrants on religious grounds you have to screen the communist immigrants who want to come here. I read a lecture given at McMaster university in April, 1949, by Miss Betty B. Robinson, Master of Arts, on the economic background of immigration. She said:
It is better to be overcautious than to be reckless in the matter of immigration.
These are strong and accurate words. I should also like to quote Mr. James S. Duncan, who was quoted by the hon. member for Spadina, and who had this to say on the same occasion at McMaster university:
A thoroughly competent and adequate organization in the British isles and Europe for screening, selecting and facilitating the movement to Canada of the best immigrant types ... By all means let us screen and select those whom we desire among like-minded peoples.
As you can see, everyone speaking on the matter of immigration reveals a special interest that care should be taken in the screening and selection of our immigrants. Senator
3594	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Gouin, speaking on the same occasion, quoted in his lecture the memorandum of La Confederation des Travailleurs Catholiques du Canada presented to the dominion government. While opposed to all policies of mass immigration the confederation accepts that a selection may be made among war afflicted people to bring them in limited number to our country. I used to hold the same views years ago. I was absolutely opposed to immigration of any kind, but in studying immigration policies I have come to the conclusion that we have to admit-and everyone who knows anything about ethnology must admit-that there is a certain movement between nations of the world amounting to
25,000	or 30,000 people a year going or coming from one country to another. In accepting a certain movement of immigrants I think my stand is still reasonable. I ask the minister to give strong orders to his officials so that they will carefully screen immigrants coming to Canada. I believe our experience has been costly enough that we should not forget that side of the situation.
The confederation was answering, as were many others in French Canada, the appeal of Pius XII on behalf of displaced persons and orphans. This appeal has been underlined by Monseigneur Charbonneau, former bishop of Montreal, as reported by I'Action Catholique in August, 1947. If one reads carefully the speech of Senator Gouin at McMaster university-and I commend it to every member of the house-


Jean-François Pouliot: And of the Senate too.


Pierre Gauthier: And of the Senate too-he will have a picture of the views on immigration policy expressed in the province of Quebec, a picture starting from the nineties and carrying on up till now. He will see that in the province of Quebec there are radical expressions of opinion as to immigration, and at the same time there are very reasonable and intelligent considerations of the subject.
No one could blame my French compatriots for showing a preference for French, Belgian, Dutch or Italian immigration. I was pleased to hear the hon. member who spoke before me ask for Italian immigration. I am always glad to hear that people like immigrants of Italian extraction. I am in favour of that to some extent. No one can blame my French compatriots for asking for Belgian or French immigrants. In doing so they simply follow the same path as other provinces in asking for immigrants from the British isles. There is nothing wrong about that on either side. It is quite natural. I have certain figures which I secured from the department in 1948. It is surprising to find that if Ontario, for example, shows a preference for British


immigration it also accepts other racial origins. The table is as follows:
1947	1948
Ontario Quebec Ontario Quebec
French	
341	542	373	1 115Italians	
173	67	2,192	757Belgians	
688	114	642	150Dutch	
1,990	172	4 901	318British	
24,226	4,542	29,975	4 612
In reading these figures very carefully we can see that Quebec has not been receiving such a large number of French, Italian or Belgian immigrants. In 1948 Ontario received four times as many Belgians as Quebec, and over ten times as many Dutch. La Terre de Chez-Nous, a French periodical issued by the Union Catholique des Cultivateurs, of Quebec had this to say in the issue of November 5, 1948. I do not read this in any critical sense, but merely to show the picture in Quebec province, because I believe the article gives a good resume of the whole question. It was written after the announcement that French immigrants were to be on the same footing as Britishers. The article said:
(Translation):
It is not enough to have fairer immigration regulations. They must also be put to good use. Immigrants from France have access to our country just like those from England and the United States. Many French people wish to settle in Canada. This contribution from the mother country could be useful to us in a thousand ways. Here, however, the provincial authorities or some private organization would have to be willing to take care of them. What has been done in this respect? Silence is the only answer . . .
Again, in La terre de chez nous, one can read in the report of an inquiry conducted for Le Devoir by Mr. Frangois Zalloni:
One wonders, finally, if now we will see the province of Quebec admit French immigrants in as large a number as the group of British people welcomed to Ontario. Observers feel that it is up to Mr. Duplessis and the industrialists of this province.
If British immigrants settled in great numbers in the neighbouring province, it is due to the fact that, first of all, Premier Drew went and fetched them in Great Britain and that, with the agreement of Ontario employers, he opened a provincial employment bureau for immigrants in London.
If we want the French to settle here, our government and our businessmen should do likewise. If we feel that recent immigration from Britain disrupts the ethnical balance of our country, the remedy lies, after all, in our own hands.
(Text):
I hope there will be no misunderstanding of my position on this matter. I simply wish to give the complete picture, and to show the different opinions that have been expressed in my province by different newspapers. In every expression of opinion can be detected the desire that the best possible choice be made, that the best methods be followed and that reasonable consideration be given to

such matters as mentality, way of life and way of thinking. I believe that is the right angle from which one must approach the question.
After these citizens are here it is our duty to show them that despite diversity of religion, language and tradition, Canada is proceeding toward complete unity of action. In Mr. Zalloni's report one perceives the lack of any organization to bring good and assimilable immigrants to Quebec. Here is a report from Relations of January, 1950:
(Translation):
We are not the ones who acknowledge these facts, who compare, proclaim and applaud; it is Maclean's magazine of December 15:
Relations quotes Maclean's magazine:
According to Premier Frost, the population of Ontario increases by 10,000 people a month and now exceeds four and a half million. The largest of our provinces keeps its lead; Quebec has less than 4 million people and its population increases by only 8,000 a month.
Autonomy allows others, smarter than we, to bring in reinforcements, tens of thousands of refugees, especially British or Dutch, who are well established on farms. The Pope has asked countries with vast territories to receive those who have none left, since that is better than almsgiving. Will. Quebec therefore continually refuse to open its doors, its barricaded territories, even to our own kin?
(Text):
This quotation shows once more that prominent people of Quebec are ready to help these unhappy people find a new country and build a better life, and to deplore the ineptitude and indifference in some quarters in facing the situation intelligently and in a spirit of Christian charity. Not long ago the Gazette gave the views of prominent French newspapers in our province. The first was Le Canada:
The era of mass immigration to Canada has come to an end because the conditions that inspired it are no longer in force . . . but from the simple point of humanitarianism we cannot close our doors to foreigners who seek to establish themselves here. This does not mean we should accept anybody whatsoever, but we should exercise a judicious choice. Nor is the question of offering a welcome to these new Canadians something we should longer neglect. It is our duty to initiate them into the way Canadians live and to facilitate their assimilation. The new Minister of Immigration has a full enough program facing him and he will be able doubtlessly to rise to the heights of his task.
Then Le Droit had this to say:
It is to be regretted that similar steps are not being taken in Quebec as in Ontario to increase the population . . . There are not only Frenchmen, Italians and Belgians whom we could settle in Quebec. We are assured that it would be advantageous to welcome those Dutch Catholics who are desirous of settling in our country.
Do and say as we like, Canada will always receive immigrants, and if we do not make use of them for ourselves they will be made use of against us.
3595
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
As you see, this newspaper speaks very frankly.
If Quebec had shown any vision, it would, during the last fifty years, have practised an intelligent policy in regard to population. This province does not lack wealth. It lacks only strong arms to exploit it.
Then Le Soleil:
It is impossible to oppose all immigration in principle, provided that it be reasonable, in good order, well selected and in no way directed against one of the two principal elements of the Canadian population. This is what our representatives in the Commons must say when the opportunity arises and they must demand a guarantee that immigration must be kept within fair limits if recruiting begins again.
I could give many other quotations to prove once more that it should be the care of everyone to maintain a fair balance between provinces, and at the same time get immigrants particularly likely to be assimilated in this or that region. And we must also be careful in our choice and screening abroad. I believe we had our lesson in the past. Without discriminating against any race or religion, it is our privilege to bring here only those whose political philosophy is not opposed to ours. Too often in the past-and I do not reproach anyone-have we received in good faith people who themselves were not frank and have not been grateful to Canada for the marvellous hospitality granted them.
The communist fifth column is always in action, and takes every possible means of increasing its effective number and efficiency in action. Everyone recalls the lottery which, international in scope, was discovered in Montreal before the Italian election. Its purpose was to provide funds for the Italian communists. The first prize was a thirty-day trip to Moscow. This lottery would have had no chance of success if its sponosors could not count on the activity of new immigrants. These people must have been well informed, because they knew where to go. Within our time we have had the declaration of Lieutenant General W. Anders, wartime Polish army leader, which reads as follows:
Communist agents disguised as refugees are entering Canada.
In a letter to Mr. MacNamara, deputy minister of labour, as reprinted in the Toronto Star of May 1, General Anders added:
Insufficiently screened persons are coming to Canada among Polish refugees and are creating ill feeling towards Polish immigrants as a whole.
I know personally that extreme caution has been the motto of both the departments of labour and immigration in the screening of immigrants. It would be impossible to create an air-tight wall against every undesirable entry. No nation can praise herself
3596	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration for never having been deceived in that connection. But with strict orders and attention every minute, we can diminish the number of those whose patriotism does not even extend to the country of their adoption but to only one sovereignty, and I need not mention it by name. The question is not how many thousands of immigrants we are going to bring, but how many good immigrants are we going to accept? How many are fit to accept our way of living, our views on the democratic way of life? How many can be assimilated, and in what regions? It has been the experience in some districts, a somewhat costly experience, that many of those we have received have been a burden, and a source of trouble. Many have forgotten the manner in which we received them, and the welcome that was extended to them. They have turned their activities against the land of their adoption, and tried to sabotage our institutions. Let us not be too confident. Let the officials of the department be more and more cautious. The choice must be judicious, and the screening parsimonious.
Let me repeat the advice of Miss Betty B. Robinson:
It is better to be overcautious than to be reckless in the matter of immigration.
If perchance someone cheats the screening, at the first sign of anti-Canadian activities he should be sent back where he belongs.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, it is timely to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Port-neuf for his industry in compiling such data on immigration. He and the hon. member for Spadina are both specialists in immigration. They hold divergent views, and this illustrates the difficult task of the minister in deciding the issue. One thing struck me in the speech of the member for Portneuf. It was his contention that communism is a religion. If I read the dictionary I see that religion is the practice of sacred rights; one of the prevalent systems of faith and worship; human recognition of a superhuman controlling power, and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience; the effect of such recognition on the mental attitude, et cetera.
I do not understand how an atheist can be a religious man, but perhaps the communists are worshipping Stalin. He may be their god. In that connection they must be considered rather as pagans, but the pagans are religious too. What I cannot understand is how an atheist can be a religious man.


Pierre Gauthier: I can explain it to the hon. member if he wishes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Pierre Gauthier: When you want to destroy the notion of God you have to develop a philosophy, or what I call a religion, to destroy the notion of God. You have to form what I call the anti-God religion, and that is what communism has done in the world. If my hon. friend will look more closely into communism, he will see that they have their god in Stalin. They have their thirteen apostles in the politburo. They have all the pictures of their saints and their god everywhere in the country. That is why I say it is a religion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appreciate what my hon. friend has said, but a religion is necessarily something positive, while atheism is the negation of a positive act, that of worshipping God or a superhuman being. I will tell my hon. friend that I am not a doctor of divinity, so I shall not proceed further with the matter.


Pierre Gauthier: They worship
matter, materialism.


Jean-François Pouliot: They worship the cinders of Lenin. I will tell you, sir, that it is very important to have men in this country to defend the people in a spiritual matter, in a religion that is in accordance with the statute passed a hundred years ago by the upper and lower provinces of Canada. This statute concerned the freedom of worship, and has been incorporated in the statutes of the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. It is to the effect that we have freedom of religion in this country provided that the practice of this religion is not against the established order of this country. It is for this reason that the way the Doukhobors worship is not acceptable to us, and why there are punishments in their case.
It is most important to bring men from other countries who are worthy of being Canadians; whatever is their belief; whatever their race, provided they decide to become Canadians and consider this country as the country of their adoption just as the missionaries did in the early history of the colony. There was Monseigneur de Laval, the first bishop of Quebec, who belonged to one of the finest families in France. There was Monseigneur de Saint-Vallier, who was a chaplain in France. These men came to preach the gospel amongst the Indians. They sacrificed all the advantages and benefits they might had had in the old country, and came here to civilize the new world. They were true Canadians. They were French by birth but they were Canadians by spirit, and that is the type of men and women we want in this country.

Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the resolution to ratify the Niagara diversion treaty; then Bill No. 302, respecting defence supplies and projects. I do not know whether we shall follow this order. Then we shall go into supply and continue this interesting debate on immigration. If we get through we shall take up labour.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Marketing service-
23.	Marketing service administration, $162,006.
24.	Agricultural economics, $438,225.
25.	Dairy products, $654,876.
26.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $644,159.
27.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian Horticultural council, $989,000.
28.	Live stock and live stock products, $1,204,012.
29.	Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointment not to exceed $6,000, $100,000.
Terminable services-
Supply-Agriculture
30.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, $5,000,000.
31.	Agricultural lime assistance, $435,000.
32.	Dairy products board, $22,000.
33.	Meat board, including quality premiums on A and B1 grade hog carcasses, $5,854,633.
34.	Special products board, $11,575.
Special-
35.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,400,000.
36.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $500,000.
37.	Agricultural Products Act-to provide for losses incurred in respect of the purchase, sale and export of agricultural products under the Agricultural Products Act, including authority for the Minister of Finance, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, from time to time, to pay amounts in the aggregate not exceeding $40,000,000 out of any unappropriated money in the consolidated revenue fund as recoverable advances, $4,350,000.
38.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under regulations to be approved by the governor in council, $100,000.
39.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,750,000.
40.	Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,719,500.
41.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $500,000.
42.	Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $900,000.
43.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $200,000.
44.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $991,120.
45.	To provide for administrative expenses. Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, $60,000.
55946-228-1
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 14, 1950