1952-06-27

Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the house will permit me to present the first report of the committee which was appointed to consider the procedure of the house. I might say that the committee has come to an agreement on a recommendation to be made to the house with respect to the hours of sitting. The recommendation is that the hours of sitting should be from 2.30 to six o'clock in the afternoon and from eight to ten at night, from Monday to Friday inclusive, with the usual recess on Wednesday nights.
It is also recommended that the hour for private and public bills should be from five to six o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays. In making these two recommendations it is suggested that the standing orders be changed to that effect. There is a further recommendation, and in this case it is not suggested that the standing order should be changed, that if the debate on the speech from the throne is not concluded after approximately the end of the first week of the session, the house should consider having morning sittings until the debate on the speech from the throne is finished.
I should also say that the committee has not given up hope entirely of reaching agreement on other matters which it has considered, and accordingly the committee recommends that it be reappointed at the next session. Under the circumstances probably it will not be necessary for me to read the report.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: In my
absence last night the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) made the following statement at page 3815 of Hansard. After a few general references that indicate his vested interest in his own insignificance, he went on to say this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McCusker:: Question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: He went on to say this-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member state
his question of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: In the early days of
this-


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Speaker, these remarks are insulting and unparliamentary-


Mr. Speaker:: The statement made by the
hon. member for Lake Centre with regard to the insignificance of the hon. member' is objectionable to him.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: I submit that there is nothing-


Some hon. Members:: Boo.


John George Diefenbaker: I submit there is nothing to withdraw in that connection.


Mr. Gardiner:: He can at least get elected in his home constituency.


Mr. Drew:: Foot-and-mouth disease is
spreading, apparently.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I put it this way: I think the remark was not complimentary and I think the hon. member should withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should not have prefaced my statement with that remark.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the hon. member should go further and withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I always uphold your rulings-


Some hon. Members:: Just withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the hon. member has withdrawn?


John George Diefenbaker: I should substitute-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I could not hear but I take it that the hon. member has withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: How many times do I have to say so?-I would like to know. If my hon. friends make so much noise that Your Honour cannot hear-


An hon. Member:: You did not withdraw.

Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker	.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in agreement with the hon. member for Lake Centre in that I could not hear. Whether the remark was withdrawn I do not know because there was so much noise in the chamber, but I understand him to say that he has withdrawn the remark.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to be asking for withdrawal in a moment, Mr. Speaker. In my absence-and I trust that my hon. friend for Regina City will not think that is unparliamentary-he made this statement:
In the early days of this session there was an agreement that in order that they could remunerate the men whose cattle had suffered from this disease, a bill would be put through in short order. The first one who reneged on that agreement was the hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, and he was followed by the hon. Mr. Coldwell-
Mr. Speaker, I ask for the withdrawal of that statement. There was never any agreement directly or indirectly brought to my knowledge, known by me at any time, and I am asking for a withdrawal of that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina City must accept the statement.


Mr. Green:: And withdraw.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the statement I made last night is that had I had Hansard I would have read it. It is in effect what was said on page 32 of the proceedings on Monday, March 3. I would ask my friend to get that and read it, and if he still feels-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina City must accept the statement of the hon. member for Lake Centre in connection with a matter which is peculiarly within his own knowledge.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I will accept your ruling.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I say a word?


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is part of it that should be withdrawn and I intend to point that out.


Mr. Fleming:: Let it be withdrawn.


James Garfield Gardiner: The actual arrangement
which was entered into is contained in Hansard of Monday, the 3rd of March, and the only part incorrectly stated by the member for Regina City is that he included the member for Rosetown-Biggar. The member for Rosetown-Biggar did carry out-


An hon. Member:: That was not the only mistake.


James Garfield Gardiner: The member for Rosetown-Biggar did carry out the undertaking.


George Alexander Drew: Now that we have entered a new field I want to say most emphatically that no undertaking that was given on behalf of this party was broken. The only undertakings that have been broken have been broken by the minister himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: If he proposes to introduce this subject now I ask him to state emphatically what the undertaking was that he claims was made and what breach occurred- because I say most emphatically that there was no breach.


An hon. Member:: What about family allowances in Quebec?


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, may I tell the Minister of Agriculture that on no occasion did I ever seek to delay or to do any other thing-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what I said.


Major James William Coldwell: The member for Regina City is going on his imagination and putting his interpretation on what was done. That is quite unwarranted and quite unfair. I did not intend to say anything further about the foot-and-mouth disease business but if the minister wants me to give my opinion of it I will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Apparently the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar does not understand what I said a few minutes ago. I stated that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Regina City last night, to the effect that the member for Rosetown-Biggar had not lived up to the undertaking that he had given, was incorrect.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister had his face turned the other way, and amid the noise I am sorry I did not just catch what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said it was incorrect. I think in fairness to everybody, I should read again what was said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I can hardly hear two questions of privilege at the same time. I do not know how far the House desires to proceed with this matter at the present time. If the house wishes to go further in consideration of this matter, I shall hear it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not necessary to give further consideration now. We can deal with it in the appropriate place when we get back into committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for withdrawal. I had no knowledge of any agreement, and I make the statement that there was no agreement that directly or indirectly concerned me. I am asking that you apply the rules and have the member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) withdraw now.


Mr. Abbott:: He withdrew five minutes ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Now, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seems to be a difference of opinion in the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -as to whether there was or was not an agreement. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) states that there was an agreement. The member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the opposition state that there was no such agreement. Last night the member for Regina City did make a statement. I shall not repeat what was said, but he applied his remarks particularly to the hon. member for Lake Centre. The hon. member for Lake Centre says that no such agreement was brought to his attention. Whether or not there was an agreement I am at a loss to determine. There must always be two parties to an agreement. I think under the circumstances the hon. member for Regina City should at this time accept the word of the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He did.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I accepted that. While I am on my feet, I want to apologize to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), if I wrongly included him in my remarks.


Major James William Coldwell: I regret that, owing to the noise in the house, I did not hear the Minister of Agriculture.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Speaker. It will be just as well if this matter is disposed of correctly. The hon. member for Regina City was insistent that the member for Lake Centre withdraw in formal terms. When I was sitting next to him, I heard him say that he did, but there was so much noise that Your Honour probably could not hear that. The hon. member for Lake Centre is asking for withdrawal in regard to a statement you have said should be withdrawn, and the hon. member for Regina 55704-242
Redistribution
City has simply said he accepts the statement of the member for Lake Centre. I submit that he must say "I withdraw", and that the matter should be disposed of in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that it is entirely a question of accepting the statement. I do not think it is customary to ask the member to withdraw as that follows automatically. However, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not there was an agreement. It may turn out, according to some hon. members, that there was an agreement. The hon. member for Regina City has stated that if he has said what was incorrect, at least I understood him to say so, he apologized.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: If what I said was incorrect, but I do not admit it was.


Mr. Speaker:: Am I correct in saying that the hon. member for Regina City accepts the statement of the hon. member for Lake Centre?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I said that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there anything more
needed?



REDISTRIBUTION


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 393, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Last night before adjournment of the house I did suggest that, if the house were in the proper mood, today we would ask leave to have unanimous consent to have the second reading of this bill. Since the house opened this morning, I have not been able to judge if it is in the proper mood. I would suggest that later today we take it up.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the noise, I was not able to hear exactly what was said at the beginning of the minister's remarks. Did he suggest taking up the first reading later this day?


Alphonse Fournier: We have had that.


George Alexander Drew: What did he suggest?


Alphonse Fournier: We would need unanimous consent to move the second reading of this bill. I do not think this is the right time to come to an agreement so I would

Redistribution
suggest we pass the two other bills on the order paper which were announced last night. After that, I would ask the members of the house to see if they could give us unanimous consent to the second reading of this bill because it will be sent back to the committee immediately. The bill does not contain the schedules, and I think we have all agreed on what is contained in this bill-at least, that is my impression.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: I must dispose of this bill entitled "An act to readjust the representation in the House of Commons." Is it agreed that the bill might be read a second time later this day?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker. Since the proposal has been made I think perhaps this would be a good time to make a suggestion which I hope will greatly facilitate the business of this house which, perhaps, has not proceeded with its customary speed so far this morning. Since this suggestion is now before the house and since there is another resolution which indicates the possibility that it is not intended that this session end by way of prorogation, I am suggesting that the government consider introducing another bill which would set up a commission to carry out redistribution which then could be dealt with when this house reconvenes. I put that suggestion forward in all seriousness because I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be possible to consider second reading today of a bill dealing with boundaries that are not even yet before members of this house at this time in today's proceedings.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I just point out, in answer to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), that the bill that we are now discussing has nothing to do with boundaries. This was explained in detail to the committee on this matter the day before yesterday. Without wanting in any way to ruffle the good temper of the house at the moment, I should say that I understood that I had the authority or the consent of all members of that committee to introduce the bill at that time. The bill will go from this house to the special committee, there to be amended in accordance with whatever decisions are reached by the special committee. With respect, may I say that I do not think there is anything contentious in the bill as it stands at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the bill may be read a second time later this day?


George Alexander Drew: I do not understand the wording "may be read a second time",-


Walter Edward Harris: May be called for second reading.


George Alexander Drew: -because that could be interpreted as acceptance of second reading of the bill,-


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: -which I assure you is not the case, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles:: May I say a word on this matter? In doing so I confess that I will repeat what I said the other day when this question was under consideration, but perhaps it should be said again now. It was understood in the special committee on redistribution a few days ago that this bill would be introduced so that, after second reading, it could be referred to the committee which is considering a schedule. That consent for the introduction of the bill had two conditions attached to it. One was that the schedule would not be part of the bill. The other was that consent to the introduction of the bill would not prejudice our right to debate the bill on second reading.
As I understand it, all that is being asked for now is that it be agreed that later this day a motion for second reading would be made, on the distinct understanding that we are within our rights to debate that motion, if we so choose at that time. I think that was the unanimous understanding in the special committee on redistribution.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed then that the bill be read a second time later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. St. Laurent:: May be called for second reading later this day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to extend consent at this time with regard to the question of second reading. I think the minister who raised this subject perhaps made a wise suggestion, namely that we give appropriate consideration to the subject at some later time this day because it must be by consent in any event.


Mr. Mutch:: That is all we are asking for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is all that is being asked for here.


Mr. Speaker:: If the motion is that the bill should be read the second time at the next sitting of the house, I suppose it could be read a second time, by unanimous consent, at the present sitting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all hon. members
would like to leave the matter so that if it is agreeable to have the bill read a second time this day, it could be done.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think I should explain what I have in mind. The committees are still meeting in connection with certain details associated with this bill. What is done on second reading will, of necessity, perhaps be governed to some extent by the discussions in that committee. I do not think that this is an appropriate time to ask the house to decide whether, by unanimous consent, this bill should or should not be proceeded with for second reading. I do not intend further to press the other suggestion I have made, but I put it forward in all seriousness in the hope that we might expedite the proceedings generally.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances the order will be for second reading at the next sitting.


Alphonse Fournier: The right procedure should be "at the next sitting". I suggest that later this day we might meet members of the opposition and see whether we can come to some understanding. I would not want this decision to be absolutely final, because we are always open to conviction when good reasons are brought forward.


Mr. Murphy:: Except on redistribution.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other suggestions from hon. members I will have to say that the order is for second reading at the-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF BILL NO. 8

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In view of the fact that the house has before it this bill which has now been introduced, and which has been ordered for second reading, I would ask leave to revert to motions and move that Bill No. 8 which is on the order paper, be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That when this house adjourns on completion of its current business after returning from attending on the giving of Royal Assent in the Senate to the
55704-242i
Business of the House
bills which will have been passed, this house stand adjourned until 20th November, 1952, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reasons for this motion I think will be obvious to all hon. members. The international situation has not worsened but it has reached a stage where it is possible that momentous decisions might have to be taken at an early date or when there might be important developments with regard to which it would be convenient to have parliament available. I do not foresee that such a situation is apt to arise but it is a possibility at this time, and I think it would be prudent to have parliament in being so that it could be called by Your Honour if it should happen that there are important developments which require immediate consideration by parliament.
I should not like the public to get the impression, from the fact that there is to be an adjournment, that members of parliament consider the situation to be graver than it really is. I think the public will understand that there have been some important developments in quite recent days and that there might be other important developments of such a character as to warrant their early consideration by parliament. In that event it would be convenient to have the situation such that Your Honour could give the proper notice and have parliament assembled.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I must confess some measure of surprise at the explanation which has been given. I had not previously heard any explanation for this motion that is now before us. It has not been discussed with me nor has there been any intimation of any reason for an adjournment of parliament rather than the customary prorogation. The Prime Minister places the reason for an adjournment of this kind entirely upon the international situation. I am not aware of any events that have occurred within recent days or weeks which suggest any change in the international situation which would indicate any reason for this house to be continuing its session. I have indicated, as have other members of this party, our objection to these adjourned sessions and second sessions in the same year instead of prorogation in the ordinary way.
I would add another reason why I do not see any necessity for this motion. The house can be brought together no more quickly when it is adjourned under a motion of this

Business of the House
kind than it could be brought together if it were prorogued and then called together in a special session. If there is in fact no definite purpose in adjourning this house until November 20, then we should prorogue in the ordinary way. If there is some reason other than that indicated, then that reason should be given to us. There may be other reasons which would suggest the desirability of an adjournment instead of prorogation. I submit, however, that at any time when the world situation suggested the desirability of bringing this house together, the time within which the house could be called together would be precisely the same, whether we adjourn or prorogue.
If we have prorogued, then it is only a question of ascertaining the length of time within which hon. members, with the means of communication available to them, can come here to Ottawa. I had expected that some other explanation would be given than that which has been placed before us. The Prime Minister has been careful to say that he would not wish the public to take any alarm from the fact that he is making the suggestion that the world situation calls for an adjournment rather than a prorogation. But, Mr. Speaker, when that is the only explanation before us it is difficult to escape the suggestion that there is an intention to keep alive a sense of continuing emergency which would support the government's very clearly expressed desire to act in a great many cases under emergency legislation when they could do it very much better through legislation adopted by this house.
Either some more positive reason not yet disclosed to us should be given to us, or I submit we should prorogue in the ordinary way. The practice that has developed of adjournments for indefinite periods to indefinite dates is not a practice which we should continue at this time without something more definite than has been placed before us.


Major James William Coldwell: am going to support the motion of the Prime Minister, because I believe that it is a wise provision for the house to make at this time. During the war years, and in times of emergency it has been customary to adjourn rather than prorogue. And while I agree with the Prime Minister that the public should not take any undue alarm at this time regarding the international situation, the recent unilateral decision of the United States to bomb the power plants on the Yalu river has I think in the minds of everyone made it obvious that there is a grave possibility in regard to it. And then of course we have the difficulties in Europe and particularly what

has happened in connection with the Swedish planes quite recently. I think under the circumstances it is a wise provision.
Moreover, it meets the objection that has been raised from time to time by hon. members of this house, the leader of the opposition, and indeed myself last year, that the calling of special sessions twice in a year means the payment of an additional indemnity. This avoids that completely. If it is necessary to call the house together, we are called together as an adjourned house. The other reason that I have in mind for supporting this is that after all in an emergency we want to meet and do business quickly. If we prorogue, then a new session is called. There are certain formalities, the official opening of the house, the debate on the speech from the throne, and so on. In my opinion, in the present circumstances, the motion to adjourn rather than to prorogue is the proper one to make at this time, and I am supporting it.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I personally would much have preferred to see prorogation, but enough has been said in the debate to convince me that I should support the Prime Minister's resolution. I think the Prime Minister must have had in his mind just the things that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has mentioned and in the circumstances I cannot feel that it is wise to do anything else than what is provided for in the resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The leader of the opposition, in my submission, has effectively answered the point raised by the Prime Minister. But it seems to me there is one further point which calls for a clear expression on the part of the Prime Minister.
This motion proposes that the house stand adjourned until November 20 next, unless called to meet earlier under the circumstances indicated. How did this date in November come to be chosen? Is it not very much preferable, even if there has to be an adjournment instead of prorogation, that adjournment should be to a date in January reasonably approaching the normal meeting time of parliament?
I think the Prime Minister must be aware, after the experience that the present parliament has had with fall sessions in 1949, 1950 and 1951, of the effect that these additional sessions, or being summoned to Ottawa in the fall, have had on a great many members. It means a very disturbing effect on most, both in their callings and in their family life, and it means additional expense for the country. I can understand the

Prime Minister having said what he did say with reference to a motion that would propose that the house stand adjourned until some day in January, but why should the date to be selected be in November, which means bringing members down here presumably and then sending them home for the Christmas recess, only to bring . them back in January? I am sure the Prime Minister is not unmindful of the effect that this has on all members of the house in all parties, and in fairness to the private members I would urge that this matter should have more consideration than is possible at the moment, and that the Prime Minister be asked to give very serious consideration to advancing this date from November till January. That will not subtract anything from the right of the Speaker, in consultation with the government, to call the house together at any time if emergent conditions warrant it, but I think it would be a useful contribution towards some attempt at restoration of normalcy in connection with the commencement of sessions of parliament.
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Lauren! (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I wish to assure the leader of the opposition that if it had been possible for me to see him when this question arose I would have been very happy to do so and to discuss it with him; but it so happened that the hon. gentleman had engagements elsewhere, which made it impossible for me to see him during the last two or three days.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: There was no discourtesy intended.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I know perfectly well that the Prime Minister has no thought of misinterpreting the situation, but I would explain to him that I was in the house here yesterday very shortly after three, and I was in the building during that time. I was away for the previous day, that was all. I only want to place that on record.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I am sorry. I did not know the hon. member was here yesterday afternoon. I wish to assure him that no discourtesy was intended when the question arose. I can also assure the hon. member for Eglinton that the considerations he has mentioned were carefully gone over, and the reason this date was selected was that it was felt it would be proper to open a new session on November 20, and have the address on the speech from the throne and the preliminaries completed so that immediately after the New Year the
Business of the House
regular course of the normal business of the house could be proceeded with in an attempt to have parliament prorogue by the end of April or early in May because of the fact that many members of parliament will be making plans to attend the coronation of our sovereign on June 2. It was felt that it would be of some value to have an experiment made of that kind of arrangement; because I am sure that if it were possible to handle efficiently the business of parliament in such a way as to adjourn early in the summer season, that would be a great convenience to most members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I would not have ventured to make that suggestion under ordinary normal conditions. But I did feel that in view of the fact that the coronation is set for June 2, 1953, it would be understood that that was a special reason for having this schedule in mind, and that the experience of hon. members with that schedule might bring about something of the order of what His Honour the Speaker was able to announce to us with respect to the hours of sitting, and would make for greater convenience for a greater number of members of parliament.
I hope that in future it will not be necessary to have two sessions of parliament in any one year, but that the public business might be so arranged and so dealt with as to make it not inconvenient to allow those hon. members who are agriculturists to give some attention in the spring to work which is of interest not only to them but also to the nation-the work of getting the agricultural industry into proper operating condition. I know that they are disposed to sacrifice their own personal interests to serve those of the Canadian people, by whom they have been elected to the house. But if the business of the house can be arranged in such a way as to coincide with the prosecution of their professional occupation of producing for the rest of us what we require for our subsistence, then I think that would be a desirable solution.
Then, the hon. member has inquired if there are other reasons. There are no other reasons; but there have been indications of the possibility of important developments which may not take place, but which are possible. The Korean war has been going on for two years, and negotiations for an armistice have been going on for one year. Recently there have been quite substantial changes in the attitude of those who are engaged in the negotiations. If they are brought to a successful conclusion and result in an armistice, then I think all of us will be very happy at that result. But if they

Inquiries of the Ministry do not-and they do not look as though they are going to go on much longer with no tangible results-that might bring about an activation in other forms, and might require to be dealt with by parliament.
I trust everything can be arranged in such a manner that it will not be improper for the government to take whatever responsibility may have to be taken. But the government is considerate of the rights of parliament, and recognizes that to have the support of the public generally there must be a feeling in the public that it is not only a few men here in Ottawa who are making these important decisions. For that reason we felt that it would be desirable, as it was felt desirable during the war and at times since the war, to keep parliament in existence, and not to have to resort to special, additional sessions.
It is for that reason the motion was suggested. It was so suggested because of the feeling that it might then be possible satisfactorily to dispose of public business and have parliament adjourn or prorogue in May, so that those members of parliament who will be attending the coronation need not feel that they are neglecting the work which should be done here at home.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has given another explanation when he makes reference to the coronation. I think I ought to place on record, in view of what I have already said, that I have objected strenuously to second sessions. What the Prime Minister has now said is that it would be the expectation of the government to begin a new session immediately after the period of adjournment, and then to proceed with that session, except over the Christmas and New Year season, for the purpose of earlier prorogation next year.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) yesterday asked the following question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson):
I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have the German

scientist, Vitalis Pantenburg, and his Russian-born wife been granted a visa to enter Canada and to travel through Labrador, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has asked me to answer by stating that Vitalis Pantenburg and his wife were granted courtesy visas for entry to Canada by the Canadian embassy in Bonn, Germany, following their recommendation by the German foreign office.
These visas facilitate entry into Canada but do not, of course, in themselves authorize travel to areas which may be restricted.
Canadian representatives abroad are anxious where possible to facilitate the admission to this country of foreign publicists of recognized standing in their own country who will interpret Canada to their fellow countrymen and help spread knowledge and understanding of this country among them.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson) asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) whether it is compulsory for students to have unemployment insurance books, and if not, what is the procedure?
The answer is that a full-time enrolled student of a day school, college or university is not insurable while he is employed (a) in temporary employment during the period from December 13 to December 31, both dates inclusive, in any year; Cb) part-time employment not exceeding 24 hours a week in the aggregate.
A student, therefore, who works after school hours or on Saturdays, so that the total number of hours worked does not exceed 24 in a week, as a general rule is not insurable. Such student is insurable if he takes full-time employment-for example during summer vacation. However if his only employment then is in a seasonal industry, for example a summer hotel, he may apply for a voluntary exemption.



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I directed a question to him on

Tuesday to which he responded that the government had made proposals to the provinces with regard to the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act in view of the adoption of the new act. In his reply he stated that the government had made certain proposals with regard to the repeal of that act but that only two provinces had indicated their support of the proposals. Since that time there has been a statement by the minister of public welfare of Ontario as to the desire of that province to have the act repealed because of its effect on collection from the estates of pensioners.
I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he has any supplementary statement to make because the statement of the minister of public welfare of Ontario is one which not only affects Ontario but affects the general statement made by the minister as to the proposals put before the provincial governments.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I can very well understand my hon. friend's desire to ask a second question in view of the statement made by the minister of public welfare for the province of Ontario which appears in the Globe and Mail of the day before yesterday. I can only say that what I said the other day does represent the situation as it is. On June 12 as a matter of fact our department communicated with the department of public welfare for the province of Ontario. In that letter it was pointed out that section 13 of the Old Age Security Act provides that the Old Age Pensions Act is repealed on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.
The letter went on to say-and I am now giving its substance-that the Department of National Health and Welfare would appreciate it if the department of public welfare for the province of Ontario would let us know as soon as possible whether or not they have dealt with all outstanding cases under the Old Age Pensions Act. The letter concludes by saying that we would appreciate being advised whether or not the province of Ontario would be in favour of having the Old Age Pensions Act repealed within the next several weeks. No reply has been received in answer to that communication.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say one thing further in fairness to the minister of public welfare for the province of Ontario? He is quoted as having said that he told me in a conversation some time ago that he would like to have the act repealed. It is true that he did telephone me. I think that was in March. Since that time, as this is an act that depends
Inquiries of the Ministry for its operation on the provinces, who have to pay 25 per cent of the cost, we had no alternative under the law but to communicate with the provinces. We did communicate with the province of Ontario on June 12 and we have had no reply to date.


George Alexander Drew: I was interested in the wording employed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He said "I asked" and then corrected it. Did the minister himself write the letter to the minister in Ontario? If not, from whom was the comunication directed and to whom?


Mr. Marlin:: The letter was written by the director of old age assistance for the Department of National Health and Welfare to his opposite number in the province of Ontario.


George Alexander Drew: I take it this subject has not been opened between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the minister of public welfare of Ontario.


Murdo William Martin: As my hon. friend knows, the old age pensions board is made up of the senior officials who have to do with the administration of this matter, and it is the custom for communications of this kind to go between these persons. All I can say is that we have had no reply. It may be that my hon. friend's question and my reply will have the effect of bringing about what the federal government would like to see brought about.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to extend this discussion but there is an important consideration in connection with this matter that I think should be made clear. If it is intended to have the acceptance of provincial governments to proposals made by the dominion government, then it would seem to me that communications should go from the minister to the ministers of the governments in the provinces concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I simply close with this question. Do I take it from what the minister has said that no communication has gone from the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the governments of the provinces with regard to this subject?


Murdo William Martin: I would not want to say that no communication has gone from me in the matter. I generally try to cover everything myself, and I would not want to say that in this instance I had not written to the provincial ministers concerned at some date earlier in the present year. I do not know, but I will check.
3834	HOUSE OF
Members of Parliament-Pensions MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT



PROVISION FOR RETIRING ALLOWANCES

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the third reading of Bill No. 392, to provide retiring allowances, on a contributory basis, for persons who have served as members of the House of Commons of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the resolution adopted by the house that when the current business is completed the house shall stand adjourned to the 20th of November, it is evident that this bill, if passed here and in the other place, will receive the royal assent before prorogation of this session. That being so, I have considered the terms of the section which provides for compulsory contributions, and it might be quite embarrassing to determine in a broken period just how the terms providing for compulsory contribution would apply. Would they apply only to the portion of the indemnity proportionate to the period that elapsed after assent to the bill or would they apply to the indemnity for the whole session, although portions of that indemnity have been so far paid in full at a per diem amount according to the statute?
The bill also provides that present members of parliament can elect to include any session during which they were in parliament before the coming into force of the act as the subject of their contribution to their special part of this fund. Therefore I felt it might be desirable at this time to have a clause added to the bill to the effect that it will come into force on the first day of the next ensuing session of parliament. I should like to have the house consider whether they would not want that done instead of having uncertainty as to what the contribution would be for the broken part of this session. Anyone who wanted to have the whole of his indemnity for this session included could exercise his option to do so, and I would therefore ask my colleague who usually leads the house to move:
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto the following section:
"19. This act shall come into force on the date of the opening of the session of parliament next ensuing after the date of the royal assent thereto."


Alphonse Fournier: I so move.
Amendment agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


The Chairman:: The amendment which has been referred to the committee is to add a section 19 to the bill reading as follows:
19. This act shall come into force on the date of the opening of the session of parliament next ensuing after the date of the royal assent thereto.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Before the amendment carries, may I be permitted to ask the Prime Minister if any consideration has been given to the point raised by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay about the participation of former members of parliament in Newfoundland, former members of the commission of government of Newfoundland, in this scheme? As this is a new scheme the finances for which will come from present current taxation to which Newfoundland contributes as much as any other part of Canada, it seems to me only fair and just that some consideration should be given.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, consideration was given to the suggestion; and there have been other suggestions as well that have come from other interests that would be affected. It was felt that in view of the procedure that had been followed the government would have the bill as reported by the banking and commerce committee placed before the house for adoption. The bill provides that every year the Minister of Finance must make a report on its operations and I think it will probably be the practice to have that report referred to the committee on banking and commerce. It was felt at this time that the government would not recommend going beyond what had been recommended by the committee and that all these matters, including the suggestion about members of the former parliament of Newfoundland, are matters that can come before the banking and commerce committee and about which subsequent reports may be made.
Bill reported.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Before the bill passes I would like to say a word of appreciation to the committee of men, perhaps more or less self-appointed, who went into a good deal of study in respect of this measure over the past year or perhaps two years. The impression abroad may be that this measure has been hurriedly passed by this house.
I recall that about a year ago, perhaps a little more than a year ago now, I received a letter. I am trusting to my memory but I believe it was from the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay). It stated that some members of parliament who had been interested in a pension scheme were desirous of studying the actuarial soundness of any possible proposals, together with'the historical situation as it might apply to past members. The letter called for some information as to the whereabouts and the status of my predecessors who had represented Macleod

riding in years past. I mention this because that letter came to me over a year ago. I do not know that I know all these men, and I cannot mention them all by name, but I do wish to say that the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) seems to have been very active in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: He can pass these words along to his colleagues. Some of us have sat down and thought: Well, this measure is being proceeded with; somebody else is looking after it-but we reap the benefits of a lot of hard work well done.
I do wish to express at this moment what I believe is the sentiment of all members of this house-thanks to those men who have been interested enough to put a lot of work and time into this measure in laying the foundation for it so that government officials, actuaries and so forth, could build upon that foundation and bring forward a measure which is apparently acceptable.
I wanted to say those few words of appreciation.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Don't duck this time, Lake Centre.



CONSERVATION ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 391, to amend the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act.

Forest Conservation


Mr. Adamson:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, many hon. members will recall that parliament in 1947 passed the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act. This act approved and ratified an agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Alberta for the conservation of the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. The area covers the head waters of the North and South Saskatchewan rivers and comprises 5 >
million acres, or 8,618-74 square miles. For purposes of comparison, the area of Prince Edward Island is 2,184 square miles and the area of Nova Scotia is 21,068 square miles.
The federal government's interest stemmed largely from the fact that the rivers rising in this area flow across all three western provinces and contribute in important measure to the life of western Canada and thus of the nation before they empty into Hudson bay.
This is the largest single forest conservation project in Canada and one of the largest on this continent. By protecting and conserving the forest cover in this area the two governments are providing a measure of automatic control over the flow of the rivers and streams. They are achieving soil conservation, fish and game conservation, and are ensuring sustained yield from valuable forests which are returning increasing revenues with each succeeding year.
The agreement commenced on April 1, 1948, and will continue for a term of 25 years from that date. It provides for the setting up of a board of three members, two being appointed by the federal government and one by the provincial government. The present members of the board are: Major General Howard Kennedy, chairman; G. Tunstell, Department of Resources and Development; and H. G. Jensen, province of Alberta.
The purpose and function of the board are to plan, advise, direct, and supervise the construction, operation, and maintenance of all projects and other facilities necessary for the proper protection of the forests in the area. The agreement provides for a six-year program of capital expenditures by the federal government, amounting to $6,300,000, and a maintenance program shared by the two governments, to cost not less than $250,000 and not more than $300,000 annually.
The provincial government, under the terms of the agreement, shares in the cost of the yearly maintenance program, and pays the salary and expenses of its member of the board.

The government of Canada pays the whole cost of the capital program as formulated by the board and is obliged to pay up to $175,000 yearly toward the annual maintenance costs. In addition, it of course pays the salary and expenses of its members of the board. The formula with respect to maintenance costs provides that revenues from the surface rights be available to the provincial government and that the federal government contribution for this purpose be reduced by the amount by which these revenues exceed $125,000 per annum. During the past four years, ending March 31, 1952, the total expenditures for maintenance were $1,118,196. Of this amount, Canada contributed $276,086; the balance of $842,110 was paid by the province. This amount accrued to the province in the form of revenues.
As I indicated before, the board commenced to operate on April 1, 1948, and the fourth year under the agreement ended on March 31, 1952. Approximately two-thirds, $3,849,269, of the capital program has been completed. The capital program consists of the construction of roads and trails, fire towers, buildings such as wardens' cabins and storehouses, the installation of a radio communication network and the carrying out of forest inventory surveys and other necessary investigations. As a matter of interest, I might mention that to date 147 miles of trunk roads, 140 miles of secondary roads and 257 miles of truck fire trails have been built.
There still remains to be spent on the capital program $2,450,731 and under the present agreement this must be spent by April 1, 1954. The board has requested, and the two governments have agreed, subject to the approval of parliament and the Alberta legislature, to an extension for one year of the time for completing this work. It is considered that the money could be spent to better advantage if the period were thus extended. The federal government's commitment, however, remains at $6,300,000.
On the basis of experience gained during the first four years of the agreement, and in the light of increased costs, the board considers it necessary to increase the amount to be spent annually on the maintenance program in order to ensure the carrying out of proper protection and conservation services. The agreement now limits the yearly maintenance program to a maximum of $300,000. It has been agreed to increase this maximum to $450,000 and the provincial government has undertaken to pay all the costs of the yearly maintenance program, commencing April 1, 1952.

Whereas the board now consists of two federal appointees and one provincial appointee, the Alberta government has recommended that upon completion of the capital expenditure program, that is, the date of April 1, 1955, as provided for in the agreement, which is before hon. members at the present time for approval, the composition of the board should be one federal and two provincial government appointees for the balance of the 25-year period of the original agreement. As by that time the federal government will have discharged its responsibilities for the capital program and the provincial government will have assumed the responsibility for the cost of the annual maintenance program, the recommendation seemed to me to be reasonable and it has been incorporated into the agreement before hon. members now.
I should point out, however, that there will be no change with respect to the obligation of the board to formulate programs for the yearly maintenance of a complete protective forest management service nor with respect to the obligation of the provincial government to carry out any such program for the remaining eighteen years of the agreement.
The agreement embodying the above changes has been signed by the two governments but is subject to approval by parliament and by the legislature of Alberta. The purpose of this bill is to seek parliament's approval of the agreement and to amend certain sections of the act in order that it may conform to the amended agreement.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not
propose to speak at any length on this bill which I think the house can agree is a desirable measure for the preservation of the economy of the eastern slopes of the Rockies. There are, however, one or two matters concerning it which to my mind should be explained. Does this project form a prototype of other projects to be undertaken by the federal authority in other provinces of Canada? Under this project such matters as fire protection, forest management, pest control and all the other things which are looked after purely by the provinces elsewhere, are undertaken by the federal government. If this is to represent a pattern of other developments, I think it would be interesting to know it at this time.
I see the agreement runs for eighteen years, which would seem to be a reasonable time.


Robert Henry Winters: It is a 25-year agreement.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is better. There are still eighteen years to run. When the minister replies I should like to find out the situation with respect to two or three matters. For instance, in the province of Ontario fire protection and these other matters are carried out by the province, frequently in conjunction
Forest Conservation
with private companies that are operating in the area. I should think the house would like to know whether there is any intention of extending this.
The minister did not make any reference to the expenses and the salaries of the board. I suppose that can be discussed when the bill is in committee. It is information that the house should have. As I have said, I do not propose in any way to oppose this legislation, but we should have the facts as to whether this represents a departure, and as to whether it is to be duplicated elsewhere, or whether it is the intention solely to have this project as one of a kind and not proceed to enter into agreements with other provinces. In other words, does this open the way for other provinces to enter into agreement for forest management with the federal authorities?


Solon Earl Low: As one
very keenly interested in the preservation of the eastern slopes of the Rockies and in conservation of the forest there I should like to say a word in connection with this bill. I was gratified when the bill was brought in. I understand it was first passed by the Senate, and it is now placed before us for second reading. I was also gratified with the report of the progress of the board set up under the act that was given to us just a short while ago by the minister. I think most commendable progress has been made not only in the field of capital construction but also in extending a network of roads and trails, the building of lookouts and preparation for the fighting of fire in almost every section now of that great reserve.
I was interested in this project, Mr. Speaker, from the first experience that I had in the provincial government of Alberta. It took us something like seven or eight years of rather intensive work finally to be able to get the federal government to join in an agreement such as is now embodied in the act, and I was exceedingly well pleased when we finally did get the federal government to realize that there was some federal responsibility there.
I was interested in what the hon. member for York West had to say a moment ago and the questions he asked. He asked whether this bill would be considered a prototype or pattern of future arrangements as between the provinces and the dominion in this field of forest management.
It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that the east slope of the Rockies is the watershed that feeds several very important rivers that flow across a number of provinces. The North Saskatchewan is perhaps the most important of them, although the South Saskatchewan also has its headwaters in this area. These

Forest Conservation
waters are of tremendous importance not only to the province of Alberta but to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We in Alberta have been conscious for a good many years of the importance of utilizing the waters for irrigation purposes to reclaim many areas of dry land in our province and to bring them back into something like good production. In the course of utilizing these waters we came face to face with the necessity, however, of making some arrangement so that the sister provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba could also have part of these waters. The fact that they rose in Alberta and flowed across our territory did not give us the right to all of the water in the rivers. We realized that if Saskatchewan, for example, much of which is in the Palliser triangle, were ever to become stabilized in its agriculture, it would have to utilize this water, and there would have to be a fair division worked out.
Something the minister did not say this morning, when making his short introductory report, was that when the final agreement which was embodied in the act to set up the eastern Rocky mountains forest conservation board was made, and when the agreement was signed between the provinces, it embodied also an agreement for the division of the waters. This board has the right to allocate certain of the waters of the North Saskatchewan river and its tributaries to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I understand that allocation has been made, and that is where the federal government enters the picture-that is, chiefly as a federal party concerned with a matter which does touch the interests of more than one province.
And so the federal government did make an agreement which, I suppose, will be the prototype or pattern for years ahead, if similar situations do arise. I know of none at the moment, but there may be others in other parts of Canada. I would like to impress upon the house that the federal government, and very wisely in my opinion, did assume its part of the responsibility for preserving the watershed on the east slope of the Rockies. Otherwise perhaps there would not be waters for Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and perhaps not even for Alberta.
The area known as the east slope of the Rockies is a large one. For many years, in certain parts it has been almost inaccessible. For a province with the resources Alberta had, in the past at any rate, successfully to preserve that watershed was just more than could be expected of it. The costs were terrific. Even during the early years of my experience in the government of Alberta, fires were frequent, and at times it would cost us as much as a million dollars in a year to fight fires. That was a terrific drain on

our limited resources, and was one of the things which urged us to try to get federal help. I think all hon. members realize the federal government does have some responsibility to help a province, especially in a case of this kind in which are involved waters that flow through more than one province, and touch the interests of all those provinces very closely.
I was never quite satisfied that the federal government took its full responsibility. I do not believe the amount of money agreed to, either for capital consumption costs or for yearly maintenance, was equitably divided. I believe that right from the start Alberta has borne a bigger share of that responsibility than it should have borne, with the limited resources it had.
However, we are grateful that the agreement was made and that the federal government realized its responsibilities. I wish the minister to know that I am not criticizing anything that has been done when I say, as I do say, that the province has carried a disproportionate share of the cost of the preservation of the watershed, in view of the importance of that watershed to other parts of Canada.


Robert Henry Winters: Would the hon. member tell the house what, in his understanding, the Alberta government is doing on this project.


Solon Earl Low: The Alberta government is
managing the forests and, as the minister has already pointed out, on a limited scale they are taking into their treasury the amount of earnings that can be taken out of a forest as a result of lumbering, and things of that kind. This does make up in some respects to them for their out-of-pocket costs. But let us not forget that those lands are provincial lands. Ordinarily those forests would be managed under a -provincial forestry scheme, with the full amount of the returns from the lumbering industry in that area going to the province. Now it is being spent to a large extent on the projects under the agreement.
As I say, I do not wish to be unduly critical in any respect, but I have said that, as in the costs of irrigation, in my view the province has been asked to share a disproportionate amount of the costs in this connection. But they are not kicking about it; they are grateful that the federal government has realized its responsibility and has come into the scheme.
We do not want to be critical at all. Let me say at once to the minister that I think the board has done a remarkably fine job. I commend the minister for the interest he has taken, and also for having brought in this bill to amend the act and to extend its provisions for a further period of time. My

observation would be that it would have been impossible for the board to spend efficiently within the time specified the capital moneys provided under the act in 1948. The minister is certainly justified in extending that time; because we want to have spent well and efficiently whatever capital moneys are spent. Therefore I believe he is wise in making provision for that extension.
I support second reading of the bill, and offer my thanks to the minister for the good job he has done.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaife (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I shall be able to say before one o'clock everything I wish to say. I wish to express approval, and I believe also the approval of all of us from British Columbia, of the principle behind the bill and the act it amends.
I have been interested in the suggestion of hon. members opposite that this bill might serve as a prototype for legislation affecting other areas, provided of course that adjustments were made for differences in circumstances.
I do not believe that at this stage of the session one should make a long speech as to the advisability or essentiality of greater cooperation between the dominion and the provinces in respect of the preservation of many of our exhaustible resources. At this stage of the session we will have to take that for granted. Neither is there time for me to deal in detail with the geography and the other problems in connection with the forests which lie to the west of the summit of the Rockies. I would merely remind the minister that the headwaters of many of the large and important rivers are to be found there, and that the forest resources to the west of the Rockies are of great importance not only to British Columbia but to the Dominion of Canada as a whole. We look forward to the day when he and the government of British Columbia will have worked out a somewhat similar arrangement for the preservation of the forests of that province.


Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house for any considerable length of time, but I would not be able to complete my remarks before one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock we were discussing the statement made by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). I listened carefully to his remarks and I do
Forest Conservation
not intend to detain the house at any length at this time. It is a rather unfortunate tradition that during the last dying hours of a session many important matters are passed over rather lightly. I want to compliment the minister on some of the developments with reference to the policy concerning eastern Rocky mountain forest conservation. I well recall that a few years ago I urged the government to co-operate with the provinces with respect to forestry developments. I think it has been commonly accepted in the house and perhaps in the country that the great natural resources of our forests have not received the same attention from the dominion government, and indeed sometimes from the provincial governments, in proportion to the attention received by the great industry of agriculture.
Therefore I am glad that a policy suggested on this side of the house some years ago has been adopted to some extent and that the government has made some headway. However, as the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) suggested this morning, I think when the minister replies before this short debate closes he might give us some indication whether this measure is the prototype of a policy that might be extended to other provinces. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) pointed out that the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia could not be expected to carry on the extensive program envisaged by this policy. I wish however to remind the government again that the dominion treasury probably receives more from the forest industries of the dominion than from almost any other industry in Canada. In these days when the dominion government is collecting 72 per cent of all taxes paid in Canada I think it is only natural for these great enterprises that contribute so much to the dominion treasury, which now takes far more percentagewise of the taxpayers' money than ever before in history, leaving the provinces with only about 16 per cent of the taxation revenue of the country, to expect a keen and growing interest in conservation, forest protection and all the activities that the minister neatly described this morning.
I do not want to delay the house at this time. This is a big subject and we have discussed it on other occasions, but I want to point out to the minister that I hope his department will give serious consideration to extending the plan to other provinces that have contributed so much to the development of the great forest wealth of the dominion, and accordingly so much to the dominion treasury. On the other hand, I might also suggest that I think consideration should be

Forest Conservation
given to putting the matter in a little different classification. I know there is always a danger of duplication. However, we have had a dominion Department of Agriculture working in co-operation with provincial departments of agriculture down through the years, and while we have heard on many occasions that there is a great duplication of services, and accordingly extravagance in costs, nevertheless I believe it is generally accepted by the great agricultural industry that excellent service has been rendered in many ways by the dominion and provincial departments of agriculture. In this case it seems to me there is a danger of this enterprise and service being divorced somewhat from government responsibility. I hope the government will give consideration to enlarging the policy, and in enlarging it will consider it as more of a definite government responsibility rather than placing the responsibility on boards outside of parliament.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do the only riding in British Columbia which takes in a part of the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains, I think it is only fitting that I should make some ' reference to the measure before the house and express regret that the government of British Columbia has not also joined with the government of Canada in legislation of thi9 kind. It is remarkable that the work to be carried out under this proposed measure stops at the 120th meridian which is an imaginary line dividing for some hundreds of miles the forest and other lands on the east side of the Rocky mountains from similar areas within the province of Alberta.
I think this bill is the culmination of good work started many years ago by Sir Clifford Sifton, one of our great Canadians, who at one time had. charge of the department which is so ably represented; in the house at the present time. In his day Sir Clifford urged conservation measures along this line. He had great vision and saw the need of controlling the water and power resources of that part of the country. Following him there was the Hon. Charles Stewart, another empire builder, who was premier of Alberta and who, like the present premier of that province, showed an interest in conservation and legislation of this kind. I would like to pay tribute also to a predecessor from the riding of Cariboo who headed the Turgeon committee on reconstruction and development in 1944. On page 6 of the report of that committee I find:
We recommend that serious thought be given to the preservation of forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. The destruction of these mountain forest reserves in the province of Alberta

is causing a serious depletion of the water resources of the prairie provinces.
We recommend also that reforestation and afores-tation be given serious study with the view to co-operation between various governments for the proper conservation of our forest resources.
Now I could read further but it is well to say that this is a true issue as a result of many years of effort on the part of leaders who had in their hearts the welfare of that part of western Canada.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, anxious as I am not to delay the work of this house I feel I should say a few words on this matter.
First I wish to congratulate the minister on having presented this bill and I also wish to congratulate the government of the province of Alberta, which has come to an agreement with the Canadian government, on the work which is to be carried on in the line of what we can see in this legislation. I am a little surprised that there is no mention of the forestry act in this bill but I presume that in order to put this in force the government had to pass a special bill. The Canada Forestry Act was enacted in 1949 and it is with much regret that I learn that the province of Quebec is the only province which has not taken advantage of that legislation to date. I hope that in the very near future our province will go ahead and co-operate with the government of Canada in taking inventory in the province, in doing some reforestation work, and in that way co-operate with what is being done all through the country.
In reading some of the articles of this bill and in the schedule to the bill I see that much capital expenditure will be made, most likely in reforestation because I understand that is required for this part of the eastern Rockies. It will be very important to have conservation of the land and of the water, and that there be regulation of the water. It is very nice to know that the provincial government is co-operating with the Canadian government in this work. I would like the minister to tell us the total area of land involved in this legislation and I would also like to learn from the minister if other work will be done, for instance exploitation of the forests in that section in conjunction with the province.
I say again that I hope, like the member for York West (Mr. Adamson), that this legislation may be a pattern for other provinces. I hope that comes true because a lot can be done to have conservation, reforestation, and regulation of water courses.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say.

I cannot speak on the different agreements which might be made between the federal government and the provinces but I can say that I wish for agreements between the federal government and all the provinces for the protection and preservation of our forests.
A few years ago, speaking on a subject of this kind, I asked that a campaign of education be opened by the federal government and by the provinces toward the acquisition by our population of more knowledge concerning preservation and conservation and especially the promotion of reforestation in all of Canada. I think it is a point on which we should centre our attention and bring all provinces, Quebec included, into the same field of knowledge.


Mr. Arihur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill even at the hazard of extending the time for argument thereon; because I think the principle established in this bill is one of the most important that we have seen in this house for some time.
I congratulate the minister wholeheartedly on entering into agreements with the provinces on such a basis as this. I am not unmindful that in this particular case participation by the federal authority is more justified because this concerns I think three provinces in all and it concerns the headwaters of a number of rivers-probably three or four. Th.ere are the two Saskatchewans, the Macleod river, probably the headwaters of the Athabaska, although I am not sure, and the Red Deer river.
I agree with the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) and would like to have seen participation in this bill by the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta.


Mr. Blackmore:: We in Alberta wanted that too.


Arthur Laing: I think the chief interest in this particular bill is the preservation of water rather than forestation. My memory goes back to 1935 when I spent a few days in Japan and I remember looking up at the Japanese hills and seeing trees planted in rows to the very top of those hills. They did that to preserve water for irrigation and to collect water for waterpower. We have not reached, and in this country we will not reach for many generations, a time when that is either economically necessary or practically feasible, but I think we have reached a time when we should take every opportunity to preserve every bit of cover in this country and to save every tree we can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Forest Conservation


Arthur Laing: To my mind this is the most vital and the finest piece of legislation along that line I have seen for some time. I want to speak to the minister particularly and to ask him to please see that his test tube men, and I think he has some, begin to pay some attention in this country to the quality of water. I am dealing now with irrigation farming which is the most hazardous type of farming on the face of the earth. That can be borne out by a study of the irrigation projects on the Nile, two or three in California and one or two in the state of Montana which started out as fine projects but today are completely abandoned.
I draw to the attention of the minister the fact that in irrigation farming the water must be something more than wet, and if we have too high a concentration of alkalinity you simply cannot successfully practise irrigation farming for very many years. Less than ten years ago I had occasion to make some inquiries from the departments here concerning the alkali content of some of the lakes in the Okanagan valley in the province of British Columbia. To my utter dismay I found they had never been tested with the single exception that some slight sampling had been done by the Department of Fisheries in 1912.
I think the more we study our irrigation methods in Canada, those operating at the present time and those which we may operate in the future, the more we shall find that we are going to have to call upon technical men to make a thorough chemical survey of the waters that we propose to use in all parts of Canada. I hope the minister takes this action in respect of those waters, because those waters are a great resource about which, in so far as their potentiality for irrigation purposes is concerned, we can and should know more than we do at the present time.


George Alexander Drew: I propose to say very little on the general problem in connection with this bill, Mr. Speaker, because that has been adequately covered. Support for the general principle of this bill has been fully stated. There is, however, one feature of this measure which I suggest to the consideration of the government. As the government recognizes the general support throughout this house for a program of conservation, I hope that it will consider the inconsistency of its position when it is so strong in its support of conservation of forest resources and so determined in resisting any plans for conservation of our other resources which will not replace themselves as our forests will. If

Forest Conservation
the conservation of forest resources is important, the conservation of other resources is still more so.
May I strongly urge the government, as it receives the support which it has received and will receive for this measure, that it extend those ideas of conservation in the future instead of resisting the proposals from the opposition for planned conservation.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of
Resources and Development): In closing this brief debate, I wish to thank all hon. members who have, in such a constructive way, taken part in it and shown that they endorse the principle of the act which has been on the statute books since 1947. The bill before the house now embodies amendments which are relatively minor when considered in the light of the over-all project. It would be interesting indeed, Mr. Speaker, if at this time we could develop a debate on conservation, because there is much to be said for the government's program in the various conservation fields.
At the outset, I wish to say that I disagree quite strongly with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said when he intimated that the government is resisting attempts to conserve Canada's natural resources in any field at all. In fact I think if he will review the government's program carefully, as I am sure he tries to review everything this government does, he will come to the conclusion that the performance in the field of conservation, in co-operation with other governments at all levels and private industry, adds up to quite a fine record of accomplishment. He need not go beyond the Canada Forestry Act to see the government's policies and intentions in the field of forestry which is so important to the Canadian economy.
In a more limited way, the government has participated in projects which are of merit in the local economy as well as in the economy of Canada. There are several good examples in the province of Ontario with which, until relatively recently, the leader of the opposition was more directly concerned. I need only mention the conservation projects on the Grand river and now on the Thames river, where the provincial government, conservation authorities and the federal government are coupling dams for the conservation and regulation of waters with more comprehensive programs of reforestation of the drainage areas, which I am sure will not only stimulate forestry development but will help to conserve the water. Then, too, there is our great program of national parks for
[DOT]'Mr. Drew.]
which the federal government is entirely responsible, and which cover many thousands of square miles.
There is now, under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which has shown itself to be so valuable in this country. There is the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, as well as others. I cite those only as examples, because if I did more than that I would be out of order on this bill.


George Alexander Drew: You could mention the Saskatchewan irrigation project.


Robert Henry Winters: In reply to specific questions, I might say that the federal government is responsible, in so far as this Rocky mountain project is concerned, for the capital expenditure and for a share in the cost of maintenance. Those are the two expensive phases of the operation. With respect to capital expenditure, there is no obligation on the provincial government of Alberta whatever. With respect to maintenance, the government of Alberta is responsible for paying up to $125,000 a year if the revenues accruing from the surface rights do not exceed that amount. It so happens that the revenues have exceeded that amount ever since the agreement has been in effect, so the government of Alberta has not been required to pay either towards the cost of capital development or towards the cost of maintenance.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) asked what the area was. I covered that in my opening remarks, but I shall be glad to repeat that the area is of the order of 8,600 square miles. Again I wish to thank all hon. members for their endorsation of this bill which is so important to the waters of western Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Robert Henry Winters: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $344,433.
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: As a farmer coming from a province which depends for its income almost entirely on agriculture and fishing, I

feel obligated to make a few remarks on this item. There are a few general observations I should like to make, and then I have one or two questions to which I should like answers if the minister would be kind enough to keep them in mind. It was not my intention to refer at all to the question of foot-and-mouth disease, although I did have the interesting experience of serving on the committee investigating the outbreak of that disease in Canada. It was not my intention to mention it in these remarks, but because of some of the arguments which were advanced yesterday I feel compelled to make a few observations in that regard.
I feel that, in the report of this committee, an attempt has been made to leave the impression that everything that could be done was done in an effort to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease in this country. I think that it is admitted by everyone that, once the disease was diagnosed and identified, an excellent job has been done by those concerned in stamping it out after the middle of February; and I think they deserve the congratulations and the thanks of the Canadian people for the fine effort they have made.
When it comes to the question of the time required to identify the disease, however, I think there is a great deal of room for improvement. If the impression is left that a time lapse of two and a half months is sort of normal, or at least is acceptable, or that it even can be tolerated as a reasonable time lapse in the diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease, I think we are doing our future cattle industry a great injustice. After all, if we hope to re-establish the confidence of the people of the United States and of the United States government-and after all, that is what we are primarily concerned with in our policy to control the foot-and-mouth disease

we must convince them that we will not leave any stone unturned in our efforts to diagnose, in as short a time as possible, any future outbreak of the disease; that we will make every effort to stamp it out; and that we will press forward towards the objective of stamping it out completely, letting the chips fall where they may, if there is any indication that there has been inefficiency on the part of anyone concerned.
Further, I think the suggestion that almost a quarter of a year is a normal time for the Canadian veterinary profession as such to require to identify foot-and-mouth disease is an unjustifiable reflection upon the profession in this country. I feel that the vast majority of men in the veterinary profession in this country, if another outbreak should occur, would be capable of having it identified in
Supply-Agriculture
an extremely short time. In the United Kingdom the experience has been that fresh outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease are not identified in a matter of months, weeks or even days but quite frequently within hours of the outbreak being recorded. The matter of time and the urgency of identifying the disease are recognized to be so highly important in the United Kingdom that, according to my information, the department of agriculture in the United Kingdom keeps a man on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for the express purpose of receiving reports of outbreaks in the United Kingdom of diseases that could possibly be foot-and-mouth disease, so that the proper authorities can be immediately alerted and the proper action can be taken at once to identify the disease and to determine whether or not it is foot-and-mouth disease.
I am convinced that the best method for us to adopt in our endeavours to regain the confidence of the United States government or the United States department of agriculture is to show a willingness to do everything possible to identify, to diagnose, and to publicize the fact of any outbreak of any disease that may occur in this country. After all, if we are to suppose that it is normal, or if we are even to suggest or to imply that it is normal to take ten weeks or so to identify foot-and-mouth disease, it is not fair to expect any country to buy cattle from us at any time if the disease may be going on in this country for ten weeks before we even know whether it is there or not. I do not think any reasonable person would expect us as a country to import cattle, sheep, or any other animal from a country which was as inefficient as that in its diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease.
That is the only observation I have to make in that regard, except that I should like to ask the minister if he would be kind enough to let me know what method was adopted in arriving at a figure for the payment of farmers who had fowl or poultry destroyed owing to the foot-and-mouth disease. What was the amount of compensation paid and on what basis was it paid? Also, on what basis was compensation paid in the case of poultry which had to be destroyed on account of Newcastle disease?
With regard to Newcastle disease, it has been reported to me-I do not know whether the report is accurate; and I should like the minister, if he would be kind enough to do so, to inquire as to whether or not it is accurate-that in certain cases where poultry which had Newcastle disease in the province of Nova Scotia were destroyed, the bodies of the poultry were not properly

Supp ly-A griculture
disposed of, so that sea birds acquired access to those bodies, with the result that sea gulls and various other sea birds acquired Newcastle disease and died in large numbers. I do not know whether or not that report is correct, but I think it should be officially denied if it is not. That is the rumour that is going around, namely that large numbers of sea birds in the Northumberland strait are dying of Newcastle disease. I do not know whether that is even possible, but I should like it to be officially denied if it is not.
I have been disturbed by the fact that it would appear that over the last number of years the agricultural industry has been taking a less important place in our economy than it has in the past. I am disturbed by a report dated Ottawa, June 24, which points out that the farm population of this country has declined over the last ten years from
3,100,000	persons to 2,900,000 persons. That is a drop of 200,000 farm people in a ten-year period. I know, and I think it is generally recognized, that part of that drop is owing to the fact that-because of mechanization and other means which make agriculture more efficient from a labour point of view- a smaller number of people can cultivate a larger amount of land than was the case in the past. I am disturbed to notice that, in eastern Canada, not only has the farm population gone down over the last ten years but also the acreage under cultivation. That statement applies to nearly all of the eastern provinces of Canada. I think that is an extremely unfortunate state of affairs. Our agricultural industry has not only been decreasing in importance in relation to our general economy but it has been factually decreasing in importance over the last number of years. In that regard, I happened to notice that the net farm income for 1949- that is the latest figure I have-was something like $1-5 billion. The budget for last year is over $4 billion. That means that the total farm income for 1949 is only slightly more than one-third of the federal taxes which must be paid in this coming year. In other words, the federal government has become a business which is almost three times as important as one of our leading industries, namely the agricultural industry. I think that everything possible should be done to stimulate our agriculture and our industry generally, and to find markets for any products which we may have over and above those required for the consumption of the Canadian people. After all, the world population is increasing at a very rapid rate. Taking the world as a whole, our food supply, relative to our population, is becoming less and less and I believe that both from a general economic point of view, and from the

point of view of defence, everything possible should be done to bring our agricultural industry as near its potential as possible.
People will say that that is being done and that we have an excellent record as an agricultural country. We look upon ourselves perhaps with regard to the production of wheat as leading the world. I should like to quote just a figure or two with regard to that. If we look at the way in which we have exploited our possibilities with regard to wheat production we find that Canada produces only about one-third as much wheat as the United States, and only about one-third as much wheat as the U.S.S.R. Our wheat production is only slightly greater than that of France, a small European country. Italy produces almost as much as the whole of Canada. It does seem to me therefore that there is a great opportunity for us to stimulate and develop our agricultural industry as much as possible.
I feel that some of the causes of the decline in our agricultural production relative to the economy of the country as a whole in the last number of years are due to the fact that many of our farmers are not as efficient as they should be. I am very strongly in support of everything that is done by the Department of Agriculture in a scientific way to try to improve agricultural methods, but I still feel there is considerable room for research in that regard. One thing I can think of at once is the fact that in this country agricultural power as applied to farm tractors and as produced in eastern Canada is almost entirely by gasoline. In Europe it is very unusual to see a gasoline tractor on the farm. Nearly all the tractors used in Europe are diesel tractors. A diesel tractor will produce twice the amount of power on a gallon of fuel as a gasoline tractor will, and in addition to that diesel fuel costs about half as much as gasoline. Therefore from the fuel cost point of view diesel power is about one-fourth as costly as gasoline power.
I know that research is done by the Department of Agriculture into the suitability of farm machinery, but I feel that that is a phase of the scientific effort of the Department of Agriculture which should be pressed forward in every possible way. I feel, too, that much of the excellent research that has been done by the officials and the scientists of the Department of Agriculture to improve the methods of agriculture in this country is not getting through sufficiently to the people who need it most. If a farmer is a good one he tends to acquire this information for himself. He goes out and gets it. It is the poor farmer who is not so apt to seek this information himself. I welcome every

possible method which may be used or expanded to bring the information and the knowledge which is available to the people who need it most.
I am very pleased to see that the year before last some films were produced by the national film board, sponsored by the Department of Agriculture. I have not the figures for the last year. I hope that policy has been continued, and I would be interested to have a brief comment from the minister telling us the program in that regard, because I feel that the importance of getting the information at hand, the knowledge which the experts have, if you like, to the average farmer is something that cannot be emphasized too much, because in this day and age farming has become a very complicated and difficult job. If the farmers are to be efficient they must have a wide knowledge of quite a varied field with regard to the chemistry of soils, the breeding of livestock and of an infinite number of things. This requires a very good general technical education, if you like, in the vocation which they are following. I believe that any effort that can be made to improve the efficiency of the average farmer in Canada and thereby make rural life more attractive and more remunerative to the average farmer will strengthen the general fabric of our country and will be highly justified.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before replying to some of the statements made I should like to make a correction in Hansard of last evening at the top of page 3811 where the hon. member for Brant was asking me a question. The first question is:
Has the minister ever visited the institute at Hull?
I take it from what followed that I broke in, in the middle of the question, and I said: "Yes." Then the hon. member went on to say:
To see how this is done?
Well, I see that in the noise that was going on I said "yes", again. I was not there to see how this was carried on. As a matter of fact, at the time it was being carried on I was not in Ottawa at all. I just want to correct that and make it plain that last night I did not intend to say that I was at Hull at the institute for the purpose of seeing how tests were made in connection with this disease.


William Earl Rowe: You do not wish to become a "yes, yes man" to that investigation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably at the same time, and particularly in view of what my hon. friend has just said, I had better complete
Supply-Agriculture
the record in connection with the same matter. I made inquiries this morning in order to get full information with regard to the use that was made of the Hull lab. The full record is this: On February 13 and 14 material was collected in Saskatchewan. On February 16 the material arrived at Hull. On February 16 material was injected into cattle, horses and sheep at the Hull laboratory. On February 18 technicians reported gravely suspicious symptoms. Then, portions of this material were later sent to Grosse lie for further tests, which confirmed tests at Hull. All samples following this were sent to Hull and relayed unopened to Grosse lie. That is the complete record with regard to it, and anyone who is discussing this matter should have that record before them, and I therefore wish to put it on Hansard.
I wish to express my own appreciation of the type of speech which the hon. member who just took his seat delivered in connection with these estimates. The criticisms made were legitimate ones, and the suggestions made were helpful. I am sure that is what every hon. member has in mind to do, in the first place, to criticize what ought to be criticized and to try to be helpful in any suggestion made.
I should like to say, with regard to the criticism that agricultural population has been dropping in Canada during the last ten years, that there is an explanation for the figures which appear in the census of 1951 as compared with 1941, which is not apparent unless one goes into the details. The definition of "farmer" has been changed in 1951 as compared with 1941. The provision in the census of 1951 is that we do not list anyone as a farmer who is operating less than three acres, whereas in the census of 1941 we went down to one acre for farmers. Then higher incomes are required in order to say in 1951 that a man is really a farmer, as compared with 1941. That accounted for about half the difference between the farm population as listed in 1951 as compared with that of 1941.
Then I think it should be kept in mind that there was quite a change brought about by the fact that the war came in 1939, and that it developed to greater intensity in 1940 and 1941. It was widely stated during the period of the war-and I think it was generally correct-that there were about
400,000	young people on the farms across Canada in the later thirties and the early forties who under ordinary circumstances would not have been there at all. We had been passing through a very difficult economic period. Young people who had intended

Supply-Agriculture
to go to universities were not able to go. Other young people who intended to go into other employment were not able to find that employment, and they were on the farms.
Shortly after war began-at least, within two years after it began-there were 400,000 less young people on the farms, and we were producing more without that 400,000 than we had produced with them. This simply meant that following the ten years of depression there was a considerable proportion of our population who were on the farms but who did not wish to be there and were awaiting an opportunity to leave. A family of a certain size has one, two or three who must leave that particular farm and go somewhere else. That population to the extent of some
400,000	did go away, and not all of them came back, naturally.
So the farm population, as compared with 1941, is down somewhat on that account. But at the same time there is the other reason given by the hon. member for the decrease in farm population, namely that farms are more mechanized now than they were before. I think in that connection one should keep in mind the fact that while a very considerable part of the population of Canada is not now listed as farm or, in some instances, even as rural population, and while it is correct to say that, in a sense, there are between two and three million people listed as farmers, about six and a half million of the Canadian population, or almost half of it, is listed as rural. There is not a great deal of difference between a farmer and a rural person who lives in a hamlet or small town. These people live very close to the farms, and usually they are doing those things which at one time in our development were actually done on the farms. I am sure every member in the committee can remember far enough back to recall the days when a very large percentage of our hogs were actually killed on the farms and then peddled in the towns and cities. One can remember, too, back in the earlier period, when a very considerable portion of the blacksmithing and all that sort of thing was done by the farmers themselves. Eventually we had blacksmiths in our towns and villages who did that work. These people were doing work which previously had been done on the farms.
Then, as we have mechanized our farms, a great many with a mechanical turn of mind have gone to the cities and towns to produce the machinery that is needed, to repair it, and all that kind of thing. If we make allowance for that development over the years, including the development in transportation facilities and everything else that takes people away from the farms but still keeps
(Mr. Gardiner.]
them in touch with the actual production and marketing of food, and making it available to people who will consume it, we can quite easily show that a very considerable part of the six million people who are listed as rural people, together with a very considerable number of those who are even in some of our cities and towns that have been incorporated, and have therefore become urban, could compare favourably with those who had been listed previously as farmers.
In other words I think it is correct for those of us who live on farms to maintain that about half the population of Canada is really very closely associated with what we believe to be Canada's most important industry. Indeed they are so closely associated that we had 750 representatives of that group of people appear as guests of the Department of Agriculture at the Chateau Laurier the other evening. The whole 750 were representative of what might be called the secondary group of agriculturists, those who do not live on the farms but whose work is connected with that of the farms.
At the time the census was being compiled this last time I put forth a little effort to try to convince those who were making it that we should find some way of bringing those people into closer touch with our farm population in that census, in order to emphasize the fact that this country still is largely an agricultural country. I hope that by the time we get around to making another census, whatever government is here at that time will give some attention to this matter and try to indicate in the census that relationship which, I think, will give a better understanding outside this country of our position as agriculturists.	-
Then on the matter of increased production of farm products: I quite agree that, so far as we can find markets for farm products, we should encourage an increase in their production. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member from Prince Edward Island, the most completely agricultural province in Canada; and I appreciate them as one who comes from the province which stands second to Prince Edward Island as being the most completely agricultural.


Mr. Decore:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the value in our Canadian economy of the experimental farm service. As the minister indicated a moment ago, agriculture is our most important industry; and I feel that if we are to compete in world markets farming operations must be carried on on a scientific basis, and the best available farming methods ought to be used. This is especially true in western Canada, from which I come.

The three prairie provinces are essentially agricultural in nature, and because of their distance from markets and the fact that we must depend upon export trade it is essential that the costs of production be cut down as much as possible. For this reason one cannot overestimate the value of experimental farms. Therefore the expenditures the government make are, I believe, a great investment for the benefit of agriculture in this country.
Apart from the value of these experimental farms from the standpoint of making experiments, I believe the greatest value must be placed upon the educational facilities these farms offer to people in and around the communities in which they are located. Farmers have the opportunity of seeing for themselves the type of work being done. The experimental farm will serve a surrounding area of about a hundred miles.
For some time now I have been making representations to the minister and some of his officials, urging the necessity of establishing a.n experimental farm in that part of northern Alberta, east of Edmonton, from which I come. Let us take the constituency of Vegreville which I have the honour to represent. It is the most densely populated rural area in western Canada. Nearly all the people there depend on agriculture, and the farmers are interested to such a degree that some of the stock breeders have received national recognition for their stock at various livestock shows. There are a number of farmers in my constituency around Spedden, Two Hills, Vilna, Andrew and Hairy Hill who have received world recognition for coarse grains at the Toronto royal fair and the Chicago world show. According to surveys made by the National Trust Company that area contains some of the most productive grain farms in western Canada.
In spite of that I have before me a report which has recently been prepared by Mr. G. E. DeLong, superintendent of the Lacombe experimental farm, on a survey he made of that area in which he has this to say in part:
Soil erosion was considered a major problem, particularly on the sandy loam soils. No trouble was experienced in 1951 but prior to that in dry years the area was considered one of the worst dust bowls in central Alberta. Weeds were considered another serious problem. Tartarian buckwheat was serious on about 75 per cent of the land; wild oats on 50 per cent; quack grass on 5 per cent and other weeds such as stinkweed, blueburr, sow thistle, Canada thistle and mustards were prevalent in certain areas.
Further on he says:
A serious soil fertility problem has developed over a period of years. The continual practice of grain growing has depleted the soil with the result that yields have dropped off rapidly in recent years.
The closest dominion experimental farm to the area about which I am talking is at
Supply-Agriculture
Lacombe, which is nearly 200 miles away. The farm at Lacombe is doing excellent work for the benefit of agriculture, but the farmers in the part of Alberta to which I am referring do not have the opportunity of visiting that farm and deriving the beneficial values which they should be able to get. As I have pointed out, I have made numerous representations to the minister and his officials concerning the need of such an experimental farm in that area. I believe the minister is sympathetic and realizes the necessity of such an establishment; but I also think some of his officials, although realizing the problem which exists, feel that it can be remedied by means of an illustration station.
I have endeavoured to make numerous inquiries regarding the value of such illustration stations and have received opinions from many people. These opinions are expressed in the words of one, William Pidruchney, district agriculturist of Vegreville, who is recognized as very highly qualified in the field of agriculture. This is what he says:
The idea of the illustration station is not a new one and we could have had one of these established many years ago if a progressive type of a fanner had been willing to undertake the proposition. In addition, I have been observing the operation of illustration stations at other centres and feel that this type of a set-up has very little to offer for the district. The majority of the farmers who enter into an agreement with the federal Department of Agriculture do not get very much financial assistance to warrant undertaking the type of program that is required by the Department of Agriculture. The illustration station set-up may have some value in certain areas of the province-
I believe it has great value.
-but in this area I feel that there is a need of an experimental station which could be operated on the same basis as those at Lethbridge, Lacombe and Beaverlodge. It does not need to be elaborate to start out with but at least have it established on the same basis and enlarge upon it in the future.
I am drawing this matter to the attention of the minister. I feel that an experimental farm is something that is necessary. It is a vital need in the area to which I have referred, and I hope the minister will give the matter the most careful consideration.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you I am not going to talk about the foot-and-mouth disease. My main reason for rising at this time is to inform the Minister of Agriculture that there is some farming carried on in the province of Nova Scotia. Last February the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture came to the conclusion that their problems were being completely neglected in so far as the House of Commons is concerned, so much so that on the 5th of February they called a conference of the members of parliament from that province. I was not at the meeting, but I received a copy of their brief.

Supp ly-A griculture
The reason for the meeting was to acquaint members of the House of Commons with the problems of agriculture in Nova Scotia. In my opinion the logical thing for them to do is send a few farmers here to represent the industry; but until they get around to doing that the coal miners and lawyers will have to do the best they can to tell their story.
In the brief I received from the secretary of their organization they made a lot of observations with respect to imports, exports, differentials in tariffs and so on about which I am not going to speak because a lot has been said on these points, and in my opinion they have been completely covered. They refer to freight rate assistance. The minister has already reported on that. One thing that stands out in their brief is the necessity for the modernization of the railway lines in that part of the country in order to speed up traffic. The Minister of Transport has to do with that, and we will talk to Mr. Donald Gordon the next time we get him before the railways and shipping committee.
My impression of the problem in that part of the country is a little closer to home. I have in my hand a synopsis of a story that appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 25 and which is based on the last census. It shows that while there has been an upswing in agricultural production to the extent of about 6 per cent in the last ten years, during that same period there has been a decline of 17 per cent in land under cultivation in the province of Nova Scotia. Apparently we are in reverse compared with the national picture.
I do not know whether the decline in acreage is occasioned by migration to urban centres or whether it is because of uneconomic factors in the industry itself. The minister would know that better than I; but the story one gets from the last census very definitely indicates a trend away from the land in that province. There are hundreds of vacant farms on which families were raised in years gone by. They were educated, moved away, and after the old people died the land was left to stand in an unproductive state. That is one story; but in ten years, while the agricultural production and the acreage under cultivation has increased by 6 per cent on a national scale, there has been a decline in land under production in the province of Nova Scotia to the extent of 17 per cent, and it looks like a continuing decline.
No doubt the minister has seen this clipping. It is very revealing according to the last census, and it gives all the figures. I am not going to waste time reading them to the minister because he has already seen them;
[Mr. GilUs.l
but that is why I say the problem is closer to home than imports, exports, tariffs and so forth. I think something has to be done in that province with regard to the utilization of land that would be productive if properly taken care of.
I would just like to leave this thought with the minister. At the present time in that part of the country there is considerable industrial development. I have in my hand a story of the development that has taken place in Newfoundland in the last four or five years. It is contained in the June 20 supplement issue of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which carried a complete story of the industrialization of Newfoundland during the last four or five years and the trend that is expected to continue for the next four or five years. Additional production in that part of the country means there are going to be a lot more people there, and that will mean increased markets for dairy products, meats, and that kind of thing. If we do not follow up and increase our farm production to keep it in balance with industrial production it will be a bad development, in my opinion.
I think the base for any successful economy in this country, whether in a province or nationality, is an agricultural base. As I see the development in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland now, in that area the swing is toward increased industrial production with a rapid decline in agricultural production. I think I am safe in saying that at the present time 50 per cent of what is consumed in that province by way of agricultural production comes from outside. There is a steady decline in our own production, with hundreds of vacant farms throughout the province.
I would like to ask the minister whether there is a possible chance of having the P.F.R.A. legislation extended on a national basis for use wherever the opportunity presents itself in the opinion of the department. I think the P.F.R.A. legislation has done an excellent job on the prairies, but why should that legislation continue to be applicable only to the prairies? I have figures here on the administration of the two acts and they are not very large. However, the thing that impresses me in looking through the departmental administration is the large number of engineers and trained agriculturists the minister has at his disposal. I am reasonably sure it does not occupy all of the time of that highly trained technical staff to look after P.F.R.A. legislation in the prairie provinces. Is there a chance of the government extending that legislation to the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick? I can see a potential agricultural production in Nova Scotia if it is planned according to need and to match the industrial development that has taken place.

I do not think the provincial department of agriculture, though it is a good department and has excellent field workers, has the kind of men the minister has in his department administering the P.F.R.A. legislation.
In the light of the circumstances as they exist now, with plenty of land and many farms with buildings on them, I am wondering if the minister could not prevail upon his colleagues in the cabinet to extend that legislation to augment the work being done by the provincial department of agriculture, by getting some of his personnel in there with some of the technical advice and experience they have gained on the prairies, with a view to rehabilitating the agricultural industry in the province of Nova Scotia. When the minister gets around to it I would like to have his opinion on this to see if there is a possible chance. I think the answer lies there. The figures speak for themselves. What has been done in the past is all a matter of record, but I think for the future there is a good possibility in that part of the country for greater agricultural production although I can only see it achieved if we get some national assistance such as there is in the P.F.R.A. legislation.


Mr. MacKenzie:: Mr. Chairman, I represent a riding that is in the main agricultural, and I feel I should make a few observations at this time. I quite appreciate that long drawn out remarks at this time of the session are not very popular, so I will be as brief as possible.
After all, it has been said here on several occasions, even this afternoon, that agriculture is our basic industry. It is our most important industry, and last year the agricultural income in Canada was an all-time high. According to the dominion bureau of statistics Canadian farm income for 1951 reached the all-time high total of $2,825 million. That was approximately 27 per cent higher than the farm income for 1950. It is true that 1952 prospects are not so bright, I would say mainly due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease that we had here in Canada.
I am not going to be quite so charitable as the gentleman who just spoke; I am going to mention the matter quite briefly. No one suggests that the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture, or the officials, had anything to do with the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada. That is sure. I do not think anybody suggests for a moment that the officials have been at all lax in enforcing the regulations to exterminate and clean up the disease once it was properly diagnosed. I think it is generally accepted and admitted that the officials were a little slow in detecting the disease. I think that is quite true; but I would gather now
Supply-Agriculture
that the disease is pretty well exterminated, the premises are cleaned up, and the embargo on livestock going to the United States will be lifted in the very near future, or at least at some time in the not too distant future. It has often been said that if the foot-and-mouth disease had been diagnosed earlier we would not have had nearly the economic loss that we had straight across Canada. That is a hypothetical situation and nobody can say, because the disease was probably there in a mild form two months before the embargo was imposed, or probably a little more. For those two months cattle were moving quite freely, and shipments of cattle to the United States were fairly heavy. I would say that under the law of general averages, if the embargo had been placed on two months earlier it would have been lifted two months earlier. The same thing is true the other way around; if it was placed on two months later it will be lifted two months later. By and large I think it will be just about an even break.
I was amazed last night, as a matter of fact, at the exhibition we had here regarding foot-and-mouth disease, with charges and counter-charges being hurled across the house. I have often wondered if committees play as important a part as we think. It is true they have a useful function, but very often members use committees to practise up for speeches they want to make in the house, and here on many occasions we have repetitions of speeches made in committee. This happened quite frequently in the committee studying foot-and-mouth disease, and also in other committees I have attended. I have often wondered why it is regarded as so important to put all the evidence on Hansard. I have often suggested, and I am going to suggest it in the next session too, that if we could stop the franking of political speeches that are made in the house we would shorten the sessions by at least two or three months.
Suggestions have been made by different people that we suffered a loss due to this foot-and-mouth disease. It has been said that my province lost so much because of it. The main loss was the loss of the cattle market, that is true. As a matter of record I should like to put on Hansard approximately the number of cattle we have in Canada, by provinces:
Province	No. of cattle
Newfoundland	 7,944
Prince Edward Island	 97,924
Nova Scotia	 166^202
New Brunswick	 161,897
Quebec	 l,16oi840
Ontario	 2,465,875
Manitoba	 671,183
Saskatchewan	 1,274,849
Alberta	 1,563,019
British Columbia	 321,385

Supply-Agriculture
This adds up to approximately 8,371,000 head of cattle in Canada. By and large I think our economic loss was about the same per capita in so far as the number of cattle we had was concerned. The cattle slaughtered because of foot-and-mouth disease numbered 1,343. All those cattle did not have the disease; many had been associated with cattle who had it, or had been exposed to the disease in some way. Out of 8,371,000 head of cattle in Canada we only slaughtered 1,343. I believe that was a small percentage. I must confess, and I am quite sure most people would agree, we made a lot of fuss and created a lot of advertising about the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. We hope the outbreak is over, and we think it is; and we have only lost 1,343 head. Really, we advertised it not only in this country but around the world. I think it was advertised far too much.
As I said before, the livestock producers and the people handling livestock products have had the greatest loss as a result of the foot-and-mouth disease. For instance, I am interested in egg production. The production of eggs has been quite high and the price has been comparatively low. Just as a matter of record last week a friend of mine showed me an egg grading slip which was dated April 20, 1935. It was for a small shipment of 13 dozen eggs. According to this slip the extras brought 13 cents and the first grade 11 cents, or a total of $1.52 for the 13 dozen. Taking the same quantity of eggs and the same date this year, April 20, they would have brought $4.26, so we have come a long way in that period of time. I am not saying for a minute that the price of eggs is high enough. I think it was fortunate for the egg producers that there was a floor price under eggs. March and April is the period of the highest production, and if the floor had not been established the price of eggs would have gone even lower. I would suggest to the minister and his officials that, because of the high cost of production of eggs, they revise the floor price to give the producer a fairer margin of profit. I think that is something that should be undertaken all along the line.
In the main, grain production has been fairly good and the price has been fair. Cash field crops have maintained fairly good prices throughout the year. The brightest spot we have in our southwestern Ontario crops is probably the sugar beets. I want to mention them because not many people are interested in the production of sugar beets. In this country we produce sugar beets in four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta. In 1951 Canada produced 241 million pounds of sugar in these beet factories. Ontario led

the field, because last year we had an exceptionally good crop. The two factories that are situated at Chatham and Wallaceburg produced 94 million pounds of sugar and processed 341,991 tons of sugar beets. The sugar content for the entire crop averaged a little over 17 per cent, which is rather exceptional. The two plants in western Ontario processed approximately 5,700 tons of beets a day. During the season they employ over 1,000 people. Last year the growers received something over $5,250,000, and a further payment is still to be made.
This year in the western Ontario district the growers have planted over 30,000 acres of sugar beets. The factories have a capacity for processing approximately 400,000 tons of beets, and it is hoped this year to attain that approximate figure, although the season has been dry and germination is very spotty. At the moment the prospects do not look very good. However, in this country we produce only about one-quarter of the sugar we consume. I often think of the tremendous progress this industry has made since the thirties, when we received only $4 or $5 a ton for sugar beets. In those times it was most difficult to keep the sugar beet industry going. At this time I want to pay tribute to my good friend the hon. member for Lethbridge, who contributed so much to the industry at that time, as well as my good friend the hon. member for Essex South. They have done a great deal to sponsor and maintain the sugar beet industry through these difficult times.
At this time when we are spending so much money on research and expansion, I should like to suggest to the minister that more money be spent on experimentation and the development of greater food crops. This is particularly true with respect to the sugar beet industry, because the sugar content of the beets has steadily increased over the years. In our district 10 per cent used to be a good average, but it has now gone up to close to 17 per cent. Great progress has been made in research at the experimental farm. I think that is the solution to our farm problems. We should grow better crops and improve our understanding how to grow them. The government can contribute a great deal-although it is contributing some, I think a great deal more could be done-in this reseach and experimental work in order to increase production in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a special reason for dealing with one or two of these questions at this time, Mr. Chairman, as some members are going away.


Mr. Brooks:: I just want to raise one question, and it will only take a minute or two.

As the minister probably knows, I come from an agricultural constituency, to a great extent mixed farming; but they are chiefly interested in dairying. The producers in my constituency, like those in other parts of Canada, are greatly concerned over the dairy situation. The point I wish to bring before the minister today has to do with feed grain assistance. I understand he made some remarks with regard to that matter last night, but I was not here; I was in committee.
The point the dairy farmers in my constituency raise is the fact that there is not any permanency to this feed grain assistance. They say it is hard for them to make their plans for the future when, from year to year, they never know whether or not this assistance is to be continued. I was wondering whether the government could have some sort of permanent policy so the dairy producers in the maritime provinces would know, from season to season or from year to year, whether this assistance would be on a permanent basis. That is the point that I wish to bring before the minister.
While I am on my feet I might say that I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South in many of the remarks he has made. It is not production that is the chief problem for the farmers in the maritime provinces. As the hon. member said, we have a great many abandoned farms. Those farms are not abandoned because we cannot produce; the fact is that we could produce far more in my constituency, and the same is true with regard to most of the other constituencies in the maritime provinces. Our big problem is the question of markets.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear. That is everybody's problem.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Until we get stable markets in this country; until we get stable markets for the farmers of the maritime provinces -and I think this is true with respect to farmers all across Canada-we shall have vacant farms and more vacant farms. I often hear it said that in my own province of New Brunswick we could have a population two or three times as large as we have, both in our towns and in our rural areas, if the products we raise on our farms could be sold at prices which would make it profitable for the farmers to raise them, and make it possible to keep the young people on the farms.
That is the only point I wish to raise at the present time. I should like to ask the minister whether it is at all possible to assure the dairy farmers of the maritime provinces of some permanency in this feed grain assistance.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, what I was going to say was that I have been agreeing to have members rise in their places and speak on individual matters which will come under votes we shall be coming to later on. I do not raise the usual objection to that kind of thing on the general discussion because I take it for granted that hon. members, as we are coming to the end of the session, are desirous of expressing themselves from time to time, and that they will probably be prepared to pass the individual items more readily when we come to them-more readily than has been the case at some other times. I am therefore not insisting that we get done discussing them generally, and get by item No. 1, and wait discussion until we reach the items.
I will review one or two matters that have been raised, with a view to mentioning some other things hon. members probably will want to give thought to, inasmuch as we are drawing toward the close of the session.
First I should like to say a word or two with regard to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Since 1943 we have been considering the possibility of bringing down legislation to apply the principle of P.F.R.A. right across Canada. At that time we had a committee of the house which gave careful study to the whole question and recommended that course. On three or four different occasions since that time I have had ready bills to make that procedure a possibility. I also think that hon. members can have as much influence upon the government as I can in connection with a matter of that kind. The subjects that have come up for consideration here from session to session, and to which great importance is attached, are naturally the subjects to which hon. members of the government are giving the most attention. While we have had bills prepared from session .to session, we have had little discussion of the question. Little has been said about it. The result has been that the legislation having to do with this subject is passed over to another session. That is one suggestion I should like to make. On a practical problem of that kind, discussion would probably get us a little bit farther than the discussions we have on some other things.
I should say this with regard to the matter. There seems to be a misunderstanding with regard to what happens in the west. P.F.R.A. covers only a small part of western Canada. It covers less than one-third of the three prairies provinces. It does not cover any of British Columbia. It does not cover the northern part of any of the three prairie

Supply-Agriculture
provinces. As a matter of fact it covers a small proportion of the province of Manitoba. Those who are living in other parts of Canada should not conclude that P.F.R.A. applies to all of the western provinces. It does not. It applies only to the Palliser triangle to which reference was made last night by the hon. member for Lethbridge.
The other point I should like to make at the moment is that in the maritime provinces we have legislation covering the marshlands, and that legislation was patterned after the legislation we have in the west in connection with P.F.R.A. To the extent that we are spending money on marshlands in the eastern part of Canada, we are doing the same thing there that we are doing in a comparatively small section of western Canada. The officials who have been trained in one area are transferred to the other, back and forth, in order to assist in that work.
So far as most of the farmers in Canada are concerned-and this is true so far as I am concerned personally-I think they would like to see legislation which covers all of Canada. The legislation in the east would require to be different from that in the west. The provisions made for British Columbia would be somewhat different from those made for the prairie provinces. On the prairies our problem is entirely, or almost entirely, a drought problem, a problem of lack of moisture. In British Columbia it is both; on one side of the mountains it is a drought problem; on the other side it is one of too much water. The problem down in the eastern part of Canada is that of salt water coming in on the land. That is not helpful. The objective is to keep it out. Those are all great problems. In this department we have always had the feeling that the whole matter could be dealt with right across Canada, with one staff of engineers, to better advantage than it can be dealt with in ten provinces. Nevertheless up to ithe present time, under our constitution the responsibility is fundamentally provincial; and it is only in dealing with certain phases of it that the federal government has come into the picture.
With regard to the suggestion that there are vacant lands in the maritime provinces, I may say I am not so familiar with the vacant lands in those provinces as I am with Ontario, although my deputy who is sitting here was born and raised in Nova Scotia. I have visited the area where he was born and raised. I have visited most of the areas in Nova Scotia. I just asked my deputy about the lands where he was born, and he says that they are grassed.


Mr. Quelch:: They must be productive lands.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is true of lands in western Ontario; they are grassed. That does not mean that they are not producing. As a matter of fact, grassed land upon which you are pasturing cattle, having regard to the present price of cattle, may be bringing the farmer more money than they would if he were living there and producing crops by hard labour. In other words it requires a little more labour to produce turnips, and all that kind of thing, and feed them to cattle than to grow grass and pasture the land with cattle. To the extent that is being done both in Ontario and in the maritimes the owner of the land may be taking in more money than can be acquired in any other way. I quite agree there are some arguments in favour of having other kinds of production, and I like to see an agricultural area being cultivated and producing as intensively as it possibly can produce. Whether you can have that or not depends somewhat on the further question as to how dense your population is. That density of population, of course, depends upon the development of industry and other matters, and to the extent that the population is there to consume the type of thing, vegetables and small fruits, which would grow on that intensively cultivated piece of land a market can be found. These things all go together and have something to do with the matter.
The other question which was raised had to do with experimental farms, and particularly experimental plots, illustration stations, or experimental stations in different parts of Canada, and particularly in the province of Alberta. There is an area which has been referred to by the hon. member for Vegreville, who comes from that section, which I think personally, along with the hon. member, requires some special attention. There are areas in other parts of Canada that are similarly situated. The soil is of a little different character from the soils in places where we have stations now, and the people are all pretty much of one nationality, having come here from a section of Europe which is very highly agricultural. The conditions being different from those they were accustomed to there is further reason why we should have a station of some kind there. As the hon. member has suggested, we are quite willing at any time to put in what is called an illustration station. One of the reasons for our willingness in that regard is naturally that the cost is not so high.
The suggestion is made that the illustration station is not so useful. I must say that in going across the country I have wondered sometimes whether that is true or not. In travelling across Alberta and Saskatchewan,

and even some of the eastern provinces, I have found our cereals men holding meetings at these little illustration farms, and I have been surprised at the number of people who gathered around listening to the story they were telling. Then I have gone to our experimental farms and I have been surprised at the few times I found anybody there. We have these rather large experimental stations and farms right across the country, and one just wonders sometimes why there are not more people there taking advantage of what can be learned by visiting these places.
On the other hand, when you advertise a class for a certain date at a certain illustration station and have a few of the officials from the department there to give lectures on what this means and what that means, it is surprising the number of people who turn out and examine the rows of grain and walk up and down the rows, and examine the different varieties of cereals that are being produced in those little plots. Then they go home and try to do the same thing themselves, or try to produce in the same way. I would suggest to the hon. member that there is a great deal to be said for the illustration station as a starter at least, even if you are not able to get the experimental farm that is thought to be advisable. At the same time I want to emphasize my own sympathy with the contention that he has made here this afternoon that in that particular area there should be something more than that.
There is no special vote for it in our estimates of this year. There is a general vote for illustration plots which can be enlarged upon somewhat from the small plot, and something along that line could be started this year with the idea that it could be developed into something better. But that is the general position right across the country. Take Beaverlodge, which was mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. member. The first time I went to Beaverlodge, which is up northwest of Edmonton toward the British Columbia boundary, it was just a little better than an illustration station. People were gathered there in a considerable group to listen to the lectures by officials of the department. I happened to be in that section of the country at that time, and I went there. That was probably 15 or 16 years ago now. I was back there two years ago, and I was agreeably surprised-and I emphasize the word "surprised"-to find just how much I had been able to persuade this house to pass by way of votes in order to improve and enlarge upon the plant which is there. It is now quite an important experimental farm, with very much more equipment than I expected to find when I went to visit it, and very much more in the way 55704-243i
Supply-Agriculture
of buildings. But I would suggest to hon. members that they not be too anxious about getting started at the top. If you cannot get started in any other way than at the bottom, then start at the bottom. Get started, and no doubt as we go along and have experience with it we will be able to do even more than is expected by some.
With respect to the production of sugar beets and other products of that kind on our farm lands, we have specialties of course right across the country, and we do co-operate in every possible way with the provinces in connection with their development. But I have followed the practice while I have been in the department-and I think it is the proper practice to follow-of relying considerably upon the provincial departments of agriculture to give the lead in the agitation for a certain use of land as compared with the use that has been made of it previously. The obvious reason for that is that after all it is the provinces that deal with these people as individual farmers. They have to do with building the roads for them; they have to do with putting in schools for them; they have to do with all the developments that are to take place there. Therefore I hesitate, as Minister of Agriculture for the dominion, to say that people ought to be growing more sugar beets some place, or they ought to be growing tobacco here and corn somewhere else. I think that lead should be given by the provinces; then we can come along and help not only in the further production but in finding markets for the products. We think that we ought to do that to the greatest extent possible.
I was very pleased to hear what has been said with regard to all these products in order that we might be in a better position to assist with them as we go along.
I have been waiting until the leader of the opposition came back to say this to him, and I want to say it now. We had a little discussion this morning about an agreement that was entered into in the early part of the session. I want to say to him that he carried out his agreement with me in every particular. There was no way in which he broke his agreement. The same is true of the leader of the C.C.F. party. The only agreement I got from the leader of the Social Credit party when I made the suggestion was that he waved his hand to me. Well, unfortunately, that does not appear in Hansard and there is no reference in Hansard to anything he said. The leader of the official opposition said that he was within reason prepared to go along and get this legislation through and, as a matter of fact,

Supply-Agriculture
if you look in Hansard you will find that we jumped all the different two days' notices that we give from one step to another, and we went completely over into committee. It was in committee that we took up considerable time, but the leaders all agreed to facilitate passage. I knew the leaders did not have an opportunity between the time I was talking to them and the time we came into the house to talk to all their members, or to hold a caucus of their groups or anything of that kind and to tell them. I can understand that some individual members did not know, and that they may have taken up more time than otherwise they would have taken up. But I am simply saying now that I agree with what the leader of the opposition said this morning, that he did carry out any undertaking he gave; and that is true of the leaders of the other groups as well.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister did not answer the question I asked him.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the question of feed
grain freight, I have wondered sometimes why farmers do not take it for granted that, since we have been paying the freight since 1941, we are likely to go on paying it. We are always in the position, no matter how we go about it, that we can change at any time, even if we had legislation which stated that it was continuous until further notice. That is all the legislation does say, as a matter of fact; it can be withdrawn at any time. In the manner in which we are operating now, we go on from year to year. Under the provisions we now have, the government simply say they will continue it until next year, and we pass our estimate for that purpose.
I did announce yesterday when I brought down the estimates that there was in them an amount of $11,125,000 to cover feed grains freight assistance for this year. I am not at all satisfied that I would be able to have any more than that done. The government rather feels that this is something which may require changing from time to time. I have not heard any suggestion that it ought to be cut out, but there has been a suggestion made that perhaps it should be changed.
It has not been changed materially except when freight rates have been changed; we have made some changes in order to bring it into line with changes in freight rates. However, it has gone on now for quite a few years on much the same basis, and I would imagine some special condition would have to arise to bring about a discontinuance of the payments.


George Alexander Drew: There is just one matter I wish to make clear in relation to what the Minister

of Agriculture said about the agreement that was referred to on an earlier occasion. I think it is necessary to leave no uncertainty as to what the agreement was and as to what was under discussion, in view of certain earlier debate in relation to which the minister and I had some comments to make this morning.
I am very pleased that the minister has without reservation stated that I carried out any undertaking I gave. I do however think there should be more on the record than has already been told. The discussion arose because of a charge that the hon. member for Lake Centre had failed to carry out an agreement. I want to make it clear as to what the agreement was. That agreement was to permit a measure to provide for compensation to those who had lost animals as a result of foot-and-mouth disease to have priority over any other legislation.
The session was just beginning, and ordinarily we would have proceeded with other government business. I was approached and asked what my position would be in regard to the introduction of a measure which would make it possible to deal immediately with compensation. It was pointed out that the passing of such a measure would help to restore confidence among the farmers who were losing animals in this way, and also that it would encourage other farmers to report the disease as quickly as possible, if it appeared, because they would know that there was going to be some provision made for them.
Naturally I agreed immediately to that proposal. There was no undertaking as to length of debate or otherwise. Most certainly there was no suggestion that there would not be adequate discussion of the measure which came before us. Hansard will show that this important legislation was dealt with expeditiously. I do wish to say in relation to this that not only was my undertaking as leader of the Progressive Conservative party carried out, but that there was no single member of this party who in any way opposed the adoption of the legislation or who failed to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of that undertaking.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to read what took place, because it would take some time to do it; but it bears out pretty much the statement that has been made by the leader of the opposition. Hon. members will find the arrangement that was entered into clearly stated to the House of Commons at page 32 of Hansard for this session.
I am simply going to leave it there, and say that anyone who wishes to read what the

understanding was may do so. I spoke, stating what the understanding was. Then the leader of the official opposition spoke very much along the lines he has spoken today. The leader of the C.C.F. followed and stated his position. Then, as I say, my hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit party agreed by a wave of his hand, as much as to say, "Go ahead". And we proceeded from that point to do whatever was required.
I just wish to make it understood that there was some understanding; and my suggestion is that, so far as the groups as such were concerned, they carried it out.


George Alexander Drew: Just to tie it in-because it has been the subject of discussion in as well as outside the house, apparently with the purpose of creating the impression that the hon. member for Lake Centre had failed to carry out an undertaking-I wish to make it abundantly clear that when we agree at any time to permit the introduction of legislation in this manner, we certainly do not agree to abandon any opportunity for debate or such discussion of a measure which is introduced as is regarded as appropriate under the circumstances.
I wish to leave no doubt as to the suggestion that the hon. member for Lake Centre in any way impeded the proceedings of the house or failed to carry out any undertaking. I repeat that the hon. member for Lake Centre and all other members of this party fully carried out any undertaking or understanding to which I had been a party.


Mr. Fair:: When the legislation dealing with compensation in respect of animals was before the house, I was one of the first members to speak for this group. On that occasion, while I spoke for only a moment or two, I stated that I did not feel any good could be accomplished by prolonging the debate. I believe our actions during the sittings of the committee and since that time have indicated that we have carried out entirely the sign made by our leader, the hon. member for Peace River.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before we leave that, and before the leader of the opposition leaves the chamber, I wish to say that I agree with what the leader of the opposition has said, and what others have said. But I am sure the leader of any of the groups would be the first to say that whatever arrangement had been made did not bind individuals. I think those of us who are also individuals in the house will have to be allowed to hold our own opinions with regard to the actions of any individual in relation to the matter. That
Supply-Agriculture
is the right of other members of the house, as well as the right of those who occupy opposition benches.


Robert Fair: I agree with the hon. member who has said that if we did not have the opportunity to express our opinions, there would be no use in our coming here. When the day comes that I cannot express my opinion, I shall stay at home.
I understand the hon. member for Vegre-ville has requested the establishment of an experimental station in his constituency. While I was not in the chamber to hear what he said-I was busy attending to other matters elsewhere-I believe he has made a good suggestion. When the minister is considering it, I would ask him to consider at the same time the request made by the farmers of Derwent district, located 25 miles north of Vermilion. This request was made about two years ago to have not an experimental station but an illustration station established at that point. Quite a number of farmers have asked for it, and they are very interested. Personally, while not farming at the present time, I believe a very good service is being rendered by the department. I should like to see the practice extended. With respect to the P.F.R.A. about which the minister has spoken, I have been one of those who have requested on many occasions that the northerly limit be extended farther north than the present limit of Lloyd-minster. I should like to know whether the minister can give us some information with respect to that matter.


Mr. Charlton:: In all fairness to the hon. member for Lake Centre; even in spite of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture says that what was right and what was wrong has been clearly understood; also in view of the fact that I took some part in that debate, I should like to make it very clear-and it is to be found on page 32 of Hansard for March 3 if anybody wants to read it-that the leader of the opposition did not at any time consent to the passage of that bill without discussion. At no time did he do that. He only agreed that the bill be brought in without the necessary notice and that it be proceeded with before proceeding with other orders of business. That was the only consent he gave. The Minister of Agriculture is leaving the impression-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not leaving any impression. I have said what I wish to say.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It seems to me we have had a fairly complete discussion of this question. We are now considering

Supply-Agriculture
item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The hon. member is now discussing a procedural matter which occurred several months ago. That discussion has been allowed to go on for a certain length of time, but surely it has been fully covered by now and discussion should cease.


John Alpheus Charlton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the minister is still leaving the impression that the leader of the opposition gave consent that this thing should go on and that the hon. member for Lake Centre went against that and took some considerable time to discuss it. I myself took some time to discuss it, but I still contend that none of those who took time to discuss that question in the house went against any remarks the leader of the opposition made. I want to read the remarks he made at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: This is what the leader of the opposition said:
Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat unusual procedure, but the request relates to a very unusual situation, and I am happy to agree that we proceed in the manner that has been suggested. My remarks, of course, do not cover the contents of the bill, but simply the request that this matter be dealt with now. In saying that my remarks do not cover the contents of the bill, naturally I am not attempting in any way to limit the discussion of its contents, which actually are not yet before hon. members. I welcome the fact that a measure which is designed to meet a very serious situation, and to restore confidence in the area affected, does come before the house so soon.
That should be quite plain.


Mr. Fulton:: I want to say a few words, first of all on the subject of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the question of its extension to other parts of Canada besides the three prairie provinces. I shall be brief and very general at this stage because I want to ask one or two specific questions when we come to the particular item in the estimates. However, with respect to the general aspect of the matter I think the minister will agree with me when I say that I have on a number of occasions, urged-and indeed supported the suggestion of the minister-that there be an extension of the act so that it might have general application to the whole of Canada, as he has himself suggested this afternoon.
I recall an occasion in 1947 when it was understood, or at any rate, certainly it was very strongly hoped, that legislation extending the act would be introduced. My recollection is that the proposal at that time was to have two separate bills, one extending it westward to British Columbia and another making it of application in the eastern part of Canada. I have never ceased to hold the view that the general provisions of the act
[The Deputy Chairman.]
should be extended so that instead of prairie farm rehabilitation engineers being called upon to go into our province, as at present, only when certain specific local projects arise, or only when specific requests are received from provincial authorities, they might take part, in co-operation with the provincial authorities it is true, in a general study of all problems of water conservation and land reclamation as well as irrigation which the minister has said vary so widely from area to area in our province.
I have been particularly interested in the question of a general study of the joint problems of irrigation, flood control and power development in the Fraser river system where all these three problems exist, and in the lower reaches of the Fraser where the problems of reclamation and diking exist. I have urged and still urge that, although a study is now going forward on that matter, there should be a clearer definition of the federal authority under which that study is going forward. While I have the highest admiration and respect for both the dominion and provincial officials who are taking part in the study, and while I know they are making all the progress they can with the resources at their disposal, my feeling is there could be a greater drive and sense of urgency from the top. It is my feeling that at the present time there is not that sense of urgency and push behind the thing from this level that perhaps there might be. That drive from above is one of the things which I think would result if an act were passed making the principles of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration of general application to the whole of Canada.
While I do not necessarily say I will wait until he himself brings it forward, I want to assure the minister that if at any time he does bring forward such a proposal he can count on my immediate and full support. I hope indeed that he and the government as a whole will take these remarks as an indication from me that I think this matter should be proceeded with now. My recollection is that the last time we discussed the matter on the minister's estimates he told me that it had been his intention, as I think he said today, every year since 1947 to bring in bills along the lines of those which he discussed, but I think it was in 1950 or 1951 when he told me that because of the sudden way in which defence requirements had taken priority it had been decided that, temporarily, it would not be possible to proceed with that policy. My recollection again is that he assured me in reply to a question that I was correct in assuming this was only a temporary postponement.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure we can give those words their literal interpretation. While I realize that defence requirements and the priority of defence expenditure still exist, nevertheless I hope we will not be compelled to defer too long our hope that the project can be proceeded with. If the minister is in a position at this time to give us any general outline of what the position is with respect to the relationship between defence priority and this type of project, I think it would be very helpful.
Then, Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to ask the minister a question or two with relation to the support price policy for beef which he announced recently as a result of the closing of the United States market to our cattle. I ask these questions at this time because I have to say that my correspondence and conversations with the minister and some of his officials have not yet produced an answer to these questions satisfactory to myself or to the B.C. beef cattle growers association who have their head office in my constituency. The questions relate to the specific application of the price support program to cattle originating in British Columbia.
It has been drawn to my attention that as a result of personal interviews by the manager of one of our largest cattle ranches- as a matter of fact the largest in Canada-as a result of his personal views with the officials of the packing plants operating in the city of Vancouver he was advised they had no instructions from the department as to any support price policy for beef originating in and marketed in British Columbia. They had instructions with respect to the handling of beef marketed in British Columbia but originating in provinces other than British Columbia, but they had no instructions with regard to British Columbia beef. Indeed they indicated to this gentleman that as far as they were concerned the lack of such instructions from the department indicated that there was no support price program for beef originating in British Columbia, and so the association asked me to take this matter up and find out why that should be the case.
When I discussed it with the deputy minister and later with the minister it was indicated to me that one reason is that British Columbia is a deficiency province; that is, it does not produce all the beef which we ourselves consume, and further, that Vancouver market prices are well over the floor price which would apply under the support program and therefore there did not seem to be any practical reason why instructions should be issued at this time as to how to apply price support to British Columbia beef.
Supply-Agriculture
Well, Mr. Chairman, it has been indicated to me quite clearly by the B.C. beef cattle growers association that they do not regard that as a satisfactory answer. One of the reasons they are not satisfied, as pointed out by the secretary of the association in a letter to the deputy minister, a copy of which I have received, is that it has been their experience that-
. . . unless the machinery is set up beforehand there are always delays in putting a scheme like price support into effect when it is needed.
That answer relates to the statements which have been made by the departmental officials that there is no need for such instructions to be issued at this time because British Columbia prices are well above the floor. The concern of our cattlemen is that although that is true at the present time, nevertheless our cattle will be moving on to the market from the grass in increasing numbers toward the end of this month, and from then on in increasing numbers through the rest of the year. Should any surplus on the market occur as a result of the American embargo, or as a result of some difficulty developing in the four-way meat deal between Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Great Britain, then a support price would be an immediate necessity in British Columbia.
It was relating to that statement by the department and from a practical point of view that they say:
. . . we have always found that, unless the machinery is set up beforehand there are always delays in putting a scheme like price support into effect when it is needed.
Other reasons they advance as to why there should be instructions issued now to packers in British Columbia may be found in this passage of the letter from the secretary to the deputy minister:
Although marketing on the Vancouver yards has increased lately such marketing is still confined to smaller shipments and does not reflect the bulk of sales of the better cattle. These are bought at country shipping points by the packer buyers. In most cases the B.C. livestock producers' co-operative association has a salesman there to act for producers. In many ways the average of prices at these shipping points is a truer reflection of cattle prices in British Columbia than the Vancouver yards, operated by the same co-operative.
The point there, which I am sure the minister and his officials will appreciate, is that the department has been relying, in their answers to the association, on the prices quoted at the Vancouver yards. The fact is that, from now on particularly, the bulk of the buying in British Columbia, as our own cattle come on the market, will be done at the interior points of origin of the cattle and not

Supply-Agriculture
on the Vancouver market. The prices there may not necessarily be the same as Vancouver prices. Therefore unless support price instructions are issued to the packers so that their buyers will know how it operates and will clearly understand that support prices do apply in British Columbia, these packer buyers may feel free to try to buy cattle at the interior points at less than the floor price.
Then the letter goes on to say:
. . . you say that you are asking the board . . .
That is the agricultural prices support board.
... to review the question of purchase of cattle originating in B.C. This association is in full accord with the sense of that paragraph, and it is in fact the nub of our contention that when British Columbia cattle of the specified grades and weights are available they should be eligible for support board purchase; otherwise, the packers will not be interested in them. Within the next thirty days...
This letter is dated June 20.
. . . we shall be moving dry cows and heifers, many of which will come within the specifications. Most of these will be offered at country points. For this reason I trust that the board will soon accept carcasses of cattle originating in B.C. on the same basis as from other provinces.
The letter goes on to pay a compliment and I think I should read this as well:
Your department is to be congratulated on arranging the exchange plan between Canada, New Zealand, United States and Great Britain. I believe that favourable comment on this would have been made at our annual meeting had it not been that producers in this province appeared to be specifically excluded from participation.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister will now say that, although it may have been the situation perhaps up to the present that prices in B.C. generally have been above the floor, nevertheless because this matter is of such great concern to our producers, and in the light of the arguments advanced by them, there is no reason why he should not issue instructions to the packers in British Columbia making it clear that beef support prices apply to beef originating in our province just as they apply to beef originating in other provinces. That should be made clear to the packers.
Before I take my seat I want to refer to one other thing mentioned this afternoon. It is the matter of experimental farms. I want to express the appreciation of the cattle growers of British Columbia, particularly in my district, for the re-establishment in the last five or six years of a range experimental station and the establishment of the experimental farm at Kamloops. What the minister said with respect to finding that a relatively small number of people go to those experimental stations for instruction on what is going on, may apply elsewhere but it has not been my impression with

respect to the establishment in Kamloops. Certainly it has been my impression that the cattle growers of our district are interested in this problem generally and are very appreciative of the good work being done by the staff of that range station and farm. If the situation which the minister outlines is of general application then I shall be very glad indeed to discuss it with the association and see if there cannot be found ways to make them aware, and to make all their members aware of what goes on there and of the value to them of actually going for consultation and visits to that farm.
I want to assure the minister that the cattle growers in my area appreciate what is done there and would not want him or any of his officials to have the impression that they regard it only as of passing interest. I know they appreciate it and I shall certainly try to see, if it is the case that there have not been many who visit and take advantage of the services available, that the situation is rectified in the future.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact that the hon. member has raised this question, which I am sure is in the minds of a number of members, and has stated it in relation to an area which has been the last to benefit by what has developed in connection with the arrangements with Britain and New Zealand, perhaps I should deal with the matter at this time. In introducing the estimates yesterday I said that our main problem in connection with the marketing of products this year has developed from the fact that we had foot-and-mouth disease, and the adjustments that had to be made as a result of that. I believe it is quite proper to say that there would not have been any floor price under cattle or beef if it had not been for that epidemic.
The question that was being discussed all across Canada prior to that was whether we should not have a ceiling price. The consumers were very much worked up over the fact that prices were so high during 1951 and were continuing at that level in 1952. If there was any agitation for anything, it was for the control of that situation. But as soon as we had foot-and-mouth disease the price dropped. If the governments had not done anything-I take into account both provincial governments and the federal government -there is very little doubt in my mind that the price of cattle would have gone down to 15 cents or perhaps 10 cents a pound. When you throw on the market a quarter of the product which had been sold outside the country, and say there is no place it can be

sold except in this country, that can have only one result and that is to push the price down.
I have noticed some criticism, which I am sure none of the members of this house would agree with, in some articles that have been written across the country to the effect that we should have allowed that to happen. The producer had benefited so long from higher prices, the consumer should have been permitted to get the advantage of lower prices for a while. I do not believe there has been much support for that idea, either amongst the consumers or any other body of people.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The farmer was just beginning to enjoy prices which enabled him to live at a standard comparable to the rest of the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was quite strongly
expressed for a short time. We took the position that we should put a floor under cattle and we should offer to buy. We set the price at 25 cents a pound for good steers, but we did not expect the price would remain at that level for any great length of time, although we did expect we might buy some at that price. We not only established the price at 25 cents; we established at different points prices we would pay for beef based upon that 25 cents. In other words there was a floor set at Winnipeg, at Regina, at Saskatoon, at Calgary, at Edmonton and at Vancouver, as well as at eastern points.
The provinces took certain actions which, for a time, made it impossible for the floor price to operate freely. When we made arrangements with Britain, New Zealand and the United States to make possible the marketing of the surplus from this country, we did make the provision that we were prepared to buy anywhere at a price for meat which would bear the proper relationship to the 25 cents for good steers. There was a period-it might have been a week or two weeks, I have not looked up the records -when we were , only buying meat from Alberta and Ontario. The fundamental reason for that was that the storages in those two places were filled to the roof. Farmers could not get their animals in at all, or when they did get them into the yard they got a much lower price than they should have received because the packers had no room in the storage plants. We took action just as fast as possible, and it was in those two markets that most of the heavy cattle were to be found. They had been prepared for the United States market. There was no considerable market in this country for that heavy beef, so we went into Alberta and Ontario and bought those heavy steers first.
Supply-Agriculture
This accounts for the fact that we set a certain weight level below which we would not buy for a time. We advised holding other weights at home.
Then when we got rid of that we expressed our willingness to buy in other places. We did n'ot buy in Manitoba until that province removed its controls. We did not buy very much in British Columbia until British Columbia took off its controls. In the press today I noted the suggestion that Quebec is now removing its controls. Well, that causes me to say that we have not forced anybody to take off controls. We took the position we were able to accomplish what we had in mind without using that legal right, which we may have had, to force people to do certain things. We went along, and eventually they have found it to advantage to come along with us, so they came along.
Now, in so far as British Columbia is concerned, I think about the time this letter was written, to which reference has been made, instructions were given to the packers in Vancouver to buy meat for delivery under the British arrangement. My understanding is that a considerable part of the product which is being killed in Vancouver now is going out through the Panama canal to Britain under that arrangement. This, of course, was expected from the beginning, and did come into operation in due course.
With regard to the buying of live animals, I may say that we have bought very few live animals. In Alberta they have a system under which they have operated for a good number of years. Under this system they have auctions throughout the province, and the farmers bring their cattle in to the auctions. Other farmers come there to buy cattle. Farmers who have too many cattle for their grass supply, sell; farmers who have more grass than they have cattle, buy. This system was utilized in Alberta this year. To make cattle available we were prepared to buy them at those sales. We did not have to buy very many. There was only one other province in which it became advisable to encourage the same kind of thing, and that was due largely to the difficulties we had in getting meat out of that province. That was the province in which the disease was found.
We put on some auction sales there, and we did buy a few cattle. Our intention was to put those cattle on pastures, if necessary. I do not think we got any on the pastures. I have heard of one bull that we got on the pasture, but I do not think we got any other cattle on the pasture. We bought some cattle at these sales, but before we got them

Supply-Agriculture
away from the yards some farmer came along and took them to his pasture at a little higher price, or some packer came along and bought them if they were fit for killing. We got rid of them in that way, so we did not actually get any on these pastures, so far as I know. I say that here to give some publicity to it because of the criticism I heard the other day. Some Ontario farmer who was purchasing livestock made the remark, "What kind of market are we going to have this fall when the government has put 10,000 cattle on pasture out west, and will bring them on the market?"
That could have happened, but it did not happen. We agreed to buy the cattle. We did not get them. We have not been getting cattle largely because of the fact that we had the British agreement, and the meat has been moving. Instead of getting cattle, we are getting meat. That meat is going out of the country from day to day and is being disposed of. It is therefore quite proper to say that the offer is made to buy meat at floor prices at the Vancouver plant, the same as it is at other plants. I think now that probably is true at all plants right across the country; the offer is there to buy.
The fact is that we are not getting much right now. We cleared the markets in the few weeks down to the point where we are not getting much right now. This is the time of the year when we hope we do not get much. After all there is a certain amount of stored meat that still has to be sold on this market, in addition to the meat that is being sold over in the old land. We hope to get our storages cleared down to as low a level as possible before the rush of cattle starts to come in toward the end of September, on into October and for the remaining months of the year. We are therefore not overly anxious to have cattle brought into the plants or to the government at present. The farmers also are not overly anxious to bring them in, and they do not do so.
To come to our friends at Kamloops, may I say there is nothing in the world to prevent the farmers at Kamloops from doing the same thing the farmers in Alberta did. Probably there is nothing in the world to prevent this government from doing the same thing there as they did at a number of points in Saskatchewan. If they feel inclined to do so, the farmers themselves can put on an auction. If they do so, I am quite sure the government would not hesitate to put in a buyer at that auction, as I think they have done in the last week, under some pressure, at Lloydminster, where they would buy, I presume, from either side of the provincial
TMr. Gardiner.]
boundary line. But that plant at Lloydmin-ster is privately owned and operated. They have asked to have a government buyer sent there in order to offer to buy live animals at that market, the same as is done at other auctions.
I think that could be arranged at Kamloops. I do not know of any reason why it could not be arranged. It could be arranged either with government support or without it. The fact that we are prepared to buy meat at a floor price down at Vancouver means that they have established for them the floor price at which the animals can be sold in Kamloops, shipped down to Vancouver and slaughtered. We will take the meat there at the floor price. There is nothing to prevent people in any part of British Columbia from organizing themselves and getting that done, just as they have organized in other provinces to have it done in their own way and under the system they are accustomed to.
I do not think I need to say anything more in order to indicate that we are attempting at least to have the same set-up right across the country and to co-operate with those who have animals to sell in order to see to it that the prices are about the same. I think the best indication that we are successful is to be found in the newspaper reports of the markets. I consult the papers every morning when I come to my office. I flndi that the markets are a little bit above the floor right from one end of Canada to the other, and considerably above the floor for the higher qualities of beef. I think that means that the Canadian public is prepared to bid a higher price for the choice beef than they are prepared to bid for some of the lower grades of beef that are being shipped to other markets. It seems to indicate that we in this country prefer the choicer cuts. We are probably paying 28 to 29 cents now for choice steers whereas a short time ago we could not get better than 24 or 25 cents.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From the minister's answer do I understand that instructions have now been issued to the packers operating in British Columbia as to how they should apply the support price to cattle originating in the province and offered to them for sale, whether it be for domestic marketing or for shipment under the four-way meat deal?


James Garfield Gardiner: What actually happens is this. The only thing we buy is for the fourway meat deal. But the fact that we pay the floor price for that meat makes it impossible for anybody to get anything there at any lower price than the one we pay. We buy all the surplus that is there at that price.

That order has gone to those packing plants just the same as it has gone to every other packing plant in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to cattle originating in British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; with respect to cattle originating in British Columbia or no matter where they originate. As long as the cattle are slaughtered in that plant we are prepared to buy the surplus beef at the floor price. If somebody else comes along and offers more, of course we do not get them, and that meat either stays on the British Columbia market or it could be shipped back further into Canada; but I venture to say that most of it stays on that market.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just in conclusion may I say the point I was concerned about was my information that with respect to cattle originating in Alberta and Ontario and marketed in British Columbia, the instructions were clear as to how the support price was to be applied; but with respect to cattle originating in British Columbia and marketed in British Columbia the packers had no instructions and were under the impression, according to their advice to the gentleman I have spoken about already, that the lack of instructions must mean they did not have any floor price to apply in British Columbia. If the minister's answer to me is that instructions have now been issued to packers operating in British Columbia in such form that it is clear to them that the support price does apply in British Columbia with respect to cattle originating there and marketed locally as well as to those marketed or bought for the United Kingdom-New Zealand agreement, then I think that will deal with the situation. But I wanted to have it clear from the minister's answer that those instructions have now been issued.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that there were never any other instructions issued. But I cannot be responsible for the stories that some buyers of cattle may circulate in British Columbia or anywhere else.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said. I said that this gentleman visited at least five packing plants in British Columbia and spoke to their officials, and that was the information given him by all five.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not denying that. All I am saying to the hon. member now is that I cannot follow all of those who may be interested in buying cattle at a lower price for any organization that is slaughtering cattle, whether it is a packing plant or whatever it may be. But the fact is that in every 55704-244J
Supply-Agriculture
packing plant in this country there is a standing order to buy beef at the floor price; and there is no line drawn between what is marketed locally and what is marketed through the British contract. We have a standing agreement to buy. If, by some means or other, somebody is talking some people into selling them at a lower rate, I cannot be responsible for that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The weights and classifications which were issued to the packers, according to this information, covered only cattle originating in Alberta and Ontario. The minister himself has referred to this question of the weights which the department indicated they were prepared to support because they were concerned with those animals which had been prepared for the United States market; and it was those weights which they covered first. As I say, the packers had instructions with regard to those weights but only with respect to animals originating in Alberta and Ontario. Up to the time of my last letter, which was dated June 20, corresponding instructions with regard to animals of comparable weights originating in British Columbia had not been received at the packing plants there.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I mean by saying it has been true from the beginning is this. It has been true from the beginning of the period when the embargo was removed by British Columbia. We certainly did not go into British Columbia to buy meat at a time when they said they would not take cattle out of Alberta, or they would not take cattle from somewhere else. We said, "We will go in there and buy the meat from cattle brought in and slaughtered." During that period I am sure my hon. friend would not be interested in what happened because their cattle were selling-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The embargo has been removed since the beginning of June or earlier; but the situation I refer to-the absence of instructions-applied, as I say, up to at least June 20.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us say that it does nol apply now and it has not applied for some time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister is making the statement that instructions have now been issued, then he has answered my question. I am sorry it has taken us so long to arrive at that point.


An hon. Member:: We are all sorry.


Mr. Riley:: In reply to a suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South

Supply-Agriculture
with respect to the extension of the principle of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the minister mentioned the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. I know this comes under another item in the estimates, but I have to be away for a couple of days next week and I thought perhaps I would miss the item when it came up.
Since I come from a district which has received benefit in a material way from this act I think I should congratulate the minister and the officials of his department who are administering the act on behalf of the residents of Albert county in my constituency who are benefiting. At the same time I should like to know whether the minister can give me any assurance that the project which has been suggested, namely that of damming the Shepody river in Albert county, which will result in the reclamation of some thousands of acres of good farm land and give a somewhat better development to many more thousands of acres, will receive the real consideration of the minister and the officials of his department in the early future.


Arthur Laing: I was wondering whether we could revert from the maritimes back to Vancouver beef. I was surprised to hear criticism of the arrangements that have been made by the interdepartmental committee, particularly with respect to the province of British Columbia. If there is one province or one particular area in which the interdepartmental committee, which is an excellent committee, has done work it is in my own province of British Columbia. There was for a period of some two days no provision for packers in the Vancouver area to kill the heavy meat out of Alberta, but that was corrected by the committee. A man named Mr. Hall of the Department of Trade and Commerce took up immediately with the shipping companies out of the port of Vancouver the question of providing reefer space via the canal, and the matter of rates; and Mr. Evans of the Furness Withy line and the Vancouver secretary of the Pacific conference took up with the shippers the matter of bringing in a rate that would give shipments out of Alberta to Vancouver via the canal a comparable position with reefer car shipments to Montreal and then reefer shipments across the Atlantic.
As a result of the efforts of that committee and the co-operation of the shipping companies we are in a position where Vancouver today has the advantage of 70 cents per hundred. The result is that one packer alone picked up 2,700 heavies, and I believe he raised the price by going into that market and picking them up in that way. We are
[Mr. Riley.j
very well pleased in the province of British Columbia. We [DOT] are customarily buyers of large quantities of Alberta meat, and I think most of the people in British Columbia realize that the most severe situation at that time existed in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Our response in taking meat out, whether going east or west, relieved the situation in those provinces, and I think this is one of the best jobs the government has ever done. We could have had utter chaos in the meat business if that were not done.
I am going to say this. Notwithstanding the fact that I come from a riding and represent a people where there are no cows or chickens at all, I realize that the thing that keeps this country together is workingmen's wages plus the annual crop on Canadian farms, the cash crop. If these can be kept in proper balance and proper relationship one to the other we will have good times in this country. If either fails we will not have good times. I think the department's work in this matter of marketing and sustaining the prices of meat in Canada until the United States market is open again should be praised by everyone in this House of Commons, not only those from those areas which are producing meat in vast quantities but from all of British Columbia, because the economy of one part depends upon the economy of all. We particularly in British Columbia, I repeat, have been admirably well treated by this interdepartmental committee and the officials down here.


Mr. Bryce:: I want to ask the minister a question to clear my own thinking, because I have had a few letters recently in regard to freight assistance. I wrote back what I thought was right. I am now beginning to wonder whether I really was right. I thought that whoever was getting grain by way of purchase at the head of the lakes paid approximately $6 a ton freight on it, and then the government paid the rest of the assistance. I should like the minister to tell me whether I am right or wrong. If I am wrong, will the minister be good enough to put the regulations on Hansard, then I shall look over my correspondence and correct the mistakes I have made.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is approximately so. It is as near to the exact thing as can be stated. What the hon. member has said to those who have written to him is correct. As I understand it, the freight is paid by the person who ships grain out in western Canada. The freight down to Fort William on the grain is charged against him. Then the government pays the freight from Fort William

to the central point in the east from which it is distributed to farmers in the different areas to which it is shipped. It may not work out at our paying exactly all the freight, but it works out very closely to that.


William Scottie Bryce: The point I want to clear up is this. The man or the company getting the grain in Montreal, in Newfoundland or in Prince Edward Island, pays only approximately $6 a ton, and the government pays the rest?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; we are presumed to be paying the freight from Fort William east to the point from which it is distributed locally. We do not pay the local freight. That is different.


William Scottie Bryce: Just at the main point?


James Garfield Gardiner: But we only pay it provided we are satisfied that the feeder of the grain gets the benefit. If it is demonstrated to us that the person who is handling the grain gets the benefit, that he does not pass it on, we would refuse to pay. The intention of the whole policy is that the freight assistance is given to the feeder of the grain, not to anybody who is handling in between or anyone in that position. The intention is that we pay the freight from Fort William to the distribution point, let us say Montreal or Toronto or dfferent points in Ontario and Quebec, and the same applies to the maritimes.


Mr. Wright:: I wish to commend the minister on the policy he established in setting up auctions in the province of Saskatchewan to purchase cattle. Some time during the discussion I should like the minister to give us the points at which these sales are made or where the auction points were established, and the numbers and grades of cattle purchased at them. The minister may not have the information now, but he can give it sometime later.


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as I know there are four points up to the present time, Yorkton, Prince Albert, Battleford and Lloydminster. The committee is under instructions to set up the organization whenever it can be properly set up. That requires weighing facilities and everything that is necessary in connection with the handling of stock under those circumstances. But an application would have to be made in the first place. Our arrangement is with the livestock branch of the Saskatchewan pool. They have been authorized to put them in wherever the facilities are available, and where they can put them in.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Catherwood:: Mr. Chairman, I think the discussion yesterday and this afternoon, since the estimates of this department have been before the committee, has been most profitable. Indeed, this has been the most interesting discussion on agriculture generally since I have come to parliament. Hon. members appreciate the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you have given them considerable leeway by way of permitting a free discussion of their problems on this item.
Agriculture is a vital industry in Canada. I would ask permission to speak for two or three moments to place before the minister some thoughts that have occurred to me. Yesterday and today the position of agriculture in Canada has been fully discussed, and we have heard reference to the number of abandoned farms, particularly in the maritime provinces. I might add that this situation also applies, to a certain extent, in that part of Ontario from which I come. To my mind, however, it is not so much a matter of abandoned farms as the condition of those farms across the country. When our United States friends come to visit us in Ontario, they are unfavourably impressed by the unpainted buildings and the fact that the condition of our farms is not what it should be. I believe the same can be said of the condition we find as we travel across the country.
The farmer offers perhaps the greatest single market in this country for industrial production; no one will question that statement. If a farmer has an income of $5,000 or $6,000 a year, he will spend it. If he needs additional equipment, if he must make extensive repairs, he will spend the money on it. Hon. members can depend upon it that if the farmer has money, he will spend it for needed supplies. It was suggested this afternoon by the hon. member for Melfort that cost of feed constitutes an important item in the economy of agriculture. There can be no doubt as to the truth of that statement. It is my view that at its central experimental station the department might give greater and more serious consideration to these feed costs. With the farm prices beginning to come down, as compared with what they were, farmers now find that costs of operation are more burdensome. I trust that this fact will have the serious consideration of the government.
Then this afternoon the minister referred to agricultural prices support. I was pleased to listen to the discussion, and to have the minister's explanation. The Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed in 1944. Hon. members will be surprised to learn the small amount of money spent for this purpose.
3864	HOUSE OF
Statements on Alleged Germ Warfare Figures show that from 1944 until March of 1951 less than $10 million has been spent for the support of agricultural prices. I agree with the minister's statement that there may be some people in the country who are opposed to the support of agricultural prices. I believe it can be said, however, that speaking generally people throughout the country, including our urban friends, now realize the importance of agriculture to the economy of this country, and are willing to have this important industry get a square deal. I trust the minister will give serious consideration to the matter of price support whenever occasion arises.
Anyone who voices criticism of the amounts spent for the support of agricultural prices in this country will be interested to know what this same process has cost the United States government. From a percentage standpoint, price support for the products of Canadian farms amounted to only one-seventh of one per cent of the national income, up to March 31, 1951. On the other hand 12 per cent has been paid out of the coffers of our American friends for a similar purpose. This is a most significant figure, and will be of particular interest to our urban friends who are now beginning to realize the importance of agriculture in our economy. It will be clear to them at once that, on this comparative basis, the support of agricultural prices has not cost this country anything like the amount of money some people had believed.
Those are the only two comments I wished to make at this time. I have further questions to ask, but I shall be content to ask them when the items are called. I would impress upon hon. members the fact that agriculture is the one industry in Canada that must have support. The Agricultural Prices Support Act is there for that purpose and, in the light of the figures I have indicated, no one can criticize the amount of money that has been spent or may be spent in the future for this purpose.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. GERM WARFARE

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, if I might revert to motions I should like to make a statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to make a supplementary statement concerning Dr. James Endicott. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), to whom it was first sent, has forwarded to me a convincing rebuttal of Dr. Endicott's libellous and false charges that the United States has been guilty of bacteriological warfare in Korea and northeast China. It is the work of three distinguished Canadian entomologists, namely, Dr. W. H. Brittain, F.R.S.C., F.A.I., viceprincipal, dean of faculty and professor of entomology, Macdonald college, McGill university; Dr A. W. Baker, B.S.A., head of the department of entomology and zoology of the Ontario agricultural college, and Dr. C. E. Atwood, M.S.A., professor of zoology, university of Toronto.
When, on Wednesday last, in replying to questions previously asked by members of the opposition concerning Dr. Endicott, I justified the government's policy in relation to him in part upon the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I did not expect that there would be available within four days a clear vindication of these principles.
None of these scientists is in the employ of the federal government. As free men in a free society, without any sort of government compulsion, direction or inspiration, they have, upon their own initiative, produced this reply to Dr. Endicott's untruths concerning bacteriological warfare and, having produced it, turned it over at once to the parliament and the government of their country.
The statement of Drs. Brittain, Baker and Atwood is so important a contribution to this bacteriological warfare question that I propose to lay it upon the table with sufficient copies to supply all of the members of the house and the press gallery.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee on Bill No. 62, intituled: An act to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation.- (As amended).-Mr. Larson.
Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 62, an act to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation, is very contentious. I assume that orders 19 to 90 on the order paper are more or less non-contentious, and with the unanimous consent of the house I would be prepared to allow Bill No. 62 to stand until orders 19 to 90 inclusive have been dealt with.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.

On the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 364, intituled: An act to incorporate the Canadian Shipowners Mutual Assurance Association.- (Without amendment).- Mr. Macnaughton.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that all these bills that are to be studied in committee be referred to the committee in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Sinclair:: This bill has been to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it has not. The sponsor is over here.


James Sinclair: I meant to the standing committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The order is for the
house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon orders 19 to 90 inclusive on the order paper under standing order 110.



CANADIAN SHIPOWNERS MUTUAL ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 364, to incorporate the Canadian Shipowners Mutual Assurance Association-Mr. Macnaughton- Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall first study Bill No. 364, to incorporate the Canadian Shipowners Mutual Assurance Association. This bill has been considered by the standing committee on banking and commerce and has been reported without amendment.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Howard Charles Green: It is my understanding that this bill is supposed to fit in with the measure passed by the house within the last day or two providing for war risks insurance. Will the sponsor explain to the committee the manner in which the operation will be carried out so the two bills will work together?


Mr. Macnaughton:: The bill under consideration is a private bill for the purpose of forming together the ship owners in Canada who wish to carry insurance on their ships on the high seas against certain war risks. Under normal conditions the marine insurance companies of course issue policies on ships, but when we encounter a state of war or, for that matter, even when we run into conditions of banditry or agitation such as we had on the Suez canal a few months ago, or riot, insurrection, rebellion or anything else of that kind, there is no coverage for the owners of ships. Consequently over 150 years ago, in the early 1800's groups of ship owners in England gathered together and formed associations or clubs through which, in return for a small premium, they shared
Private Bills
the risks on the various ships under insurance among all ship owners.
During the first and second world wars, there being no possibility of Canadian ship owners having that type of insurance in Canada, our ship owners were obliged to go to the United States or the United Kingdom and insure with one of these clubs or associations. It is a matter of pride that the Canadian marine fraternity are now strong enough and numerous enough and have enough insurable value to form their own club or association, and that they are proposing to do by means of this bill. The bill simply means that in the event of war risks arising or in the event of a state of war coming into existence, ship owners may insure their ships on a mutual basis through this club or association in return for a reasonable premium. The risks are shared by all the ship owners who are members of the association. In turn, inasmuch as a state of war is considered an unnatural state as compared to a peaceful state, it is felt that during wartime it is proper for the government to step in and carry some of the risk for ship owners who may be sailing their ships from one port to another. As I have said, the risks during wartime are unnatural and consequently to cover these risks the government had to set up its own reinsurance scheme, which it did in virtue of Bill No. 336 which was passed here some two or three weeks ago.
In virtue of that bill the government sets aside in the consolidated revenue fund a certain sum against which any charges would be made and from which any payments would come. These unnatural risks which are technically called "queen's enemy risks" are, for example, the following: danger from submarines, from bombing, from mines, from shelling by enemy ships, and from capture by enemy ships. Those particular unnatural risks are covered by the government reinsurance plan. Other extraordinary risks such as attack by pirates, bandits, damage through agitators, riot, insurrection and rebellion would be insured through this association.
I do not know what further details you would like.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the shipping companies will have to pay a certain premium?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose this association would be responsible for a proportion of any loss, or is it a fact that the bulk of the loss would be borne by the government? I do not just understand how the losses are to be shared.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: The capital set-up, if I can describe it as such, is fairly simple. Each

Private Bills
ship owner who insures a ship with the association pays a certain premium to the association depending on the value. Let us say for the sake of argument that it is 25 cents per hundred dollars-and my figures are imaginary-of that 25 cents perhaps 5 cents would remain with the association. The difference would go to the government under their reinsurance scheme. It is felt that the annual premiums paid by the various ship owners insured with this club are sufficient to start the association off; then if it is not sufficient, if there were a major loss in the first year for example, members would be prorated for their portion of the loss suffered by one of their members. In other words, it is a straight mutual insurance scheme.
A canvass of ship owners recently made indicated that insurable value to at least $112 million would be available.


Howard Charles Green: Does the government in effect merely act as trustee for the money?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Answering your question obliquely, the government certainly controls the money in its possession and must make a report annually to parliament. If there were very serious losses during a sudden outbreak of war those losses would be paid by the government just the same as other war losses have been paid by the government in the past; so in effect I would imagine the government is trustee of its own moneys and the moneys which will eventually be accumulated by the organization are governed by the board of directors elected by the ship owners themselves.


Howard Charles Green: Are all ship companies in Canada participating in this scheme?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: All ship owners have the right to apply and become members, with the exception that the applications of course will be screened by the directors of the association. That is a very wise provision because we might not have people who would be good, honest or desirable risks, just as you have in an ordinary insurance company; so the directors keep to themselves the right to refuse applications. But the record and history of the fraternity of ship owners is such that I do not think there is much danger of that.


Howard Charles Green: Will the association include shipping companies on the great lakes?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Yes, provision is made for shipping companies on the great lakes.


Howard Charles Green: Are they participating actively in this plan? Because it would seem to me that it would make quite a big difference if all shipping on the great lakes as well as deep-sea shipping is to be covered.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: My information is that the large ship owners on the Atlantic and on the Pacific are only too willing and in fact anxious to start this scheme, and the lake shipping owners have been approached also and are favourably inclined. There is of course no compulsion used, but they have the opportunity of joining.


Mr. McLure:: I suppose if a ship owner has to become a member of the association, as you say, before he gets advantage of this insurance company, I would take it from reading this bill that this is just another insurance company; only they are looking for business by having as many people as possible join the association. Those who join the association get a lower tariff rate on their insurance. Is that right?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: To only a certain degree. The difference between this association and an ordinary marine insurance company is that the ordinary marine insurance company does not insure the risks contemplated by this bill. We are dealing here with war risks, and an ordinary marine insurance company will not insure against war risks. They have a 48-hour cancellation clause and they also decide whether they care to insure at all in the event of war breaking out. At times Canadian ship owners may not be able to get Canadian insurance at all. During the first two wars they were obliged to go to the United States or the United Kingdom to get that extra protection. This association, however, does not compete with ordinary marine insurance.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Another question. How would they operate in comparison with a company like Lloyd's? All our marine insurance, or a great portion of it, goes through that great Lloyd's concern. Would this company that you are promoting here have the same kind of insurance on the cargoes as well as the boats themselves, and can it be taken out at any time without inspection, just the same as you apply for marine insurance at any time with Lloyd's? You can call them up on the telephone and say: My ship is sailing with a cargo valued at so much, and they tell you then and there whether it is covered from the moment you telephone them. Would this company be operated on the regular basis of a concern like Lloyd's or similar agencies?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: My information is that it will not compete with Lloyd's. As I have tried to point out, there is a difference between ordinary commercial marine insurance and marine insurance during a state of war or conditions approaching a state of

war. The Minister of Finance in explaining the government measure used certain phraseology which might prove of interest here. It appears on page 3127 of Hansard of June 11. He stated in effect that when Canadian ship owners were obliged to insure with English companies their claims were paid in sterling and under present conditions that is not very satisfactory to Canadian ship owners. Then, too, the English operators place limits on the amount of insurance which Canadian ship owners can obtain. Then again the cost of replacement is much higher in Canada. Frequently Canadian ship owners found themselves without sufficient insurance when they sustained losses. These are advantages that this bill will give to the Canadian ship owner. There will be the settlement of his loss in Canadian funds and the replacement of his ship in Canadian shipyards.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention that government-owned ships will come under this plan? I think that is quite an important factor, because at the present time there are a large number of ships owned by the government or by crown companies. I presume in the event of another war most of the deep-sea cargo vessels would be owned by a government agency. Will this government fleet be participating in the scheme or is it to be restricted to vessels owned by private companies?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I cannot answer that directly, but I have reason to believe that government ships will not participate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister answered that question when I put it to him during the debate on the government bill. He said they would not come under this plan.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: The minister says, at page 3129 of Hansard for June 11, 1952, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Greenwood:


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) :: I notice the minister said that government-owned ships would not participate in any way.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not mean government-owned
ships, I meant government-owned aircraft.
I can only deduce from that that government-owned ships would not be participating.


Howard Charles Green: Would not participate?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Would not. I would not want to guarantee that, but I have seen nothing to indicate that they would be included.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Powers of the association.
Howard Charles Green: Paragraph (a) of section 3 contains the broad general powers of this association, and they do not seem to be restricted
Private Bills
to war risks. Is the intention that there can only be insurance against war risk or is power taken by the association to give a broader coverage?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Well, certainly the
first intention is against war risks. As a general thing in granting charters the legal lights try to include as many powers as they can because you cannot always anticipate every move in the future. After reading these powers, I believe they are in the general terms we usually get in a charter granted by the Secretary of State. Frankly, 1 do not see any contradiction in these general powers. Naturally, when you insure a ship you also have cargo inside the ship and you have other things pertaining to the ship; that is why they are set out in detail.


Howard Charles Green: The point I am making is that the powers seem to be broad enough to enable the association to do insurance business. It is not restricted to war risks. There is no mention in that section that I can see of war risks. It just refers to general risks of various kinds. I do not see any mention of war risks at all.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: In reply I can only say that the marine insurance business has been established for many years. The people following the business are rather skilful, and there has been no pressure by the established marine insurance companies to change the wording of this paragraph. I think they are quite satisfied that this association is not going to enter into active competition, certainly at the present or in the foreseeable future.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Board of directors.
Howard Charles Green: This section provides for the board of directors. Is there any plan in contemplation for dividing the directors between the east coast shipping, St. Lawrence shipping and the west coast?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: The first directors of the association are set forth in section 1. One of them comes from Westmount, one from Hampstead, one from Montreal, one from Montreal West, one from Vancouver and one from Halifax. Those are the provisional incorporators and first directors. You will have noticed that there can be up to 21 directors, so the leeway affords opportunity of adding directors across the country.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the capital of this company? What security have the insured? I do not see any mention here of the amount of capital they have; or do they reinsure all their risks?

Private Bills


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: There is no actual mention of capital because this is a mutual association. The members who are accepted, the ship owners, pay a certain premium on the value of their ships, and that is how the association gets its money to finance operations. In the event of a disaster, all the members are prorated in proportion to the value of their ships, so you have the net worth of each ship owner as a guarantee against the risks of the whole association. The reinsurance provision, subject to correction, I think is up to 95 per cent with the government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On section 16-Director may contract with the association.
Howard Charles Green: Can the sponsor explain that provision in section 16 which seems to enable a director to make a personal contract direct with the association?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I would hesitate to give any direction to learned counsel facing me, because I am sure he can interpret that better than I can. If the hon. member cares to read subparagraphs 3 and 4 I think he will find sufficient precautions are inserted. Actually, I do not know what the technical reason is, but once a contract is made the director concerned must declare his interest in it in virtue of this section, and then I think he has complied with it sufficiently both morally and legally.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 365, an act to incorporate Ogdensburg bridge authority.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the plan of the applicants for this charter is to build a bridge over the St. Lawrence river. I should like to know from the sponsor just how that is going to fit in with the St. Lawrence seaway and power development, whether the bridge will be in that area of the river, and whether

the plan is to proceed with the construction before the waterway and power projects are developed.


George Taylor Fulford: Section 11 explains that any plans must be submitted to the government and passed upon before they are accepted. They must conform with all requirements of navigation. Although the proposed location has not been decided upon, according to this bill the bridge must be built within five miles either east or west of the city of Ogdensburg in the state of New York or the town of Prescott in the province of Ontario. That means the bridge itself will be well above any of the proposed seaway construction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Capital stock.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This company is to have capital stock of $1 million divided into 100,000 common shares without nominal or par value. It is not stated whether this $1 million or any portion of it is to be paid up or ever will be paid up. This stock may only be there for sale to those who may be looking for some stock to buy. I should like the sponsor of the bill to explain that provision a little more thoroughly.


George Taylor Fulford: As to this clause 4, referring to the $1 million of capital stock divided into 100,000 common shares, we find that this method is similar to the method in the bill with respect to the Thousand Islands Bridge Company, which was passed in this house in 1934 and amended in 1935. In that case-and we have every reason to believe the situation will be the same in this one-when the companies were amalgamated the stock was absorbed by the United States company. The bonds were sold in the United States. The financing was all done in the United States. No Canadian money was involved in any way. The stock can either be paid for outright by the directors or it can be sold on the market, or it can be acquired through the purchase of debentures, but ultimately it will be retired, along with any bonds or debentures, and the bridge will then be turned over to Canada and New York state free of encumbrance.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The purpose of this money
is for the building of this bridge, is it not?


George Taylor Fulford: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the cost of the bridge estimated at? What is it going to cost?


George Taylor Fulford: There is a limit set in this bill, by clause 12, subsection 1. That limit

is an amount which must not exceed $12 million. I might say that was an amendment made in the Senate. Originally it was $10 million and the Senate increased it by $2 million in case, when the bridge was finally built, it was found that it was going to cost more than the engineers' estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Tolls and revenues.
A. Earl Catherwood: No provision is made in this section as to the amount of the tolls. Should there be some regulation there for the purpose of limiting what the tolls could be in a case of this kind?


George Taylor Fulford: Inasmuch as there are ferries running, and inasmuch as there are two other bridges not too far away from this one, it would not be to the advantage of the company to charge tolls in excess of the tolls charged by the ferries. When I say the "ferries" I mean the ferries that operate elsewhere than from Ogdensburg to Prescott. I believe they will not charge tolls in excess of the tolls charged by the Roosevelt bridge at Cornwall or the Thousand Islands bridge at Ivy Lea. It is not reasonable to suppose that any corporation is going to charge prices that will drive the travelling public to some other way of getting across the St. Lawrence river.


Howard Charles Green: Judging from the answer given by the sponsor of the bill I would take it that the setting of the tolls is entirely in the discretion of the directors of the bridge company. Is there not the necessity of going to the board of transport commissioners and obtaining a ruling on the reasonableness of these tolls?


George Taylor Fulford: The tolls come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Act. Naturally the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada will ultimately be required to set the maximum tolls payable, as will also the corresponding body in the United States.


Howard Charles Green: It is perfectly clear that the board of transport commissioners will have the power to regulate these tolls?


George Taylor Fulford: Oh, definitely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Location of bridge.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to know just what the length of this bridge will be. What is the estimated length of it when completed? If this bridge is a great success, and if it can be built for $10 million or $12 million, I cannot help thinking that in
Private Bills
our part of our country we might be interested in a similar proposition with respect to a bridge to connect us up with the mainland. What would be the length of this bridge?


George Taylor Fulford: The width of the St. Lawrence river in that district-that is in the area five miles east of Prescott and five miles west of Prescott-is almost an even mile. Not being an engineer, and not having seen the engineer's plan, I do not know how long the approaches will be. But as to the United States approach of the Thousand Islands bridge, where they have to go up from the river level to the height required for navigation purposes, it is just under half a mile.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: A third of the distance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Amalgamation with other companies.
Howard Charles Green: Section 14 gives power to amalgamate with other companies. Is it the intention of the sponsors of this bill to amalgamate with a United States company?


George Taylor Fulford: With respect to an international bridge such as this, the usual practice is to have a Canadian company formed for the purpose of attending to the construction costs. But when the bridge is open for traffic, either the Canadian company can absorb the United States company for administration purposes or the United States company can absorb the Canadian company. The financial obligations of the one company immediately become the obligations of the other company.


Howard Charles Green: What United States company are the sponsors going to amalgamate with in this case?


George Taylor Fulford: The company that has been set up and authorized by the New York state legislature. When the act was passed in May of this year it set up an authority with the power to raise the necessary funds in the United States. It is a private authority. The bonds do not have any government backing in any way. I understand, however, that a traffic survey was made by the state of New York before the New York state assembly passed this act allowing the authority to be created, and it was found that the traffic to be served would warrant the expenditure of a large sum of money to complete a bridge between Ogdensburg and Prescott. Therefore, with this blessing, there is no reason why the authority as set up in the state of New York cannot raise its funds

Private Bills
through the usual financial channels-banks, trust companies or otherwise

in the United States. I do not anticipate that any money will be raised in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: What is the name of that authority?


George Taylor Fulford: The Ogdensburg bridge
authority.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 15 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section 18-Time for commencement and completion of bridge.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I understand there are two other bridges across this same river. Is there any guarantee that there will not be any interference with smaller boats going up and down the river, or is there allowance for that? One would think that in this day and age, instead of building a bridge they would consider plans for a tunnel. Have any figures been prepared on the cost of a tunnel as compared with a bridge?


George Taylor Fulford: There should be no difficulty in respect to obstructing navigation for smaller ships. As I explained earlier, at this point the river is approximately a mile wide. There are wide channels that have a good depth. I would say the river is between 50 feet and 70 feet in depth. The very fact that the river is so deep at this point precludes the possibility of a tunnel ever being built at a reasonable figure. I believe the cost of the tunnel would be away out of line.


George Matheson Murray: Do the plans ensure that this will be a safe bridge? The Duplessis bridge in another part of the country collapsed with great loss of property and life. I hope the plans provide for a bridge that will stand up.


George Taylor Fulford: Inasmuch as bridges come under the authority of the board of transport commissioners and the corresponding body in the United States, the hon. member can rest assured that the plans when finally approved will guarantee the bridge to be perfectly safe.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.	.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following bills:
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Irene Mary Johnson Muirhead.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Vera Kathleen Martin Lightfoot.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Albert Chevalier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Roland Lesage. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Joseph Timothy O'Connor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Victoria Elias Abdelhay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Margaret Edith Grace Batt Trent.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Pearl Abramo-vitch Hoffman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Lily Sperling Kofsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Jean Isobel Taylor Cuffling.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Charles William Ledger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Benjamin Gordon Church.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Laura Juliette Aubert Macdonald.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Jean Lesly Macfarlane Cameron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Sarto Des-noyers.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Jean Marc Duckett Audet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Eugene Cote. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Anna Lapin-ska Cholewicki.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Alexander William Hyndman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Vivian Mary Dickson Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Stanley Baker Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Rebekah Ellinor Conley Burman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Allan Gpwans. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Marie Jacqueline Michelle Major Valiquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of May Clara Taylor Di Biasio.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Regina Joan Lee Mills.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Violette Chartrand Fairon.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 342, for the relief of Doreen Elizabeth Lawton Batty.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Norma Mel-drum Drysdale McGown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Jean Elizabeth Wood Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Louisa Ryan Heke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Maurice Speyer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Lorraine Souillet Heaven.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Charlotte Elizabeth Johnston Rawson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Eleanor Luba Hirschfield Mott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Marguerite Anne Sweeting Russell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Amy Stirling Price.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Jean Irene Ross Roche.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Regina Landry Brouillard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Jean-Paul Malo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Robert Arthur Reeve.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Joyce Mary Barton Yallis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Lawrence Edward James.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Helene Mary Reusing Hutchins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Charles Lewis Lipton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Joseph Kovacs.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Ann Martha Treglown Goodfellow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 367, for the relief of Meryl Elman Kluger Schreiber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Janusz Juljan Borzecki.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Perley John Walden.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 370, for the relief of Louis Jules Fabry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Kathleen Anne Bentley Hainsworth.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 372, for the relief of Ethel Mc-Cready Thomas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 373, for the relief of Lois Edith Laffoley Kelly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 374, for the relief of Evelyn Helen Cowell Varrin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 375, for the relief of Marion Helen Hawes Gordon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 376, for the relief of Winnifred Isobel Bassett Yuill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 377, for the relief of Eileen May Walker Cole.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 378, for the relief of Frank Ashworth.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 379, for the relief of Margaret Galbraith Hardie McCall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 380, for the relief of Goldie Nato-vitch Molson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 381, for the relief of Norma Veronica Besner Roast.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Catherine Anna Regan Herdt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Errol Alexander Edgley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Eugenie Lucie Prevost Lalonde.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 385, for the relief of Myrtle Meloche Reath.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Eileen Margaret Smith Bates.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Selim Jean Malakie, otherwise known as Solomon Malackot.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 388, for the relief of Ruby Lydia Donnelly Champion.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 389, for the relief of Edna Edith Lily Caron Gourdie.-Mr. Winkler.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 of these bills carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the motion for clause 1 of these bills carries may I just say a word with respect to these bills, as part of the rather large batch of divorce bills we have put through at this session. This may be the last night of this session that we shall be dealing with divorce bills, and I should imagine hon. members would be interested in a few statistics as to what we have done with respect to divorce cases in the House of Commons during the current session.
If and when we pass these 70 bills, clause 1 of which is now before us, we shall have passed in this House of Commons 312 divorce bills. The Senate passed 313. I understand that the miscellaneous private bills committee turned down one of the bills which the house referred to it. That figure of 312 bills is the second largest number of divorces to be dealt with in any session of parliament. Hon. members will probably be interested as well in the amount of time that we have spent in this session on divorce bills. I have checked the record, and I find that tonight is the seventeenth occasion during this session of parliament that we have dealt with divorce bills. They were reached three times on Mondays and fourteen times, including tonight, on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Private Bills-Divorce
I have also acertained that the total amount of time we have spent on divorce bills on these seventeen occasions, including ten minutes that might be taken this evening, adds up to five hours and twenty-five minutes. Now, it takes only a little bit of simple arithmetic to ascertain that if we have spent five hours and twenty-five minutes on 313 divorce bills it means that we have dealt with divorce bills at all the stages that concern us in the House of Commons, first reading, second reading, committee stage and third reading, in an average of one minute and two seconds per divorce. But, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. members know-


Mr. Ferrie:: How long did the Senate take?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -averages are deceiving. The hon. member asks how long the Senate takes. Perhaps he can go to the Senate and find out, but I am concerned about the way in which we observe our responsibilities as members of the House of Commons. I was saying that averages are deceiving. Perhaps it is not fair to say that we have dealt with divorces in an average of one minute and two seconds per divorce, because actually out of that five hours and twenty-five minutes which we spent altogether in the House of Commons on divorce we spent four hours and thirty-five minutes on 22 cases. In other words, these 22 cases actually had the attention of the House of Commons for an average of twelve minutes each. But that means the other 291 divorces were dealt with in this House of Commons in a total of fifty minutes, which means that the average time spent on each was ten seconds. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is not a very commendable record for the House of Commons-ten seconds per divorce-regardless of what may be said of the Senate.
To be completely fair there is a further bit of time that perhaps should be added to this, namely the time spent by the miscellaneous private bills committee. I am not a member of that committee and I have no record of the time spent on them; but a little calculation suggests that even if you add that time in it would extend by only a few seconds the average time spent by the House of Commons in all of its stages on these divorces.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that one thing has to happen. Either some other way should be found for dealing with these divorce cases than by parliament, or we should take our responsibilities more seriously. I note that this matter has been commented on in the editorial columns of both Ottawa newspapers today. One of them even suggests that the Senate might go on strike and leave the job to us. As a matter of fact that is a


suggestion of which the senators might well take note. Perhaps if we really had to do the job in this house hon. members might face up more seriously to the nature of the task and to the desirability of finding some other tribunal for it.
There is one other statistic I should like to give to the committee, Mr. Chairman. I have here the booklets of evidence and the bills for the 313 cases we have handled this session. It is a shameful pile, someone says; a perfectly apt remark. There it is, on the top of my desk, and it measures fifteen inches high. But this is just the pile furnished to me. The same pile is supplied to all of us. There are 262 members of the House of Commons and 102 of the Senate-364 members of parliament altogether. If one multiplies the bills I have here by 364 it would produce a stack of divorce evidence and divorce bills-and that is in English only, because the evidence is not printed in French, although the bills are-that would be 455 feet high.
That figure may not mean very much to the ordinary person. With that in mind I inquired of our good friends at the main door who know the statistics about this building and ascertained before I came to the chamber at eight o'clock the height of the peace tower. They tell me the peace tower is 300 feet high, right up to the very base of the flagpole. So I suggest to hon. members that when they are walking up to the building tomorrow morning they should just take a look at that peace tower, 300 feet high, and realize that this session's divorce evidence and divorce bills make a pile half again as high as the peace tower, or 455 feet high.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Right up to heaven.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Royal says they would reach right up to heaven. Perhaps he is thinking in the wrong direction. I do suggest it might be an additional tourist attraction in this city if, when our tourists come to admire the parliament buildings and admire the height of the peace tower, there could be on one side of the tower piled up for them that 455 feet of divorce bills and evidence with which we have dealt in the House of Commons, at the average rate of one minute and two seconds per divorce, so the people of this country may see that evidence of this phase of our work.
I know none of us likes handling this business. None of us really feels that this is the place to deal with the cases we have before us tonight. I hope that as hon. members contemplate that record of one minute and two seconds per divorce-really only ten seconds per divorce for 291 of them-and as hon. members contemplate that picture of a

stack of bills and evidence 455 feet high, they will decide next session to join with me and with members of the Senate who have once again this week made the same recommendation, in finding a way to get divorce bills out of parliament and before some other tribunal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
pills reported, read the third time and passed.
Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for private bills having expired, we will resume consideration of the business under consideration at six o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $344,433.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall item No. 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3. Advisory committee on agricultural services, $5,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: Are films produced under this item for the Department of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: Films are produced by the film board for the Department of Agriculture.


Percy Ellis Wright: How many were produced last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Two were finished that were started the year before, and one new one.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Who are the personnel of this advisory committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: The deputy ministers of the different provinces, the chief officials of the agricultural colleges, and the chief officials of our own department.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What work have they taken on in an advisory capacity? I have heard of them acting only once, and that was in connection with a position that could not be handled by the civil service commission, when an appointment was made.


James Garfield Gardiner: They meet and discuss the whole range of activities, both provincially and federally, of the provincial and federal departments. They advise upon methods of dealing with problems.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They are not paid a salary or anything?


James Garfield Gardiner: No salary in addition to what they get for their ordinary employment.
Supply-Agriculture


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Just travelling expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service administration-
6.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,331,525.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The new science building at the experimental station at Charlottetown would come under this item so far as its completion is concerned. I understand it is not quite complete.


James Garfield Gardiner: We expect to have it finished in October.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The new science building?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would it be under this item that the money would be spent on the buildings at Grosse lie, or what item would that come under?


James Garfield Gardiner: Expenditures on Grosse lie are made by the defence board. There are arrangements entered into between this country and the United States.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: What new buildings and new equipment are being provided at the experimental farm at Nappan?


James Garfield Gardiner: A new office and laboratory building recently finished.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Animal pathology-
7.	Operation and maintenance, $462,546.
John Alpheus Charlton: In view of some of the statements we have seen in the press in the last month, I wonder if the minister would say if there is any truth with respect to the statements about the animal diseases research institute in Hull. Is any consideration being given by the government to moving that laboratory from Hull?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has never been any suggestion so far as I know upon which to base any statements that the laboratory is going to be moved. The only discussions that have taken place with respect to it had to do with what might happen in connection with the checks that are made on foot-and-mouth disease. Nothing else was discussed with respect to it.


John Alpheus Charlton: It was just the fact that the diagnosis might be carried on at Grosse lie instead of at Hull.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no question so far as diagnosis is concerned under the policy that has been followed up to now and which, so far as I know, is still going to be followed. The policy is to have the diagnosis made on

Supply-Agriculture
the premises where the disease develops, but other tests that may be made after the diagnosis will in all probability be carried on at Grosse lie, as is being done at present.


John Alpheus Charlton: I hope they have better luck with their tests in the field than they had last time.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had very good luck.


John Horne Blackmore: Is this the proper item under which to discuss foot-and-mouth disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not again.


John Horne Blackmore: Is item No. 7 the proper one under which to discuss foot-and-mouth disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the proper place to discuss it is under compensation for animals slaughtered. .


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Animal pathology-
8.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $81,895.
Mr. Cardiff:: I should like to ask the minister to tell us where the money is being spent. I looked at page 82 but I did not see any details there to tell us where the money is being spent.


James Garfield Gardiner: The first place is Hull, construction of incinerator, post mortem building, farm section, $4,800. Then there is construction of a root house and paddock building, poultry building and farm section, $4,500. Then there is a storage shed at the main laboratory, $2,000, a passageway connecting the main laboratory and the poultry disease laboratory, $2,000. At Lethbridge there is an addition to the laboratory, $10,000; a six-room bungalow to replace dwelling No. 3, $12,000; a frame house, $4,800. Then there is Vancouver animal quarters, $19,000; acquisition of equipment, $22,795. At Sackville, New Brunswick, there is an expenditure of $675; at Macdonald college, $1,200, and at Ottawa, $100. At Lethbridge, Alberta, there is an expenditure of $8,105; at Vancouver, $2,990 and at Hull, Quebec, another expenditure of $9,725. That is the total amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
9.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $191,189.
John Alpheus Charlton: Does any testing work so far as checking margarine for moisture and that sort of thing come under this branch?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: It does not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not for this department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Botany and plant pathology-
10.	Operation and maintenance, $1,233,231.
Percy Chapman Black: What headway has been made in cultivating new varieties of potatoes, more particularly at the experimental farm at Fredericton? I understand they have made a specialty of that, and that some headway has been made in securing new varieties which are free from disease. A great many diseases affect potatoes, and it is a very important accomplishment if varieties can be obtained that are free from blight and the different diseases that make such inroads on the raising of potatoes by the growers of the maritime provinces. What progress has been made, and what new varieties have been recommended to the producers of potatoes?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand we have developed two new varieties which are blight resistant, but I think we can get the details of that better under experimental farms. It really does not come under this item.	,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Entomology-
14. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $124,830.
A. Earl Catherwood: The report of the Department of Agriculture says that severe outbreaks of spruce budworm resulting in the loss of millions of cords of spruce and balsam in northern Ontario during the past decade have now largely subsided. Will the minister state whether that is completely eradicated at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it has not been eradicated. It is still doing considerable damage in both New Brunswick and Ontario. We are still working on it, of course.


A. Earl Catherwood: Has the situation
improved at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it has improved some, but it has not been eradicated.


A. Earl Catherwood: I would like to ask the minister a similar question with regard to the disease "dieback of birch" from which almost 80 per cent of the birch has died.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a team working on it in both Ontario and Quebec, but no final results have been arrived at yet.


Percy Ellis Wright: I believe forests come under provincial control. Just what is the method worked out between the provinces and the dominion with regard to this department? Do the provinces have to make application to your department for investigations, or just what method is used in co-operating?


James Garfield Gardiner: We supply the technical and scientific work in investigations such as are carried on in these buildings that are mentioned here, and the provinces look after transportation and actual operations in the field.


Percy Ellis Wright: In spraying the forests for budworm and other diseases, who looks after the cost of the actual spraying material? Do you pay or do the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: The companies and the provinces co-operate in doing such work as the actual spraying and that kind of thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service-
18. Experimental farms service administration, $171,213.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Last year I was making inquiries with regard to the experimental farm here. While I have nothing to say about it except that it is a wonderful place for visitors, I often wonder when there is going to be a limit to the increased expenditures. For instance, for a number of years expenditures have been going up at the rate of a quarter of a million dollars a year. I think this year the estimates are a quarter of a million dollars higher but we don't see very much about the revenue derived from it. I would like to find out if the revenue is going up in comparison with the cost as we have it here. Could I have that information?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, of course, the expenditure has always been considerably higher than the revenue from government experimental farms in general. That is particularly true of the experimental farm in Ottawa. It is not the intention or at least it is not expected that we will make a profit out of operating an experimental farm. It is an expenditure made by the government of the country for the purpose of giving scientific information after research to farmers in general across the country. It is not intended that we should make a profit out of that. As a matter of fact there is a very considerable cost.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am quite aware of that and of what a wonderful benefit it is. What I was getting at is that there must be a limit to the increase in cost per year. The total for the head farm here is now $2 million, and with increases of a quarter of a million dollars each year it won't be long until it is a tremendous proposition. We have an experimental station down in our own province, a very wonderful
Supply-A griculture
institution for the benefit of the farmers, and I would like to see a little more money spent down there on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Another thing, the illustration stations seem to be of more benefit throughout the country than the experimental farms because there are really more people who take advantage of those stations. I would like to know from the minister whether there is going to be an increase in the number of illustration stations in our province.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are increasing slowly all the time. There are 228 of these illustration stations in the country now. There has not been a tendency to decrease them at any time, and they are increasing in number slowly. I may say that we also consider them to be very valuable. It is not our intention to increase the number of experimental farms, as we have a sufficient number to do the work we think is required in that direction.


George Matheson Murray: I would like to ask the minister if there are any plans for extending the work in the Peace river bloc in British Columbia. I should also like to know what progress has been made at the new experimental farm at Whitehorse. I am told that very valuable work is being done up there and that many things are being found out about the possibilities of food production even at that point in Canada which must be four or five thousand miles from Prince Edward Island.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are a number of rather important illustration stations up through that country. There is one at Atha-baska Landing which I am quite sure the hon. member would know about, and there are others in the area. There is one very close to Fort St. John, just south of there. The one at Beaverlodge is the largest one close by. It is not in British Columbia; it is on the Alberta side of the boundary. Nevertheless it does serve that part of the country in a big way. Of course it is our desire as settlement moves north in that country to have illustration stations to assist those who are settling there.


George Matheson Murray: Would the minister care to comment on the experimental work in the Yukon Territory?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an experimental farm just west of Whitehorse which is carrying on all the usual work carried on at an experimental farm. They have not as much livestock as you can see at some experimental farms, but they have poultry and they are also carrying on experimental work in connection with the growing of

Supply-Agriculture
cereals and grasses of different kinds that are suited to that country. There is good acreage in that farm, but it is only partially cleared.
There are other experimental plots at different places. About thirteen miles out of Dawson City there is one run by a private individual to which we give some assistance. They have some plots for growing cereals, potatoes, vegetables, raspberries and small fruits of different kinds.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if the minister could tell us the cost of the success that has been derived from the use of the new silo for the dairy barn at the central experimental farm here. It is supposed to be of glass lined construction, and I wonder how it is panning out for various silages.


James Garfield Gardiner: The experiment which has been carried on with the one at the farm would indicate the cost is comparatively high. It would be probably too high for an individual to utilize to advantage. This is being tried out as an experiment, but at the present time the costs are high.


John Alpheus Charlton: Could the minister tell us what the cost was?


James Garfield Gardiner: Around $7,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the size of it, around 14 by 45?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is about 14 feet across and 35 feet high.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the type of dairy cattle they have at the experimental farm here? Do they specialize in one particular breed, or have they herds of the various breeds of dairy cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: At Charlottetown?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No, at the central experimental farm here.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two breeds here, Holsteins and Ayrshires.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I suppose Holsteins would compose the larger part of the herd?


James Garfield Gardiner: About the same of each.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Central experimental farm-
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $325,765.
A. Earl Catherwood: The minister spoke about illustration stations this afternoon. I quite agree with his remarks, because I think they are a great benefit to the agricultural community. Can the minister tell me how many new illustration stations were built or put into operation last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were 19 new ones.


A. Earl Catherwood: Can the minister say how many of those were in the province of Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Fort William district, Fort Frances; the eastern and central Ontario district, Chapleau; there are just the two.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Branch experimental farms-
21. Operation and maintenance, $5,384,946.
Percy Chapman Black: This is the item on which the minister suggested I ask him the question concerning the development of new varieties of potatoes. He stated two varieties had been developed at the experimental farm at Fredericton which the department is now able to recommend to the growers of potatoes. I should like to know if those varieties are now available to potato growers, and I should like to know the names of those varieties. There are the well established varieties such as Irish Cobbler, Green Mountain and a number of others.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are the two varieties, Canso and Keswick, both of which are blight resistant. They were distributed last year to the growers of seed potatoes, and are now ready for distribution to the public in general through these growers but not from the department. They can be purchased from the growers.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Has any ceiling price been established on these seed potatoes?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. There are hundreds of growers, however, and there will be some competition in the matter of selling them.


Percy Chapman Black: Is the experimental farm able to give growers samples so they might do some planting, or is that done entirely by private growers?


James Garfield Gardiner: They get them entirely from the private growers.


Percy Chapman Black: How do the
private growers get them?


James Garfield Gardiner: They got them last year from the experimental farm.


Percy Chapman Black: Other growers would not be able to get any this year from the experimental farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the practice has been to do it the way I have suggested, namely to distribute the seed to seed growers during one season; then they multiply the seed and sell it the following year.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister state the results so far as production per acre

is concerned, that is whether these are good producers or whether they are merely blight resistant?


James Garfield Gardiner: The records for both quality and production are particularly good. I have not the figures as to quantity, because the potatoes are in the hands of growers all over the area. Our information is that there is a considerable quantity.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister state where they may be acquired by growers in Nova Scotia?


James Garfield Gardiner: We can furnish a list of the growers who grew them to anyone who desires to have it. They can buy from whichever one they wish.


Percy Ellis Wright: Who selects the growers who will propagate the new varieties of grains? Is it the department or the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, or how do you decide to whom you are going to distribute new varieties for propagation purposes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same practice is followed with grain that I have just mentioned in connection with potatoes. We produce the varieties, and when we have a certain quantity we put it out to the members of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association and they multiply it. Then they have it for sale.


Percy Ellis Wright: Who makes the selection of the members of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association to whom these varieties are sent?


James Garfield Gardiner: They make application directly to the seed growers' association, and we get a recommendation, of course, from that association. Then each person is supplied about equal quantities of the seed and those persons multiply the seed.


Percy Ellis Wright: What I am trying to get at is who makes the selection. A good bit of money has been made in the propagation and sale of new varieties when they have come on the market in the first place. I should like to know just who makes the selection of the growers to be used in propagating these new varieties. Is it the Canadian Seed Growers' Association executive or your department?


James Garfield Gardiner: The individual makes his application to the seed growers' association for membership in the association. He makes application for seed probably at the same time. The seed is distributed to him as a member of the association, but he must meet the requirements of the association as a grower before he will be admitted to membership in that organization.


Percy Ellis Wright: I understand that thoroughly, but there is not enough of these new varieties to send samples to every member of the
Supply-Agriculture
Canadian Seed Growers' Association who may make application. What I want to know is who makes the selection from the growers who make application for the right to propagate these new varieties.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two ways of doing the multiplying. We do some of it by contract. Of course where we do it by contract we make the selection ourselves. So far as others are concerned, I understand that it is a case of first come, first served, with no selection made. So long as they are admitted as seed growers by the association, they are entitled to get seed on application, so long as a supply is available. Of course, when we run out, we cannot supply them any further.


John Angus MacLean: Will the minister give us some information with regard to what educational films on agricultural subjects are being sponsored by his department for production by the film board during the year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We passed that item.


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave information with regard to the number a little while ago. Only two were finished, and they were started last year. There is one new one this year. Does the hon. member desire their names?


John Angus MacLean: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Melfort, is it not a fact that there are two classes of growers in the seed growers' association? Is there not a list of elite growers who have the preference with regard to obtaining seed?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct; there are the two classes of growers.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think the ordinary member of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association ever gets an opportunity, without passing as an elite grower, to get seed of that first generation seed.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the term that is used in describing that particular class of growers. They have the qualifications necessary for the multiplying of seed.


John Alpheus Charlton: They have the necessary qualifications, certainly. Can the minister tell us how many growers across Canada qualified as elite seed growers?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that it would be difficult to get the figures with regard to that classification, which applies to the different kinds of crops that are grown across the country. They are classified and selected according to their qualifications for growing that particular kind of seed.

Supply-Agriculture


Robert Fair: Before six o'clock I asked the minister a question in connection with the establishment of an illustration station at Derwent, Alberta, which is about 25. miles north of Vermilion. When the item was going through I was just returning from a meeting of the redistribution committee, and I was not here to ask it. I wonder if I could get an answer from the minister at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it the station at Fort Kent?


Robert Fair: At Derwent. It is on the north C.P.R. line between Lloydminster and Edmonton.


James Garfield Gardiner: One is not established there yet. At least we have not one on record as being established there yet.


Robert Fair: About two years ago quite a large number of farmers asked to have one established at that point. They were quite interested, and their interest has not waned as the years have gone by. Will the minister give consideration to the establishment of an illustration station at that point?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will have that matter investigated.


Robert Fair: If the minister will do that I shall be obliged to him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-Health of animals-
24. Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $4,889,025.
John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister tell us what success his department is having with the new vaccine for Newcastle disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: With ithe development of an improved vaccine by the animal diseases research institute it was considered desirable by the Department of Agriculture, after consultation with provincial authorities and the poultry industry, to provide for control of Newcastle disease in poultry by vaccination rather than by the slaughter of infected flocks. Arrangements were made with the provinces of Ontario and Nova Scotia whereby the Department of Agriculture, through the animal diseases research institute, would supply the necessary vaccine and the province would arrange for distribution and application of the vaccine.
The vaccine was used upon an estimated 22 flocks in Nova Scotia and 371 in Ontario, and results to date have indicated that the vaccination program has definite possibilities of success. Newcastle disease broke out in 12 flocks in Nova Scotia and in 35 flocks in Ontario after the vaccine had been administered. In Nova Scotia all flocks in which
the disease occurred were slaughtered; in Ontario this was not considered necessary, as the disease was less virulent. In spite of careful investigation it has not been possible to determine the precise cause of the outbreaks; however, it must be assumed from the incidence of the disease in relation to the vaccination program that it was due to the vaccination or the vaccine.
It is hoped that a continuation of this vaccination program, complemented by the use of live vaccine in young chicks, will lead to a complete termination of ithe relatively costly slaughter and compensation policy. Regular compensation under the animal contagious diseases regulations would not adequately compensate the owners of the hatchery flocks referred to herein, who lost superior quality birds at the beginning of the season of hatching egg production.
Because of the special quality and purpose of the flocks concerned, ithe role of the government in the vaccination program and the importance of retaining the good will of poul-trymen towards vaccination, it is considered desirable to provide special compensation for flock owners who suffered substantial losses by reason of death of birds and lowered production during the hatching season. Competent officers of the Department of Agriculture have appraised the loss sustained by each flock owner; ithe names of the flock owners and the amount of the loss in each case are listed in a schedule attached.


John Alpheus Charlton: I could not hear everything the minister was saying, but I understood him to say that special compensation was being paid to the owners of flocks that had been slaughtered owing to the vaccination. Did I understand him correctly?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Special compensation is
being paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount is provided in the supplementary estimates which we shall be coming to later.


John Alpheus Charlton: Compensation is being paid? For whatever loss was occasioned by whatever went wrong with the vaccine, compensation is being paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That is all being paid for.


Percy Chapman Black: Do I understand from the minister that no more of the virulent vaccine has been distributed since these unfortunate outbreaks in Nova Scotia? The department has ceased sending out any vaccine of the same type as that which proved to be so faulty in Nova Scotia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Vaccine is still going out to people who apply for it and desire to use it, and it is having very helpful results.


Percy Chapman Black: Evidently not; it could not have helpful results if it infected flocks with Newcastle disease. I gather from what the minister says there has been no similar experience since that which happened in Nova Scotia. I can take from what the minister has said that no Newcastle disease is being induced in flocks through the use of this vaccine.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been established definitely that it was the vaccine that caused the difficulty. There were 12 flocks in Nova Scotia that did develop the disease after the vaccine had been applied, and there were 35 out of 371 in Ontario. The others claimed to have had benefits from it. The question as to what caused the difficulty in that limited number of cases has not been answered.


Percy Chapman Black: The disease did not develop in any flocks in which this vaccine was not used.


James Garfield Gardiner: The disease was in existence before the vaccine was used at all, I understand. That is the reason they went in and started to use it; but not in nearly all the cases where the vaccine was used did the disease develop. As a matter of fact there were far more where it did not develop than where it did, and where it was presumed it did prevent the development of the disease.


Percy Chapman Black: I question the information the minister has given. The information I have is that Newcastle disease did not develop in any flocks except those in which this vaccine had been used. I think all the poultry owners and the owners of hatcheries took for granted that Newcastle disease developed because of faulty vaccine, and that vaccine had been used in those flocks as a preventive. It was not used after the Newcastle disease had developed. The owners of the hatcheries were encouraged, induced or persuaded to have the vaccine used as a preventive, not to cure the flocks already infected.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the story is that in the first instance the officials of the department were of the opinion that we should slaughter the poultry, and there was the very strongest of pressure brought to bear upon the department suggesting that it was a waste, and that the poultry should not be slaughtered in order to wipe out the disease. Those who held that opinion of course advocated the use of vaccines. We did get a vaccine from Britain that we had some trouble with in British Columbia, and we had some trouble
Supply-Agriculture
in Nova Scotia with the vaccine that was developed. I think it is correct to say that the disease which did develop in most of the cases followed the application of the vaccine, but there were places or flocks in which the disease developed where no vaccine was used. But of the 22 flocks in which the vaccine was used, 12 developed the disease in Nova Scotia. Much better results were obtained in the province of Ontario than in Nova Scotia. In starting any of these experiments in connection with anything of this kind you always run some risk. It is a matter of experimentation, and when there are losses of course they have to be paid for.


Percy Chapman Black: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, Newcastle disease did not develop in any instance in flocks in Nova Scotia, except where flocks had been vaccinated or had been in direct contact with flocks that had been vaccinated. I think that is the accepted statement in Nova Scotia.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is not accepted in the department here. Our officials have made a check, and they say there are a number of flocks in Nova Scotia where no vaccine was used but the disease developed. I have not been down there myself and I cannot give you any further information than what I get from the officials.


Arthur Laing: Will the minister put on record the schedule of payments in compensation for those birds at various ages, and will he tell us how it compares with compensation paid in any states of the United States, if there are any states that pay compensation for this disease at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is quite a big table. I would not like to read it all to the committee. It has been given as a return this session, has it not? If not I can see that it is put on the record as a return. It is correct to say that in the United States they do not pay compensation and they do not slaughter. It is not controlled down there by federal authority.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister care to comment on the rumour that Newcastle disease has spread to sea birds in the maritimes? Is there any possible grain of truth in that? Will the minister give us an indication of how the compensation paid for poultry destroyed owing to Newcastle disease was arrived at, and how it compares with compensation paid for poultry destroyed on account of foot-and-mouth disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the last question first, I understand the same schedule is used in connection with foot-and-mouth disease as the other. There is no evidence to indicate

Supply-Agriculture
whether there is anything to the story that sea gulls have taken the disease. We know nothing of it. On the other point having to do with the basis, the regulations require that the poultry destroyed shall be burned and destroyed absolutely, or deeply buried, one or the other.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it not a fact that in the United States they have been vaccinating for this disease for a number of years?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the United States, as I said a moment ago, it is not done federally. Whatever is done is done in the individual states, and there may be some difference in the manner in which it is done. Anyone can buy the vaccine in the states and use it. Of course if one buys it, he uses it at his own risk.


John Alpheus Charlton: That would be the reason there is no compensation over there? It has been the accepted practice for some years to vaccinate for Newcastle disease in the United States, and there is no reason why any compensation should be paid. While I am on my feet I should like to ask the minister whether he can give us the standing now of the t.b. testing work being done county-wide across Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: As is well known by hon. members, we took most of the veterinarians who were available across the country out to western Canada, and that has slowed down the program considerably. But in order to indicate what has been going on it might be worth while to place on record the number of animals slaughtered in the last eight years under the act having to do' with tuberculosis. In 1944-45 there were 5,037; in the next year, 3,040 and in the next year 3,659. Then in 1947-48 we put on the larger program, following the war, and the number went up to 12,413. There were 31,106 in the next year; there were 31,426 in the next, and in 1950-51 the figure was 21,019. That is a summary of the total number of animals slaughtered in an effort to eradicate tuberculosis.


John Alpheus Charlton: How many counties remain to be tested in southern Ontario, or in that part of Ontario known as the older section, as contrasted with the newer section?


James Garfield Gardiner: The initial test has been completed in all the counties and districts in Ontario.


John Alpheus Charlton: How many counties now under the accredited area plan have attained that status?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have here a list somewhat more than a page in length, setting out the

counties in Ontario. I would say there would be 30 or 40 of them.


John Alpheus Charlton: What would be the percentage, roughly?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say about 75 per cent.


John Alpheus Charlton: I believe quite a few counties were tested only recently for the first time. They could not be accredited areas yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: According to this list I find 37 of the Ontario counties are accredited, so I was not far out in my estimate. The simple way to get this information would be to secure a copy of this pamphlet. It can be had at any time.


John Alpheus Charlton: What has been the decrease in the percentage of reactors on second test, as against second-test reactors ten years ago?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the county of Bruce I find that in 1947 there were 114,029 tested and that 5,324 were reactors. This is a percentage of 4-6. Then in 1930 the percentage in the county of Dundas was 22-4, whereas in 1948 it was only -1 per cent. That gives an indication of what has taken place. The percentage was very heavy in that county 22 years ago. Four years ago, as is seen by the figures, it was down to one-tenth of one per cent. That would seem to be a good illustration of the success in checking the disease.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Prince Edward Island is a disease-free area for cattle. How often must they be tested to maintain their standard?


James Garfield Gardiner: When the tests show that the number of reactors is reduced to one-half of one per cent the area is accredited for three years, which means that it has to be checked at the end of that time. When it is two-tenths of one per cent it is accredited for six years, at the end of which time the test would be made again. The area is accredited on the basis of the extent to which the disease has been eradicated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25. Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $1,040,880.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Has the compensation included in this item anything to do with animals slaughtered by reason of the foot-and-mouth disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount paid in compensation under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act is in this vote, but the part which

was contributed by reason of the passing of the special act at the beginning of this session was voted in the estimates of last year. It was a special supplementary vote for last year and not this year, and it does not appear in these estimates.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to have a word or two to say on the general foot-and-mouth disease situation. First of all I should like to point out that since the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic or plague members of the Social Credit group have said very little on the floor of the house. There is a definite reason for our reticence.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: You are not reticent.


John Horne Blackmore: Social Crediters deeply regret the wide and panic-spreading publicity that has been contributed to so substantially by some members of this house. I simply marvel at what they have done. I could name those who have got up on the floor of the house since the outbreak and spread panic-creating propaganda over the world greatly to the detriment of everybody in the Dominion of Canada who is raising stock. I must confess that I simply cannot see how a responsible member of parliament can possibly justify himself in doing that. No Social Crediter contributed in any way, shape or form to any such thing.
On March 3, as recorded at page 43 of Hansard, I said that Social Crediters would expect the government to do everything possible (1) to discover the source of the infection, (2) to determine responsibility, (3) to exterminate the disease and (4) to protect the livestock industry from impairment.
We have been watching the record of the government with respect to these four points. As to the first three, I would say that the government has done very well under the circumstances. It is easy enough to get up and find fault with the performance of any particular group of officers in the field after an incident like the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak has taken place, but I wonder how many of the members who have so voluminously declaimed against the government regarding this matter have computed how many officers it would be necessary to have in the field all across Canada from coast to coast to enable the disease to be detected and more readily and quickly than it was in this instance.
That is the first thing responsible critics ought to take into consideration. I wonder if the men who have had so much to say in criticism and condemnation would be willing to vote the amount of money necessary to pay the increased staff that would
Supply-Agriculture
be needed all over the country to provide the supervision which would be required to detect this kind of outbreak any faster than it was detected. That is the kind of thing Social Crediters have been bearing in mind.
I said a moment ago that I believed the government in the main deserved commendation for the way it had handled the foot-and-mouth disease, that is with respect to the three matters I have mentioned, namely discovering the source of the infection, determining responsibility, and exterminating the disease, which after all were the first things it was necessary to take care of.
As to the fourth point, I believe the federal government has left much to be desired so far as protecting the livestock industry of Canada from serious impairment is concerned. There have been very serious losses. In one of the western newspapers I noticed about four weeks ago an estimate that Alberta had already lost $14 million through decline in livestock prices since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. That was serious enough, but the amount must be double and probably more than that by now. I have on my desk a pile of over sixty letters from all over my constituency. They are written by farmers who are in the main either feeders of stock or stockmen. These letters serve to indicate the kind of disaster which struck the people of my constituency.
There is a special reason why my constituency was hard hit. As I have pointed out in the house once or twice already, the wet weather last year did a great deal of damage. Many people who had crops in the fields that were snowed under, or that were growing on land too wet to deal with, bought livestock to carry through the year in the hope of having them eat the grain lying on the ground. When the foot-and-mouth disease struck they lost not only what they should have been able to get on the livestock but a great deal of their crop as well. This matter has been given no attention by the government, and probably there are reasons why it would not be; nevertheless that is the kind of situation that has existed in one of the important ridings of this country with respect to the production of grain and livestock.
As I said, I believe the federal government, as regards protecting the livestock industry from impairment, left much to be desired. In the first place I would say the floor prices were altogether too tardily announced. In spite of everything men could do many people became somewhat panicky and began to dispose of their cattle at lower prices than they should have obtained because the floor prices were not announced soon enough. Then

Supp ly-A griculture
when the floor prices were announced they were too low. The lowest floor price which should have been made available to the feeders in my constituency was 28 cents, if they were to be saved from damaging losses. Much of the livestock which were fed in my constituency cost 30 cents in the fall. To offer feeders of such cattle 25 cents for the finished product after they had put into that product their feed and labour was simply to condemn them to heavy losses.
Again, there was the general criticism that the government made no provision for seeing to it that the producers received the full benefit of the floor price. Far too many people reported to me that they simply could not get a price comparable with what the floor price indicated they should be able to get. There were always certain reasons offered by those who would buy, and in many cases producers found it extremely difficult to get people who would buy. There was not adequate provision to see that producers were able to sell their finished animals. The minister will remember the difficulty which arose in 1942 because buyers simply neglected a number of herds by just not coming around or if they did come around-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Would the hon. member tell me how he relates his remarks to the item under discussion-that of compensation for animals slaughtered?


John Horne Blackmore: We are talking about the general effect of foot-and-mouth disease on the livestock situation in my home constituency. If that is not relevant I do not know what is.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am afraid it is a subject which could have been dealt with in the general discussion, and I think it was. I remember there was considerable discussion about foot-and-mouth disease and, according to the procedure followed throughout the study of these estimates ever since they have been before the committee, I think the remarks of all hon. members should be strictly relevant to the item before us. I think the hon. member early in the evening asked the Minister of Agriculture about the actual situation in regard to compensation. He was quite in order then, but I am afraid he is not in order now.


John Horne Blackmore: I asked earlier in the evening simply to protect myself against this very thing. I asked the minister if it would be all right to discuss the foot-and-mouth disease under a given item, and he gave this item. I could have discussed the matter under the general item, but it would have taken as much time as it will take now. There was such a tremendous amount of crying over spilt

milk when the general item was under discussion that I thought it better to wait until we had cleared the air a bit.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if you say I must not discuss this I will have to stop, but I must say I do not believe the ruling is fair. Up to the present time for several departments we have been allowed considerable latitude under item 1 and then again under the individual items. I maintain that what I am saying is strictly relevant to foot-and-mouth disease experience although not necessarily relevant to payment for slaughtered animals.


An hon. Member:: What is your opinion worth?


John Horne Blackmore: My opinion would be worth something on the matter.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I intervene at this point. The hon. member has expressed the view that he is in order in discussing the matter he has been talking about for the last few minutes. The hon. member and myself have been in agreement sometimes and at other times we have not been in agreement; but I want to thank him for having said in advance that he will accept the ruling I give.
If I understood the question correctly from here, he asked the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement about compensation which had been paid in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. I think the minister said that when this item was called he would make a statement about the amounts that were paid and what this vote was for. However, that may not have been the question the hon. member asked, though it is what I heard. In any event I think we are in agreement that the whole matter of foot-and-mouth disease has been discussed. If the hon. member wished to go further into the causes of the epidemic or the way it was dealt with by the officials, or the consequences which might have been suffered because of the epidemic, I think all that was a matter for the general discussion which took place last evening and lasted for a few hours. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied to deal with the compensation being paid for animals that were slaughtered.


John Horne Blackmore: I think a great deal more ought to be said, and that it is perfectly in order to say it; but as I say, I will bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. What you thought you heard was not at all what I asked the minister, but I do not blame you because I too cannot hear you in many cases because of the outrageous clamour on the side which goes on all the time.


An hon. Member:: Talk louder.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I bow to your ruling, but I will look to a future time to say the things which I think need to be said.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Plant products-
27.	Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $1,386,188.
John Alpheus Charlton: On page 102, Mr. Chairman, there is an item of $30,000-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. It is quite difficult for the Chair to understand the member who has the floor when other hon. members who are not supposed to speak are speaking almost as loud as the hon. member who has the floor.


John Alpheus Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: There will be a slaughter
this time.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am willing to wait. Do you want to stay another week?


Mr. Proudfoot:: I only live 75 miles from here, so I can stay.


John Horne Blackmore: You may have to yet if you are not careful.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. If hon. members
wish to speak they must rise and address the Chair.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is an item under production service-professional and special services. What is that for?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is for analysts and lawyers, largely. It is $5,000 less than it was last year.


John Alpheus Charlton: Special analysts? For what purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: Samples of fertilizer and
that kind of thing have to be analysed, and lawyers are engaged across the country for the prosecution of those persons charged with breaking the law.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To prosecute the analysts.


John Alpheus Charlton: Are there not permanent
analysts in the department for that purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but there are others
employed from time to time.


John Alpheus Charlton: Do you mean that you get commercial firms to do these analyses?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Does liquid fertilizer that has to be examined and tested come under this regulation?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I understand it comes under the same tests and regulations as the others.


John Angus MacLean: I had a question on item No. 26. There is an item of $95,000 for the purchase of livestock. Would the minister just give a word of explanation on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is for the purchaser of bulls for the bull loan policy.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to ask the minister if there are any strings attached to the $40,000 grant to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there are no strings to it. It is an outright grant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
28.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $645,700.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are there any extra seed fairs in class A now or are they the same as usual? I see there is a reduction in the amount of the grant for these class A fairs. Another question I should like to have answered is, what revenue does the government receive from class A fairs? I understand that the government, through different forms of taxation, secures a greater revenue than the Department of Agriculture pays out in grants.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the first question, which I understand is whether there are any seed fairs in class A or class B, I may say that there are no seed fairs in those classifications obtaining grants. Exhibits of seed, and that kind of thing, are made at the usual exhibitions.
In answer to the second question, there are no revenues from the class A or B fairs. Our activity in connection with them is the paying of the grants.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is revenue, but it may not go to the agriculture department. There is revenue from all the betting at the parimutuel machines, and on the tickets that are sold.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was during wartime. We did get some revenue from that during the war, but it now goes to the provinces.


Mr. Dinsdale:: At page 103 of the details I notice there is an expenditure of $280,000 for building grants. Will the minister indicate the kind of expenditure represented by this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are agreements-we had one with Brandon-under which we pay

Supply-Agriculture
a part of the cost. It is usually a three-way agreement under which we pay one-third, the province pays one-third and the exhibition board takes care of the other third by some means or other. In some places that portion is met by the municipal corporation in which the exhibition is situated. It is a three-way arrangement under which we pay over a ten-year period.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would it apply to fairs outside of the A or B classifications?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, just to A and B.


Percy Chapman Black: This is a very important appropriation, $645,700, in which we are directly interested. There is a grant of only $5,500 to the maritime winter fair, which is the senior winter fair in Canada and serves the three maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It has contributed more over the years to the improvement of livestock in that part of Canada than any other agency. I do not know how long they will be able to continue unless the grant from the federal government is materially increased. The fair could not operate at the present time except for the co-operation of the stock breeders and citizens of the town of Amherst. I gather from this estimate that the same amount is provided this year as was provided last year. I would ask the minister if consideration has not been given to at least doubling the grant to the maritime winter fair. It is urgently needed, and if there is any fair in Canada upon which an expenditure of this kind is warranted it is the maritime winter fair.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount, of course, is the same to all fairs right across Canada. The general grant is $5,000. I note that Amherst does earn another $500. The extra $500 is for junior work, but I presume if the others did the same work they could earn the $500. It is just a general grant of that amount for each fair, and it is not expected we are going to increase it.


Percy Chapman Black: I want to point out to the minister and the committee that with present-day costs the grant is inadequate. There should be a minimum of $10,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister tell us whose responsibility it is to classify the fairs? Has there been any change this year? I understand that one or two of their fairs in my own district have asked for reclassification. Have there been any changes in those classifications this year, and how many have increased their classifications?


James Garfield Gardiner: Whether it is a class A or B fair is determined in the first instance by provincial classification. In so far as we are

concerned, we pay a grant provided the fair has paid out a certain amount in prizes for three years. If application is made after qualifying in that way, consideration is then given to the application.


John Alpheus Charlton: What are the different classifications, other than A and B?


James Garfield Gardiner: Fairs paying a minimum of $5,000 in prize money each year for an average of three years are in the category known as class A, and up to a minimum of $3,000 are class B. There are no other classifications in so far as the federal department is concerned.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has Paris been reclassified this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, Paris has not.


John Alpheus Charlton: Both Paris and Rockton have asked for reclassification. Has Rockton fair been reclassified?


James Garfield Gardiner: Rockton is under investigation now, and so is Paris, but neither of them is in.


John Alpheus Charlton: Neither has been accepted yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: When will that decision be made?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand it is made just as soon as we get the evidence in and the facts are established. I understand that evidence has come in very recently, but the decision has not yet been announced.


John Alpheus Charlton: It has been in quite a while.


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot tell you when it came in, but apparently it is in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
29.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $64,500.
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask where this appropriation of $5,000 is spent on Canadian hunter, saddle and light horses. It is probably well warranted, but I want to again point out that it is just about the same as the grant for the entire maritime winter fair serving the three maritime provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. There is a $5,000 grant to the association that promotes the breeding of saddle horses.


Percy Chapman Black: Where is that located?


James Garfield Gardiner: The head office is at Toronto, but it is for all Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Marketing service-
30.	Marketing service administration, $259,498.
Mr. Cold well: Can the minister give us a brief resume of just exactly what is involved in these marketing services and what cooperation there is between this branch and the Department of Trade and Commerce? The two departments are engaged in marketing. I notice that the main amounts in this particular appropriation of $216,265 out of the $259,498 are for salaries. Perhaps the minister could give us briefly a summary of the work of this branch. I am not asking for a long explanation, but just for a few words.
James Garfield Gardiner: Having regard to general agricultural products, the two branches are concerned with the home market and the market outside of Canada. That is, we have charge of the marketing of all farm products in Canada with the exception of grain.


Major James William Coldwell: Within the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: Within the country.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I thought.


James Garfield Gardiner: All activities in connection with that matter are carried on by us. But when it comes to the matter of advertising outside of Canada or to carrying on activities in connection with the marketing of a product, that is something which is carried on through the Department of Trade and Commerce. We have a few men in Britain. We have one man established in London. Then we have, I think, six inspectors under him at the different ports. We take care of that part of the marketing cost.
I think probably the point that is in the mind of the hon. member has to do with the different methods by which the grading and all the administration activities having to do with the marketing of grain are carried on. That is charged up to the grain. It is carried on through the Department of Trade and Commerce, the head office being at Winnipeg. The reason for that is largely the fact that in the beginning it had to do altogether with wheat and has been applied more or less to oats and barley since we put oats and barley under the wheat board. It had to do with wheat because practically all the wheat that was grown in Canada and that was being shipped long distances passed through Winnipeg. It was therefore a simple matter to have all the inspection and the grading done there at Winnipeg.
That procedure could not be made to apply to other farm products. For example, with regard to cattle, there are probably as many marketed at Toronto or at Montreal as at any other point. Some are marketed at Calgary, Edmonton and so on. You cannot take any one point and set up an organization 55704-245J
Supply-Agriculture
there on the basis that any of the other products would pass through there. We take care of the inspection, grading and all activities having to do with the marketing of those products. That activity is paid for out of these votes. There is that difference between the grading of grain and the grading of the other products. The cost of carrying on that marketing activity is charged up to the treasury of Canada; but as to grain, it is charged up to the farmer's grain and is paid for out of that. That is the main difference between the two.


Major James William Coldwell: The reason I had for asking the questions was that today I sent to the Minister of Trade and Commerce the original of a letter that I had from Britain. I do not know why I was written to about it. The letter reads as follows:
For many years prior to the war we imported thousands of Canadian turkeys.
Since the war, we have made many but so far unsuccessful attempts to recommence this trading, due chiefly to the dollar situation.
If possible, we would like to have a supply for Christmas of 1952 and would be obliged to hear if you can possibly help us.
Our approximate requirements are 10,000 hen turkeys 8 lbs. to 12 lbs. each.
The enclosed letter will substantiate our remarks.
The enclosed letter which I also forwarded to the Minister of Trade and Commerce simply indicates that this was a bona fide dealer who has dealt extensively in Canada in years gone by. I presume the difficulty arose through the dollar situation. I was wondering what facilities there might be, either through the minister's marketing agency or through the Department of Trade and Commerce, to try to open up a market of that description for poultry, turkeys in particular which may this year, as they were in the United States two years ago, be in over-supply. I have always thought some arrangement might be made, and I offered a suggestion in connection with the $1,200,000,000 British loan, that payments might be deferred without interest if the amounts coming to Canada, last year about $26 million, were used within this country for the purchase of farm products like cheese, apples, poultry and so on. I sent the letter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as I said. I suppose I sent it to the right minister. Is any part of the minister's organization engaged in this activity, namely in trying to find ways and means of disposing of poultry, for example, and meeting the requirements of dealers like this Mr. John Donaldson who wrote to me from Manchester, England, under date of June 6 of this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is, of necessity, close co-operation between the Department of

Supply-Agriculture
Trade and Commerce and this department. They get their information from us as to what the surplus of a product is likely to be. If there is no surplus of the product to be sold outside this country, of course the Department of Trade and Commerce would not have any considerable interest in it; and probably we would not be required to have much interest in it either, other than to keep check on it, because the trade itself would fairly well take care of any transactions in it.
With regard to a surplus to sell anywhere, immediately we get information which indicates that there is a great surplus, as we have this year in connection with the production of turkeys, we make a search for markets. Unfortunately for us there is a great increase in the United States as well. The two increases may make it rather difficult for us to market as many as we would desire to market in the United States. But when it comes to marketing in Britain, of course the problem with regard to turkeys is the same as it is with regard to anything else, namely that Britain is more likely to buy her supply from sterling areas, if she can get it, than she is to buy it here. If she were going to buy it here, I am afraid the price would not be anything like what we would expect in this country. But in any case we search for markets wherever we can find them.


John Horne Blackmore: I think probably I can say what a moment ago I intended to say, under this item, because it has to do with marketing. May I just preface the brief remarks which I shall make tonight upon this matter by reading an excerpt from the minister's speech before the Canadian Club at Winnipeg on January 9, 1952. He used these words, which I think have great significance:
My conversations convinced me that Britain's need for our food is as great as ever. We are supplying her with more wheat and flour than ever before in pre-war peacetime. We are supplying her with less of every other food we produce than at any other time over a long period. We should be able to find some way of making a trade with Britain and others which will result in our being able to send our food in exchange for something she has which we want.
That which she has, which we need more than any other thing, is people. Sir Clifford Sifton stated at one time that each immigrant was worth $1,000 to Canada. I am sure we will all agree now, fifty years later, that he was right. If an immigrant was worth $1,000 in his day, one is worth $2,500 today; 100,000 immigrants would be worth $250 million.
That figure could be multiplied to whatever multiple is necessary by moving surplus population from Britain to Canada. They would produce raw materials and food here to help keep employed and feed those at home. If that kind of an ex-

change cannot be satisfactorily worked out to balance over 50 years, it is not dollars that are lacking, it is ideas.
I should like to concentrate for a minute or two on "the ideas". How in the name of common sense is it that we cannot find in the government "ideas" which are necessary to enable the minister to transact the negotiations which he visualized on that occasion? When I was talking about the effect of foot-and-mouth disease on the people in my constituency, great numbers of whom are stock producers-


An hon. Member:: Louder, please.


John Horne Blackmore: Can't you keep your peace at all?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Are you looking at me?


John Horne Blackmore: Whoever made the remark.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Don't look at me.


John Horne Blackmore: In my constituency the feeders were very seriously injured because there was no adequate means of taking off the surplus products that became ready for market. A similar problem is beginning to face us in Canadian agriculture, as we might say, all across the board. If we cannot now solve the problem of selling turkeys, for example, which was the question the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar raised, to Britain when the British need the turkeys and we need the market for the turkeys, then it is high time we concentrated all our energies for a while on the solution of that problem. It is obviously a problem that depends on money, it is a problem that ought to be possible of solution.
I would say to the minister that my main criticism of his handling of the stock situation in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease is this: As soon as the outbreak occurred the minister should have declared that the government would buy all the surplus beef, pork and mutton as it became ready for the market. The government would not have had to buy directly from the producers; they could have bought from the packing plants enough to make room for the products that became ready for markets. They could then have sent those meat surpluses to Britain as a gift.
The question would be raised immediately, where would we get the money? Well, first of all would that have been the solution? Certainly that would have been the solution. If the government had announced that it would take the surplus just as fast as it became ready for the market, just as though that surplus were going to the United States, and sent the surpluses to Britain on a line

of interest-free credit, even then there would have been no tragic fall in prices such as was registered all across Canada, with consequent losses immeasurable and incalculable to the livestock industry of Canada and the Canadian economy generally.
The question will be raised as to whether or not the money could have been found. I do not intend to go into details. I referred to this matter yesterday in a talk on the finance bill. I want to refer to what happened in world war I for the minister's sake. I think he was right in the chamber when I was mentioning it. In world war I the Canadian government created money under the Finance Act of 1914 and bought $50 million worth of wheat and passed it to Britain. They received no return for some time. By 1927 Britain had paid back all of the loan with goods which Canada had accepted from Britain, but the important things to bear in mind in this connection are these: That money did not cost Canadians a cent. It was not borrowed from anyone; it was not taxed from anyone. It was good money. It bought the wheat; it paid the men who produced the wheat. It was just as valuable to the Canadian economy as any money that possibly could have been put into the Canadian economy, and it would have been valuable and continued valuable even if Britain had never repaid with goods. Once we can register that simple fact, and the minister can get it accepted by a sufficient number of the cabinet, starting with the Minister of Finance, then we will have the "ideas" with which to solve that problem which he propounded before that important audience in January, 1952; until he can find a solution such as that there is no solution available. Knowing the simple fact, he could have dealt, and now would be able to deal, with the problem of marketing our surpluses.
Let us all face that fact. Either we strangle our agriculture to death at this time, when we are capable of the greatest production in our history, and when the world needs that production more than it ever did in all history-either we strangle our agriculture to death and cease to play as important a part in world affairs, and cease to keep our economy prosperous, or we find the "ideas" with which to market abroad without having goods coming in from foreign countries.
That illustration I have given, and which I gave yesterday, shows what can be done. I think I can safely encourage the minister to defy any member of the cabinet, or all of them put together, to show why that simple device would not have worked in the case of the foot-and-mouth disease. It would have
Supply-Agriculture
saved Canadian stock producers great quantities of money; saved them from disposing of their livestock, their breeding stock, and saved them from losing confidence in the future, with all the evil effects that are going to devolve from those three ill results.
If one bears in mind that this device could have been used, then I think he must realize that the Department of Agriculture and the Canadian government were open to severe censure in their method of dealing with the marketing situation which developed from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Therefore that is the criticism I have to offer, and the reason I offer it. And that is the suggestion I have for the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
31.	Agricultural economics, $579,455.
Percy Ellis Wright: What is the function of these various economists who are listed on page 105 under this item of $579,000? What functions do they perform?


James Garfield Gardiner: These are the men who operate under Dr. Booth, the chief economist of the department. They make investigations with regard to cost of production across the country, and investigations with regard to marketing. These investigations are going on constantly in different parts of the country.


Percy Ellis Wright: Do they do any work to determine what might be an economic unit in various types of farming, say in the dairy industry; whether ten head of milk cows or twenty head of milk cows would make an economic unit on a farm, or how many acres of orchard may be an economic unit, or how many acres under cultivation in grain in western Canada? Is any work done by that department to ascertain this information?


James Garfield Gardiner: They conduct surveys in co-operation with the provinces on all matters of that kind, and they do make reports on units which may help in different kinds of production.


Percy Ellis Wright: Are any available that have been made in recent years?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; they are being published constantly, and can be obtained.


John Alpheus Charlton: Under what item does the minister want us to ask questions regarding products purchased under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: Under item 51.


John Alpheus Charlton: I want to make it quite clear that it is not just the administration of the Agricultural Prices Support Act that I want to ask about. I want to make sure I will not be out of order when I get down to item 51.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of money available is in the supplementaries. It could be discussed under that item.


Percy Ellis Wright: What publicity is given to these reports of economic units, or other work done by this group?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are listed monthly in a publication that is put out by the department, and can be obtained by writing to the information service.


Major James William Coldwell: Are many published? When a booklet of this description is published, how many are available?


James Garfield Gardiner: Different numbers are published, depending upon whether they are simply published for the use of experts, or whether they are to be distributed to different groups. If they are for general distribution many more of them are published. It would depend upon what experience has shown would be a proper distribution.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend and I are interested in seeing that the reports are made available. Here is a group of men who are not only capable but who are important to the industry. These economists perform a most useful service. How are people encouraged to get their reports and make the best use of them? If I were to be given a list of publications it might mean something or it might mean very little. Are they reviewed in any way, so that anyone looking at the list would realize the importance of certain of these documents?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have known Dr. Booth over the years. He began his activities on a farm in Saskatchewan. I believe he was the first economist employed, years ago, by a provincial government. He has been a fairly good publicist himself. He has always seen to it that, in respect of any of these that are important, a review is given to the press. These reviews of course induce many to write for the publications. The only means, however, by which individuals can find out what these publications are is to send in to our publicity branch for a list of all the publications in the department. This will be sent to anyone asking for it, free of charge. These particular publications are also free to anyone asking for them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
32.	Dairy products, $731,243.
A. Earl Catherwood: What is the figure of imports of butter and cheese during the last year?
TMr. Charlton.]


James Garfield Gardiner: Of butter, the imports were just over 17 million pounds, and of cheese the imports were between 6 million and 7 million pounds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
33.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $446,066.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is the North Wiltshire Dairy Company getting a grant, and will that be their final grant? Have the Crapaud Dairy Company and the New Glasgow Dairy Company been paid their final amounts?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the two last mentioned are dealt with in the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
37.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, $5,750,000.
Robert Fair: This freight assistance is a good thing for both eastern and western Canada. What has been paid during the last fiscal year, and what has been the total amount since the program was" introduced?


James Garfield Gardiner: This past year the amount was between $16 million and $17 million. Feed freight assistance through the years, down to 1949-50, has cost $138,937,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
38.	Agricultural lime assistance, $460,000.
Mr. Hodgson:: What is the purpose of this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is mostly for payments made in respect of lime in the maritime provinces and in Quebec. The province operates the plan of encouragement in the use of lime, and we pay 60 per cent of the cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
39.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $6,224,590.
John Alpheus Charlton: What is the percentage of grade A and grade B-l now as compared to last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is about the same as last year. I understand the grade A's are about 32 per cent.


John Alpheus Charlton: What has happened in the last three months would have knocked that figure out of balance.


James Garfield Gardiner: Grades A and B together are about 75 per cent.


John Alpheus Charlton: But there nas been a considerable change in the last three months. What effect has it had on the variation of grades?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there has not been much change. However, we will have the information tomorrow.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the department increased the allowance for lime for the farmers of Nova Scotia during the past year?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said a moment ago, this operation is carried on by the province. We contribute 60 per cent of the cost.


Percy Chapman Black: If a farmer pays an additional amount, does that revert to the federal government?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; we receive no money back.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I leave this item for further consideration?


John Alpheus Charlton: Eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will consider the Senate amendments to Bill No. 306, to amend the Combines Investigation Act. I understand the government has no objection to these amendments which are coming from the other place, so they will take no time. Then we will consider Bill No. 393, to readjust the representation of the House of Commons. That may take a little more time. Then we will take the balance of the estimates, agriculture, post office, national revenue, legislation, citizenship and immigration, finance and any other remaining items.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: May I ask the leader whether the house will sit after six o'clock tomorrow night?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes; we will sit until eleven o'clock.


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

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1.	Departmental administration, $344,433.
2.	Information service, $381,216.
Supply-Agriculture
3.	Advisory committee on agricultural services, ,$5,000.
4.	Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux, $105,579.
Science service-
Science service administration-
5.	Operation and maintenance, $465,586.
6.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,331,525.
Animal pathology-
7.	Operation and maintenance, $462,546.
8.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $81,895.
9.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $191,189.
Botany and plant pathology-
10.	Operation and maintenance, $1,233,231.
11.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $139,700.
12.	Chemistry, $641,705.
Entomology-
13.	Operation and maintenance, $1,814,150.
14.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $124,830.
Forest biology (formerly forest entomology) -
15.	Operation and maintenance, $1,644,580.
16.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $195,555.
17.	Plant protection, $834,340.
Experimental farms service-
18.	Experimental farms service administration,
$171,213.	'
Central experimental farm including research and co-ordinating divisions for the experimental farm service-
19.	Operation and maintenance, $1,937,431.
20.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $325,765.
Branch experimental farms, substations and illustration stations-
21.	Operation and maintenance, $5,384,946.
22.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $976,070.
Production service-
23.	Production service administration, $57,998. Health of animals-
24.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $4,889,025.
25.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $1,040,880.
26.	Live stock and poultry, $1,547,745.
Plant products-
27.	Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian seed growers' association, $1,386,188.
28.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $645,700.
29.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $64,500.
Marketing service-
30.	Marketing service administration, $259,498.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
31.	Agricultural economics, $579,455.
32.	Dairy products, $731,243.
33.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act and grants in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $446,066.
34.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian horticultural council, $1,171,560.
35.	live stock and live stock products, $1,370,682.
36.	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. Terminable services-
37.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, $5,750,000.
38.	Agricultural lime assistance, $460,000.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, June 28, 1952