1953-04-30

Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I informed the house of the receipt of a number of telegrams. Today I am in receipt of approximately 125 telegrams. I am still not chairman of the industrial relations committee, and I take a certain amount of fiendish glee in sending these telegrams to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald).



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. Bater (The Baiilefords) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has the Department of Defence Production placed any orders with the new machinery plant at Topsail road, Newfoundland, for the supply of defence material?
2.	Has the placing of a specialized contract for this plant been considered, and, if so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes. No orders materialized.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Green:: 1.	How many orders have been placed for shaving brushes by the Department of Defence Production, since January 1, 1952?
2.	With what firms were these orders placed?
3.	How many shaving brushes were ordered in each case?
4.	What was the contract price in each case?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	9. 2.	See list below. 3.	See list below. 4.	See list below. Name and address	Quantity	Costof supplier J. E. Livernois, Quebec, P.Q	. 72	$ 40W. Brunet & Cie. Ltee., Quebec, P.Q	. 42	42W. Brunet & Cie. Ltee., Quebec, P.Q	. 117	92Jos. Cote Ltee., Quebec, P.Q	. 57	34Cantin & Fils Ltee., Quebec, P.Q	. 110	99T. S. Simms Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que	, . 350	262Rubberset Co. Ltd., Gravenhurst, Ont	, . 15,750	16,065T. S. Simms Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B	. 5,000	4,800T. S. Simms Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B	, . 50,750	49,228Total	
72,248	$70,662



HEALTH GRANTS PROGRAM, QUEBEC  PERSONNEL TRAINED

Mr. Proudfoot:: How many public health personnel, by categories, have been trained in the province of Quebec under the federal health grants program since the program started?


Mr. McCusker:: 777 public health personnel have been trained, consisting of:
318 Physicians, as follows: Public health, 45; Psychiatrists, 77; T. B. Specialists, 53; Cancer specialists, 13; Radiologists, 26; Pathologists, 20; Bacteriologists, 6; Surgeons (orthopaedic, chest and cancer), 50; Pediatricians, 6; other, 22.
179 Nurses, as follows: Public health, 43; Teachers and supervisors, 36; Psychiatric, 61; Staff, 37; Admitting officers, 1; other, 1.
74 Technicians, as follows: Laboratory, 48; X-Ray, 5; Electroencephalograph, 7; other, 14.
3 Dentists.
31 Sanitation personnel, as follows: Sanitary engineers, 5; Veterinarians, 2; Sanitary inspectors, 24.
172 other public health personnel, as follows: Health educators, 5; Psychologists, 5; Psychiatric social workers, 26; Medical social

Inquiries of the Ministry workers, 4; General social workers, 20; Occupational therapists, 1; Physical therapists, 7; Pharmacists, 1; Nutritionists, 2; other health workers, 101.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Gagnon:: For the period March 31, 1950 to March 31, 1953, what amounts, if any, were paid in each fiscal year by the Canadian Broadcas.mg Corporation to Blair Fraser for news and comments broadcasts, reviews, the staging or arranging of press conferences, or any other service or activity connected with the corporation?


Mr. McCann:: It has not been considered in the interest of the corporation or in the public interest to make public amounts paid by the corporation to individuals in business transactions since the corporation is in competitive positions in engaging services.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What position did Canada take in the discussions that led up to the adoption of the international convention concerning minimum standards of social security, which was adopted at Geneva, on June 28, 1952?
2.	How did Canada vote on the adoption of the said conventions?
3.	Were Canada's representatives (government, employers, employees) in agreement as to their votes on this question?
4.	How many countries favoured the said convention, how many opposed it and how many abstained?
5.	What branches of social security are covered by the said convention?
6.	How many of these branches or contingencies is each ratifying state required to cover?
7.	What branches or contingencies is Canada regarded as having covered, and what steps are being taken by Canada to cover the other branches or contingencies set out in the said convention?
8.	Will parliament be asked to approve Canada's acceptance of the said convention? If so, when?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was Canada consulted and, if so, what opinion did she express with regard to the reported rejection of an Asian nation as the neutral to supervise communist prisoners of war who do not want to return to communist countries?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The report on this matter which appeared in the press this morning, 
and which I also noted, does not seem to be strictly accurate. As soon as I read it I got in touch with our embassy in Washington to inquire whether this was an accurate statement of what the negotiator at Pan-munjom had said, and I am informed that no such stand has been taken as is reflected in that report. If the report had been accurate, it is a stand which would not, I think, have commanded the support of this government.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: May I
ask the Secretary of State whether he has an answer to my question that I asked him some time ago as to whether the government would permit members of the civil service who are also members of the reserve force, and who are attending the coronation as representatives of their units, to draw service pay in addition to their civil service pay when they are out of the country attending the coronation?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: In such cases any individual in question will be entitled to select the service pay if he so desires, but he cannot have both.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: should like to ask the Secretary of State when I may get a reply to the question I had on the order paper in March in respect to the sale of property by the Canadian National Railways at Sarnia or Point Edward, which was made an order for return.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I shall make immediate inquiries into the matter.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in reference to the return passed by this house on March 11, for a copy of all correspondence and telegrams since the 1st day of January, 1951, between any department of government and the Lunam Construction Company; and also a series of questions on March 25 in the same regard, to which I made reference yesterday. When may the house expect that these replies will be given?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I am told that the Department of Public Works is sending the return to the Secretary of State today or tomorrow and it will be tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: That is excellent.



ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE WITH RECEPTION AT PORT CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: I wish to
direct to the Minister of Transport or his assistant a question of which I have given notice. Has the Department of Transport received complaints concerning severe electrical interference with radio reception at port Churchill? If so, what steps have been taken to remedy this difficulty?


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assisiant to the Minister of Transport):: I
did not receive a copy of the notice. I shall take this as notice and give the hon. member a reply tomorrow.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, $354,893.
Mr. McLean (Huron-Perth):: The estimates
of the Department of Agriculture provide me with the opportunity of indicating to the committee the extent to which agriculture is a factor in the economy of Huron-Perth, and at the same time to indicate to the committee some of the problems that the farmers in that district are concerned with.
In contributing as he has done to the economy of the district, the farmer of Huron has at the same time increased the value of his farm plant and the stock which he owns. During the period 1931 to 1951 the value of livestock on Huron farms increased from $7,473,000 to $36,278,000, or five times as much. During the same period, the value of livestock across Canada increased less than four times. The situation at the time of the last census was that the county stood first in the province of Ontario with respect to its agricultural worth.
The farmers in Huron-Perth quite properly are concerned that an equitable balance be maintained between the return which they receive for their produce and the cost of the
Supply-Agriculture
products which must be purchased. There is, of course, a demand on the part of the consumer of food products for lower prices, and this is only natural. Unfortunately, however, the consumer in demanding lower prices sometimes tends to place the entire blame for the cost of food on the primary producer. In doing so, the consumer forgets that included in the price of the food he buys is an increasingly higher cost of grading, of packaging, of handling, of transportation. Certainly, no one can be critical of any regulation that ensures a proper quality or standard of cleanliness in food. At the same time, is it possible that on occasion the pure mechanics of distribution are considered as the end, rather than as a means to the end of putting food on the table of the consumer. It seems to me that this whole matter of the distribution and handling of food products could be explored quite profitably with the thought that practices or regulations may be found that have outlived their usefulness and that are only contributing to higher retail costs. If this situation does exist, it can only have the effect of lessening consumption and thus of lowering the return to the farmer.
As I pointed out, farmers quite properly are concerned lest the amount they receive for their product should get out of balance with the amount they are required to pay for the things they must buy. On this balance depends the standard of living the farmer enjoys. It may well be that a study of handling and distribution costs could result in eliminating unnecessary -costs, thereby making possible an increased return to the farmer.
Much has been said concerning markets for agricultural products which, it has been suggested, have disappeared. References of this nature are difficult to understand, when it is realized that Canada's export of farm products to more than 100 countries reached an all-time high of $1,213,595,000 in 1952. The situation is not that markets have been lost, but rather that emphasis has been placed on those markets that are in a position to return the highest possible price to the Canadian farmer.
One of the major factors in ensuring that the farm product continues to have profitable markets is the extent to which domestic demands are increasing. This was recognized at a recent meeting of the Ontario beef cattle producers' association. The Rural Cooperator, in its issue of April 14, 1953, reported the meeting as follows:
Surplus of beef is about 16 per cent of the total supply, which, in view of the increasing population and industrial expansion, is not too serious,

Supply-Agriculture
president B. B. Warniea, Barrie, told the recent annual meeting of the Ontario beef cattle producers' association.
In his annual report, Mr. Warniea expressed the opinion that it might not be too many years before Canadians would not be surplus producers of beef, or for that matter, of any agricultural products except wheat and barley.
An increase in the consumption of beef can be expected because of the increasing birth rate, increase in immigration and longer life expectancy.
All this indicates, I think, that the future of agriculture is not something about which we need be despondent. At the same time, there can be no grounds for complacency. Farmers in Huron-Perth, like farmers everywhere, quite properly demand that the economic climate in Canada be such that their net return is maintained at a level comparable to that being received in other industries and by other classes. That does not mean for one moment that the farmers of Huron-Perth are looking for handouts. Like their pioneer ancestors, who hewed from the lands of the Canada Company the homesteads which have become the splendid farms of Huron and Perth, the farmers of today are proud of their independence.
However, they do look for and are entitled to receive from government that support necessary to protect them from factors over which they have no control, such as weather and disease. A farmer has the right to expect his government to protect him from disaster. They insist on a continuation of the legislation of 1944 which, during the intervening years, has contributed so greatly to agricultural stability. They insist, too, that in the application of support legislation, a realistic approach be taken with respect to the amount of the support which is established, bearing in mind the prevailing cost of production, and also with respect to the selection of the products for which support is provided.
At the same time, I feel that farmers appreciate that support, at too high a level or at a level which has inherent in it a large element of profit, is but an invitation ultimately to some measure of control and, in the end, can be of no lasting benefit to the agricultural industry.
The success of agriculture must continue to be based on the vision and vigour of the individual farmer, coupled with an enlightened program of assistance made available to him by government. This combination will continue to have the effect of providing stability and overcoming those unknowns which for so many years in the past have beset agriculture.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, 1 intend to take only a few moments. It is not my

desire to get into the debate just for the sake of getting into it. But as no one from the maritime provinces has spoken about this question of agriculture, and no one has questioned the statements the Minister of Agriculture made the other day concerning the favourable conditions which primary producers are privileged to enjoy, I feel compelled to say just a few words on behalf of the farmers of my constituency.
The arguments to which I have listened thus far would seem to indicate that all the difficulties are located in Ontario and the prairie provinces, and that the farmers in the rest of Canada are quite happy. This is not a true picture. Speaking on April 27 the Minister of Agriculture said, as reported at page 4440 of Hansard:
Net income to farmers from the sale of farm products reached a peak of $2*2 billion in 1951. Estimates for the net income received in 1952 are placed at just under $2 billion. There is some indication that this present satisfactory position may be maintained. The cost of equipment and materials used in agricultural production reached a peak in 1952 and has declined since that time.
Then he went on to quote statistics to show that the decline was approximately 5 per cent.
A little later in his speech, in the second column on the same page, he made this reference to hogs:
Hog prices are maintaining reasonably well the advances made since the late war years. The average farm price for hogs for the years 1943 to 1945 was $16.63 per hundred pounds. This increased to an average of $27.27 for the years 1950 to 1952.
I presume the minister arrived at these figures from statistics, and I do not intend to quarrel with him about those statistics or enter into any argument concerning them. But averages, which may be the only yardstick to which he can refer, do not give a true picture of the situation of farmers generally; and that is the point I wish to make. The minister's suggestion cannot go unchallenged.
So far as the farmers are concerned, the test of prosperity is not found in the prices they receive for their products, on an average. I suggest a better test is the aggregate result as shown in the increase of wealth which the majority of farmers are able to show as the results of their work.
When averages are taken as the yardstick, then the average result can be obtained. when only a few farmers are doing well and, at the same time, the great majority are not doing well-in fact, are going behind. That is the situation which I say the agricultural producers in my constituency are facing, and it is a condition which I suggest applies generally throughout New Brunswick.

I do not intend to speak at length about this subject, but it would seem that the minister wishes to leave the impression, when he gives the average figures for hog prices, as they are set out in Hansard, that the hog producers are doing very well. The average price may have gone up, but as far as my constituency in New Brunswick is concerned the picture is entirely different. I ask the minister to go down and visit the farms there and he will find farm after farm with empty hog pens. Those farmers have been forced out of the hog business. Those who were able to stay in may be getting better prices, but the majority of farmers are not in the hog business.
At one time we in that part of our province had a prosperous hog-bacon business, but you cannot find that condition today. They have nearly all been forced out of business and that is why I say that that statement should not go unchallenged.
Then with regard to potatoes, I should like to quote again from the minister's statement as reported on page 4443 of Hansard of April 27. The minister said:
Price returns per bushel to growers in New Brunswick for bulk Canada No. 1 grade table stock show average returns August to March inclusive as follows:
per bushel
1949-	50	531950-	51	321951-	52	
1.681952-	53	
1.39
Those figures would indicate that during the last two years the potato growers must have been making a lot of money. If that were the true situation the minister would not be receiving telegrams, petitions and delegations of potato growers asking for some change in marketing conditions, for an extension of support prices and so on. If that average were true it would satisfy the farmers. The average for the first two years would indicate that the farmers lost considerable money.
The situation as it actually is, is that there are a few large potato growers. The majority of farmers are not potato producers. The large potato producer may make money year in and year out, but just take the year 1951-52 as an example. In the spring of 1952 many farmers were unable to put in potatoes even though the price was $10 per barrel. They found they had to sell what they would have otherwise liked to plant because of the high price.
Other farmers who may have grown a few potatoes did not receive that average price because they were obliged to sell during the fall when prices were much lower in order to pay their fertilizer and other bills which
Supply-Agriculture
they had run up during the summer to finance themselves during the crop year. The real picture is that there were only a few farmers who got those high prices which created the rather good-looking average.
The complaint of the farmers in my constituency, and I think this applies to New Brunswick generally, is that they are not getting a square deal. I think all I need to back up that statement is to say that around the country many farms are being vacated. Farmers are leaving their farms. It is not because they want to leave them, because the New Brunswick boys who have grown up on farms would like to stay there provided they could get a good return and have as bright prospects on the farm as there might be some place else.
The fact is that they cannot make money because of increased costs of production and increased cost of machinery. There may be a 5 per cent reduction in the cost of machinery, but that is immediately offset by the increases of 6 and 9 per cent in freight rates. This year our machinery will be no cheaper. As a result of these freight rates and tariffs barriers are being built up between the maritime provinces and our natural markets. Any increased cost of production must be borne by the producer, and as a result he receives less for the potatoes, hay, poultry and everything else he raises.
During the last six months many farmers have gone out of the poultry business even though the statement made by the minister would seem to indicate that our poultry men should be prosperous. We should look at the situation on the ground in order to see what is happening. Taxes are higher, the cost of living is higher, freight rates are higher and fertilizer is higher. The majority of farmers are not prosperous. They are not enjoying the general prosperity of this country. They are not getting the same deal that people in industry are getting. Many people are leaving New Brunswick to go to other parts of Canada because they believe they can get a better deal with shorter hours. They feel that they can do better for themselves and have more in the end.
We are losing a good class of people. There is no better place to live than in the maritimes and you will find no better people anywhere in this country. They are hardworking, industrious and reliable. I think they should get a little better deal. If the farmers get a better deal, then the great number of us who depend on the farmers will also get a better deal.
I shall not take up any more time of the committee, but I did feel that someone from

Supply-Agriculture
the maritimes should let the committee know that the farmers there are not enjoying the prosperity that should be theirs according to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. I think that statement was made in good faith and was based on statistics. I am not finding fault with the statement, but I do want to say that it does not apply to my constituency and to the maritime provinces generally.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Chairman, I have only one thing to say in reply to what has just been said. The hon. member started off by suggesting that I had generalized too much, that the situation was not the same in New Brunswick as it was elsewhere. That may be true, but in reply I would say that the hon. member has generalized too much with regard to New Brunswick. It is not so long since I was in New Brunswick to do a little checking for myself.
When the hon. member says that the hog pens in New Brunswick are all empty he certainly has not been looking around. There were 2,400 more hogs in New Brunswick last June than there were the preceding June. The hog population has not been going down; it has been going in the other direction. There were 86,400 hogs on farms in New Brunswick last June. The year previous there were 84,000. The present hog population in New Brunswick is just about as high as it has ever been.
It is not correct to say that the hog population has been going down in the last few years. The hog population there, as in other parts of Canada, went up during the last year as compared with the preceding year. It is up in New Brunswick as well as in other provinces, so that generalizing on statistics does apply in so far as hogs in New Brunswick are concerned.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I cannot accept that from the minister as being the fact. According to his information he is just about a year behind.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only reason I did not give the figures for June, 1953, is that they are not available.
Mr. Her ridge: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of hon. members of all parties during the debate on this item indicate a growing concern on the part of farmers across Canada with markets and1 prices. Other members of our group have expressed very clearly the feelings of this group in that respect. I had an opportunity during a previous debate to express my views concerning the necessity for a wider application of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, particularly as far as soft

fruits, poultry and other products which are of particular interest to the farmers in the interior of British Columbia are concerned. Therefore very briefly I am going to take the time to deal with a problem with which this group is much concerned, as I am sure many other members of the house are. I refer to the problem of an over-all national agricultural conservation policy.
While at the present time farmers are naturally interested in the first instance in markets and prices, in our opinion the No. 1 long-range problem in Canada is the maintenance of soil fertility. The evidence is there from the Atlantic to the Pacific for anyone who wants to seek it. We see rundown farms in the maritimes and exhausted farms in central Canada. We see grain grown year after year on the prairies when other cultivation policies should be followed. I have personal knowledge of thousands of acres of impoverished orchard soil because of wrong agricultural practices, because of the excessive use of fertilizers and overcul-fivation and the failure to use enough green crops and manure.
I know there are two schools of thought. There are the organic farmers who believe in nothing but manure and green crop farming, and there are those who place too much emphasis upon chemical fertilizers. I am of the opinion that a proper balance should be struck between the two. We have had in the interior of British Columbia for some years a disease known as the little cherry disease which has been proven to be caused by a virus. I have grown fruit for over forty years and I maintain that basically it is caused by a condition in the soil. I am beginning to think that evidence is being produced to support my view and the view of a good number of growers. I know of trees that have produced little cherries for ten years and are now producing excellent crops of cherries. I think that is because there is an improved condition in the soil that allows the cherry tree to overcome the virus just as a person overcomes tuberculosis because they are healthy. In my opinion the crux of the question of maintenance of soil fertility in Canada lies in the maintenance of soil fibre content.
We in this group are very much interested in the development of an over-all agricultural conservation policy. We give credit to the minister's department for the good work that has been done under P.F.R.A. in the prairie provinces. There is no question about it. Everyone knows that the work that has been done by that branch has been of great value to the people directly concerned and of great

value to Canada as a whole. We believe that the P.F.R.A. provisions should be extended to all provinces in Canada, that the principles are sound and that the same benefits should be extended to all provinces.
In addition, I understand that some years ago the government had a system of cash subsidies for fibre producing plantings. I am very much intrigued with that sort of subsidy rather than a direct subsidy possibly at the price level in some instances. I believe in a subsidy at the source for the planting of fibre producing crops or for agricultural practices that increase the fertility of the soil. I know that in the old country a check of farms is even made as to the tons of manure distributed and the amount of oil cake meal fed to the stock. All these factors are taken into account even when fixing the rent. The farmer who plants fibre producing crops, who uses oil cake meal and high protein feeds for his cattle and who spreads manure on his farm and turns in green crops gets a deduction from his rent because he is actually increasing the value of the farm while he is farming. I think we have got to establish an interest in that sort of thing in this country. I suggest to the minister that consideration be given to some sort of subsidy at the source for fibre producing plantings and for conservation policies generally which it has been proved will increase the productivity of the soil.
I also suggest that the minister's department should give some consideration to the exemption from income taxation of capital expenditures that actually increase the productivity or fertility of farms. That is given consideration in some other countries, and in that way I think that form of subsidy is on a very sound foundation, and is a form of subsidy that will do something to improve the whole position of agriculture generally throughout the years.
I should like to say a word or two about sugar beets. The hon. member for Lethbridge is one of the leading champions of the sugar beet industry in the house, and we give him credit for the work he has done in that respect. Members of this group are interested in the problems of the sugar beet growers and the wider aspects of the question as it affects Canada as a whole. I want to read a letter on the matter at this point because I am one of those persons who fundamentally are very sympathetic to farmers. I am a peasant farmer myself. I have lived on the land all my life, and therefore I am naturally interested in people who struggle to make a living from the soil. But the
Supply-Agriculture
things that are done against the interests of the farmer unconsciously, shall I say, are amazing. I had my wife go into three or four stores in Ottawa to buy sugar. I told her to ask the storekeepers whether, when buying sugar for canning, sugar produced from sugar beets is as good as that produced from cane sugar. Every shopkeeper said that cane sugar was better. That is the result of false propaganda.
In addition, I have talked to members of the house who are of the opinion that in sweetening quality cane sugar is superior to beet sugar. I have also talked to commercial travellers for grocery firms who are under the same impression. That caused me to write a letter to Dr. C. A. Morrell, director of the food and drug divisions, because I was confident in my own mind that that was not true. In fact I knew it was not true but I wanted evidence from a recognized authority. I wrote to Dr. Morrell, told him of my experience, and this is his reply under date of February 20, 1953:
Dear Mr. Herridge:	*
I have your letter of February 18 inquiring about the chemical qualities and sweetening value of sugar manufactured from sugar cane and sugar beets.
According to the scientific texts available to me on sugar technology and to the best of my knowledge, the granulated sugar manufactured from sugar cane and sugar beet has exactly the same composition and sweetening value. In fact, the product is 99'5 per cent or better pure chemical sucrose. Brown sugar, or yellow sugar, which is made by partial refinement of the juice of the sugar cane or sugar beet, contains 90 per cent or more of sucrose, less than 1-5 per cent of ash, and less than 4-5 per cent moisture. This product would have the same sweetening value when manufactured from sugar cane or sugar beet. There may be a slight difference in the composition of the ash. Fruit canned with sugar (sucrose) manufactured from sugar beets, providing equivalent amounts are used, would keep as long as fruit canned from sugar (sucrose) manufactured from sugar cane.
I put that on the record because I think we should do what we can to contradict the misinformation with which our housewives and consumers are supplied. In that respect, when considering the sugar beet industry and its value in the Canadian economy, I think we cannot entirely view it on a dollars and cents basis as regards cost of production and the cost of bringing in a ton of sugar from some other country. We have got to consider what part the sugar beet industry can play in the maintenance of soil fertility throughout the country. There is no question about it, where sugar beets are grown farmers are improving the fertility of their farms every year.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in that connection I just want to quote from a book that was
4S78

Supply-Agriculture
handed to me, "Through the Leaves", September-October, 1950, issue, page 11:
Unless a farmer can affirmatively answer the question "To feed or not to feed?'' he sooner or later must answer the question "To farm or not to farm?" This is true because farming requires manure and manure comes from feeding. Unless manure is produced on the farm it must be secured elsewhere-and securing manure elsewhere is unsound in the long run.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say in connection with this whole subject that when considering subsidies for soil fibre plantings or considering the beet industry in Canada you have also got to consider the contribution made to the improved fertility of our farms and the raising of the fibre content. I have just made these few remarks because I am particularly interested in the question and I know that farmers, as represented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other agricultural organizations, are beginning to give it more and more serious thought. I would, therefore, ask the minister before the debate on his estimates is concluded to tell the house whether his department or the government is considering a Canada-wide agricultural conservation policy-a policy required at this time for the long-term interests of this country.


Mr. Drew:: I wish to devote my remarks entirely to one subject that has been under discussion here before but which is the special interest of all Canadians without regard to the part of the country from which they come. I think there are many hon. members in this house who were both shocked and surprised when they heard the letter read by the Minister of Agriculture which purported to be a letter delivered to the premier of the province of Saskatchewan. Actually, we are informed, it had not been delivered at the time it was read in this house; however, that is a mere detail.


James Garfield Gardiner: Your information is wrong if you were so informed, because it was delivered before I read it.


George Alexander Drew: I am informed of that statement in this house and if the statement made by the hon. member is incorrect then the minister can correct that on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: I corrected it last evening
when you were not here.


George Alexander Drew: The time of delivery does not
change the effect of this letter, the timing of Which was so obvious that no comment is necessary.
The South Saskatchewan river development project is not something of limited and exclusive interest to the people of Saskatchewan any more than the St. Lawrence

deep waterway and power project is a subject of exclusive interest to the people of Ontario and Quebec. Hon. members have indicated in this house their interest in and, generally, their support of the St. Lawrence deep waterway as a project which is of national interest. The South Saskatchewan river development project comes in the same category although it is not as large a project. Nevertheless, in relation to the economy of Saskatchewan the South Saskatchewan river development project is just as important as the St. Lawrence deep waterway is to the province of Ontario. Both are important to the economy of Canada as a whole as well as to the local areas involved.
The letter which was read in this house on April 27, as reported in Hansard at page 4444, is a surprising communication after this subject has been under discussion for so many years. In that letter the minister, speaking on behalf of the government, says this to the government of the province of Saskatchewan:
. . . I am authorized by my colleagues to discuss such a proposal with you once the question of water rights has been settled among the three prairie provinces and agreement reached that the water would be available for the project.
Did this government, Mr. Chairman, tell the government of the province of Ontario that it would be ready to discuss the St. Lawrence deep waterway after all the other agreements had been completed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly they did.


George Alexander Drew: Of course not. We know perfectly well that they have not all been completed yet, and we know perfectly well that they could not be completed until the dominion government made its fundamental and basic decision. The government has not hesitated to make its position quite clear in regard to the St. Lawrence deep waterway, without referring it to a royal commission. Although the government has in this case insisted upon the additional information which would be available from a royal commission beyond what was already available through its own engineers, it now invites the Saskatchewan government to provide the information which it has apparently failed to obtain over all these years.
Then let us examine carefully the second last paragraph of the letter, and I quote:
Any proposal would, of course, have to include some satisfactory means of determining in advance what the total cost of the project would be, and what the federal share of the cost would be.
This would be essential so that there was no open-ended commitment which might result in the final cost being far greater than anything either government would regard as reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, this late profession of virtue is unfortunately not appropriate in this case. Already the government has spent a great deal of money to obtain information which it now apparently seeks from the government of the province of Saskatchewan. The government has also gone still farther. The government of Saskatchewan communicated with the Prime Minister in a telegram which is contained in the Hansard of yesterday at page 4551. In that telegram the government of Saskatchewan states that the government of Canada has been informed that the government of Saskatchewan is prepared to enter into agreement in regard to this project. Without going into the full telegram I do want to refer to the reply under yesterday's date, and I will simply quote the last sentence of the telegram sent by the Prime Minister of Canada to the premier of the province of Saskatchewan as it appears at page 4552 of Hansard:
Before deciding whether and to what extent the federal government should participate we must know what would be involved and to what extent the provincial government is willing to accept these conditions.
In other words, after all these years the dominion government still leaves it uncertain as to whether it is ready to proceed with this project at all. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is time this pretence, this tawdry and cynical pretence, came to an end.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what they call an open-ended commitment.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, that is an open-ended
commitment for political purposes to evade the decision which should have been made long ago.
Let us see what was said on behalf of this government by a member of the government, and I will quote the words of the minister who is primarily responsible when he spoke on behalf of the government as far back as 1946:
The dominion government had already mapped out a program, and it was a program involving $110 million. This would be used largely in providing for the storage of water and partly for the distribution of this water where needed.
There is no uncertainty there. This was a project that was to be proceeded with.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not a reference to the South Saskatchewan river project.


George Alexander Drew: Of course it is involved.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is one of four projects
estimated to cost $110 million.


George Alexander Drew: Then let me refer to what the minister said on behalf of the government in the summer of 1948:
... a decision would be reached on where the dam on the South Saskatchewan should be placed.
Supply-A griculture
It would be on one of three sites between the Elbow and Saskatchewan.
As soon as the sites had been finally decided upon, contracts would be let and work would proceed immediately.
No conditions are mentioned there; there is no mention of any request to the government of the province to find out what the cost was going to be so that the government, with its virtuous approach to these things, would have no open-ended commitments.
Then in October of 1948, during a time when the action of the government was regarded as a matter of some concern to the government-in view of the fact that the people were interested in what it was doing- the minister said, that the main task would be "to push the building of the dam as soon as possible." There is no request there to the provincial government to find out whether it could proceed.
That has been the approach to this matter at all times. Now at this late date the government says that it is not ready to decide whether or to what extent it will be interested in this matter until the provincial government has placed before it the information which we all had every reason to expect that this government was obtaining. Over and over again, in answer to requests that some positive statement be made with regard to this project in which every Canadian is interested-just as we are interested in the St. Lawrence deep waterway, the causeway to Cape Breton island or any other project of that kind which is for the general advancement of the economy of Canada-we were told that the government was waiting to obtain information from a royal commission, not from the government of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Chairman, let us hope that evasion of this kind will not be accepted by anyone in this committee. We have a right to know what the government has decided to do upon the basis of information obtained at considerable expense to the taxpayers of Canada. A number of us have indicated our belief that this project should be proceeded with and that the undertaking by the dominion government should be given immediately. We believe that this is more than merely a matter of local concern. We believe that this development in the heartland of the great province of Saskatchewan would not only bring development there but would raise the whole economy of that province, and, incidentally, would give to the people of Saskatchewan a feeling of confidence that the people of the rest of Canada, as represented by the members of this parliament, share their concern about the economy of that province. Some of us share the views ex-

Supply-Agriculture
pressed in the words of the minister, even though his conduct may never live up to them. For instance, on October 23, 1948, speaking on behalf of the government the minister said:
If this part of the country could be turned into an industrial as well an an agricultural area, it would be possible for it to support twice the population that it does now. Cheap power is the "open sesame'' to industrial growth. With a dam at its back door almost assured, and with the resultant cheap water power available in the not too distant future, Saskatoon stands at the gateway to new and unprecedented development.
Those were the words of the minister 4J years ago. There was no condition there: "if and when the government of Saskatchewan provides us with the information we should have".


John George Diefenbaker: But there was a byelection then.


George Alexander Drew: Of course there were taking place at that time certain events which made it desirable, from the government's point of view, to indicate that its mind was made up. Now is also a time when the government is concerned about the attitude of the people of Saskatchewan. But the government has not made up its mind yet-although it pretended it had before-and therefore, in order to leave the people with the impression that it is ready to proceed, it puts a political statement into a letter delivered to the premier of Saskatchewan immediately before the minister who is responsible for this subject is going to present his estimates in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Two hours afterwards.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. It was not two hours
afterwards. It was delivered before I started at all.


Major James William Coldwell: There is two hours' difference in time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not to blame for the premier not having read it until next morning.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I shall leave the decision as to whether it was two hours before or two hours afterwards to those who actually either sent or delivered the letter or who have direct information. But let me say quite definitely that whether it was two hours afterwards, two hours before, or two days before, this was a tawdry political evasion of responsibility which was intended to leave the impression that the government was really ready to do something about which it should have made a decision a long time ago.
The government has left the impression for a long time that it was going to act upon

the information which was obtained at the expense of the taxpayers. Many of us felt that it could act upon the advice and the information available from the engineers employed by the government. It was upon advice of that kind that it acted with regard to the much more expensive St. Lawrence deep waterway and power project. We have indicated in the House of Commons our own belief that it could well have acted upon the same type of advice with regard to this project and that no additional information was necessary. We said-and I am convinced of it now-that the royal commission was simply an expensive delaying procedure behind which this government could hide for some time. Now it can hide behind it no longer because it has the report. Therefore it hides behind a letter delivered at this late date to the government of the province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this is not a matter of exclusive interest and concern to the people of Saskatchewan. It is a matter of interest to every member of this committee, representing some part of Canada. Saskatchewan is an important part of Canada. Its economy is important to the whole of Canada. Whether we come from the east or from the west, as Canadians we are interested in the advancement of the whole Canadian economy. No matter what has happened already, I hope the government will now stop this evasion, will make a definite and unequivocal statement that it is prepared to proceed, and upon that basis will obtain the necessary agreements with the provincial governments that are indicated in a case of this kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should consider it necessary, at this stage in the development of my estimates, to come back to a question which I thought we had fairly fully discussed yesterday and Monday.


George Alexander Drew: We are still on the first item of the minister's estimates.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. We are still on the first item of my estimates. But I observe things in the chamber when I am sitting here, and I observed carefully what preceded this eruption.
The suggestion has been made here that the Saskatchewan dam project has been under consideration for a long time. It is 40 years since I entered political life, and the most active issue in the Dominion of Canada at the time I entered political life was whether or not we were going to build the St. Lawrence waterway. It is not a new

thing. It has been under consideration in this country ever since the beginning of the century, and prior to that. During the period of which I am speaking, when I have known something about the political affairs in this country personally, there have been two Conservative governments in power and three Liberal governments. Each one of them has discussed this question from the time it came into power until it went out. In the face of that we have the Leader of the Opposition rising in his place in this house and referring to the length of time we have taken considering what he is pleased to call just as important a project-probably not quite so expensive, tout just as important-the project in Saskatchewan.
One of the chief issues that have run all through the consideration of the St. Lawrence waterway project, and whether it should or should not be built, is who should take care of the power development, and who should take care of the building of the waterway which has to do with shipping rather than power. The final decision in that respect was that the province of Ontario and the state of New York should toe responsible for the power development. I have not been looking over the development of that issue recently, and had not expected that phase of the discussion would come up at this time, but I do know that when I first entered the government eighteen years ago that question had been pretty well decided. I am not sure whether it was decided during the days of a Conservative government or of a Liberal government. But it does not make any difference whether you have a Conservative government or a Liberal government in this country, they have taken the decision that the matter of the development of water power is a provincial responsibility. There is nothing new about that at all.


George Alexander Drew: It never has been.


James Garfield Gardiner: And now my hon. friend
is trying to introduce something new about it. The only thing that the letter which he read-


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister a
question so that it is in sequence? Does he suggest that the positive statements made by the dominion government in regard to its well-known decision about the St. Lawrence deep waterway are subject to the same conditions as those contained in the telegram sent by the government yesterday to the government of the province of Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: Exactly the same.


George Alexander Drew: Oh. That will be interesting.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not make any
difference whether you are developing power in a province, whether in Ontario or in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, when you start to develop power it does introduce a new element into the discussion of the question. It does not matter what province it is in, and all the letter says is exactly what Manitoba said in making their representations to the royal commission.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask whether the
tentative apportionment of costs agreed upon in February, 1951, did not include the cost of power? Did the Saskatchewan government not agree to the minister's suggestion as to the cost of power, including the procedure?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was no agreement reached in 1951 about the matter whatsoever.


Major James William Coldwell: I said "tentative".


James Garfield Gardiner: Not even a tentative agreement. There could not be. As I said last night, there cannot be agreements reached by my being in Regina and having a discussion with the Saskatchewan government. Whatever was said in those discussions had to be brought back to Ottawa and discussed with the government here, and there could be no agreements made until those discussions had taken place.


Major James William Coldwell: But the minister did reach an understanding with the government at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not reach any
understanding. The government told me the length to which they would go and I brought that back to the government here and stated it to them, in addition to the letter which was written by the premier in order to state to the government himself what his position was.


Major James William Coldwell: That was not my understanding.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not matter what
your understanding was, that is the position, and it could not be anything else. It is the same position that has been taken in the discussions' with the Alberta government for which we built first the St. Mary dam, and now we are building the Bow river project. The discussions took place first in Edmonton with the government. I brought them back here and discussed them in Ottawa. Months afterwards we arrived at agreements. As a matter of fact, as the premier points out in one of his letters, because of the international nature of the one agreement we were well on with the project before the agreement was actually reached, but it eventually was reached and

Supply-Agriculture
if it had not been reached we would not have gone ahead with the project. The fact is in the time that the commission was sitting the question of power was raised by Manitoba, and the premier of the province said in his letter, which was published by the commission, that if Saskatchewan was going to be assisted in. the development of power, then they would have expected to be assisted in the development of power. And that raises exactly the question that has been in the discussions all the way across this country.
I have been told by some people that if we are going to build a dam in Saskatchewan which produces power for the people of the province of Saskatchewan, then we ought to undertake power developments in British Columbia; we ought to undertake power developments in New Brunswick; and so on.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: On the Peace river.


James Garfield Gardiner: Every government we have had in Canada, whether Conservative or Liberal, has taken the position that that is not a federal responsibility.


Major James William Coldwell: Is this not an irrigation project primarily?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, we will come to that in a minute. If you read the letter carefully you will find it is already in it. We have simply said to the province of Saskatchewan that in the discussions that are to take place with regard to it they must keep in mind the fact that we cannot be a party to the financing of power development. I expect that they will come into these discussions, and would want to come into these discussions, with the knowledge of what we are meeting to discuss. And that is all,the letter does; it clears the way for the discussions. My hon. friend says we have had a royal commission report in order to delay the matter.
Well, he knows and I know that the commission's report was tabled in the house, and the house was not asked to endorse it. The government has not made any announcement of having endorsed the commission report. As a matter of fact, what our letter says is that we are prepared to go back to where we were when the commission was appointed and have the discussions which we would have had to have at that time.
If we had proceeded at all beyond where we were in April, 1951, we would first have to settle the question with regard to water rights and then we would have had to settle the question with regard to the division of costs in order to avoid this government paying for power developments. The Leader of the

Opposition rises in his place and raises the question of the St. Lawrence waterway and says, in comparing them, that the government simply arrives at a conclusion on the St. Lawrence waterway, but that on this project, which is just as important, out in the middle of the prairies, no conclusion is reached. He ignores the facts. As a matter of fact the first time he went out there after he became leader of the party he did not know what the South Saskatchewan project was, and yet it is of such great national importance. If I were-


George Alexander Drew: The minister's statements are so inaccurate that often one does not bother to interrupt; but the minister knows and has heard me say on different occasions that I first visited that area many years ago, and just as long ago as the minister himself has been out there.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that might be rather a difficult statement to prove. In short it may be more inaccurate than any statement I have made.


George Alexander Drew: No, it is not.


James Garfield Gardiner: Because I have lived out there the greater part of my life.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has heard me say I was out there as a young man and it was discussed out there at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: He did not hear this discussed out there at that time, because it never was discussed. The dam at Coteau creek was never discussed until 1946.


John George Diefenbaker: A play on words.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend did not hear it away back there; he might have heard discussed what you could do with the Saskatchewan river.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, the first time that I went into Saskatoon, crossed over the bridge and took a look down at the water, a steamship that had run into one of the abutments was lying at the bottom of the abutment. In other words, these rivers were used for shipping purposes when the Leader of the Opposition was a boy and when I was young, but they have not been used for this purpose for a long time. But this particular question of building a dam at the mouth of the Coteau creek had never been under discussion by anybody until the engineers of the Department of Agriculture, the P.F.R.A. branch, made their investigations. Starting at the Alberta boundary, they investigated every possible site until they got down to Coteau creek. They did not find a suitable site until they did reach Coteau creek, and

that was just a few years ago. From that time on we have been discussing the possibilities of it.
The speech of mine that my hon. friend quoted was a speech delivered before the engineers had decided whether you could build a dam or not, and I was making the same kind of prophecies with regard to the possibilities of such a construction as have been made by a great many people with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway over the 50 years that I have known anything about politics, on each occasion that someone gets up and starts to talk about the wonderful shipping that can go up and down that river, if we only had canals of a certain type, and so on. Then he talks about the wonderful power that could be developed if we only had dams in certain places.
Well, I admit I was making the same kind of speeches. And there is no single person who has ever been in political life in Ontario, whether he has been a Liberal or a Tory, who has not made that kind of speech with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway. And no one ever accused them of going to have the thing done the very next year. As a matter of fact, what my hon. friend ought to have said in the speeches he delivered, and what he should have said in the speech he delivered this morning, is that the first government we ever had in Canada that worked out a real plan to have the St. Lawrence waterway developed and to have it done right away, was the present government of the Dominion of Canada.
Well, my hon. friend sort of nods with regard to that. I would like him-


George Alexander Drew: No, I did not nod.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, what other government ever did? He was premier of Ontario for a considerable length of time. Did he ever enter into an arrangement with New York under which an agreement was reached for them to go ahead with the project?


George Alexander Drew: Since the minister has asked the question, if he will check the records he will find that I did have a tentative arrangement with the government of the state of New York which was subject to an over-all arrangement; and the government of Ontario announced then that it was ready to proceed with a power development on the St. Lawrence river. The decision is one that has been made for many years, to proceed with this, and since the minister has raised the question I submit that it could proceed with much more speed than it is doing at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my hon. friend comes right back to what he criticized me for a
Supply-Agriculture
minute ago. He has said that he did have a tentative agreement-


George Alexander Drew: No, no-


An hon. Member:: Sit down, George.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman,-


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


George Alexander Drew: On a matter of privilege I wish to say that in referring to the government in these matters I am speaking about the government of Canada. The government of Ontario has been ready for years to proceed with this. When I said that the government should proceed more rapidly I was referring to the government of Canada, of course.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not say the government of Canada has been prepared to proceed with the project in Saskatchewan, up to the moment. And I never have said they are prepared to proceed with it. I have said on many occasions that any government that is here, whether the present government or any other government, ought to proceed with it. My hon. friends have said they are going to. That is a question which has to be decided by government decision. And when my hon. friend pooh-poohs the idea of a letter being sent to Regina, and when my hon. friend from Lake Centre gets himself all swinging back and forth trying to demonstrate to the house what the position has been in relation to this question, they know very well that when we discussed it last in this house he was told by the Prime Minister that the government had not reached a decision on the question, and that the government had not even reached a decision on the importance of the report that had been made by the commission, but that when the government did reach a decision that the matter would be discussed on my estimates.
Now the Leader of the Opposition says I waited until my estimates were coming down, and then I sent the letter to Regina. As a matter of fact the only reason my estimates were not brought down at the beginning of this session, as they have always been brought down previously, is the fact that we had not settled this question in the government. There was no sense in bringing my estimates here until that question had been settled in our minds. And so the very first day the estimates were produced I put a letter on the records of this house which indicated the government's plan of action with respect to it; and whether hon. members in the house understand it or not, I know the premier of Saskatchewan does understand it. And I know that the government of Saskatchewan understands what has

Supply-Agriculture
been put up to them: and as soon as we get through with this discussion, and I am permitted to go to Regina and to discuss the matter with the government, I shall see that they fully understand it-and so will I.
When my hon. friend takes the second to last paragraph in the letter and says that there is some suggestion there that some way is going to be found of finding out what the costs are going to be, he ignores absolutely the statement that is made in the letter of the premier of Saskatchewan to the Prime Minister of Canada in which he says that they are absolutely satisfied that the estimates made by the engineers of P.F.R.A. are correct estimates. He says he is satisfied that they are accurate.
If he reads my letter carefully he will see that what it says is, "Since you have settled that, and since you believe that"-and there is no one in the house who knows more on the subject than my officials do, and always have-"when we sit down together with regard to the matter there will not be any great difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to what we think about the cost. And on the matters of cost that are set out in the commission report, we will be inclined to say that our engineers who have investigated the matter carefully are probably correct."
All the letter says is that "When we enter into discussions, when we sit down to discuss the matter with you, we will want to be absolutely sure that these costs are as you say they are, and as our own officials are inclined to state them to be, that these costs are realistic, and that there is not much chance of having any other result than that, when the project is completed, that will be the cost."
Now there are many ways of finding out what that position is, but it would not take more than a month to find out. You have been talking about setting things back and delaying. Well, you find out, first, that two provinces will not agree as to water rights that are necessary. We are not going into that discussion at all. That is a discussion for the three provinces of western Canada. All we have said to them is, "You must settle that question before there is any use of your coming to us and asking us to spend money on water rights that you have not yet settled you have got."
I do not think it will take them long to settle it one way or another. If they settle it to their own satisfaction, then we will be prepared to discuss with them what utilization can be made of those water rights. Then, when that is completed we have said to them that, first of all, they should be

prepared to indicate to us the use they intend to make of the water. If one of the uses is the production of power which will be sold commercially by the power commission in Saskatchewan, the province should be able to state how much of the cost is to be paid by Saskatchewan as a result of power development. That is another question which will have to be discussed. Well, then, when we have discussed that matter, we come to this question of cost, is there any practical way we can determine whether the P.F.R.A. officials are correct in their estimate? I think there is a practical way of determining it. Others think there is a practical way of determining it.
But I say before this government says that we are going to go ahead with the dam, or that we are going ahead with that part of it which we decide we should finance, those facts ought to be determined.
As a matter of fact I have listened to hon. members sitting on the front benches' opposite in this House of Commons in the last two or three days telling us exactly that sort of thing. They say, "Here you have a man in Saskatchewan who -has been getting contracts. You did not know whether he could pay his way or not. You did not know what it was going to cost him to do the job. You should have sent someone checking on it."
Well, all we say in this letter is that we are going to check on ourselves before we start, and we are asking the provincial government to see that they make a reasonable check. There are so many things that people sitting here in this House of Commons do not understand -about things they have been discussing in the last two or three days that I wonder if my hon. friend has -been out in Saskatchewan at all. If he had been he would know a lot more about the whole situation than he has demonstrated to the house that he does know. When he comes to discuss this project-in spite of wh-at he said a few moments ago-when- the newspapers asked him the first time he went west after he became leader of his party, he said that he had not yet had an opportunity to look into it, or something to that effect, -but that eventually he would do so and would pronounce upon it. I must say that it is to his credit that when he did go -back the next time he had something to say about it. He said, without saying anything about the power or anything else, "Yes, we think it ought to be built; if we were in power at Ottawa we would build it."
But I think that if he were in power in Ottawa he would start in on this dam at just exactly the same place as the federal government started on the St. Lawrence waterway

and consider the questions of power as well as other water problems and uses. He would of necessity start in at just exactly the same place as this letter starts in. Then he would proceed and in the end he might get the dam built. I do not know, but if he did get it built and if he followed the proceedings he was advocating last night in connection with general contracts, then he would follow just the same kind of procedure as we are following.
I am afraid that if he had in his cabinet some of those who have argued that a certain amount of twisting is done, and if they carried on in the same way as members of the government as they have done as members of the opposition, they would be doing an awful lot more twisting than we ever did. We have been going in a straight line toward the accomplishment of what we have in mind to accomplish.
If my hon. friend does not know, I can tell him what everybody in Saskatchewan knows, and it does not make any difference whether he is Conservative, C.C.F. or Liberal; they all know what I have wanted done about the South Saskatchewan project right from the very beginning. They still know what I want and they know what they can expect from us much better than what they can expect from the opposition if they once get into power.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a question in order to clarify the record. Referring to the letter which has been under discussion this morning, which the minister sent to the	premier of	Saskatchewan,	was
that written	in Regina?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not written in Regina, it was written here.


Major James William Coldwell: And taken out to Regina?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. As a matter of fact, the letter which I took to Regina with me was a pronouncement of government policy on a matter that	had been	passed by	councilbefore I left here. I carried that letter to Regina and	put it in	the hands	of	Mr. Thomson to be delivered to the premier of the province before I delivered the statement here in the house so that he would have it when I read it here.


Mr. Darroch:: Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of the first item of the agricultural estimates, when hon. members were not discussing matters pertaining to one of the provinces, we have heard some discussion regarding markets, or in some cases the lack of markets. I think it must be generally admitted that there are only two natural markets open to Canadian agriculture. One of course is our home market and the other
Supply-Agriculture
is the market in the country to the south of us. The reason for this is that our costs of production have resulted in what has been referred to in this house as our "pricing ourselves out of the market"; or, to be more objective, "we have priced ourselves out of the British market."
By a system of offering to buy surpluses of certain farm products at a figure that in effect was a price support program, the government has prevented the collapse of any branch of agriculture. By regulating the entire economy of the country so that employment has been kept at an unheard-of peak, the government has provided Canadian farmers with a home market that has been absorbing almost everything we have produced, with the exception of wheat. After all there is no security like a steady job, and the families who are employed are generally good spenders. These are the people who have provided us with our best markets over the last number of years. I do not think anyone can successfully refute that statement.
The people of the United States are the only other people in the world who enjoy our standard of living and who have our kind of money. To my mind, under ordinary conditions that country is the most accessible outlet for nearly all our surpluses. However, since the change of government there we must admit that the future of our marketing in that country is perhaps not too bright.
Having in mind the fact that we have fairly high prices according to other countries, I believe that the one feature of Canadian agricultural products that will help to sell them is quality. Particularly is this true of pork products. I have always believed that the production of a good quality product should be encouraged, and because the spread at the present time between the price of a grade A hog and a grade B1 hog is only 40 cents per hundredweight, or an average of 60 cents per hog, I believe the grades under which hogs are sold should be revised and a much greater spread in price made available to the farmer who takes the time and trouble to produce grade A hogs. In my opinion he should receive at least $4 more for his hog. As a step in this direction I would suggest that the present government bonus of $2 for grade A hogs should be increased by at least $1.
That was the bonus which was in effect in Ontario when the Ontario government was paying a bonus of $1 for grade A hogs. A couple of years ago that government ceased to pay that bonus and since that time we have had only the federal subsidy.
I think the present support price for hogs is a reasonable approach to the situation. It is interesting to note that on Tuesday of

Supply-A griculture
this week hogs in Toronto were quoted at $29.50 whereas on the same day a year ago they were quoted at $26. It is also interesting: to note that hogs have sold in Toronto at 23 cents for only a short period in February. I think that was due to a drastic change in the system of selling hogs in Ontario. The result was that for a week or so it was difficult to establish a market, but as soon as buyers and sellers became adjusted to the new systern the price has been rising, until this week it is $29.50.
There is another product that is produced in considerable volume in my district, and I refer to butter. I think the government should be commended for its action in establishing a floor price of 58 cents per pound for butter for the next two years. I think that action is generally being well received by the cream producers throughout the country. I have here a copy of a letter which was sent to the right hon. minister by the federation of agriculture in my county in which they thank him for the floor price under butter for the next two years.
I should like to discuss for a minute or two the situation that exists at the Ontario stock yards in Toronto. Under regulations of the federal health of animals branch it has been impossible for several years, while the province was being tested county by county for t.b., to remove cattle from these yards back to the farms without having them needled and kept isolated for three days until government veterinarians could check for reactors. Any animal that showed dairy type was held in the testing barn at the yards for three days and then released.
Ontario has now all been tested and every county declared an accredited area and it seems to me that there is no valid reason why the Ontario stockyards should not also be declared an accredited area and the free movement of cattle allowed in and out. I think this would be only fair because for a long time I have felt that the onus for delivering clean cattle should rest with the seller. Up to the present time the buyer has suffered the loss if he had a reactor and he received no compensation except the carcass value. Any person who has handled these cattle knows that the carcass value of a light stocker is pretty small, having regard to the price that is paid on the hoof.
Having these stocker and feeder cattle tested at Winnipeg would mean a large saving to the department in veterinarian fees alone. I know in my own little business I have bought cattle for farmers, and as I live near the boundaries of four counties, in one truck load I have had cattle for three different farmers living in three different

counties, and this has resulted in three different veterinarians having to make trips in order to read a truckload of twenty cattle. I suggest that this condition is not only costly but unnecessary. Then there is the inconvenience in getting cattle needled during the stocker season when every person buys them at the same time, and this results in costly delays that have a tendency to reduce buyers both for stocker and slaughter cattle.
If it were possible to move cattle in and out of these yards freely, there would be many occasions when the market is overloaded and shippers and farmers would take their cattle home, thereby stabilizing market conditions. If a farmer could remove his cattle from an overloaded market without being subject to the present regulations the expense would not be great, because trucks are always available at the first of the week for return loads. A clear stockyard would also result in providing an outlet for unfinished cattle that at times have a depressing effect on the prices received for all grades of cattle. Again, by removing obstacles that hinder movement in and out of the yards, farmers would be able to take this type of cattle away from the yards back to the farms for further feeding. It would provide a greater market for dairy type cattle for the same reason.
Perhaps the greatest financial gain that would result from declaring these yards an accredited area would be through a decrease in the number of cattle that are lost yearly from the disease that we farmers commonly call shipping fever. It is the fear of cattle coming in contact with this disease that makes farmers leery of leaving cattle in stockyards for the necessary three-day period of testing, or of holding them in some central place until they are read. I believe every feeder has benefited from the advances that have been made in the last four years in treating this costly disease. If a sick cattle beast is discovered in time, present treatment used by veterinarians is successful in nearly every case. However, under present conditions, if cattle are held for three days either in the stockyards or by a distributor, in too many cases by the time the farmer gets them on his own farm the disease is too far advanced to be successfully treated.
I understand that there are different types of serum now used in t.b. testing, and if cattle were injected with the proper type it would only mean holding them for one day at Winnipeg before shipping them into Ontario, or they could be injected at Winnipeg and read immediately on arrival in Ontario. I am sure that fair-minded stock

raisers in the western provinces realize the fairness of this proposal, because if an animal has t.b. and is loaded out for a point in Ontario it means that the whole load of cattle is exposed. The bringing of infected animals to Ontario also means added cost to the purchaser.
I feel this change in the present system of handling feeder cattle would mean dollars to both the seller and the buyer, because Ontario feeders will pay more, and can afford to pay more, if they know that they will not have to stand the loss on reactors, and if they can buy cattle and have them on their way home in an hour or so, thereby reducing to a large degree the risk of shipping fever.
I think the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture should be congratulated on the manner in which they handled the foot-and-mouth disease. I think the government deserves the thanks of all Canadians for the excellent application of support prices for livestock that prevailed during the last 18 months. When the embargo on Canadian exports of cattle and hogs to the United States was lifted last March, we found that in many cases our prices were higher than those being received by United States farmers. Support prices have been termed a joke by some hon. members in the house. I say they were no joke to the farmer with a stable full of cattle and hogs, and I feel sure that these same people would welcome any improvement in the present system that would mean a more efficient use of the veterinarian department by having a centralization of services at Winnipeg and Toronto which would be more economical to the taxpayers in general and beneficial to the Ontario buyers by reducing the time cattle are exposed to contagious diseases.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, there is one point I wish to discuss which I do not think I can deal with under any other item. I should like to ask the minister whether he can give us any information with regard to the progress made, if any, by the committee on commodity problems set up under the food and agriculture organization. It was drawn to my attention the other day that when the hon. member for Melfort spoke last session, I believe it was, he stated in his speech that the minister had opposed the setting up of an international commodity clearing house. The minister interjected at that time and stated that while he knew that statement had been made it was not correct. As I happen to be one of the members who made that statement in the house, I should 68108-290
Supply-Agriculture
like to take this opportunity to justify what I have said on the matter.
I know very well that the minister has supported the general principle underlying an international commodity clearing house. The statement I made before was that when this matter was being discussed by the food and agriculture organization conference in 1949 and when a specific proposal was put forward by the food and agriculture organization council the minister stated at that time that he disagreed with the proposals contained in that proposition and therefore he was unable to support it. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding as to this matter, I should like to put on the record exactly what the minister stated, and then people who read the statement can judge whether or not I was correct in making the statement that I made.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is at Washington?


Victor Quelch: It is the speech that the
minister made at Washington, and it is recorded in Foreign Trade. The minister said:
Canada, therefore, is prepared to give serious consideration to any international action designed to attain production and distribution of food. From this point of view, we are interested in the proposal advanced by the director general for an international commodity clearing house.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the statement on the point you raised.


Victor Quelch: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Canada is in favour of it.


Victor Quelch: Let me go on. The minister is in favour of the general principle, but he went on to say:
While endorsing the principle underlying this proposal, we are not in agreement with the means which, it has been suggested, are necessary to reach the objectives. In this connection, we may appear to agree with what has been said by the United Kingdom and United States representatives. Any transactions developed under the short term trading functions will be subject to concurrence by the governments concerned, and the major details of such transactions will also be subject to agreement by governments. This being the case, it hardly seems necessary to have an international agency actually buying and selling in commodity markets. It may even be questioned whether such activity in commodity markets by an international agency is desirable. It seems to us, therefore, that the question of the creation of a large capital fund for such a purpose is not necessarily an issue.
Lord Boyd Orr, in presenting his proposal for a world food board, had in mind the fact that the world had surpluses during certain periods and extreme shortages in other periods. It was his purpose to stabilize returns to producers and costs to consumers by setting aside surplus quantities in good years for periods of shortages. As has been pointed out in other conferences, however,

Supply-Agriculture
national governments can, and do, perform this function. We do not see that stocks held by an international agency will, in the short run, contribute to any improvement in the present situation. Canada, for example, has provided for the holding of stocks of wheat . . .
The minister points out that he supports the general principle, but on the other hand he disagrees with the means proposed.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no.


Victor Quelch: Let me quote it again. The minister said:
While endorsing the principle underlying this proposal, we are not in agreement with the means which, it has been suggested, are necessary to reach the objectives.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I have actually said there is that the means that they suggested on that occasion were not what Sir John Boyd Orr was proposing at all.


Victor Quelch: Well, the point is that there was a specific proposal before the conference-


James Garfield Gardiner: Right.


Victor Quelch: -for the setting up of an international commodity clearing house. When the vote was taken Canada opposed the setting up of that organization. I presume that was based on the minister's explanation for not being able to vote for the setting up of an international commodity clearing house at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no; that was not an international commodity clearing house of the kind that Sir John had proposed at all.


Victor Quelch: Then the reason that the minister voted against it was a different reason from that stated in his speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no; I stated in my speech that my reason for voting against it was because of what Great Britain and the United States had said before I spoke, and what they actually did say was that they were not prepared to finance a scheme like Sir John's.


Victor Quelch: Therefore the minister voted against it because the United States and Great Britain were not in favour of it. That is an even worse reason.


James Garfield Gardiner: We thought it would not work-and a lot of other people thought it would not work.


Victor Quelch: Let me read from the report of the conference which gave the reasons for its being turned down:
(a) That the accumulation of inconvertible currency would represent additional indebtedness by the deficit countries involving the burden of eventual repayment in terms of additional exports of goods and services and would have the effect of delaying the general convertibility.

That is clause (a). Clause (d) reads:
(d) That the financial functions proposed for the ICCH could be performed by the governments directly involved.
That is the reason I gave when I spoke in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: I explained it to you at that time but you did not accept my explanation then, and apparently you are not accepting it now; nevertheless it is correct. Why not go back and look up all of the other conferences at which the same question was discussed? It was discussed at every FAO meeting that was held; and I made a speech at every one of those meetings supporting Lord Boyd Orr, and I made another one in Rome supporting Lord Orr's proposal.


Victor Quelch: I am not interested in the various speeches but I am interested in the action that was taken by Canada in reference to the specific proposal for setting up an international commodity clearing house. That was the proposal before the conference and Canada voted against it. The minister can give his own reasons-I thought the speech probably gave the reasons why Canada opposed it inasmuch as the speech was made at the time.
The report of the conference gives the reasons why the conference opposed the proposal. I suppose those reasons will include the reasons why Canada opposed it. The interesting point, and the point I made, was that when the specific proposal was placed before the FAO conference in December, 1949, Canada voted against it. That is the point I am interested in.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement which my hon. friend makes when he is out in the country and which he thinks he is making now are the same-


Victor Quelch: Exactly the same.


James Garfield Gardiner: They may be exactly the same but that is not the interpretation that anyone puts on them. The suggestion made by the speaker-the suggestion that was made the other day when I referred to it-is that I was not in support of Lord Orr's proposal for an international organization to handle certain agricultural products. The member goes on to say that he knows I was not in favour of it because I voted against it in Washington. That is not true-and the statement does not say it is true either. The statement actually shows that this was not a proposal such as Lord Orr discussed with the FAO conference. He had been refused support by Britain and by the United States. Their reasons were that, quite naturally from their point of view, they were not going to

become involved in financing all the rest of the world's surpluses and thought they should not do so. If they are not going to be in it there are no other countries in the world that can do the job.
If my hon. friend reads my speech over he will find that I said there, as elsewhere, that I could not understand why countries like the United States and Britain could not do a thing of that kind because 250,000 farmers in western Canada carried 600 million bushels of wheat from the middle of the war until the end of the war in order to save those very people from starvation. I said that the government of Canada did not help them do that, nor did the governments of Britain and the United States. Those farmers carried that wheat and paid all the costs of carrying it from 1941 to the end of the war in order to have it available at the end of the war to help feed people who would otherwise have starved.
I have said at every one of the meetings that since 250,000 farmers could do that job, which was the job Lord Orr was saying ought to be done with regard to wheat, coffee, wool and other non-perishable products, I could not see any reason why two great financial powers could not find some way of backing Lord Orr's program. That is the position I have always taken.
At the meeting in Washington, Britain and the United States took the same position that they have always taken, that they were not going to finance any scheme such as this proposal involved. It was pretty obvious that the next country in line was Canada and that we were being asked to do some financing that we did not believe we were capable of doing. If we went into a scheme of that kind with a group of nations that would not accept the principles that were laid down by Lord Orr, then of course we would be looking for trouble; so we voted against it. We did not vote against any international project set up on the basis of Lord Orr's ideas, and Lord Orr himself would not have said that the other proposals were in line with his ideas. We said that we could not go along with the scheme and that was all that was said. I have never at any time opposed Lord Orr's scheme and at every meeting it has been brought up.


Victor Quelch: Any time that I have spoken on this question in the country I have made it very, very clear just what proposal I was referring to. I pointed out that this was a matter in which the federation of agriculture had shown a great deal of interest in the past. It is a question in which a lot of interest has been taken by the international 68108-290J
Supply-Agriculture
federation of agricultural producers. The food and agriculture organization council set up a committee of six experts to investigate the proposals submitted to them by the international federation and it was from that committee that the international commodity clearing house was brought forth. The proposal that was placed before the conference of FAO in 1949 was the proposal drafted by this committee of experts set up by the council of FAO, and Lord Orr was the president at that time. The proposal set up by his council was placed before the conference and Canada voted against it.
I have made that very clear because, on every occasion on which I have spoken of it, I gave the origin of the proposal as I have given it at the present time. I gave a great deal of credit to the federation of agriculture for having been the sponsor of the proposal. They brought it forward in the initial stages, placed it before the international federation of agricultural producers, who submitted it to FAO. FAO set up a committee of experts who investigated the matter and drafted the proposal of the international commodity clearing house. That proposal was placed before the conference and, as I say, the Canadian delegation voted against it.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. Corry:: Mr. Chairman, before the committee rose for the luncheon recess, the discussion on this item had ranged over a wide field. I wish to participate in the debate and to bring to the attention of the committee some of the problems which are perplexing agriculture in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
The constituency of Perth lies in a great fertile area in western Ontario. It is a great mixed farming section. Our county produces large numbers of bacon hogs, great quantities of butter and concentrated milk, and the northern section of the constituency is renowned for its production of cheese.
The problem of imitation dairy products is arousing much concern among producers of all types of dairy products. They realize that if the extension of the use of synthetics becomes more widespread, great harm will be wrought upon the whole dairy industry. The dairy industry has been responsible for a great measure of the prosperity which has been enjoyed by the farmers of western Ontario. It has contributed to a great extent to the conservation of the soil and it fits in admirably with a program for better land use.

Supply-Agriculture
Some years ago there was distributed a bulletin-I am not sure whether it was distributed by the federal Department of Agriculture or the department of agriculture of the province of Ontario-entitled "The Cow, The Mother of Prosperity". That bulletin contained some extremely valuable information. I regret that the copy I had has since passed out of my hands. It seems to me that it would be quite appropriate to make a speech on that subject, but I do not intend to attempt to do so at this busy time. However, I am convinced that a great many of the people of Canada are not aware of that fact and of the great importance of the dairy industry.
Compared with the price of many foods and many luxuries, the price of dairy products in the past few years has been low. Many dairy farmers have depended upon the sale of surplus breeding stock in order to augment the income received from the sale of dairy products. In the last year there has been a marked decline in the price received for dairy cattle, and the returns of the dairy-farmers have been considerably lower because of that fact. The imposition of the United States embargo a little bit over a year ago prevented the export of a large number of dairy cattle which had been raised for that purpose. When the border was reopened on March 1 of this year, prices in the United States had declined and producers are now obliged to take prices which are at least 30 per cent lower than they were a year and a half ago. The high price of beef had a supporting effect upon the price of dairy cattle, and the decline in beef prices has also contributed to a lower income for the dairy farmer.
Producers of milk for concentrated milk products and butter are fortunate that they are protected against any drastic further reduction in the price of their products because of the action of the government in agreeing to purchase butter at 58 cents a pound for two years and the decision to buy ten million pounds of concentrated milk powder.
The cheese producer has no such assurance. It is believed that there will be an increase in cheese production this year. As I pointed out earlier, the closing of the United States market compelled many farmers to retain more livestock on their farms. Many of these cattle will be in production this year; and if weather conditions are favourable, everything points to a great increase in the amount of milk offered the various markets.
With no market available, except the domestic one, manufacturers of processed cheese may be in a position to secure their requirements at much lower prices than those prevailing a year ago. In other words, it looks

like a buyers' market. We are informed that there is a small surplus of 1952 cheese in the hands of the trade; I am told that it is no larger than it was a year ago. It is fortunate that the arrangements were made to export cheese to the United Kingdom. We only wish that the British had more dollars with which to buy more.
Another feature of the present situation which I ought to draw to the attention of the committee is the fact that an attractive price for butter may divert large quantities of milk from the manufacture of cheese to butter. The result might easily be a surplus of butter in the hands of the government; and that surplus might be extremely difficult to dispose of. Apparently butter is not in demand elsewhere in the world. There is no doubt that, should any surplus occur, cheese could be disposed of.
I would suggest that the government, through the agricultural prices support board, give some consideration to purchasing cheese in a manner similar to that in which butter is being so efficiently handled. The government has decided to continue the purchase of butter at 58 cents per pound for a period of two years and in addition, as I said before, has offered to purchase ten million pounds of milk powder. This action has been hailed with approval by producer organizations and removes some of the uncertainty surrounding their operations. If similar assurance were given the producers of cheese, a price of 30 cents per pound would be comparable.
I would also suggest that the cheese producers marketing board-and I speak of the cheese producers marketing board of Ontario -devote a great deal more attention to the problem of marketing cheese in Canada. There are a few commercial organizations which are making a strong effort to market natural cheddar cheese, but a number of the larger buyers are much more interested in the processing and sale of special cheeses made from cheddar cheese and other materials. What the cheese industry needs is more consumers. A little bit over a year ago I suggested in this chamber that if everyone in Canada would consume another half pound of cheese, the surplus would vanish. I should like to repeat the suggestion today, but in view of larger production, I should like to raise that amount to one pound.


Mr. Cardiff:: I had not intended to take part in this debate. Owing to some of the things that the minister said this morning in answer to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, perhaps I should say something. I have enjoyed listening to some of the representations made by my neighbour members,

and I just wish to say that I agree wholeheartedly with most of the things they said, with the exception of the praise that they heaped on the government, praise which I do not think they should have given. Be that as it may, I still agree with many of the things they said. The hon. member for Wellington North gave the minister a few ideas that were commendable, and I think he should pay attention to them.
The hon. member for Grey North said at page 4567 of Hansard:
They have confidence in this government, but this combination of falling beef prices and rising costs has them worried.
I hope they have confidence in the government; I cannot say that I have. We will all find out sooner or later just how much confidence they have in the government, and until that time comes I shall be satisfied to wait and find out.
When the minister was answering the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton with respect to the number of hogs in that province he gave the number as of last June. The number that was given as of that particular date would have nothing to do with the number that is there now. I would suggest that the minister get up to date on his figures, because I know as well as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton that the hog population has decreased considerably, and has decreased very rapidly from October 1 to January 1 owing to the policy of the government.
They announced three months ahead that 3 cents was coming off the floor price. The result was that a lot of brood sows were marketed that should never have been sold. After the price was lowered to 23 cents the market took care of it from there on, and inside of two months the price had risen not only to 26 cents but had gone above that, and is now 28 cents or 29 cents per pound. Because of that we have not nearly as many hogs as we should have, and we have a larger number than we had two months ago. Hogs are a line that increase very rapidly and diminish just as quickly. If it had not been for the policy of the Minister of Agriculture and of the government, of lowering the floor under hogs by 3 cents, we would not be in the position that we were in, in January and February, where the packers could not find enough hogs to process.
I do not know whether the condition has improved a great deal since then or not; but one thing is sure. We are not overpopulated in hogs at the present time. That policy may have been created by the minister intentionally because we had a surplus of
Supply-Agriculture
pork and he did not want a surplus of hogs at this particular time. When the minister has an idea like that he should tell it to the producer and not leave him to guess and flounder around and not know what he is doing.
I spoke about the floor price under beef. Well, I happen to be a beef producer myself, and like a good many more I have taken quite a loss on beef. We all took a 10-cent drop when the embargo was put on beef going across to the United States. It was a decided 10-cent drop right on the face of it. I am not particularly sympathetic to those of us who had been in the business for some time and had had a chance to make some money two or three years previously, but I was alarmed about the young farmer who was starting up and who had put all he had into cattle and then found himself in the position where it was absolutely impossible for him to pay the bank. As you know, the bank will carry you only so long as they can see a way clear to get their money back. These boys lost a great deal of money, and some of them will never be able to farm again. I felt sorry for these boys, because some of them were returned men and deserved a better fate than that. I do not know that that was the minister's fault. I am not blaming him for the foot-and-mouth epidemic in Canada, which had a lot to do with it.
Then the market in the United States fell rapidly from that day until the embargo was lifted, and our price was higher than theirs, and up to the moment the lifting of the embargo has not done us very much good, apart from the fact that it has given a chance to the dairymen to sell surplus breeding stock, cows and breeding stock of that kind, to the United States. Quite a number of dairy cattle are going across the line, and that will eliminate a certain number of dairy cattle that otherwise would have gone onto our market. For that reason it may be a help.
In regard to beef prices, a little more attention should have been paid to the amount of money that was charged for beef on the block as well as the price that the farmer was getting. The butchers were charging too much for the cuts that they sold over the counter at a time when they were able to buy cows for 12 cents and 15 cents a pound. The floor price of beef was 26 cents, but it did not work out as a floor so much as a ceiling so far as the packers were concerned. They were in a position where they did not have to pay more than 26 cents, because that was the floor, and they did not pay more than 26 cents except on two or three occasions when

Supply-Agriculture
the market was slim. They paid 27 cents on one or two occasions, when not enough stock came on the market to keep the plants open, and they had to pay a little more. Because of that fact they did not have to go over 26 cents. Twenty-six cents was the top.
The 26-cent floor applied only to one grade of beef, and had nothing to do with butcher heifers and cows. As I said before, they were selling as low as 12 cents and 15 cents. Quite a few of them were going over the block and were being sold as choice beef. They are choice beef; if they are properly fed and fed quickly they are just as good as younger beef. The fact remains that the butchers and the packers made a lot more money out of the regulations with respect to the price of beef than did the farmers. The farmers lost money and the packers reaped the benefit.
Something should have been done to see that the farmers were not blamed for the high cost of beef that was being sold over the counter. There are several other things I want to say. I wanted to speak about the dairy business for a little while. We have lost practically all of our dairy market. We have lost the United Kingdom market. I do not think that is to the credit of this government. Perhaps they could not do anything else; perhaps they felt they could not do anything else. They could have done something else. They could have made dollars available to Britain.
I think Great Britain would have bought a lot of our dairy products if they had had any money with which to buy them. I think we can blame this government in that regard because it has not had a policy which would allow Britain to have dollars with which to buy those products. The United States was a good market, so long as we had it. But just as soon as they reach the position where they do not want our products, due to their growing the same kind of products as are grown in this country, they say they have no further need for what we produce, and we have to look elsewhere.
I hope the government will look into the markets of the world with a view to finding us a better market for our dairy products. For some years we have had no market for our cheese, with the result that we have a large supply on hand-the very best cheese to be found. This, again, has caused a great deal of worry to our dairy farmers.
I was pleased by the suggestion made some time ago by three counties that said they were going to pool their milk supplies. I made that suggestion on one occasion in the house a few years ago, and am convinced it

is the only solution to the problem. If I live on one side of a road and sell my milk to a dairy, and my neighbour lives on the other side and sells his milk to an evaporated milk processing plant, and there is considerable difference in the price, I do not think that is right. I believe milk should be sold by grade; regardless of the market it finds it should bring the same price, established according to quality.
I intend to make some further observations when the separate items are called, and shall defer until that time anything further I wish to say.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Supply-Agriculture
very little money to find new uses and new products.
In the development of Canada's natural resources we are rapidly pushing the frontiers back to the Arctic and the Pacific, so far as location and establishment of quantities and qualities are concerned, but the neglected aspect of this program is the challenge to push back the green frontiers in the way of finding new crops and new uses for present agricultural production, as a source of supply that will be required by the industrialization that inevitably follows in the wake of adequately established supplies of raw materials.
The only alternative, as I see it, lies in restoring and extending formerly profitable markets, a difficult task in this world of restricted currencies, bilateral trading agreements and other accumulating obstructions in the channels of normal trade.
A very large number of farmers in Canada today have their life savings invested in land and equipment, producing products for which a constantly effective future demand, at profitable prices, is not in sight. Apple farming in Canada is a case in point where producers are caught in an economic pincer movement. One pincer is a contracting export market, while competition rises in other countries. The other is a lack of an alternative, which drives them to continue what they are now doing.
We know that there exists a very good possibility that research into industrial uses of apple by-products may offer a solution to the problem of markets in this industry.
The manufacture of plastics, although a comparatively new industry, is rapidly expanding in Canada. A raw material required by this industry in ever-increasing amounts is pectin. Research in the United States has shown that pectin recovery from apples and waste sugar beet pulp is both possible and economical, particularly in the case of apples. That should be of interest to many parts of Canada.


Mr. Sinnott:: On a point of order, would the hon. member state from what he is quoting?


Joseph Warner Murphy: This is a speech which I have prepared for delivery here. I have delivered it on former occasions. If the hon. member would like to know, I think it was quite well received by many members of his government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, while one might criticize on the ground that the speech is being read, I am not raising that point. However, the hon. member has said that he has already read

the speech, I think twice, during this session. Obviously it would be out of order to read a speech a third time in the same session.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture that I have not read this speech in this house on any occasion. I have had the honour of giving it before service clubs on different occasions. I do not think he will mind being corrected; he will not be the first minister I have corrected in this house and probably not the last.


Mr. Sinclair:: You should have it memorized by now.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Get a new record.


Joseph Warner Murphy: At least there will be something on the record when I have finished.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is only your opinion.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Possibilities in the proposed chemical industry in Canada, expected to follow in the wake of oil and natural gas resources development in western Canada, opens the door for increased markets of inedible fats of agricultural origin, of which we have an accumulating surplus in Canada. Since the war, consumption of inedible animal fats has not kept pace with the increased supply, even at present depressed prices. Today, new chemicals known in other countries offer possibilities for greatly expanded use of inedible fats, such as tallow and grease. From chemical derivatives of pork grease it is possible to make a wide variety of products, including lubricants, insecticides, and various surface coatings for oilcloth and plastic coated materials. These possibilities appear to be advisable alternatives to uneconomic palliatives which serve only to prolong the problem, and for a time ease or postpone the penalties.
I suggest that this government, not only through the Department of Agriculture but the Department of Finance, should recognize the necessity of research in the field of agriculture because it has paid off in other fields. When I first spoke 1 mentioned research in the forest industry where today by-products which formerly were simply considered waste material now form a large part of their revenue. If that same principle were applied to agriculture I think the people of this country would benefit greatly. I do not think there would be any opposition from any hon. member to the adoption by the government of ways and means to ensure that those engaged in agriculture will intensify their effort so that not only will they be benefited, but there will be benefit for the whole economy of Canada.

There is one important point I should like to stress and that is the greater use of agricultural products. In the United States, where much more research into the use of agricultural products in industry has been undertaken than in Canada, in 1951 $1,250 million worth of farm raw materials were purchased by industry. In other words, the relatively new industrial uses for agricultural products in the United States contributed over $1,250 million of profitable outlet for agricultural production which otherwise would have been surplus. A new market worth $1,250 million did not completely solve the problem of surpluses in the United States but it proved most convincingly that the use of new products offers a sound approach to this problem.
The developments in the field of scientific agriculture have of necessity been retarded during the past decade because of the interest in and the urgency of scientific advances in the field of defence, necessitated by all-out war and war preparedness programs. As a result the advances in scientific agriculture in the past decade or two have been comparatively small in. comparison with the progress made at other times in this field. The number of new products is an example of this fact. Our economy at the present time is threatened by a surplus production of many products when those products are considered in the light of their utility value for food alone. I am confident, however, that with adequate scientific research in the direction of greater utilization of some of those products in the industrial field, surpluses and threatened surpluses would not plague the Canadian producer.
It is particularly important at this time that leadership in the field of agricultural research, designed to bring about greater utilization of the productive capacity of agriculture and towards supplying the ever-increasing demands for raw materials by industry, should be undertaken at top government levels. It is quite true that a certain amount of research is done by the federal and provincial governments, and a liberal amount by private industry; but if the potential agricultural possibilities of Canada are to be utilized as a source of greater raw materials for industry, then I think the government should take the initial action in this field and provide adequate money for continuing research along the lines suggested.
This nation today is going through a transition from an agrarian to an industrial economy. In the wake of this development there has been created, and is being created every day, an ever-increasing demand for raw materials. Many of these, even of a very 68108-291
Supply-A griculture
primary nature, which are being imported into this country at the present time, could and should be produced on the farms of Canada. Soybean oil is an example.
One other aspect towards which leadership in research should be directed is the greater utilization of waste materials and by-products possible from this source of supply. Sugar beets are an illustration, the pectin from sugar beets, and also the pectin from apples. The possibilities in this field have hardly been scratched.
I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that the very creditable record of the national farm chemurgic council in the United States warrants serious consideration by his department of the possibilities for greater utilization of the products of agriculture in this country, many of which are either entirely unused or wasted as by-products, and which many times even constitute a problem as to disposal.


The Chairman:: Order. Could the hon. member give us a brief resume of the rest of his speech? He has been reading for some time, and as he knows that is strictly against the rules.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I have sat in the house ever since I have been a member and have watched that procedure being followed on both sides of the house.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: My remarks will be completed shortly.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member is quite right when he says that the rule is generally violated, especially during two debates, the one on the speech from the throne and the one on the budget. It is also violated sometimes on second reading of a bill. I would think that the hon. member would be quite right in complaining about my asking that the rules be observed on this occasion if I had stopped him after the first line, but he will realize that he has now been reading for several minutes, that two hon. members have risen on points of order at which times I did not interfere, and I think it is only reasonable for the Chair to ask, if there are many more pages to be read, that the hon. member give a brief resume of what is contained in the rest of his speech instead of reading it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am just about through, but may I say that I recall that on Monday of this week a member who supports the government read a speech word for word. There was no objection taken by the one occupying the chair at that time or by any member of the opposition. It was a well-prepared speech. Who prepared it I do not know, but it was

Supply-Agriculture
listened to with a great deal of interest. I make no criticism of that hon. member for having read his speech because it was one which was welcomed by every member of the house. The speech I happen to be making is of a technical nature.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. In the hon. member's remarks there is an implication that favouritism was shown by whoever was occupying the chair when a member supporting the government read his speech.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I made no such suggestion.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I should like that to be made clear.


Joseph Warner Murphy: There is no such thought in my mind and I do not wish to imply that. I simply repeat that I have been a member for several years and have listened to speeches of different kinds being read, including technical speeches like the one to which I have referred and which was welcomed by the house the other day. Such speeches certainly require a series of notes to guide one in making one's presentation. My speech at this time deals with research and is not an easy one to make. I know that it has taken hours and hours to prepare. I do not like to place on the record something that is not factual and which the government would not consider having their officials study with some interest. I only have a few more words to put on the record. I think I have been fair in my reference to a government spokesman. It was something that we in our party welcomed. I do not say that the speech made by Dr. Firestone was made by a government spokesman, but I think I share the opinion held from coast to coast that his speech and the speech made the other day in New York along the same lines by Dr. Hall, the president of Western Ontario university, are speeches that are welcome irrespective of whether you are in the government or in the opposition, in public life or a private citizen and they dealt with this same subject. These speeches are welcomed because they contain material that I think we all appreciate having the opportunity to digest.
As I said at the start, I think that every member of the house regardless of party welcomes a greater effort by this government or any government at other levels to make a further contribution to the agricultural economy of the country if it can be done through more research along that line. I would also suggest, as I did earlier, that the Minister of Finance as well as the Minister of Agriculture give consideration to the possibilities for the development of this country by greater encouragement to research by private enterprise. They too can work in co-operation with the

various levels of government and the other agencies engaged in research to which I referred earlier in my speech. I think that the Minister of Finance and the government should consider our taxation laws in the light of the great potential that lies ahead for this nation if we undertake the research necessary for that great development.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I want to take up with the minister for the purpose of securing his views thereon. Mention has been made on a number of occasions of the attitude taken by the United States of America in imposing import bans on Canadian agricultural products, dairy products and certain oils which are products of agriculture. Reference has also been made to the discussion that took place recently in the United States as a result of which President Eisenhower requested those in charge of the commission having to do with the question of the importation of agricultural products to also impose a ban upon the importation of feed oats into the United States.
However, I refer particularly to dairy products. I should like the minister to give the house and the country more information than was furnished to the house recently by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in response to questions as to what positive action the Canadian government intends to take for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the government of the United States in the firmest manner possible the grave injustice already done to Canadian agriculture by the actions taken thus far by the United States and also the injustice that will be done by the contemplated action recently revealed.
Only recently the dairymen of Canada met in the city of Edmonton and there was considerable discussion on this subject, one that affects the farm prosperity in this country to a degree that few realize. At the meeting of the national dairy council in Edmonton in convention one of the main subjects of discussion was the warning that the United States might dump huge surpluses of dairy products on world markets and that Canadian industry would be seriously threatened. The president of the organization, Mr. J. J. Creighton, made this statement among others to the delegates:
Canadian dairymen have a real and justified fear that the American government will dump its enormous stockpile of dairy products on markets throughout the world at fire-sale prices.
This has been done before and a repetition would be grossly unfair, not only to Canada but to other surplus-producing countries-
I feel that it is a matter which falls particularly within the ambit of the Minister

of Agriculture and one that deserves a statement on his part. It is one that must exercise not only his mind but the minds of the officials of his department. It is challenging in its prospect and dangerous to the maintenance of Canada's productive agricultural dairy machine, if I might use that term.
What means of co-operation are followed between Canada and the United States now that we are joining together in a common effort for the preservation of freedom? What arrangements are there so that nations within NATO will not, by their own nationalistic actions, endanger the agricultural survival of any one of the members of NATO? That is the first matter I bring to the minister's attention. Up to the present time all that we in the house know is that two notes have been sent to the government of the United States of America. On one occasion when the matter arose I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether any replies to those notes had been received. The implication in his remarks in response to my question was that no answer was sought or inferred in the notes that were sent.
I think that the strongest possible protest ought to be made against these bans; because, if this attitude continues, we will go back to the conditions of the 1920's when the Fordney-McCumber tariff-engendered or conceived as a result of strong agrarian appeals in various parts of the United States -and the Hawley-Smoot tariff were brought into being. Our memories recall the very damaging effect that those tariffs had on our agricultural economy. My remarks apply particularly to eastern Canada, the maritimes and British Columbia, and certainly the action taken recently by the United States has not been conducive to that attitude of co-operation which should be the concept of nations joined together in a common dedication to freedom. I would like to hear from the minister too about the degree to which Canada within the last few months-since January of 1953-has been importing agricultural products from the United States. What has been the extent of the importation of bacon and other farm products from the United States during the period I have mentioned? It seems passing strange that the situation prevails that imports should be taking place, having particular regard to the fact that surpluses are beginning to pile up or have already piled up.
Then I wish also to suggest that when representations are made to the United States of America it might be pointed out, having regard to our surplus of agricultural products or anticipated surpluses, that if no quotas and no embargoes were placed against them at all 68108-291J
Supply-Agriculture
they would only have a 2 per cent impact on the farm economy of the United States.
The United States may have been able to justify nationalistic actions such as embargoes and the like against Canadian farm products thirty years ago. At that time the United States had accepted no world responsibilities and had no world responsibilities to discharge. Now, however, we are all in the same boat. One of the most serious things that could happen to Canada would be that, as a result of actions such as I have indicated, our agricultural productive capacity would not be expanded. Then we would not be able to discharge our responsibility of producing agricultural products to meet ever-increasing world demand-an endeavour for which we are fitted.
I realize, as far as our agricultural production is concerned, that, as years go by and our population increases, naturally more and more of our Canadian farm production will be absorbed by our home market. Until we have achieved that population we, with our vast agricultural acreage, must necessarily continue to increase our production. Certainly everything possible should be done by the government to bring to the attention of the government of the United States the very definite need of co-operation, and a very definite condemnation of action that can but have a tremendously detrimental effect on our agricultural economy.
That is particularly so when the United States is in a position where it takes delivery of such a large proportion of our mineral and our strategic metal production. Those things it needs, and it is taking them; but at the same time, to the degree that has been achieved already and which may well be extended by the further action referred to during the last few days in the United States House of Representatives, the United States is extending or expanding this field of closed markets to Canada. It applies in connection with other natural products. It applies in connection with fish. Those are things which I believe deserve the serious consideration of parliament and deserve on the part of the government assurance from members in all parts of the chamber that, in any stand taken by the government to bring this matter to the attention of the United States government, the minister or the government may be assured that he or they speak with the authority of members from all parts of this country and from all parts of the chamber.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer while I am on my feet. I do not like to rise every few moments in order to deal with other matters. I am diffi-

Supply-A griculture
dent about bringing this matter to the attention of the minister because it might naturally be said to me, "After all, you are not a farmer". On a number of occasions in the United States, within the last year or so, in restaurants and in hotels I have seen references to the fact that served on the menu was Canadian bacon. In reality it is not Canadian bacon at all. It is United States bacon with the fat portion removed. I have spoken to a number of Americans in this regard and they have assured me that there is an obvious demand in the United States for what is known as Canadian bacon, namely lean bacon, different in kind and quality from United States bacon. I have also been informed that United States packers are most anxious to supply the demand and that they would generally be prepared to pay a premium in order to get Canadian bacon.
One organization that was in touch with me through its representative-he was a representative of an agricultural group influential in this country-advised me that it was their considered opinion that the United States public would be prepared to pay up to 5 cents per pound premium if it could get Canadian bacon. The situation at the present time is that the demand for the type of bacon to which I have made reference is not being met. I would ask the minister what has been done along this line, towards creating a demand in the United States and a supply on the part of Canada to the United States, to meet a situation which, if my information is correct-and certainly my informants are reliable and also knowledgeable persons-would have a pronounced effect in extending the demand for Canadian bacon and also in maintaining prices for the Canadian farmers.
Having made those few remarks, I would greatly appreciate it if the minister would be prepared to discuss them, with particular reference to the first matter to which I have directed his attention. There is in Canada today, in every province, a strong body of opinion that greatly resents the attitude now being taken and the further attitude that is expected to be taken, which will have but one effect, and that a most detrimental one, on the Canadian agricultural industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to the last matter that was spoken of, namely the matter of marketing bacon in the United States, may I say that I have seen the menus in the United States mentioning Canadian bacon. Sometimes the menu mentions Canadian style of bacon. It does not always say it is Canadian bacon. Canadian style of bacon is the lean bacon.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even if it is United States bacon, it may have some of the fat trimmed off-and it is back bacon probably-and be called Canadian style. Nevertheless, before the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, there was quite an effort being made to have long, lean Canadian hogs introduced into the United States market. We were being fairly successful in some directions in that regard. Since the embargo has gone off, of course that effort is being continued and there is a gradual increase in the amount; but it has not yet reached any great proportions since the embargo.
As to the other question having to do with dairy products entering the United States, as was indicated by him, the hon. member for Lake Centre received his answers, to the questions he asked in the house, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, from the Prime Minister and to an extent from the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he has been here. It is natural that that is where the answers should come from.
I do not think I should attempt to say anything which is in any sense different from what has already been said. After all, those ministers naturally speak with regard to government policy on matters having to do with trade. As Minister of Agriculture I am interested in products that concern farmers' returns. But we have a man in Washington by the name of Mr. Hopper who is associated with the Department of Trade and Commerce as agricultural representative. He is there continuously. We have almost daily contacts with him through the Department of Trade and Commerce. AH these questions related to dairy products and that sort of thing are matters he is discussing with the department down there almost daily. Any representations we have to make to the United States department are naturally made to our representative and are made direct. We get answers back from time to time with regard to what the attitudes are.
I just repeat that in order to show that that is the method by which most of the representation is made. We do not get into a discussion which gets onto the front pages of the paipetr and says, "We do not agree with what the Americans are doing". After all, the greater part of trade in food that goes on between the two countries is controlled, in so far as duties are concerned, by the agreements that were entered into back in 1947 and again in 1950. Those agreements were international. They resulted in considerable reductions in duties, approximately 50 per cent on a great many commodities.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.1

Of course it is true that recently the United States government has undertaken to apply embargoes on certain products, a fact which means that it does not matter a great deal what the duty is; the product is not allowed to be imported for the time being and therefore we have no trade in it. All we can do is to make protests-and we do so-and then present our point of view to them. That is the job of these men we have down there. They keep constant pressure on in order to try to get the matter changed back to where it was. We are successful from time to time in getting certain things done; but we cannot always accomplish what we think ought to be accomplished. I sometimes become a little bit impatient with our own people-with our farm organizations, for example-in that some of the things that I think are more important than are many of the things that are talked about are never mentioned at all.
Mention has been made of oats and barley. Agriculture must see to it that enough oats and barley stays in this country to take care of our livestock industry. I am not going to worry too much about our having an extra supply of oats. We have an extra supply of oats now. We have had an extra heavy crop of oats for three years in a row; but from farming experience I learned long ago not to sell any oats from my farm. I have more oats on my farm right now than I have ever had at any time in my experience, but I am not selling any oats. I have enough cattle and hogs to eat all the oats I grow on an average over any five-year period, and I know from experience that one of these years I am not going to grow very many oats, and most people in western Canada know that. Therefore just to take the figures of all the oats that there are in western Canada does not mean a great deal. If we are in a good position, if we have more oats than we are going to feed in the next year, it is because we may need them the year following, and farmers do maintain more oats than they need at the moment.
The other matter is that there is a straight embargo against the importation of wheat into the United States. I find it almost impossible to get anybody to pay any attention to that. It is the most serious problem from the point of view of the western wheat growers that there is in the world situation today. It has been so all the time. The question of what we are going to do with our wheat would not be nearly so difficult if it were not that there is an embargo against shipping wheat into the United States. That in itself increases acreage in the United States from 62 million up to 83 million acres, and when you get 25 million acres, which is equal to
Supply-Agriculture
our own acreage, of extra wheat in the United States it certainly has a bearing on the whole world situation. But we do not say much about that. We talk a lot about some things that are much smaller, and we do not say much about that. I must say that every time I go down to Washington and every time I meet anybody from there I spend more time talking about that than I do about some of the other things that are referred to. The dairy end of it is most important, particularly when we have considerable surpluses to export. But we always have surpluses of the other products to export in great quantity, and that situation is important to us.
Therefore I would answer the question by saying that we keep the pressure on all the time through the set-up that we have, the relationships we have created between this country and the United States, in dealing with any obstruction to trade that may exist between the two countries in an endeavour to get them removed as much as possible. All I can say at the moment is that they are removed at this time to as large an extent as they have ever been over a very long period of time.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister also at this time give the information I asked for as to the importations of farm products into Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I have the figures here. They may be here if I looked through my records. A year ago I was down to Chicago and Milwaukee on a sort of speaking trip, and I did have occasion at that time to look into these figures. I was surprised to find that the trade in farm products is equally divided between the two countries. My memory is that there is only a difference of a few million dollars between the amount that we ship to the United States and the amount that the United States ships here. One might be surprised at that but we do bring into this country a considerable quantity of citrus fruits. My memory is that it runs to about $50 million. We do import from the United States a considerable amount of cotton, which is a farm product. It runs to about another $50 million. And in spite of the little discussion we had here the other day, we do import a considerable quantity of potatoes.


John George Diefenbaker: And cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: These potatoes are imported into this country at a season of the year when new potatoes are not available here. The new potatoes we eat in the restaurants now are, I presume, United States potatoes. For a period of the year we get a considerable quantity, but when you balance it all up, my

Supply-Agriculture
memory is that-I do not just have the figures in my mind at the moment-at that time the figures were about $250 million going from one country to the other in products of different kinds, including all of our grains and everything of that kind.
It is important that that trade should continue. I think everyone considers it is important that it should continue. There is one thing about it which strikes me as important. One hundred and fifty million people on the other side of the line consume our food products, whatever they are, but we have not so many on this side. If we are consuming almost as much with our smaller population, we are consuming much more per head of population than they are on the other side of the line.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course citrus foods and the like are agricultural products, but what I want the minister to do is to provide the committee with the total imports to date from the United States into Canada of bacon, eggs, cheese and farm products of that kind in the years 1952 and 1953. These food products are not seasonal, and they are indigenous to our agricultural economy. These are the figures I want. I realize that there is almost equality as between the exports of agricultural products from Canada to the United States and the imports in return. Certainly there is no great competition in the imports of citrus fruits into Canada and the like, or the fruits in season.
What I have in mind in particular is this. In 1952 and 1953 surpluses of agricultural products were commencing to pile up in this country. It is a strange fact that at a time like this we should be importing agricultural products which we have in excess in Canada. In addition to the minister furnishing particulars of bacon, eggs, cheese and the like, all farm products, that have come from the	United	States into Canada	in 1952and 1953	up to	date, I also	wish	him to
provide the committee with imports of cheese and other farm products from the commonwealth countries as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I search through my records I	think	I shall find	these	figureshere, and	I will do that when	we get down
to the different items.


John George Diefenbaker: As long as the minister will do that, that is all right.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I see it now, I do not think 1952 would be a very good year to take. That is the year in which we had the foot-and-mouth disease and had an embargo on most shipments.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister will take
1951	I will not argue with him. Take 1951,
1952	and 1953 to date.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we will get those figures. It might be well to put 1952 by itself and get another three-year period, the one preceding it, because 1952 is so unusual on account of foot-and-mouth disease.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I want to refer to a point made by the hon. member for Lake Centre which seems to me to be a very important one. I do it partly because the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in his seat at the moment. The hon. member for Lake Centre pointed out the fact that we are still engaged in a great common military enterprise, although it is not at the stage of actual war. He pointed out that when we were at the stage of war it was felt that military and economic co-operation were virtually of equal importance. At that time we made tremendous adjustments so that economic strength and military strength could march hand in hand.
The minister has pointed out-and I accept his answer-that part of the question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre, namely the diplomatic representations and representations from the Department of Trade and Commerce, should be answered by the ministers responsible for that; but it does seem to me that the point which the hon. member has raised is one of far-reaching importance. At the present time when there do seem to be strong indications that the United States, in spite of expectations which I at any rate entertained to the contrary, are forgetting that. It seems to me that the point is one which the government should keep very much in its mind. It is fortunate that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who for many months has been engaged in what might be called a common task, will now have more time for the affairs of our own country. Certainly there is enough happening at the present time to disturb us greatly.
Some five years ago I met a distinguished American statesman who was frank in saying that just as soon as there were American surpluses of farm products we might, unfortunately, return to the era we knew so well in the twenties and the thirties.
Then, one other thing. The minister said -and I was surprised by what he said; I do not think I misunderstood him-some things about an embargo on export wheat, and then he proceeded to say, "I find it almost impossible to get anyone to take an interest in it." Was he referring to the United States or Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that farm organizations do not talk about that very much in their meetings. I do not find them talking about it at all. Other members might; but that is not what I find.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister furnish later on the information for which I have asked, before the estimates are finally passed?


James Garfield Gardiner: When we come to the livestock and dairy items.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I have a further question in connection with expenditures being made in connection with feed grain subsidies which, I believe, come under the minister's department. What is the situation in that matter; and is it a fact that those who are entitled to these subsidies have not been receiving them during the last several months? And if so, why have not those payments been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a short period of time before the first of April when we ran out of funds, because our vote of last year was not quite large enough. But as soon as we got the funds the payments were made- since April 1.


John George Diefenbaker: For how long did that condition continue?


James Garfield Gardiner: For about six weeks. We ran out of money about six weeks before the end of the fiscal year, and we had to explain to those people that the payments would be made as soon as we received the funds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
6.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,534,850.
Mr. Wright:: I do not know whether my question can properly be asked under item 5 or item 6, but in the details respecting operation and maintenance it is indicated that co-operative investigations have been carried on, for which the sum of $110,350 is required. Would the minister give the committee some details concerning those investigations, and what the results have been.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall do that; but just while we are looking up the information on that item I should like to say something which has been impressed upon me ever since this sound system has been in use in this chamber. I have been sitting here a long time, and I used to think it would be better if we had a sound system. But I would like to say to those in the gallery directing it that I have never found it more difficult to hear what is going on in the house than I have since this sound system has been put in.
The point is this, that before the sound system was put in, when anyone rose in his place in any part of the house I knew where the sound was coming from. Now, however, I have to look all over the house
Supply-Agriculture
to find out who is rising to his feet. And, to start with, I find that a most difficult situation. Then I find that sometimes the sound is blasting right at me through the device on my desk, while at other times it does not seem to get to me at all. I am saying this because I find that difficulty, and indeed I found it only a moment ago in connection with what was said. I would hope that some way might be found of directing it a little better than it has been directed, if that is possible. And, if not, I am afraid I may have to start making the same kind of objections that others were making before, because they could not hear.


Mr. Knowles:: Do you want television with it, too?


Mr. Tusiin:: While the minister is looking up the information in reply to the hon. member for Melfort, I should like to ask questions connected with items Nos. 6, 9, 12 and 14, because they all have to do with land and equipment. I notice that under science service there is an amount of $2,053,020 for those four items. Would the minister give us some details?
Then, turning to the item for experimental farms, we find votes of the same kind which total $1,103,000. Perhaps the minister would give the information at one time. And I might say, while the information is being prepared-


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, perhaps we should clear up one thing at a time.


George James Tustin: There is no information in the explanatory notes to say what these expenditures are for.


James Garfield Gardiner: Dealing first with the question asked by the hon. member for Melfort, I wonder if he would give some indication of where the items to which he referred are located.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was referring to page 82, where the minister will see about half-way down the page reference to co-operative investigations.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is in connection with ordinary grants to universities in connection with co-operative arrangements we have with them and with others for these investigations.


Percy Ellis Wright: Do the universities receive the grants?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, right across the country, wherever agricultural colleges are associated with universities, and research work is being done. We have arrangements to make grants to them, and those grants require this amount of money.

Supply-Agriculture


Percy Ellis Wright: Is there any list showing the amounts granted to each university?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there is a list. We can get it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I would like to have it on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: In connection with this item of $110,350 for co-operative investigations I would say that there is a reduction in the amount. This item provides funds for the continuation of co-operative research projects initiated in 1951-52 and 1952-53, and for important new projects to be undertaken in 1953-54. The chief aim of these grants is to obtain scientific information and data on specific projects which it is not possible to obtain as economically, or for reasons of lack of facilities or suitable trained staff in the various laboratories of the service.
The co-operators in connection with most of these projects are outstanding authorities in various scientific fields, who are to be found on the staffs of Canadian universities. It is
considered expedient to exploit their interest and scientific leadership in the service of agriculture and forestry by increasing their opportunities for directing research into channels of economic importance. As a matter of fact, this is pretty much the matter that was being discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Lambton West. I have a long list of the proposed projects for 1953-54.


Percy Ellis Wright: Perhaps the minister could have it placed on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: The items run from $2,000 up to $10,000, totalling in all $110,000. Looking at the list I would say that no agricultural school has been missed.


Percy Ellis Wright: I agree with the object of the vote; all I wanted was the details, and I think the minister could put them on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is quite a long list.


John George Diefenbaker: Put it on Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can have it printed in Hansard. It is as follows:
University of Ottawa, Ottawa	
University of Toronto, Toronto	
Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph	
Ecole Superieure d'Agriculture, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere.
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon_____
Province of British Columbia, Department of Agriculture, Victoria.
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon_____
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg	
University of Alberta, Edmonton	
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon_____
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
University of Alberta, Edmonton	
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg	
Dairy School, St. Hyacinthe, Quebec	
Localization of nervous lesions in Newcastle disease.
Survey of representative Canadian poultry flocks for the presence of infectious bronchitis. Dr. C. E. van Rooyen, School of Hygiene.
Development of full flavour in cheddar cheese made from pasteurized milk. Prof. W. H. Sproule.
Survey of ragweed pollen counts in Eastern Canada. Prof. E. Campagna.
Survey of serious perennial weeds in Saskatchewan. Dr. R. T. Coupland.
Survey of serious perennial weeds in British Columbia. Mr. N. F. Putnam.
Physiology of host-parasite relationships among the rusts. Prof. M. Shaw.
Physiological studies of host-parasite relationships in rust fungi involving effects of chemicals that may modify rust reaction. Prof. W. Leach.
The building of rust resistant wheat species combining species crossing and manosomic techniques. Dr. J. Unrau.
Location, transfer and allelism of genes in wheat species for resistance to rust. Dr. L. H. Shebeski and Dr. B. C. Jenkins.
Quantitative studies of the ionic balance in milk with particular reference to the avidity of the constituents of milk for inorganic ions. Dean Blythe A. Eagles, Department of Dairying.
The effect of newer processes on butter texture. Prof. F. W. Wood, Department of Dairying.
A study of the physico-chemical characteristics of milk. Prof. R. W. Brown, Department of Dairy Science.
The development of a superior whole milk powder. Dr. H. L. Berard.

Supply-Agriculture
Dairy School, St. Hyacinthe, Quebec	
Macdonald College, Quebec. (McGill University).
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon....
University of Toronto, Toronto	
Queen's University, Kingston	
University of Western Ontario, London....
Dairy School, St. Hyacinthe, Quebec	
Kemptville Agricultural School, Kemptville.
Macdonald College, Quebec	
College of Agriculture, Ste. Anne de la Poca-tiere.
University of British Columbia	
Dalhousie University	
Manitoba Agricultural College	
Macdonald College, Quebec	
University of British Columbia	
University of British Columbia	
McGill University, Montreal	
The baking properties of dry skim milk. Dr. H. L. Berard.
The physical, botanical and chemical characteristics of Canadian grown feeds which are of nutritional significance. Dr. Earle W. Cramp ton, Department of Nutrition.
The application of radio-active tracers to entomological problems. Dr. J. W. T. Spinks-Graduate School-Chemistry, Dr. H. McDonald- Biology.
Study of organic compounds as insect repellents. Prof. G. F. Wright, Department of Chemistry.
(New Item)
Application of the precipitin test technique to entomological problems. Prof. A. S. Wrest, Department of Biology.
(New Item)
Mode of action of aldrin and perhaps other insecticides toxic to mammals. Dr. J. B. Collip, Department of Medical Research.
(New Item)
Manufacturing dry skim milk for use in such products as cottage cheese. Dr. D. L. Gibson.
(New Item)
Suitability of various packages for dry skim milk. Prof. D. L. Gibson.
(New Item)
Costs of distributing milk in the Montreal market. D. W. Carr.
(New Item)
Types of farming and intensity of farm production in connection with tenancy in a few Quebec counties. Charles Gagne.
(New Item)
Agricultural development in the area contiguous to Kitimat, B.C. Prof. W. J. Anderson.
(New Item)
Plant succession in native blueberry areas. Dr. H. P. Bell.
(New Item)
Harvesting methods as affecting the germination of seeds of Poa pratensis. Dr. J. R. Weir.
(New Item)
A study of the nutritional requirements of chinchillas, having regard to health and reproduction. Prof. E. W. Crampton.
(New Item)
Ecological classification of hemlock forests, Columbia River Basin. Dr. V. J. Krajina.
(New Item)
Injurious materials occurring in grain screenings. Prof. Alex J. Wood.
(New Item)
Study of trace elements in the physiology of birch in relation to birch dieback. Prof. R. D. Gibbs.
(New Item)
Investigation of possible factors conferring ergot resistance in cereals. (This is an urgent problem requiring full investigation. It has not yet been possible to arrange an institution to conduct the work but it is expected this can be done by March, 1953).



S 925 4.500 3.500 5.500 3,475 2.500 2,600 2,000 2,375 8,325 1,950 1.500 1,650 3,250 2.500 2,800 6,000 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Fraser:: How much has been spent on the science building at Sault Ste. Marie? If possible I would like the figures as to the building and then as to the apparatus or mechanical equipment.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is about $50,000 voted this year and I think there will be about $60,000 more before it can be completed. When it is completed it will have cost about $1 million. The greater part of the construction took place two or three years ago.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that the cost for the mechanical end was something like $124,000, but that the extras run up to $245,000. Is that correct? I am speaking of the mechanical and apparatus items only.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that the type of equipment in that building is not only very elaborate but some of it is in the experimental stage, as it will be understood equipment in connection with work of that kind is likely to be. The air conditioning equipment has had to be either reinstalled or considerably changed at a cost of somewhere around $100,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am glad the minister mentioned the air conditioning. I understand that they have some 36 different air conditioning units and that they were installed in such a way that in order to repair one they have to take out 35. I would say that it was elaborate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not being an expert on this-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You should be on air conditioning.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably I am a better expert on air than on anything else. Nevertheless the kind of work that is being carried on was outlined to us this afternoon by the hon. member for Lambton West. There has not been a great deal of experience with this sort of work in our laboratories or even in our universities. I suppose the professors get new ideas about these things every month. Much of the work being done depends on certain devices, and in the case of air conditioning I can understand how it might have to be changed. However, I am informed that it was not necessary to change 35 in order to get one right. It might have been necessary to change all 35 in order to get any of them right, but you do not have to move one whole group in order to fix another.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My understanding was that they were crowded in a very small space. The minister did not answer my question. I understand that the firm price to begin with was $124,000 and that the extras amounted to some $245,000, but as yet the

apparatus is not functioning the way it should and another $150,000 or more will have to be spent. Is that right or is that wrong?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that what I said is as nearly correct as one can describe it. The amount which was provided last year for this reconditioning work was $100,000. About $60,000 has been expended and what has not been expended will have to be revoted. Then it will take another $50,000 added to what we have already spent to complete the work being done. I am told that in so far as that particular revision of equipment is concerned, when that expenditure is made the equipment will work satisfactorily. As I say, this equipment is associated with experimental work of a type that no one understood completely when they were putting it in. Experience has indicated that some changes have to be made in order to make the equipment work.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is in order to have air conditioning for the study of entomology?


James Garfield Gardiner: Largely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister has mentioned equipment that has to be fixed up. As I understand it, it will cost $150,000 before the complete apparatus will function.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that it is not going to cost that much. The officials think the figures I have given represent the cost.


George James Tustin: This is the item on which I asked a question in the first place. Would the minister tell us how many buildings are covered in this vote, where they are, how much has been spent for buildings and how much for equipment?


James Garfield Gardiner: Would it suit the wishes of the hon. member if I were to give the places where these buildings are? There is quite a long description of them here. There are pages of it.


George James Tustin: I do not want the minister to read pages of description. Would he give me the total amount expended on buildings, the number of buildings, and the total amount for equipment?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are seven or eight of them altogether, and the total amount is $1,460,420. They are at Charlottetown, Kentville, Fredericton and so on.


George James Tustin: Can the minister divide the amount between buildings and equipment? The item covers both. I should like to have the amount for buildings and the amount for equipment.


James Garfield Gardiner: The item I am reading just covers buildings.


Mr. Harkness:: I presume this item covers the new animal diseases laboratory about which we heard a good deal in the committee established last year to deal with foot-and-mouth disease. I believe it was to be constructed on an island in the St. Lawrence river. Oan the minister tell us if that laboratory has been constructed, what the cost has been and what kind of work has been carried on there?


James Garfield Gardiner: The building there is not a building that we constructed. It was built by defence. We do carry on some work there occasionally, but the plant there is a defence plant.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it, then, that this is a defence plant which the Department of Agriculture has taken over in which to carry on the laboratory work in connection with communicable diseases of animals. I take it that the Department of Agriculture has done some work on it and has put in some equipment. Can the minister tell us what sort of work is being carried on there and what the cost has been to date?


James Garfield Gardiner: The building and plant there are owned by defence. It was put there in wartime in order to experiment with some diseases which it was thought certain other countries might be spreading within our boundaries. There was an arrangement between the United States and ourselves to conduct that work. That is the reason the buildings were put there. At present we carry on operations in the buildings and plant that are there. Some of our officials are there from time to time to carry on these activities. Some of the activities in connection with the fight against foot-and-mouth disease were carried on at that plant. Our officials went down there and conducted those operations. Any time it is necessary to have officials there, we can send them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand the minister correctly that this plant is only in operation as an animal diseases laboratory from time to time when something such as foot-and-mouth disease breaks out, or is it in operation all the time for research on these matters?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is continuous. It is going on more or less all the time. They may not be as active at one time as at another. That depends upon the diseases we have, but whenever we have any dangerous disease which spreads easily we conduct our work in connection with it there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there any work being carried on there in connection with vesicular stomatitis, which in the beginning was confused with foot-and-mouth disease? I should
Supply-Agriculture
also like to know whether any work is being carried on there with respect to vesicular exanthema of hogs.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member mind waiting until we reach vote No. 21? We do not have the detailed information under these items. We have it under item 21. We can look it up much more easily when we reach that item. I could not be absolutely certain at the moment without having the proper officials here to deal with it.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would the minister give the committee some information as to the development of the new rust-resistant wheat? Will it be available for distribution to seed growers during this coming season?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will deal with that when we come to the experimental farms votes, Nos. 16 and 17.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does that not come under science service?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, under experimental farms.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I have two very brief questions which I think are proper under this item. Is the science service building in Charlottetown completed and fully equipped? Second, does the defence research board do certain scientific work for the Department of Agriculture? If they do- and I gather that they do-how is it arranged? Does the Department of Agriculture pay them for it on some basis or are there employees of the department in the various research laboratories operated by the defence research board? How is it administered?


James Garfield Gardiner: With respect to the first question as to whether the building in Charlottetown is completely equipped, it is almost completely equipped and what little still has to be done will be completed. With respect to the other question about the research board, as I remember the history of it the research board was set up in the first place to take over all research work in general. We have representation on the group that considers these matters from time to time. Our deputy would sit in on committees considering these matters. But there are certain problems of research having to do with farming which can only be carried on at our experimental farms right across the country. In so far as it becomes necessary, we quite often do work for the research council, but on other occasions the research council does work for us which we have not the facilities to do. They are asked to do it and they do it.


John Angus MacLean: My specific question was with respect to how the costs of

Supply-Agriculture
these projects are accounted for. Against which department are they charged?


James Garfield Gardiner: They get their vote through the Minister of Trade and Commerce for their share of whatever is done. So far as whatever we do at our experimental farms is concerned, we get the vote. It is covered in the experimental farms vote.


John Angus MacLean: Regardless of which department it is for.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest biology-
13. Operation and maintenance, $1,679,948.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What has been done with respect to the army worm and the budworm?


James Garfield Gardiner: Experiments are being carried on in connection with the handling of the budworm in Ontario, in Quebec and in New Brunswick.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: By your department?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, by our department. When it comes down to the handling of the budworm the provincial governments actually take charge of the work. I understand things like grasshoppers out west a little better, but the principle is the same. We do such work as searching out how the flights are going to take place and so on. We give the provincial governments all the information we can, and the provinces actually put on the battle. That principle applies in connection with the budworm and the army worm. We have not yet found any way of handling the army worm successfully, other than by spraying.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And that is not successful.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not as successful as we would like to see it. The reason we do much of the work is that, obviously, you cannot stop these things at provincial boundaries. We must make studies to discover what the movements are and that sort of thing. The information is placed at the disposal of the provinces so they can put on whatever battle is to be waged. The principle applies in respect of all insects.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe two years ago the minister said in the house that the army worm would not kill trees. He was absolutely wrong there, because after the army worm has visited oak trees three years in succession the trees are absolutely dead. That is true of birch trees also. In Ontario there are millions and millions of oak and birch trees that have died because of the army worm.


James Garfield Gardiner: Generally speaking the first statement is correct. An attack of army
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1
worm does not usually kill a tree. If you have three attacks in a row I suppose it might, and I am quite certain that if you had five or six attacks in a row they would kill the tree.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: One attack won't do it but when they come back-


James Garfield Gardiner: After one attack the leaves will come back on the trees.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Only part of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Enough come back so the tree will live until there is a new supply the next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15. Plant protection, $779,028.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice that most of this vote is for salaries and travelling expenses. I wonder if the minister would tell us what is involved in plant protection. Does it involve such things as research work on rust and smut and things of that sort, or what does it involve?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The matters having to do with rust and so on are covered in the experimental farms vote that we will be coming to next. Plant protection here covers checking of plants coming into this country. It is the service you run into at the boundary where they tell you that you cannot bring back in your car some of the things which you might wish to bring in. It is a service that works both ways. It is a protection first for our own country against things coming in, and we have arrangements with our United States friends to the south under which there is protection against plants going the other way. We have some protection against plants being moved to and from European countries.
The most difficult case I have had to deal with since I have been here was when the governor general wanted to send some of our very fine 'mums to his mother in Britain. I do not refer to the present governor general but to the previous one. He took the plants to the airport and they would not accept them on the plane. He asked me to try to make suitable arrangements. I had to explain to him that the difficulty lay not with our regulations but with the British regulations, and we could not get the plants on board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it that this is entirely what might be called an inspection and police operation. There is no research element in it at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is largely a matter of policing the regulations. For example, seed

potatoes come under this, but rust and similar things come under experimental farms.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Item 15 has nothing to do with spraying plants or with any service in connection with them at all, any treatment of them?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a spraying plant at Saint John. It is what they call a fumigation plant, and it is covered in vote No. 15.


Percy Ellis Wright: If sprays come under this particular item, what work is being carried on to determine the value of different sprays which are on the market for killing weeds?


James Garfield Gardiner: This vote does not cover the spraying of crops. The spray here refers to that used on plants coming off ships and that sort of thing. The spraying of crops comes under the next vote.


John Angus MacLean: What protection is afforded in connection with the purchase of nursery stock and its movement from one part of the country to another? I am thinking of various tree diseases and the danger of transmitting them from one area to another, especially because there is an outbreak of Dutch elm disease in the United States. I am also thinking of diseases or insects which have almost completely killed the birch trees in the maritimes, necessitating the transfer of certain veneer industries from New Brunswick to Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a co-operative effort between ourselves and the provincial authorities to take care of that matter. As far as we are concerned it comes under this item that we have been speaking about. It would not be possible to say in a few words just what we do. We do different things, depending on the disease that is being looked into and what the nature of the plant is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
16. Experimental farms service administration, $169,675.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand that this is the item which deals with the control of various crop diseases, and I would like to ask the minister a question in connection with rust and smut. In the last two or three years I have been quite struck by the amount of smut there is despite the fact that I think farmers universally treat their seed. Despite that treatment-whether it is by dusting or by the old-fashioned formaldehyde method- there seems to be quite a bit of smut on the crops. I wonder what research has been done toward eliminating that condition, which causes a considerable loss as far as yield is concerned and, at the same time, makes grain dangerous for certain uses.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I must apologize to hon. members for having steered a little beyond the item that covers that particular subject, and I presume it is what one or two others had in mind. Smut and rust are really dealt with under botany and plant pathology, item 8, so I think we had better revert to that item and have the discussion now. I think we had better revert to that, discuss the question there and then go on.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I asked the question under the previous item, but the minister told me it was under experimental farms.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry. I misunderstood the question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No matter what item it is under, I wonder whether the minister could say anything with regard to the questions I asked in connection with smut.


James Garfield Gardiner: As to the question of smut, those of us who are getting seed ready at this time of the year understand the situation fairly well. There are certain methods of handling oats. There are certain methods of handling each of the crops. It is not every farmer who agrees with every other farmer as to what the most effective method is. But there are some well-established methods. Of course, the old one was the use of bluestone which we used on wheat to prevent the development of smut, and it has been extremely effective. There are other forms now-I think what is called mercury dust is one-that are perhaps even more effective than were the old methods. I do not know whether they are more costly or not. I assume that they are.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are less of a nuisance, anyway. There is less labour involved and they are less of a nuisance.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. There is less labour involved, it can be used more easily and so on. I understand it does not injure the seed at all, and that it is effective.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has not met my point, of course. I said that in spite of the use of these things-formaldehyde, bluestone or these new dusting methods-there is still a considerable amount of smut. In other words the methods do not seem to be completely effective by any means. I was wondering how much research, if any, was being done in evolving something which would get rid of this smut in grain.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman, I think what the hon. member is referring to is probably

Supply-Agriculture
blue smut in barley, as to which the formaldehyde treatment or the mercury treatment does not produce any results. The only treatment that produces results is the hot-water treatment, which is extremely difficult to carry out on the average farm. I believe some experiments have been carried on to develop a better method than the hot-water treatment. I do not know what stage those experiments have reached or whether there has yet been developed a new treatment for this particular type of smut in barley. I know that experimental work was being carried on in the University of Alberta, because I communicated with them last year with regard to it. However, they had not as yet reached any definite results on it. They were still carrying on experiments. I do not know whether anything new has been developed in the last year with regard to it.
Is this the item under which we can make inquiries about the matter of weed sprays, or is that matter under item 8?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, this is the item. But on the other question that was raised with regard to loose smut, may I say that we have not been able to find any method which is more effective than is the hot-water treatment. The system or the plan that we recommend is to take a comparatively small quantity of the seed, give it the hot-water treatment, and then from that develop seed which is clear of the smut. It is probably too big a job to start to handle all that one might wish to handle from year to year under the hot-water treatment, so one has to build up his seed supply from a small amount that is free of it. That is the method that is recommended.


Percy Ellis Wright: Can the minister give us some information as to how much experimental work is being carried on in testing these types of sprays which are being brought out every year for the killing of weeds? A great many new ones are coming on the market. Some of them are good and some of them are not so good. Some of them are good for particular weeds, others for general spraying. It is a field in which I am certain that a great deal of experimental work is needed, and I think a great deal of information is needed by farmers who are using those sprays. Sometimes these sprays damage the crops if too heavy a concentration is used.
As to the work that is being carried on by the experimental farms-as I am sure it must be-I think the information which they have obtained should be more widely distributed and made available to farmers. When these new sprays are placed on the market the farmers should know what their

contents are and what their effects will be. Otherwise considerable damage may be caused.


James Garfield Gardiner: Experiments are being carried on at every one of our experimental farms right across the country with regard to these different sprays. There are 230 different products or sprays being put out. We have publications that we put out to the farmers, indicating the sprays which are successful and the methods that ought to be followed in making the sprays. Most farmers using that method of eradicating weeds follow closely the directions they get. Some, it is true, by not doing so damage the crops.
I understand that about 13 million acres were sprayed last year by some method or other or with some product or other. Most of the spraying has been fairly successful. It does remove a great deal of the weed production. I think the farmers should do what I understand the hon. member for Melfort has been doing. They should write to the different experimental farms or to the agricultural colleges and get advice on the different products they intend to use, and utilize them in the way in which they are directed.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think this information should be made available in western Canada to municipal councils in such quantities that they can distribute it. I do not think the information which is available in the department is getting out into the proper hands. I would suggest that it be made available to municipal councils, agricultural societies and agricultural committees so that it may get as wide distribution as possible.
As to the other question I asked a little while ago, what stage has been reached with regard to the development of a new rust-resistant wheat, and will it be available for multiplication this year by seed growers in western Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: As my hon. friend knows, the plan we have followed for a number of years when we are developing any of the grain products, and particularly wheat, is to take the product that was produced last year and multiply it down in California because we can do it in the winter months and have it ready a year earlier by doing it in that way. We have about 6,000 bushels of the new variety of wheat which was produced last year and which is resistant against the new form of rust-No. 15B-which we have been studying now for two or three years. That wheat has been checked. It is not licensed yet because we have not completely proved the baking value of it, although we think it has a baking value which is just about as

good as any other wheat. In every other way it has proven to be rust-resistant and measures up in every other way except in baking. I should not say "except in baking" because it is just a matter which was not completely proven to the extent of having it certified and put out. But in view of the great damage that might be done if that type of rust were to be here ahead of rust-resistant wheat, we have gone ahead in spite of that fact and we shall have about 6,000 acres seeded to that wheat this year and should have a considerable amount of it for distribution at the end of the season.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is that being seeded on the experimental farms, or is it being distributed?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is being seeded largely on land over which we have control. For example, we are seeding some of it on the Bow river project, which is absolutely new land that we are breaking up ourselves for this purpose and which will be utilized as part of the irrigation scheme that is being developed there. It is being put on land over which we have control.


Percy Ellis Wright: None of it is being distributed to individual seed growers at this stage?


James Garfield Gardiner: A portion of it will be let out to farmers who have been closely associated with the seed growers' association and whose reputation we are pretty familiar with; but our chief reason for doing it the way we are and trying to keep as much of it as we can on the experimental farms, the irrigation project and places of that kind, is simply that we are not absolutely certain, or were not at the time we made the distribution, with regard to the wheat itself. Therefore we could not guarantee to anyone that we distributed it to that it is right in every particular, so we did not feel that we should put it out under the old plan exactly. The new plan covers any risk that may be taken.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister did not answer my question as to whether his department was carrying on any research as far as the smut problem is concerned. If they are not now doing so, I think it would be an extremely valuable project for them to institute. Although we have had this problem a long time and there are different methods of dealing with it, it is by no means solved yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I did not mention it, I intended to. We are carrying on, and have been over a long term of years, experimental work in connection with the fighting of smut, more particularly here, at Winnipeg and at Edmonton. These are the special places at which we are carrying on experimental work.
Supply-Agriculture
Of course it is being more or less carried on at all our experimental stations right across the country.


Mr. Hodgson:: I should like to ask a question which has to do with items 13, 14, 15 and 16. It refers to the dieback disease that has cleaned out birch in the maritime provinces and is now causing great destruction in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Is the department doing anything in conjunction with the province or on its own to try to control this disease in Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it has been the subject of a lot of experimental work. I understand that the disease spoken of, the dieback, or the killing of the tree, starting at the top and coming down, is partly due to disease and partly due to the operations of an insect. They are not absolutely certain either of the nature of the blight or of methods by which to fight it, but work is being carried on in connection with it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Thousands of acres of birch are being destroyed right in the Haliburton county of Ontario.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I was not
able to be here at the beginning to speak on item No. 1, but what I wish to say concerns this item and the four following this one. I notice in an address given by the president-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I really feel that the hon. member should confine himself to the item under discussion, which is item 16.


William Joseph Browne: I am quite prepared to follow your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I thought it would be more convenient if I did it the other way. Since the chairman has ruled that I must speak on experimental farms, 1 presume the minister is familiar with the working of the experimental farm near St. John's at a place called Mount Pearl?


James Garfield Gardiner: Item 16 has to do only with the experimental farm at Ottawa. My hon. friend can bring up his matter when we come to deal with experimental work at other places.


William Joseph Browne: This item speaks of experimental farms service; all right.


Mr. Bryce:: Could I return to weed sprays?


William Joseph Browne: No, Mr. Chairman; he is out of order if he talks on weed sprays on the item having to do with experimental farms, I was told that I was out of order.

Supply-Agriculture


William Alfred Robinson: I understood the minister to say that spraying came under item 16.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps this is as good a place as any to take up the matter which the hon. member has in mind. You had better go ahead and discuss the point.


William Scottie Bryce: I have not taken up much time this afternoon. I want to speak on this item.
I have been sitting here waiting for the opportunity to ask this question. Can the minister tell me what co-operation exists between the manufacturers of the weed sprays and the experimental farms? Is there a guide given to farmers who want to spray weeds? If I write to the experimental farm will they tell me what in their opinion is the best spray to use, or do the manufacturers of the weed sprays advertise that themselves?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I would be right if I said that the experimental farms will not go so far as to advertise any particular manufacturer's product. I would think they would do pretty much the same as they do with farm implements. We experiment with the implement to find out whether it will do the job it is supposed to do, and we give out information with regard to it. I think we do pretty much the same with these sprays. If there are 230 different sprays, it means that there are 230 different producers, or a great many producers who are producing these commodities. About all that the experimental farms could say, or are supposed to say, is that they are all products which will give certain results, and they will indicate the results that will be obtained; but as for saying that you should buy this one as against that one, I do not think they would say that.


William Scottie Bryce: That is the answer to my question. If there are 200 different sprays we should like to get some guidance from the experimental work that has been carried on, and in that way we would know what one would be the best to use or would give the best results?


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be quite a number of sprays of that type sold under different names, and they might tell you the type.


William Joseph Browne: I wish to make some observations on this matter, and the minister has now said that he thinks it is the proper place for me to make those observations. I will not be long. My observations have to do with some other items.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member is perfectly at liberty to make any observations he wishes with respect to item 16, which after all is an administration item dealing with experimental farms service. That will certainly give him some leeway in his discussion;
TMr. Browne (St. John's West).]
but he prefaced his previous remarks by saying he would like to enter into the general discussion that took place on item 1.


William Joseph Browne: I qualified that statement by saying that what I had to say referred to the following four items. However, I do not wish to argue that. I want to introduce my remarks by referring to a statement made recently by the president of the international bank to which Canada has subscribed the amount of $350 million. They are lending most of their money for the development of projects in less developed countries of the world to develop their physical resources. It comes as no surprise to Canadians to learn that they have lent money for the development of basic utilities, including $400 million for electrical power, $200 million for transportation, and $150 million for agriculture.
I would point out that no other member has spoken today about Newfoundland, the part of the country from which I come; and I would draw the minister's attention to the principle involved in the creation of an international bank to help undeveloped countries and remind him that, as I have pointed out frequently before, Newfoundland has suffered for many years from the neglect of its agriculture.
I am wondering to what extent the scientists in his department are giving consideration to the improvement of agriculture in Newfoundland. I notice by the report that they have examined 400,000 acres of land, so far as the survey of soil is concerned. However, that means an area of only about 35 miles by 20 miles and when we realize that the area involved is about 42,000 square miles this portion of 700 square miles is comparatively small.
It will be understood, of course, that I do not expect everything to be done in a moment. Is there any plan or pattern agreed upon between the provincial and federal departments of agriculture regarding the future of that industry in Newfoundland?
I have been interested in the experimental farm at Mount Pearl, and also have recommended in the house the establishment of illustration stations. I know the man in charge of the farm at Mount Pearl is a good man. I have been out there each year and looked over the place and I am wondering what advance is being made down there. Where can one find any statement as to the progress being made in Newfoundland? How many illustration stations will be set up there?
Two have been set up so far, one at Car-bonear and one at Lethbridge. The one at

Carbonear is in the district of Trinity-Conception, and it is fairly centrally located. The one at Lethbridge is in an area where there is some good agricultural land, too. But the best agricultural land is on the west coast of Newfoundland and around St. John's. We have the Mount Pearl experimental farm at St. John's, but on the west coast we do not have any. And on that coast they are capable of producing vegetables as cheaply as they can be produced in the maritime provinces. I suggest that those people should have the benefit of an illustration station in order that they may be shown the best methods to treat crops.
Hon. members may not be familiar with this fact, but only recently we had a report from a joint committee which dealt with fisheries development in Newfoundland. It seems to me there should be something of that nature established by the federal government and the provincial government, and applied to the development of agriculture. I do not see how we can make progress if we just carry on as we have before, and do not have any understanding about what should take place in the future. If the minister is in a position to do so, I would ask him to comment on what I have said.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are four illustration stations in Newfoundland, two of which are on the east coast and two on the west coast.


William Joseph Browne: Would you name them, please?


James Garfield Gardiner: The one at Carbonear,
established in 1951, is operated by George E. Spore; the one at Lethbridge, established in 1951, operated by James Harris; the one at Doyles, established in 1952, operated by George Cormier, and the one at Heatherton, in the Robinson area, was established in 1952, and the operator is Neil Macdonald.
In relation to the last remarks made by the hon. member, I do not know whether an announcement has yet been made, and in the light of that fact I hesitate to make one, because probably I should not do so. I noticed Mr. Smallwood in the gallery a few moments ago, but I do not see him there now. However, arrangements have been made for a survey very much like the one to which reference was just made. We have already provided Mr. Smallwood with a man who will do the survey and the provincial government, of course, will pay the cost of it. I understand the survey is to be made along the lines of the one made in connection with the fisheries.


William Joseph Browne: I am glad to know that this is being done. Can the
Supply-Agriculture
minister tell us if there is any provision for anything further along the line of the setting up of illustration stations?


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not intend immediately to set up any more illustration stations. As a matter of fact the investigational work being done will determine to a large extent what we shall do in the future.


Mr. Decore:: I have at times made representations to the minister concerning an experimental station in northeastern Alberta. I understand it will be somewhat difficult to have a station of that kind established on a large scale. I was wondering, however, if the minister would be in a position to give consideration to the establishment of something between an illustration station and an experimental farm in that area.


James Garfield Gardiner: For some time we have had under consideration the possibility of establishing an illustration station at Vegreville, or in that vicinity. I would not be definite as to the exact location. That is a matter which would have to be looked into further. It was very strongly represented to us, however, that they preferred to have an experimental farm; and that, of course, would be only natural. We did not think we could go so far as to establish an experimental farm in that district, because of the number we already have in Alberta, the nature of the area to be covered, and so on. But we are prepared to establish in the district an illustration station. Of necessity that station would have to be one of our more important illustration stations because of the problems to be handled there. But we would not be in a position to go so far as to establish an experimental farm.


John Decore: What does the minister mean when he refers to a more important illustration station? What I had in mind was something between an illustration station and an experimental farm, something that would be on a higher level than an illustration station and which could be built up, provided proper support were given. I am sure the support would be given in that area, because the people there are keenly interested in scientific farming methods. I am sure if they were given encouragement, and some help from the federal government, it might develop into an experimental farm. Would the minister care to make any comment?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I could go so far as to hold out hope that it would be an experimental farm either now or at some other time. However, we do have different types of illustration stations. For example, we go out and rent ten acres of land from a farmer in a district, usually located quite close to some road allowance. We put plots

Supply-Agriculture
there, and invite the public to watch the growth which takes place and watch the experiments from day to day as they drive back and forth. We might have one such station at one point this year and move it somewhere else four or five years hence.
What I had in mind concerning the area to which the hon. member has referred is that because of the nature of that area we have a feeling that something more permanent than what I have described should be established there. If we had, let us say, from 20 to 40 acres, or something of that kind, there might be good reason for having it under some arrangement where it would be more permanent. We might have to buy it, or rent it on a long-term basis, in order to place it in a position where experimental work could be carried on over a longer period of time, and thus give greater stability to the efforts made there.


John Decore: Is it possible for the minister to give immediate consideration to this matter so the project may be undertaken this summer?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have already been giving consideration to it and are hopeful of being able to get it started soon.
N&. Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the work of the experimental stations generally is recognized by all. In the interior of British Columbia the work done by the experimental stations has been of great value to the fruit growers and farmers generally. However, the station is located at Summer-land in the Okanagan, where there is mostly dry farming or farming under irrigation. The climatic conditions are different from those that exist in the Arrow lakes and Kootenay lakes sections, where the climate is much more moist.
Even in the Kootenay and Arrow lakes districts we have a great diversity of climate. Often there is a difference of ten degrees within a distance of six miles in winter. The long narrow mountain valleys create quite different climatic conditions in a very short distance. There is considerable industrial expansion in the area and a rapidly increasing population which provides a good market for much of the local production. However, I would say that a large part of the agricultural products consumed in that part of British Columbia have to be imported at the present time.
I am not thinking of the ordinary experimental station, such as they have at Summer-land, but could the minister consider setting up something in a small way so that climatic conditions could be considered, say on the

Upper Arrow lake, where they are quite different from those on the Lower Arrow lake and the Kootenay lake? Then the conditions in the Lardeau valley are different again, because there it is mostly cattle, grain and vegetable production.
Will the minister and his officials give consideration to this suggestion? I am not thinking of anything very expensive. What I have in mind is an arrangement with an established farmer who could be trusted to undertake certain experiments, in many cases related only to a distance of a few miles from his farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member probably knows the station at Creston.


Mr. Herridge:: That is quite different.


James Garfield Gardiner: I imagine that is the type of experimental station the hon. member is thinking of, one that could deal with the particular problems of the area. Of course we are working on that from time to time. I visited Creston last year and was much interested in the work they are doing. It is not an experimental farm in the sense of these large farms, nor is it exactly what we would call an illustration station. It is more in the nature of what I was outlining to the hon. member for Vegreville a few minutes ago, and I can understand that there might be some reason for having similar ones in parts of British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not even suggesting anything as extensive as the one at Creston, where they are doing an excellent job. A great deal of interest is taken in that illustration station. I am suggesting something even smaller than that because in many cases the area that would be served is relatively small.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Branch experimental farms-
19. Operation and maintenance, $5,570,409.
Mr. Jutras:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a suggestion to the minister and the department. I believe there would be great merit in establishing another illustration station southeast of the Red river in Manitoba. A few years ago the department opened one east of the river and south of Winnipeg. Although that station has been in operation for only two years it is already showing good results. I am sure it will continue to prove most beneficial to the whole area.
Our handicap before was that the closest experimental farm was the agricultural college in Winnipeg, and then the one at Morden

cn the west side of the river. In the last few years there has been a considerable development in the southeast corner of Manitoba. That is indicated by the fact that a grain elevator will probably be built this year in the extreme east end of the province. That shows that in that district they are gradually getting out of lumbering and are breaking up the land and going into agriculture. Slightly north of that, and more in the sandy area of the province, there has been a considerable development in the past few years in growing grass seed. They seem to be doing quite well with this.
It has been brought to my attention that great assistance would be rendered if an illustration station, possibly working in conjunction with either Winnipeg or Morden, was opened in that area in order to carry out experiments as to the best way to use that land in the southeast corner of the province. I suggest to the department that they look into this.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will look into it.


Mr. Fair:: When we were discussing the estimates last session, and on one previous occasion, I brought to the attention of the minister a request which had been made by a number of farmers in the Derwent area of Alberta for an experimental station in their disirict. The minister was going to have this looked into, and I wonder what has been the result.


James Garfield Gardiner: The possibility of an experimental station in the area referred to is being investigated at the present time.


Mr. McLure:: We consider that the experimental farm at Charlottetown is doing excellent work, as are the illustration stations throughout the province. I understand that a demand is going to be made this year for the establishment of additional illustration stations in different parts of the province, especially in Queens. I hope the minister will see that these illustration stations in Prince Edward Island are given priority, because Prince Edward Island is more of an agricultural province than any other province in Canada as far as population is concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that in addition to the Charlottetown experimental farm there are seven illustration stations in different parts of the island. I do not know that there is any present intention of setting up any more, but we always have the matter under consideration.
Consideration is given first to the advisability of setting up another illustration station or, second, whether we should move one from where it is to some place else where it would do more good. It may be that we
S upp ly-A griculture
have learned all we think we can learn from having an illustration station in one place and wish to move it somewhere else where the soil is different. That kind of thing is being considered all the time. I can quite understand why it may be thought that we should spend more money. We get all we can out of the treasury for these different purposes and spend it as effectively as we can. We are doing that with regard to Prince Edward Island as well as other places.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Animal pathology-
22. Operation and maintenance, $489,799.
Mr. Charlton:: The minister answered a few questions about Grosse He during another part of the discussion. How many substations are there across Canada that deal with animal pathology?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are stations at Sack-ville, Macdonald college, Hull, Lethbridge and Vancouver.


John Alpheus Charlton: One in the maritimes, one in Quebec, one in Alberta and one in British Columbia. What about their comparative sizes? Is there a different number of employees at the Vancouver station than at the Lethbridge station, for instance? Is there an equal number of employees at all these stations? How do they compare with the one in the maritimes?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the staff at Hull would be as great as all the others put together. As will be noticed from the list, there is no plant in Ontario, but the Hull plant serves the same purposes for Ontario as it does for the area across the river. For that reason there is a much larger staff there.


John Alpheus Charlton: I realize that there is a much larger staff at Hull than at the other stations. I am asking for a comparison between Lethbridge and Sackville, for instance, or between Vancouver and Lethbridge.


James Garfield Gardiner: Lethbridge is the largest plant outside of Hull. Lethbridge is about double Vancouver, and the other two are in between, the one at Macdonald college and the one at Sackville.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the work on rabies in Alberta and Saskatchewan being done at Lethbridge?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the work in connection with rabies, in so far as it is done in a plant, is being done at Lethbridge. Of course the battling of rabies is done in the area where it is prevalent, largely in the north country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals-
24. Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $5,002,862.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
John Alpheus Charlton: It has come to my attention that when farmers lose cattle through disease and receive compensation, the compensation they receive is taxable as income in the year of receipt. As the minister will realize, there were several cases in the west last year where men lost their entire herds, received compensation and were not permitted to restock their farms for a certain length of time. That is the case with t.b. and the other disease that I need not mention. How does a man get around the difficulty so far as income tax is concerned? If he receives compensation for all his livestock in this year, for instance, it is all treated as income which he has received, and at the same time he is not allowed to restock his farm in that year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think that as Minister of Agriculture I can give an opinion on that. It is an income tax matter. I can only say that when we were fighting the foot-and-mouth disease I took the matter up with the income tax people. Individuals took it up with me and I took it up with the department. The only answer I could ever get was that each case must be dealt with on its merits. They said they could not say definitely, when a man received income from the slaughtering of animals, that it was or was not income until they had gone into all the facts in connection with the case. It depended somewhat on what the man was going to do from then on and somewhat on what he had been doing prior to that.
I would not like to say that it either is or is not taxable. I do not think I could say that. The matter would have to be dealt with by the income tax department, and each case would have to be dealt with on its merits. I think that is about all I can say.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not quite that easy. It is not the man's fault that he loses his cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know, but what I am saying is that while I may agree with everything the hon. member is saying I do not make that decision. It is made in the income tax department. It is not really an agricultural matter. It is an income tax matter, and I would not like to say here that any particular individual is not taxable. I think I am taxed too much on some of my earnings even here, but they tax me nevertheless. That is a question that is settled by the income tax people rather than by us.


John Alpheus Charlton: But I still say that it is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture to control disease in this country. If it were not for the disease condition the man would not have lost his herd. He would not have received this money, and there would not be anything to tax. I suggest it is up to

the Department of Agriculture in situations of that kind to make arrangements with the income tax branch so the man will not be the loser.
The Minister of Finance is here. He may be able to answer the question. When a man receives compensation for cattle it is definitely generally considered to be income by the income tax branch, and he is not allowed by the Department of Agriculture to restock his farm in that year. Suppose the man loses his herd on account of t.b. at the first of December. He cannot restock his premises until the following year. What happens with the income tax department?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps the Minister of Finance could answer that much better than I can. However, I would say that if the stock are capital and that is admitted by everyone, then I do not suppose it would fall into a classification that is subject to income tax. But I would not like to say that none of the receipts from cattle slaughtered as the result of having t.b. are taxable. I think every case would have to be dealt with on its merits. My friend smiles, but I sold a bull from my Ontario farm. He was condemned for having t.b. I sent him to market and they took a little gland out of his neck and sold the bull for me. I got just about as much return as I would have got if he had not had t.b. That happens quite often.
I do not know whether it would be classified as something for which I had received income. I presume it would, but there are other circumstances under which it might not be. As Minister of Agriculture I would not like to say that income tax should or should not be paid. I might argue with the Minister of National Revenue as to whether or not income tax should be paid in certain cases and try to settle it that way. I do not think it is my position to make a decision on income tax.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would the minister answer this question? Was any consideration given to the special cases to which he made reference a few moments ago?


James Garfield Gardiner: As far as I know none of them paid income tax. I would not like to say definitely that none of them did, but these were cases in connection with the slaughter resulting from foot-and-mouth disease, and I would have to get information from the income tax department about whether any of them paid income tax.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the minister received any objections?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. That is the reason I think they probably did not pay. They wanted,

as my hon. friend wanted, to get a declaration in advance as to whether they would be charged income tax. I could not give it to them because, when I tried to get the information from the income tax people, I was told that every case would be dealt with on its merits. The fact that I have not heard anything about it since would make me believe the people did not pay.


René Jutras: Is the case here not exactly the same as that where a man sells a herd?


John Alpheus Charlton: No.


René Jutras: The situation is very much the same with the exception, in this case, that the man is not allowed to restock his farm at this time. From the point of view of income tax, if he established his capital investment in the herd then he would not be taxable on the amount.


John Alpheus Charlton: The point I am trying to bring out is-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I think I have allowed a good deal of discussion which is entirely out of order on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.


John Alpheus Charlton: No.


William Alfred Robinson: The discussion
should be related to the items before us, and the hon. member is discussing matters rightfully dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Finance. The discussion has gone quite some distance and I feel that we should now terminate it.


John Alpheus Charlton: It definitely has to do with this particular item. I am saying that the difference between the two situations is that the Department of Agriculture tells the man he must get rid of his cattle and he has no choice at all. He is also told that he cannot restock his farm within a certain period of time. I am simply asking, and I would ask the Minister of Finance if he can answer, whether, if the incident occurred at or near the end of the year and the farmer were not permitted to restock his farm in the same year-and we all know that receipts from the selling of livestock is generally considered to be income and the purchase of it is allowed against income-


René Jutras: It is not all income.


John Alpheus Charlton: Do you farm?


René Jutras: Yes, as much as you do and more.


William Alfred Robinson: The very fact that the hon. member has indicated that his question would be properly directed toward the Minister of Finance has confirmed my ruling that the discussion is out of order.
Supply-Agriculture


John Alpheus Charlton: The Minister of Agriculture suggested that I ask the Minister of Finance who was sitting in his seat, and I did.


Mr. Abbott:: I am not in the active practice of law, so I do not give free legal advice.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister could answer the questions I asked him before in regard to the research carried on in connection with vesicular diseases?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not any vesicular exanthema in this country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: And, of course, we will not be bringing any of it here to experiment on it. We would rather follow the experiments on the United States side, keeping in touch with them rather than introducing anything here so we could carry on experiments ourselves. There is some material available here in the event of a possible outbreak. It is available to carry -on work which might have to be carried on, but we are not actually doing research work.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with vesicular exanthema which the minister spoke of, is any knowledge being disseminated to farmers and veterinarians in the country about how to recognize the disease in the event that it does come in from the United States, where it is quite prevalent in a number of states at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is a disease which had its origin in Africa about 80 years ago, and it has now broken out in California. There are a few cases of it in Idaho and in a section of Utah.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is also in the New England states.


James Garfield Gardiner: The United States does not know a great deal about it, and you might say we do not know anything about it because we have had no experience with it. The United States sent samples of the virus to South Africa and a gentleman named Alexander who is a specialist there has gone to California. We have sent men to California to meet him in order that we may obtain whatever information he is able to give with regard to the disease. When we get the information we in turn will make it available to veterinarians here so that they may deal with the disease if it should break out here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand that we have no information on this disease in this country at the present time? I mention the matter because I think that hog men recognize it as one of the most serious potential threats to the industry. The disease is already present in a number of states in the United

Supply-Agriculture
States-13, I think-and one or two of those states border on Canada. The disease might very readily be brought into this country, as it is right next door to us at the present time. I think it is a disease against which we should take the most extreme preventive measures in order to keep it from gaining entry into this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that the information I gave a moment ago did not apply to the disease mentioned by my hon. friend.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. It applied to vesicular stomatitis.


James Garfield Gardiner: To blue-tongue, which is really a sheep disease. It had the African origin. The other disease is more prevalent in the United States than I indicated a moment ago. It has similarities to foot-and-mouth disease and all of our people are pretty well instructed in detecting it in the first place, making a battle against it and seeing that it is confined to wherever the outbreak may come. We have none of it at the present time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is very fortunate that we do not have it at the present time, but I was more concerned whether our veterinarian service across the country had been specially alerted to the disease in view of the fact that it is right next door to us; and also as to whether any general information to farmers, hog men and others has gone out in connection with it or particularly whether any information has gone out to them as to what measures they could take to prevent it appearing. I do not know whether or not it is one of those things as to which the way in which you care for your hogs can have any effect on whether it breaks out and develops rapidly. It may be that that is the case.


James Garfield Gardiner: The veterinary service is alerted to it right across the country. That is the answer to the first suggestion. They are fully alerted to it. I think the very fact that we just had foot-and-mouth disease has alerted everybody on that kind of disease. If one were to see what are really the symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease appear in any animal, I think the first thing he would do is to get veterinary assistance. That is the warning given all across the country. I would hope that no farmer would undertake to fight it himself. Nevertheless the information is available here in publications of one kind or another, and it is sent out to anyone who is interested in it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is one of the things I wanted to know. There are publications?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; in order that they
might be informed with regard to the matter. They are the general publications that we put out in connection with animal diseases.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The other question I asked
the minister when I raised the matter previously, and when he asked me to delay it, was as to whether any experimental or research work was going on in connection with this vesicular stomatitis, I think it was, which is similar in its symptoms to foot-and-mouth disease and which is what the foot-and-mouth disease was thought to be when the outbreak first occurred. It would seem to me that it is one of the diseases which, from the evidence we obtained in the committee last year, is much more common than is foot-and-mouth disease. We have had it here in Canada before. That is probably one disease as to which at least some work should be being carried on.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have had a number of
outbreaks of stomatitis in cattle. The veterinary service across the country knows fairly well how to battle it. We have no cases in Canada at present. There is no report of the disease at all. The methods by which it is fought are fairly well known. As a matter of fact, those methods were applied in the early stages of the battle against foot-and-mouth disease, when it was thought to be stomatitis. The methods used in fighting it are similar to those used in fighting foot-and-mouth disease. The system of quarantine is just as close as is the other, the reason being that the symptoms are similar. However, the cattle recover from the one and they do not recover from the other. That is the difference. If they are kept long enough in quarantine, it can be determined which is which; but they fight it just as strenuously in the early stages as if it might be foot-and-mouth disease.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is one of the reasons
I raised this matter. The evidence we had in the committee last year was that this was not one of the diseases which required a quarantine to be put on immediately, and that that was the reason the quarantine was not put on for some considerable time last year, namely because it was thought that the disease was vesicular stomatitis. I think it was pointed out in the committee last year that it was a disease which, because of the similarity in symptoms alone, was one in which a quarantine should be imposed immediately. If the regulations have been changed so the quarantine is imposed immediately, I would think that is a good

precaution to have taken. But certainly that was not the situation at the time the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease took place last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Unfortunately, or fortunately, it was. Seven different veterinarians said it was stomatitis and that it was not foot-and-mouth disease. Every one of those herds was quarantined. If they all actually were cases of foot-and-mouth disease-and it is presumed they were-and they had not been quarantined, the spread of the disease would have been much greater than it was.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But the quarantine was not put on for some time.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was put on on the first
day it was reported. Waas's herd was quarantined the first day that it was reported as stomatitis. Our man went right out the first day and quarantined the herd.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But then the quarantine
was lifted.


James Garfield Gardiner: The quarantine was lifted in a sense some time later, a considerable time later. The quarantine was put on the Burns plant in Regina and that first quarantine was lifted at that time. The quarantine was kept close enough on all of these cases, and surveillance kept close enough that the disease did not spread. But every vesicular case is quarantined the first day it appears, no matter what it is.


Mr. Argue:: I remember that in the committee a year ago there was quite a little bit of discussion on the location of the virus laboratory, and I believe an intimation was given that another site might be obtained for it rather than in Hull. Can the minister say whether another site has been obtained or whether another virus laboratory is being built somewhere else in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: The material all goes to Grosse lie now; that is, all material with regard to dangerous diseases now goes to Grosse lie instead of to Hull.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: We lose a great number of cattle each year as a result of shipping fever. Is the department making any special efforts to help control this deadly disease? A great many cattle die of shipping fever. If the disease is caught in time there is not much difficulty; that is, if you can get a veterinarian and can get treatments. But if the cattle are allowed to go two or three days, the situation is serious. It takes only two or three days until they are dead.


James Garfield Gardiner: Shipping fever is not a disease scheduled under the Animal Contagious
Supply-Agriculture
Diseases Act, for the reason that its prevention depends chiefly on precautions taken in the handling of cattle en route. Complaints received periodically from shippers of feeder cattle in regard to heavy shipping fever losses experienced by them resulted, however, in a departmental decision in September, 1944, to make anti-haemorrhagic septicaemia serum available free of charge, for treatment of cattle passing through or shipped out of central stockyards throughout the country.
Owners, or their agents, of feeder and stocker cattle purchased at public stockyards for further feeding at country points who wish to take advantage of this treatment are required to obtain the services of a qualified veterinarian to inject the serum, and to make application to the local office of the health of animals branch for the serum.
This service, first started at the union stockyards, St. Boniface, Manitoba, as outlined in a notice dated September, 1944, has since been extended to the stockyards at Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge and Toronto. At the stockyards in Toronto, active co-operation has been given by the provincial department of agriculture by providing veterinary service for injection and by securing reports from the shippers as to the apparent effectiveness of the treatment.
The fact that during the past five seasons complaints in regard to the incidence of shipping fever have been reduced to negligible numbers suggests that this service has been of material help to shippers in reducing losses from this disease. Then information is given here as to the cattle treated at stockyards. The numbers are given and so forth. I do not know whether or not there is any interest in that information.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is it compulsory that the cattle be treated in transit?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It should be compulsory. A lot of money is lost in that way. I lost five head two years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
28. To provide for grants to fairs and exhibitions in accordance with the regulations established by order in council of December 22, 1952, P.C. 4602; for payments on account of agreements in force on December 22, 1952, with exhibition associations covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and for a grant of $50,000 to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments thereto, $668,623.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are there more class A fairs or class B fairs than formerly?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no changes in the number of class A fairs. I do not know offhand whether there are any additional class B's, but there might be one or two.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
30. Marketing service administration, $260,925.
Mr. Cavers:: Many fruit and vegetable growers in the area in which I live have expressed considerable concern about the validity of the Ontario agricultural products marketing act. Apparently the cause of this concern is the references that were made to the supreme courts of Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, where similar acts were found to be ultra vires.
These acts are important to the growers in our particular area. I am advised by them that they require this type of legislation. They have reason to believe that the Ontario act might also suffer a similar fate were a reference made to the courts on that particular legislation. I understand that there are two schools of thought with regard to amendments. One is that some amendments might be made to the provincial legislation. The other school of thought believes that an amendment might be made to the federal act.
Will the Minister of Agriculture direct the law officers of his department or of the Department of Justice to look into the matter to see whether an amendment might be made in order that the usefulness of this marketing legislation might not be lost to Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is a question which comes up as the result of the case in Prince Edward Island. Not being a lawyer, I am not too sure of the legal side of it other than to say the act was declared ultra vires in the courts of Prince Edward Island. The point at issue was taken to the supreme court and it was declared intra vires, and the act was re-established in so far as our legislation was concerned.
My understanding is that what they are discussing in Ontario at the moment is the right to collect fees. There seemed to be some doubt on that question in the decision that was given. The lawyer who conducted the case for the federation in Prince Edward Island was Mr. Milliken of Regina. I was talking to him the other day. I think he is in Toronto now conferring with the Ontario government on the matter.
I doubt very much whether it is something on which we can get a decision from justice that would be very helpful in connection with the matter that is being discussed there.

There is only one place it can be settled, and that is in the courts. As I understand it, if it is questioned in Ontario it would require a case to be taken to the courts in that province, and whether or not the decision was satisfactory, it would have to be carried through to the Supreme Court of Canada to get a final decision in the matter. That is the direction in which they are heading.
The hon. member asks us to go to the Department of Justice. We have already done that. When we had our own legislation passed in this house we got the opinion of justice that it was sound, that it was intra vires. The same opinion has been given with regard to the provincial legislation. There is no other way of settling the question except through the courts. Probably that is the direction in which it will go.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to ask one question in reference to the statement the minister has just made. As far as the dominion act is concerned, the Prince Edward Island judgment decided that the dominion had the right to sell the products of the provinces interprovincially and in the export trade. I believe the finding went farther than that, if my reading of it is correct. The finding said that it was illegal for two provinces to set up a central selling agency to sell interprovincially and in the export trade. Is that correct? My understanding is that the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island wanted to get the producers of the two provinces together and sell jointly, and the court found that to be illegal under the present act.
If that is so, I think it would be up to the dominion government to amend their act. It should be amended so that two or more provinces could get together and set up a central agency to sell their products, if they have provincial legislation which gives them the power within the provinces, and the dominion legislation gives them the same right in the interprovincial and export trade that they have under the provincial legislation.
These are important points to be cleared up. It is important to know whether the various provincial boards have the right to get together and form central selling agencies to sell in the export and interprovincial trade.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, again, I am not an
authority on the matter and I am not going to pretend to advise or say what ought to be done. There is a much better case than the Prince Edward Island case on the question, and that is the old wheat pool case.

When they set up the wheat pools in western Canada they could not set up a wheat pool to take care of the three provinces. They had to have one in each province, and they did have one in each province. Then when they started to set up the selling agency in connection with it they had the pool offices in Winnipeg to handle the grain for all three pools, and the office is still there.
Our wheat board now sits in the wheat pool offices. The name carved in the stone of the building is "pool"; it is not "wheat board". The same staffs that handled the wheat for the old pools now handle the wheat for the wheat board, but that whole set-up was brought about because of the nature of the legislation that is necessary to set up organizations under our federal system. I do not know that any of that has changed very much. I am not too sure that there is anything we can do to overcome the difficulty that exists there.
The other provision that is in the law, as I understand it, is a very short piece of legislation with only a few sections in it. It was drawn up by Mr. Milliken, or he assisted us in drawing it up in the form in which it now is and it was based entirely upon experiences in British Columbia. They had taken their act right through to the privy council, and the privy council had declared it to be intra vires. After that declaration we passed legislation in almost exactly the form that they had taken forward. That is the legislation that was tested in the courts in Prince Edward Island.
As I understand it, in a few words, it gives authority to farmers' marketing organizations set up, let us say in British Columbia, to enforce at least part of the authority which they have to sell, let us say, in the province of Alberta, when they are selling their products there. It makes their operation effective. The one I recall particularly was the saying that no one could market apples in Alberta, except under certain conditions. Even the Alberta farmers' co-operatives questioned that. They thought an individual in British Columbia should have the right and, under our system in Canada, did have the right to ship apples from British Columbia to Alberta, to anyone. And, having shipped them through, they said the Alberta co-operative could sell them. That was the matter they desired to overcome so they could enforce their legislation not only in British Columbia but in Alberta as well. And I understand that the legislation does make that kind of thing possible.
The other matter, as to whether you can set up a board and give it all the authority 68108-292
Supply-Agriculture
in two provinces that it would have in one, in order to bring commodities together for sale-well, I would not like to offer an opinion as to whether it can or cannot be done.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister referred to the central selling agencies and the pools as an example of what I have suggested. But the central selling agency was set up before we had our present marketing act. So far as I know it was never challenged in the courts. The central selling agency continued to sell, and no case was taken to the courts challenging their right to do so.
If my reading of the findings in the Prince Edward Island case is right, a definite ruling was made there that the provinces did not have the right to set up a central selling agency. Personally I think that is something which, if it is a fact, could be remedied. I would ask the minister to inquire into the matter; because I certainly think our marketing act should be amended so the provinces would have that right. And I suggest it would be up to the dominion government to provide such a right; I do not think the provinces can do it. It must be done by federal legislation.
For instance, the honey producers in Saskatchewan have a board. The Manitoba people are voting on one. I am not sure as to the situation in Alberta, but no doubt they will have one at some time. It seems to me that a central selling agency for the three provinces for the purpose of selling honey would be of great advantage to the producers of honey in those provinces, just the same as the central selling agency of the wheat pools has been beneficial to the wheat producers in western Canada. I think something should be done in this connection.
Then there is one other matter about which I should like to make some brief comment. I hold in my hand the brief the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented to the government, in which they say:
Our convention endorsed the policy of sale of farm products by grade and we urge the federal government to see that where products are sold by producers on grade, the grade identification is carried through to the consumer.
That is a very important point, and at the present time I do not know of any machinery in the Department of Agriculture which actually stipulates that grades received by producers for different products graded under dominion and provincial regulations are carried through to the consumer. In fact, in connection with a good many products, the grades under which they are sold to the consumer are different altogether from the

Supply-Agriculture
grades indicated when the producer markets his product.
For instance, when the (producer kills beef, there are a number of grades which would apply: choice, good, medium, cows, canners and cutters, perhaps ten or twelve different grades. But when that beef reaches the consumer it appears under only two labels, red label and blue label. The packer buys the beef as, perhaps, medium, good or choice. And if he is able to chisel a bit on the grade given the farmer, medium beef may reach the consumer as red label.
The same reasoning applies to eggs and various other products. There are certain standards under which the producers sell. But we have no knowledge as to whether the people who in any given period of time may buy 100,000 cases of grade A eggs, may not sell to the consumers in that same period of time 125,000 cases of grade A eggs. There is no protection either to the producer or to the consumer, unless someone takes the responsibility of seeing that the grades credited to the producer are carried through to the consumer.
It seems to me this is a function which should be carried out by the marketing branch. I would ask the minister to give us an indication as to what is being done in that connection.


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as beef is concerned, it is true that there are only two grades of beef which are enforced, namely red and blue brand. As has been said, if a man sells an animal alive to someone on the market and that animal is slaughtered, it is not graded until it is slaughtered. But there is nothing to prevent anyone who wishes to have the matter of grading enforced, insisting upon having the same thing being done with beef as is done with hogs, and that is to have it sold on the rail, dressed. He could do that; and if he did he would see to it that the grades were carried right through from the producer to the consumer. But only those two grades are affected in that way by the present grading regulations.
Going on to other products, we see for example that butter is stamped right on the package. Cheese is graded, and the grade is indicated right on it in so many places that it would be difficult for anyone to tamper with that grading. Many products are graded in that way.
Then, as the hon. member has said, the grading of eggs in Saskatchewan is a controversial matter. It is a situation peculiar to Saskatchewan as compared with the other provinces because, so to speak, we are sitting on the roof of matters having to do with

trade in commodities of that kind. We are farthest away from the market, and we have the smallest market in relation to the production throughout Canada.
Coming to the handling of eggs, the fact is that the great proportion of eggs in Saskatchewan are just taken in as nest run, and sold in that way. It stands to reason that those eggs will not bring as much as graded eggs would bring. But eggs can be graded, and there are many grading stations even in Saskatchewan. When eggs are taken to the grading stations and graded, they can be sold under the marketing plan we have, and under the supports now obtaining, at exactly the same level as graded eggs are sold elsewhere. But we do run into difficulties because we have no storage facilities and there are other things that we have not as well.
I have said many times in Saskatchewan, and I want to repeat it here, that that part of it is provincial. If the province does nothing about it-I am not now speaking about any particular government or any particular form of government; it does not matter what form it is-there is nothing we can do about it. If we set up a system under which it is possible to get 30 cents a dozen for eggs, there is no way the producer can get that 30 cents a dozen unless somebody who has the authority to enforce it does so. The question has been raised here today once or twice about the price of beef in the butcher shop as compared with the price of the animal. If an animal is taken into a butcher shop in Ontario, sold to the butcher and then he sells the beef to the consumer, this government has nothing to do with that, except in wartime.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We were considering item No. 30.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall detain the house only for a minute or two. I wish to express my support of the remarks made by the hon. member for Melfort just prior to the six o'clock recess in connection with the necessity for amendment of federal marketing legislation and the inspection of farm products at the consumer level. I think there is no question about it that since the decision of the supreme court of Prince Edward Island the present federal marketing legislation has proved to be inadequate to serve the purpose that was intended. Personally I think that

amendments are necessary. I am not only expressing my own opinion but also that of many farmers who are interested in the development of marketing board legislation. Amendments are necessary to strengthen the law and provide legislation that will permit co-operation between the various provincial marketing boards to ensure proper control and regulation of the marketing and distribution of agricultural commodities.
I also support the remarks of the hon. member with respect to the necessity for more inspection of farm products at the consumer level. I know that in a good many cases in British Columbia, for instance, eggs are inspected in the stores by inspectors of the minister's department. But I do think that such farm commodities as bacon and beef are often sold without consumers knowing the grade they are buying. That also applies to vegetables to quite an extent. I wish to bring to the minister's attention particularly the fact that fruit is very frequently sold without the consumer having any idea what grade of fruit he is buying. Right in Ottawa I have seen British Columbia apples transferred to other boxes and sold without any grade marking, with the result that the consumer does not actually know the grade of apples or other fruit that he or she is buying.
I think that is a serious matter and I believe some consideration should be given to it, because the growers of British Columbia -and Ontario and Nova Scotia growers have learned to do the same thing from our example and experience-pack fruit according to grade and pack it as well as it is done anywhere in the world. When growers' organizations go to the trouble of grading and packing fruit according to the law and above the standards required by the Department of Agriculture, I think it is a shame that the consumer does not obtain the advantage of that grading and packaging.
When the minister was speaking about inspection of eggs I thought I heard him say that in Saskatchewan a farmer can take ungraded eggs to a store and sell them. I should like him to tell me if I heard him correctly.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


William Scottie Bryce: I understand there is no legislation to enforce grades. If I may make myself plain, taking hogs, which are a pretty good example, if a hog is a pound too heavy there is nothing in the law compelling the packer to put that hog outside the bacon type. In other words, he just passes it through. He is at liberty to put bacon hogs into any grade 68108-2921
Supply-Agriculture
he likes when he gets them, and also other products, but the bacon hog is a typical example.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have the Livestock and Livestock Products Act and the provincial governments have the same kind of law. The grade qualifications are established under that law, and they are based upon weight. When a hog reaches a certain weight it is outside A grade. The next classification is B, and hogs of certain weight remain within B classification. Otherwise the hog becomes a heavy or light depending upon the weight at which the hog weighs in. Therefore the grade is established by the act or by regulation under the act, and that is the grade by which the packer abides, and everyone else who is buying and selling.


William Scottie Bryce: But you never see any grade B bacon.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is grade B bacon. I think I have mentioned this before, but I was associated for a long time with Mr. Dunning who, as you know, was closely associated with all the farm organizations a few years ago. I happened to be in Great Britain with him in 1936. As you also know, he was born in England, and one Sunday he went to visit his relatives. When he came back on Monday he said, "You know, I was quite surprised to find that everybody on the farm here talks about exactly the same things as they do back in Canada." I said "What do you mean by that?" He said "They spent the week end telling me that all the hogs m Britain go in as low grades, B's or C's but they all come out of the plant as A's! which is exactly the same thing we hear back in Canada." I think that is probably a usual statement to be made, but there is a relationship between the hogs that go into the bacon of different types and the bacon that comes out of the shop. I think most of us take care of that. If we do not get the right grade from one packing plant we probably buy from another.


William Scottie Bryce: I can understand that, but there is no legislation in the dominion to enforce these grades so that they must be carried through.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member is quite right that there is no grade of bacon established by law which you can absolutely compel someone to deliver to you.


William Scottie Bryce: I ask this question because I had a lot of complaints around Christmas time about the turkey business. The farmers go and sell their turkeys and they get so many B's and C's and very few A's. Then when they go into a big store and are able to identify the birds they sold they find that

Supply-Agriculture
most of them are A's. If a farmer has only produced a B bird then he is not entitled to any more, but the consumer should then get the benefit instead of the packer marking it an A bird.


James Garfield Gardiner: Again we come back to the point the hon. member started out to discuss, namely who has the authority? The fact is that a case was taken to court and it was determined that the legislation was ultra vires of the dominion to enact. All that means is that the province has the authority to enact it. Everything that can be enacted by anyone can be enacted by either the dominion or the provinces, and if a court decides that we do not have the right to do it then the province has the right. That is all that means.
With respect to the purchase of a dozen eggs in the province of Ontario, if the eggs are bought from an Ontario farmer and sold to an Ontario consumer the federal government has nothing to do with that transaction. We cannot say how the eggs must be graded; we cannot say what the price should be; and we cannot insist that there be a certain margin as between the purchase price and the sale price. We have no authority to do that, but the province has. Sometimes the province does it and sometimes it does not. With respect to some products they do it and with regard to others they do not.
One of the unfortunate things about the matter is that including the period of the war, for ten years of the lifetime of most of the people who are buying in stores-and ten recent years in that period-we did have control. We said what the price of eggs would be for a certain grade. We established the grades and we established that practice in business; and it is hard for us to convince people that what we did for ten years we cannot still do. The fact is, however, that if we attempted to do it today we would be taken into court and eventually our action would be proven ultra vires, so we would not be any further ahead than when we started.
The law with regard to these matters must be passed by the provinces. When you come to the matter of inspectors, we have inspectors and the provinces have inspectors. We have a law and the province has a law with regard to grading, and with regard to the purchases that are made in accordance with the grading. One way we overcome the difficulty is that we appoint all the provincial inspectors as our inspectors and the provinces appoint all our inspectors as their inspectors. When a man makes an inspection he may be an employee of the provincial government; but if the transaction is between two people, one living in one province and one living in

another, while he is making that inspection that inspector is working for the federal government. If it is the other way around, and if the transaction is one between two persons in the same province, then the same man may make the inspection and he is then acting for the provincial government. Even if he were our inspector he would be acting for the provincial government. We have had regulations like that for a long time with regard to butter, cheese and all of these products, and it has been declared in court that we can operate on that basis without getting into legal difficulties. That is why we operate in that manner.
I sometimes run into difficulties and some of our own members write to me and ask why so and so prosecuted a case in such and such a town. Someone may be thinking in terms of political patronage, and would want to know why a Tory lawyer handled the case. I look into the matter and find that the case was brought by one of our inspectors acting for the government of the province of Ontario, and they employed a Tory lawyer to prosecute the case in court. All these complications run through the different activities connected with these matters.
In the province of Saskatchewan I have not found a C.C.F.'er-and I am now talking to some of them-who will admit that they have the authority there to pass legislation having to do with the price of eggs. Well, there is no one else who has that authority. If the government of the province of Saskatchewan will not pass the legislation and will not set up a board to handle the matter, there is nothing anyone else can do about it.
It was quite correctly stated here this afternoon that in the province of Ontario they are having some discussion about whether their boards are intra vires. They have 17 boards. They took a vote with regard to eggs but it did not go through, although they have boards with regard to a lot of other things. One of the boards handles the marketing of hogs in Ontario, another board handles the marketing of cheese, and so on. Under the provincial law they have set up the 17 boards, and the board concerned establishes the price of cheese, for instance.
My hon. friend for Huron North I think said something about the price of cheese recently. Well, recently the price in Ontario has been higher than it has been for some time. I cannot take credit for it; I had nothing to do with it. The provincial government set the price of cheese and said what it was going to be. They set that price and gave authority to the producers' board in Ontario to take all of the cheese. Last

year they did take delivery of the cheese and I believe they sold it for 30 cents a pound. That price was established by the provincial government and it was enforced by the provincial government. If we had attempted to do that we would have been taken into court and our action would have been declared ultra vires.
I am again saying there is a way of controlling these matters. The provincial government can do it. It was first started in British Columbia and they have it pretty well established there now. Ontario has been doing it more recently and the practice is pretty well established there. However, in the province of Saskatchewan, where that type of activity in connection with marketing really started a long time ago, there is a lot less of it being carried out today than in any other province of Canada.


Percy Ellis Wright: As usual, the minister got up to answer a question about grades and he switched the whole thing over and talked on prices for about ten minutes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not been talking about prices; I have been talking about who has control over grading.


Percy Ellis Wright: I asked about grades, but this has been a different proposition altogether. As far as eggs in the province of Saskatchewan are concerned, while those consumed in the province might be controlled, unfortunately 70 to 80 per cent are marketed outside the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the other way around.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am speaking of the ones that go to market. I am not speaking of those eaten there.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are more eaten locally than go to market.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is asking for something reasonable. They are asking that the producers and consumers both be protected and, when a grade is given to the producer on a particular product, they ask that it be carried through to the consumer. I know that it would take co-operation between the province and the dominion. There are a lot of agricultural products that go into interprovincial trade; and when any agricultural product goes into interprovincial trade the grading of that product becomes the responsibility of the federal government. Under dominion legislation the responsibility in connection with the marketing of the product in that grade rests with the dominion.
I think there has been a lot of co-operation, as the minister has stated, between the provinces and the dominion in the matter of grading; and it is just common sense to carry that
Supply-Agriculture
co-operation a little further, and for the dominion and the provinces to get together and pass the necessary legislation so these grades can be carried through to the consumers. The producers in this country are anxious to see that the consumers are protected.


James Garfield Gardiner: The grade is carried through to the consumer on eggs.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not talking about eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are talking mainly about eggs.


Percy Ellis Wright: There are a lot of products besides eggs. The minister says the grades are carried through on eggs, but they are not checked on eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are.


Percy Ellis Wright: What check have you in the provinces? Let the minister sit down until I finish asking the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have done a lot of talking about eggs-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have asked me a question, so let me answer it. The grade is marked right on the crates in which you buy the eggs.


Percy Ellis Wright: Just a moment. The people who purchase eggs purchase them under dominion grades.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not necessarily.


Percy Ellis Wright: Well, let us say they are purchased under grades set up co-operatively between the provinces and the dominion. As I said earlier this afternoon, there is nothing I know of in the law, nor are there any checks made, to ensure that a company which purchases perhaps 100,000 crates of grade A eggs does not sell 110,000 crates of grade A eggs to the consumers; in other words that they do not place grade B eggs in with grade A eggs. They may undergrade to the producer and overgrade to the consumer. There is no check on it.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a check at the grading stations. They go through the grading stations.


Percy Ellis Wright: There is no check made to see that the consumer gets what the producer has been paid for, either in respect of bacon or in respect of any of the other agricultural products. No check is made. I might refer, for instance, to butter. No check is made to see that only grade 1 cream is used in the production of grade 1 butter. That is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are asking for. I am certain that this legislation can be passed and can be made effective if

Supply-Agriculture
there is co-operation between the province and the dominion in the putting into force of the regulations. There has been co-operation in the setting of the grades. There is co-operation in the appointing of the inspectors. If that co-operation is carried one step further I think both the producer and the consumer can be protected; but I do not think they are being protected at the present time. If they were, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture would not be passing a resolution like this and presenting it to the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture passed a general resolution. Of course they discussed it with the government when they came in. As long as you stay with that general resolution I will agree with you 100 per cent that there is a reason for having the resolution. But when you start to try to apply it to eggs-


Percy Ellis Wright: I did not apply it only to eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member told me to sit down. I will tell him to sit down for a while. When you start to apply it to eggs and then you turn right over-


An hon. Member:: The minister should address the chair.


James Garfield Gardiner: I addressed the chair when I rose, and I am still addressing the chair. When you start to talk about eggs and then mix with them bacon as though you were eating bacon and eggs instead of dealing with the product on the market, you are doing something that should not be done. You just cannot deal with them both in the same way. Anyone will admit that you can grade eggs, put them into a box, say that they are grade A, and can follow them right through to the consumer. But if you start to do that with slices of bacon, it is not quite so simple. The date of the production of the eggs and everything can be stamped on them, if the regulation calls for it, and quite often it does. The people who want to conform most closely to it, and prove that they are doing so, even stamp the date of the egg on the egg itself and put them into the box. Of course you can follow them through. You would find ways of following them through, and there are ways found for following them through.
When anyone says the province itself does this or the federal authority does that, may I say there is co-operation between the province and the federal authority in the matter of grading. But that co-operation does not follow out of the one province into another, except for the fact that all eggs are graded by inspectors who are inspectors of both governments, provincial and federal, so you cannot miss on it. But in so far as those eggs

that are bought in the province and sold in the province are concerned, if the grade does not follow right through that is entirely the responsibility of the provincial authorities. They have to police it and see that it is carried right through. If it is a matter of trade as between one province and another, then we can join in the policing of it.
But there are some difficulties even in that, once the product is sold to somebody who lives in another province. But when it is sold in Ontario and becomes the property of someone who lives in Ontario, when he sells it to somebody else it is one provincial citizen selling to another. He is selling a product which became his property; and under the matter of civil rights we are in difficulties again if we get mixed up in enforcing it. The people who enforce these things are the provincial people, not the federal people. Unless the people in a province will agree to it and go ahead and do it, it just cannot be enforced.
That is all I have to say about it, and I continue to say it because I know I would just run into difficulty if I tried to say anything else.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, the main
trouble that I notice with regard to eggs is that whilst they are graded when they are purchased from the farmer-the farmer, in order to get grade A for his eggs has to sell fresh eggs-when the consumer buys them, he has no guarantee at all. I have never bought a dated egg yet. As a matter of fact, as to any eggs I have bought, I am sure they have not seen their mother for many, many weeks. It seems to me that when eggs are sold the date should be stamped on them so the person buying them knows whether they are one week old, two weeks old, or maybe a month or two old.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact the eggs are graded into a storehouse, into a cold storage. We grade them out. Every egg that goes into cold storage, that is graded in, we grade out.


Victor Quelch: There is no date on them.


James Garfield Gardiner: We grade them out, and we grade them as to whether they are grade A or some other grade.


Victor Quelch: They may stay in the shop for a week or two.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have graded them out when they have been in six months, not a week or two; and if they are stored properly and under the right conditions, they come out in the same form as that in which they went in. That was not so simple to do some

time ago as it is in these times. My friends from British Columbia have been claiming for a long time that they have discovered a system of dipping eggs in oil which keeps them fresh. I have been told over in Britain by a member of the government that when they had a shipload of these British Columbia eggs come over to Britain, a fresh egg laid in the morning in Britain was put on his plate along with an egg that came from British Columbia; and even this minister of the government-and they are usually as well informed as anybody and their tastes are about as good as anybody's-could not tell which egg was laid in Britain that morning and which egg was laid in British Columbia some weeks earlier.


Victor Quelch: He had lost his sense of taste.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has all been tested. What I am saying to my hon. friend is that eggs can be put into storage, can remain there for weeks and months, and can be taken out and graded as they were graded when they went in, and you would have difficulty in determining what date they were laid.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was greatly interested in the minister's explanation of the constitutional position of an egg inspector in the performance of his duties. It is rather perplexing, but as a result of his explanation I want to ask him a question. If the dominion egg inspector is inspecting in British Columbia eggs that have been imported from Alberta-


Victor Quelch: They would be good eggs.


An hon. Member:: They are all good eggs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and if there is a complaint against the work of that inspector, then I presume the complaint should be made to the dominion government. But if he is inspecting eggs that were produced by a local poultryman and sold in a local store, then I understand he is an employee of the provincial government. Am I then to understand that the complaint should be addressed to the provincial agriculture department?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I think you will find that what your people claim is this, or more particularly your fruit people when you are talking about fruit-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are now talking about eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the same thing, I guess.
Supply-Agriculture


An hon. Member:: Hen fruit.


James Garfield Gardiner: When you are talking about fruit that come in from Washington, when the fruit comes in and is the property of somebody living in British Columbia, you claim that you should have the right to pass on it. That is a transaction between two individuals and therefore is within the authority of the province. The same thing would be true when the eggs come from Alberta. This is my kind of law. It may not stand up in a court, but there are a great many lawyers who do not make their laws stand up in court either. I will give it to you for what it is worth. When the eggs come in from Alberta, if they still belong to somebody who is living in Alberta and he is trying to sell them in British Columbia, then in theory it is our inspector who must inspect those eggs and make a report upon them. But if the eggs have been sold to somebody in British Columbia, and he starts to resell them to somebody else, that probably would have to be taken care of by the provincial inspector. He might be the same fellow in both cases, and he might be acting for the province when he is doing one job and acting for the dominion when he is doing the other.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have had complaints about inspectors acting in these circumstances.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure you will have a complaint in any case; and I am not sure, without knowing all the facts, where you would make it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to ask a different question about eggs. The whole problem has been solved in Kootenay. They put them in oil and they go to England two weeks or two months later, but in the Fraser valley the eggs are laid with a date on them so you know what you are getting. We have a special kind of hen out there.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We have eggs for over there, too-duck eggs. Has consideration ever been given to selling eggs by weight instead of grade A, B, C and so on? I remember one occasion, Mr. Chairman, when we discussed something other than wheat in the committee on agriculture. I believe it was the first time in 13 years that we discussed anything else but wheat in that committee. At that time we were outvoted because five members either were doctors or they sold feed grain to the farmers. They voted against us. These are the facts. When you get seven or eight lawyers and feed grain men on the agriculture committee you may as well have no committee at all.

Supply-Agriculture
Bananas and oranges are sold by weight, and the housewife knows what she is getting. She knows that she is going to get a certain quantity of bananas or oranges for a certain number of cents. I believe in Saskatchewan at the present time they have the same system of inspection that we have. I will change that, and say that in the last six months perhaps our system of inspection has been worse than what they have in Saskatchewan. Normally when we ship eggs to the feed companies in British Columbia that handle most of'the eggs, they are sent in four grades from the farm to the big feed companies or the packing companies that handle the farmers' eggs. In our province the farmer gets a very small percentage of the eggs credited to him as grade A. The majority are credited as grade B or cracks. I have forgotten what the other names are.


An hon. Member:: Pullets.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am getting advice from a city farmer behind me. There are other grades that have colours or spots in them.


Mr. Stick:: You are talking about roosters' eggs.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, and I am not talking about the turr's eggs that you have in Newfoundland, either; I am talking about hen's eggs. If eggs were sold by weight I believe the big feed and packing companies would not be able to gyp farmers as they are doing now, and they are doing it in British Columbia and even in Ontario the good, or the province that used to be good before it adopted Ottawa or some of the civic officials, at least.
I am afraid I am covering a lot of ground in what I am saying. I will even take in Nova Scotia. They pulled out their apple trees because they could not grow apples. They had to buy them from British Columbia. Has the minister's department given consideration to selling eggs by weight? It seems to me that everything we do not want to do, we say it should be done by the provinces. Does this have to be done by the provinces, or has the federal authority power to compel the provinces to do it?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is done now. There are four grades of eggs. There is the extra large, the large, the medium and the small. There are minimum weights in all these grades. Grade A extra large has to be 27 ounces. Grade A large is 24 to 27 ounces; grade A medium 21 to 24 ounces and grade A small 18 to 21 ounces. In other words, when you buy grade A extra large eggs you know the weight is at least 27 ounces, and the others are as I have read them. The margin
(Mr. Cruickshank.]
between the top and the bottom is not very great. You do not get an absolute guarantee that every egg weighs so and so, but you have a guarantee that it is within a very small range. That has been dona for some time.
For the benefit of my hon. friend may I say that if we were going to have British Columbia eggs sold in British Columbia it would still be the province that would do the enforcing; but if it happened that Alberta eggs were being sold to somebody in British Columbia by somebody in Alberta, well, it would be the same man who would inspect but he would be working for us when he did it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thank the minister for his information. Of course he did not understand what I was getting at, so perhaps I shall have to move into the Department of Agriculture. He has not answered my question at all. I am getting so much advice from Springfield and elsewhere that do not produce eggs that I say to them if they want to make a speech they will have an opportunity to do so.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I will make mine after you are through and they will understand it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If they understand you they will understand anything.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who is the parliamentary assistant now?


George Alexander Cruickshank: What I am getting at, Mr. Chairman, is this. I am afraid the minister did not get my point. These eggs are sold as grade A, so many ounces and grade B, so many ounces, but I can take the minister downtown tomorrow in the fair city of Ottawa and he will be sold eggs by the dozen grade A, or grade B.


James Garfield Gardiner: But they must weigh so much.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Exactly. But bananas are not sold as grade A; they are sold by the pound. If eggs were sold by weight the housewife would get full value, and what is more important the farmer would get full value. But when they go down to the packing plant-and I think this is true in Saskatchewan, too-the farmer does not get full value because the packer grades so many as grade A, so many ounces to the dozen, and others are graded grade B, so many ounces to the dozen. But the average packing plant will give the farmer credit for a larger number of grade B's than grade A's. That is an altogether different matter from selling them by weight.


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer to the other part of the question is this. Where the price is

set on fruit it is done provincially; it is not federal.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The same thing is true of eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: It could be on eggs or anything else, but I am just saying to you now that it must be provincial. When the transaction is between the storekeeper and the customer coming into the store and buying something, if the law can be enforced at all it must be a provincial law. It does not matter whether it is fruit or eggs you are talking about. When you go into a store in the province where the law exists to that effect, then you buy it by the pound; and you can buy eggs by the pound in the stores here, too.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any place, if you insist.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, you cannot.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am a farmer and I am accustomed to eating fresh eggs. We get good eggs in this House of Commons. First of all may I say that all the food we get in this building is the very best. Not so long ago I was having breakfast with a certain gentleman and he had two fried eggs. He said to me, "You are a farmer. Do you not eat eggs?" I said: "Yes, I do when I am at home." He said: "Why don't you eat them here?" I said: "Well, you are not eating fresh eggs." He said: "How do you know I am not?" I said: "I know by the look of them." He said: "Why are they not fresh eggs?" I said: "When you drop a fresh egg into a hot pan it will whiten right over the yolk." You cannot whiten the yolk of a stale egg. There is nothing wrong with the egg, any more than that it is not fresh. And when one is accustomed to eating fresh eggs, one that is four or five months old does not taste the same. That is all I wish to say about that subject.
Then I wish to register a complaint in connection with the committee on agriculture. It is one of the most important groups in Canada. I have been in the House of Commons for 13 years, and I know that in some sessions we do not have even one meeting of that committee. If I were Minister of Agriculture I would want to have the committee sit.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I think the scope of the discussion is wide enough. I do not think we ought to go into a matter which is completely extraneous to the item under study. The hon. member could have made his suggestion during the discussion 68108-293
Supply-Agriculture
on the first item. I realize that his remarks may be prompted by the suggestion to the same effect by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. However, I do not think we should proceed with a discussion at this time as to whether or not the committee on agriculture should sit more often.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall have to bow to your ruling, but I have always understood that the committee on agriculture is to assist the Minister of Agriculture. Why does it not hold more meetings? Today was the first time this session that a meeting of that committee was held.


James Garfield Gardiner: To back Mr. Chairman's ruling, let me say that I am not too sure that the statement just made is correct. I am not on the committee on agriculture, and there is no particular reason why I should be. That committee is set up by the house, and the matter now before it, and that has caused it to sit at this time, did not even arise in my department.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is the point I would like to make.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a matter of trade and commerce. And while I would be quite prepared to discuss the question as to whether there have or have not been meetings of the committee on agriculture, I think it would be entirely out of order to do so here. It has nothing to do with my estimates at all.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Why is not legislation sent to the committee on agriculture?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I wish to set the hon. member for Fraser Valley right. He has been sitting in the House of Commons for 15 years as a representative of the farmers, and it is quite evident to me that he does not know what goes on in connection with the grading of eggs. I want to put him straight, and also I would do the same for the hon. member for Melfort. I have a sister in Saskatchewan who has quite a number of hens. This egg grading is done right at home. There is a scale on which these eggs are weighed- grade A large, large, medium and small. Furthermore, after the eggs are weighed they are all candled, stamped with a date placed upon them. When one goes to a store in Saskatoon to buy eggs, he knows exactly the date they were laid and the date they were packed. And to make it even clearer to my hon. friend from Fraser Valley-


George Harris Hees: And to yourself.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -if he goes to the store and buys a dozen grade A large eggs, and pays 68 cents for them, he will get so many ounces

Supply-A griculture
to the dozen. For large eggs he will pay about 65 cents and receive so many ounces to the dozen. Medium eggs he will buy for perhaps 61 cents, and again they will weigh so many ounces to the dozen. Small eggs are sold in the same way, possibly for 55 cents. So it is clear that he buys his eggs by weight when he is buying according to grade. Now do you understand that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish to express my appreciation to my hon. friend and colleague who sits behind me-


George Harris Hees: Your parliamentary assistant.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -for putting me correct. Only he does not know what he is talking about; that is the only trouble.


George James Tustin: I have listened with much interest to this discussion about eggs. Coming from a constituency which probably produces more eggs than any other in Canada, I thought I was fairly familiar with the subject. However, after listening to hon. members I have come to the conclusion that I know absolutely nothing about the grading of eggs.
As I understand it, a producer can grade his eggs and sell them locally. I know that down in my part of the country there are many grading stations, and these grading stations are licensed. Who grants the licences for them? In those stations there are certain people who grade the eggs. Then the eggs are shipped to the cities and are placed in storage. I would ask the minister if they are graded when they go into storage and, if so, who grades them.
Then if I understand the minister correctly he said, "When they are taken out of storage, we grade them." I take it from what he says that when they are taken out of storage they are graded by an inspector of the federal Department of Agriculture. If I am wrong in that I would ask the minister to correct me. I should like to know very definitely who grades them when they go into storage and who grades them when they come out.


James Garfield Gardiner: In Ontario the egg stations are authorized or registered by us to grade eggs. The other activities in relation to eggs are the same as in other provinces. In the western provinces the provincial governments issue the licences to the stations. Their system is somewhat different from that in Ontario. But in both cases the reason for our being in it at all is that some eggs are graded from one province to another, and some go to other countries. All eggs are graded under that same system, whether they are sold in the province or outside of it.


George James Tustin: Who grades them when they go into storage and when they come out?


James Garfield Gardiner: The eggs are graded into storage by the station. We supervise the grading in of the eggs. We also supervise the grading out of the eggs. The eggs are graded by the operator of the station which takes them.


George James Tustin: I understand the graders in the local stations receive some training before they are allowed to grade eggs. Is that supervised by the federal or provincial government?


James Garfield Gardiner: We supervise grading; but if there were any legal questions brought up in connection with it we could not enforce the sale according to our grades, within a province. But we do supervise grading of eggs both in and out.


George James Tustin: And your inspectors inspect them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is clear from the contributions made by most members to this discussion that the grading of eggs in the country is not satisfactory, so far as the producer is concerned. Whether the grading is good or not, it appears that the result to the producer is an unsatisfactory price. I think one of the greatest difficulties in connection with eggs is the fact that, as in connection with so many other products, we are confined to the Canadian market; and that market is not always sufficient to take care of all the eggs produced in Canada, so as to return a reasonable price.
There may be another item under which the question I want to ask might be more appropriate and, if so, I do not mind waiting for an answer. I should like to have the most recent figures with regard to the quantities of agricultural products the government now holds. Then there is a further question I should like to ask about eggs. I would like to know what quantities of eggs have been purchased by the agricultural prices support board or the agricultural products board; how many eggs are on hand now, and what disposition was made of the eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have here the weekly inventory statement of the agricultural prices support board which gives' the estimated stocks based on buying and selling operations as at April 25, 1953, the latest date. The figures are:
pounds
Butter (1952 production) ....	19,021,663
Butter (1953 production) ____ nil
That is, we have none of the 1953 production.


Hazen Robert Argue: But you are holding butter stocks.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nineteen million pounds as of April 25. That is all 1952 butter.
pounds
Dry skim milk, spray process ..	3,484,400
Roller process	 895,200
4,379,600
pounds
Hogs, canned pork. 1952 production 71,168,071
Pork cuts, 1952 production	 nil
Dive cattle	 39
Calves	 14
Those 39 cattle are largely cows that gave birth to calves, of which 14 are still living. They were bred and are still on pasture.
pounds
Carcass beef	 14,850,000
Boneless beef	 5,930,185
Beef offal	 26,563
In the case of carcass beef, that would be about a week's supply, and in the case of boneless beef, about one-third of a week's supply. Then shell eggs, stored at board's specifications, 145,709 cases as at April 18. Those eggs are stored but none belong to us. They are stored as eggs are stored from day to day; and if they are still in storage next December they, or eggs that had replaced them, might be delivered to us.


Hazen Robert Argue: How many eggs has the department purchased at any time during the last twelve months?


James Garfield Gardiner: We purchased 39,000 cases in 1953 and sold them.


Hazen Robert Argue: What was the egg production in 1952?


James Garfield Gardiner: We lost about $53,000 in that particular instance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Have you the total egg production in Canada for 1952?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total number of eggs marketed through egg stations was about five million cases.


Hazen Robert Argue: And you purchased 39,000 cases?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: In what provinces were those eggs purchased?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact division, but most of them came from Saskatchewan, with some from Manitoba.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I understand that the grading and inspecting of potatoes is done by the federal government and I should like to know if that inspection and grading would be binding when shipments were made to another province. That is, if a shipper had his potatoes graded, inspected and tagged and sold them in Ontario, would the buyer there have to accept that grading or could he call in another inspector and have them regraded?



C8108-2931

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. When potatoes are shipped from one province into another there is a check made by one of our inspectors on the grade in order to ensure that they are up to grade. Then I understand when they come to Montreal or Toronto the purchaser is allowed to demand that they be graded again, and that would be done by our man.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The later inspection would be the one counted in the bargain?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. There is an appeal in the trade, and our man sits on that appeal. That would be the last one under the regulations.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to make some inquiries with regard to the grading of poultry in Canada. Is a grade A turkey of the same specifications in Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia? Are the grades dominionwide? Are they agreed to by the provinces and the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the case in the provinces the hon. member has named, but I am not sure that applies to all provinces. It eventually works out that way. When I first came down here Manitoba did not accept the grades in connection with butter, but it was only a short time until they agreed and went along with our arrangement. That is true of most forms of production. Eventually all provinces agree that whatever grades the federal government establishes, they will conform to them.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is what I understood. When a farmer sells poultry which is graded A or B or whatever it may be, is that grade carried through to the consumer? When a turkey or chicken is purchased from a farmer as grade A and is killed by the packer, is it stamped in such a manner that the consumer knows he is getting a grade A article, the article for which the farmer was paid on a grade A basis. If not, why not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course one can say "yes" to that; one can say that the grade is dominion-wide and that it will probably be adhered to. But then I know my friend would point out to me exactly what happened in Saskatoon at the farmers' union meeting last summer. A chap said: "I took my chickens into such and such a store in Saskatoon last week, they were graded so and so and I was paid so and so. I walked into the store afterwards and saw them being sold, and they were not sold on the same grade or on the same price level at all."
I assume he was telling me the truth, and that comes right back to the fact that there is no way we can enforce that. He would have to get that enforced provincially. There is no way we can enforce it. But in most

Supply-Agriculture
cases throughout the trade and throughout business, when we have sat down and agreed that such and such ought to be the grade and that it ought to be established by the federal government so it will be the same everywhere, most people go along with it and try to carry it out. But if someone undertakes to break it and do something else there is no way we can enforce that kind of thing within a province if the deal is an intraprovincial one.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister mentioned a case in Saskatoon where the man took his poultry to a store. They would not be government graded. They would be just graded by the storekeeper.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not get that.


William Scottie Bryce: I listened to the minister telling the story about the Saskatoon man who took his poultry to a storekeeper. They would not be government graded. The storekeeper would grade them to suit himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: They would only be what?


William Scottie Bryce: I did not hear the minister. I have the same difficulty.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not hear the hon. member either through this apparatus.


William Scottie Bryce: I think the trouble with these microphones is that when we ask a question they are like a radio; it takes a while for them to warm up. The minister told us about the man who took his poultry to a storekeeper in Saskatoon. The poultry would only be graded by the storekeeper and not by a government grader. Does the minister not think that we should have government graders to protect the farmers in the sale of poultry?


James Garfield Gardiner: In a country as big as Canada I do not think it would be very practical to have a government grader at every store to which farmers take products. I am afraid that if you started to charge it up to the system there would not be much left either for the producer or consumer by the time we got through with it. There are limits to what you can do with respect to putting inspectors to work. My understanding is that in the province of Ontario the position is established in Toronto, in that regulations with regard to grading are enforced there and are carried out. But the same thing is not done in Saskatoon, and therefore persons there can do something different from what they do in Toronto.


William Scottie Bryce: This is the last time I am going to get up on this matter. The minister did a good job during the war so far as grades were concerned. I do not see why he ever quit. He should have kept the thing going

because it was beneficial to both the producer and the consumer, and the minister could have gone one better. Let us go back to turkeys again. When a turkey is graded a ring should be put in its wing to ensure that the consumer will get the same grade the producer got.


Victor Quelch: We have been talking a lot about government grades and government inspectors, but actually the men who do the grading in the packing plants are paid by the packing plants, are they not? They are really packing plant graders, and the government inspectors merely supervise the general work of the graders. The men who do the actual grading are paid by the packing plants, are they not?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the plants that are under our inspection-and they are only some of the packing plants in Canada-the men who do the grading are our graders. We hire them and pay them.


Victor Quelch: Take the packing plants in the west such as Burns, Swift and Canada Packers. Most of the grading of eggs is done by the packing plant graders. I always understood that was the case. Their work is supervised in a general way by inspectors.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought the hon. member was talking about hogs and cattle in the packing plants, but if he is still on eggs he is correct.


George James Tustin: With respect to poultry, we have specials, grade A, grade B and' grade C. Is there any weight specification involved in these grades? Sometimes you buy a chicken weighing four pounds which is marked grade A. At another time you may buy one weighing six or seven pounds and it is also grade A.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question of weight is not associated with the grading of poultry. It is a quality grade.


Percy Ellis Wright: In their presentation to the government this year the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked for a floor price under poultry. What is the government policy with respect to the establishing of such floor prices?


James Garfield Gardiner: The main reason for not doing so is that the poultry market is fairly well established. The price suggested by the federation was considerably below the price that farmers are now getting for poultry. There is always a question as to what effect the setting of a support price on a product is going to have. There are some products on which you can have support prices and thereby assist in raising the level of the

return that is going to be received by farmers. There are others where if you do so you can so load up the market that you destroy any market that may exist, particularly when you are confined to your own home market. We have not been altogether confined to our home market, but by far the greater part of our product must be sold here if we are going to sell it at all, and many of the poultry people are of the opinion that the situation is better without a support price than it would be with it.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does the minister say that the poultry people are satisfied that the market is better off without a floor price?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I attend the meetings of the federation and I listen to the discussions and the views that are presented there. Before I get to the back of the hall I have a group of fellows parading up to me and saying that the thing is just about right as it is and that we should leave it alone. I have to make up my mind as to where I am getting the best advice. Sometimes I am getting the best advice from the fellows who take that position. Sometimes I get it from the people who pass the resolutions. You have to make up your mind one way or the other as to which group is speaking for the most people. It is not always the people who pass the resolutions. We get our information from many other sources as well.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not imagine that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture would pass a resolution unless it represented the considered opinion of the majority of the people in the federation. I would imagine that the reason for their request is not that they are afraid of the price of poultry right now, but that they are afraid of what may happen next October or November when the rush of poultry to the market begins. It might be advisable to have a floor at that time to protect the producers.
If the government in its wisdom saw fit to place a floor under poultry now the producer would have some assurance that he could buy baby chicks a few weeks old now and not have to run the risk of taking a serious loss on them next fall. It would be a guarantee to the producer that he would have a reasonable floor next fall, and on the basis of that floor he could decide whether he should expand or decrease his production.
If we are to have orderly marketing and orderly prices in this country I think there has to be some guarantee to the producer that if he has a product there will be a market and a reasonable floor price. I think it would be a reasonable guarantee to the consumer,
Supply-Agriculture
too, because if the poultry producers at this time get the opinion that next fall there is going to be overproduction, and if they considerably reduce their poultry this summer, then the consumer is going to pay a lot more next fall than he would if production were normal.
I have not discussed this matter with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture but I am sure that in the back of their minds there was the idea of orderly marketing and reasonable production to meet the demands in this country.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman. I notice from the statistics on the number of cases of eggs purchased by the government that purchases were 39,000 cases out of a production of 5 million cases. I think those figures demonstrate why egg prices went so low. I do not think you can control prices in any market by purchasing less than 1 per cent of the production. There was such a small part of the production purchased, as the farmers' union delegations told us a few weeks ago, that the price of eggs to the producer went down to 27 cents a dozen for grade A large, when it was 40 degrees below zero.
We have producers writing in to say that their eggs have been sold on a non-graded basis at as low as 18 cents a dozen, and some of them lower than that. I agree with the hon. member for Melfort that there should be some floor price, some marketing legislation and some market for poultry products. When I go around to stores in Ottawa and just look in the window and see some of the fowl they have for sale and some of the prices for which they are being sold I am astounded. There is something wrong in the country between the price the producer receives and the price the consumer pays. There is certainly something wrong with the price the producer receives on the prairies and the price the consumer pays in Ontario.
A neighbour showed me her bill of sale for some poultry she sold. The hens were a year old; they had been running around the yard in the summer time; they were not milk fed, but they had all kinds of wheat, oats and barley. The yard was flooded with all kinds of grain. This lady decided to ship the poultry to market and she received a cheque for 31 cents a bird. 1 am sure if one of those birds was purchased in a downtown store it would not be sold for less than $2. There is certainly something wrong when the producer gets just a few cents for the commodity but the consumer pays $2. We certainly need some marketing legislation and

Supply-Agriculture
adequate floor prices. I have here the presentation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which says this:
Since it has been apparent that the lower prices being received by our farmers for livestock have not been reflected in the price of meat to the consumer, it is recommended that the federal government take action to investigate, in the interests of the people as a whole, all the elements of cost as between producer and consumer in relation to all meat products.
I think there is certainly a lot of room for investigation when the poultry producers on the prairies are forced out of production because they get practically nothing for their product, yet the consumers see little or no reduction in the price of the products they purchase from the stores. As I understand it, the floor price for eggs is 38 cents a dozen -grade A large coming out of storage-plus 5 cents a dozen for storage charges. If the producer could receive that floor price with perhaps a reduction of 2 cents a dozen for handling the eggs the producer would have an inadequate floor but still a floor price. It seems to me that the packers, in selling to the wholesale houses, their ordinary outlets, must get a considerably higher price or naturally they would sell to the government. It seems to me natural that if they could get 40 cents a dozen in the ordinary retail outlets that is where the eggs would go. When they get 40 cents a dozen apparently the spread is so large that the producer gets only 25 cents a dozen; and I think the federation's request to the cabinet is a good one.
From hearing him speak in the house I am willing to admit that the Minister of Agriculture is a better authority on the constitution of the country than I am or perhaps ever will be, but I would like to see him discuss with the Minister of Justice the constitutionality of adequate marketing legislation; because if there is anything this country needs now, it is some kind of legislation for the control of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade so the producer may get some kind of guarantee.
I believe it was this afternoon that the minister said Saskatchewan as a province was on the peak, or I believe he called it the roof, of Canada when it came to the matter of eggs. We have a surplus and have to ship them east and west. Freight rates are high and prices are low. The marketing legislation is very inadequate. When the minister says he talks to people at conventions who say they do not want any floors, those people may be right; they do not want any floors when they consider the experience they have had with the floor price on eggs.

I like to see adequate floor prices, but I like to see the producer get the benefit of those floor prices. It seems to me that unless the government has first of all a market for those products, and secondly is prepared to control those products in interprovincial trade, the producer is not going to get much benefit from the floor prices. I would like to know what disposition the government made of the 39,000 cases of eggs it purchased. To whom were they sold and what was the loss on the transaction, although I believe the minister has told us what it was.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the eggs we purchased were sold back into the market in this country, but we sold some to Mexico and some to Venezuela. The loss on the eggs handled was about $53,000.
While I am on my feet I might as well say that I have here a list of the grading stations in Saskatchewan and a list of the prices to the farmers who brought their eggs to those stations throughout the week ending April 18, 1953. The stations fill two pages-


Hazen Robert Argue: Prices are up now.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and at only three of those stations were prices down to 35 cents.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now.


James Garfield Gardiner: At the others they were 36, 37 and 38 cents. Grade A extra large prices were a little better than that; not very much, but a little better.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister have the January prices?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether we have the January prices, but we will look and see. However, that was the position in the last few weeks. The price levels were just about as I have stated them. As a matter of fact they are the exact price levels. I agree-and I know it to be so- that the farmer is not able to do quite as well where there is no grading station. It goes without saying that two sheets of foolscap would not foe sufficient to set out all the towns, villages and places where there are stores in Saskatchewan and where there are people who sell their eggs at prices lower than those prices. As a matter of fact, there arc; some communities where most of the eggs produced are taken to the store on the old system, traded to the store at a price and traded right out of the store at the same price; and quite often that price is comparatively low. It is used as a means of trading in and out of the store. At the main points where we would have any check, they were 30 cents; at Melville, Regina, Swift Current, Moose Jaw and points of that kind, they were 30 cents.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is 30 cents for grade A large?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; for grade A large.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the difficulty there, when the floor price is 38 cents and the grading stations are paying only 30 cents? Do they need a margin of that kind to operate, in addition to the 5 cents storage payment? They must have had storage facilities at that date because that was early in the egg season.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The grading, the packing, the packages themselves, the fact that you have got to ship them a certain distance and so on, account for the difference between 30 cents and 38 cents. As a matter of fact, the estimate made in most places at the time the system was first set up was that the margin would be 6 cents. Generally speaking that can still be the case. But in areas such as the Saskatchewan area-partly because it is on the peak, as was stated a few moments ago, and many of the eggs have to be shipped down to Winnipeg or, if they are going west, have to be shipped to Calgary to storage-the costs are greater than they are in most other places; and that adds up to an extra two cents on that particular score.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this item should be allowed to carry without drawing attention to the type of eggs which are laid in my constituency. I picked up this evening's Ottawa Journal, and I found there an account of how a mother goose, winging desperately to her roost, laid an egg from 800 feet in Mr. Lough's garden but it did not even break. I wonder if such eggs should be sold by weight or by size.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They should be given away.


Percy Ellis Wright: A paper has just been handed to us here-I see that it is the Ottawa Journal -and I note that grade A turkeys are advertised at 75 cents a pound. I was in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture last fall. A great many turkeys are raised there. I know the producers there were extremely anxious to get 38 cents a pound, and they were in great doubt whether they would get that much for grade A turkeys.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has asked the federal government to take action to investigate, in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole, the elements of cost as between producer and consumer in relation to these meat products. What consideration has the Department of Agriculture given to this request by the federation? It seems to me there is no real reason why turkeys should be selling at 75 cents a pound when they were purchased last fall at prices all the way from
Supply-Agriculture
27 to 37 or 38 cents. I think there is need for an investigation. Is the department taking any action with regard to the request of the federation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes. We do check on it. But I would have to get a great deal more information than the hon. member has given me in order to be able to determine whether that is a reasonable relationship. Those turkeys are sold in different ways. Sometimes they are sold with the heads on, the feet on, and so on; sometimes they are sold drawn and sometimes they are not drawn. Whether those turkeys out in Melfort had the heads and feet on and were not drawn, and the others were the other way around, I do not know. I greatly doubt whether my hon. friend knows either. One therefore cannot just talk about turkeys being 38 cents one place and 75 cents another, unless he knows a great deal more about the turkeys than just that.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is exactly what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are requesting. They are requesting that some investigation be made with respect to this matter. What I am asking the minister is whether his department is meeting this request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture by making a real investigation into why there should be such a spread between what the producer receives in certain cases and what the consumer pays. It is certainly the opinion of the farmers that the consumer is paying too much, and the consumer is blaming the producer. I think there is a real field for some investigation and for some definite information. As the minister says, I cannot give that information, nor do I think he can, without a good deal of investigation; and that is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are requesting. I think it is a reasonable request.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might suggest again that it would be much simpler for the government of the province of Saskatchewan to make a check on why the price of turkeys is such and such in Melfort to the farmer and why it is something else when it is sold in town than it would be for this government to go out there and check it for them.


Percy Ellis Wright: This is in Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same thing is true in Ontario. My hon. friend is suggesting that the turkeys were bought out in Melfort and sold in Ontario.


Percy Ellis Wright: Many of them were.


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as that transaction is concerned as between Saskatchewan and here, we have something to do with it and we do make the inspections that have to be made in connection with it. But in so far as the selling of the product in a store in

Supply-Agriculture
the province of Ontario is concerned, the control is under the provincial government, if there is any control on anybody's part, and it depends on whether the provincial government has undertaken the control. Again I say that, so far as I have been able to look into it, they assume just about as much control in Ontario as they do anywhere in Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister just mentioned that he would not know whether the turkeys were sold with the feet on or with the heads on or whether they were drawn or were not drawn. I may be wrong, but I think he is in error when he says they could easily be bought with the feet oft, because I think it is illegal to buy turkeys especially with their heads oft; and they have to be drawn after they are purchased so it can be ascertained that they are not diseased.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where is it illegal?


John Alpheus Charlton: On any market.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not in any market. It may be illegal in any market in Ontario.


Leonard T. Stick: There are a great many turkeys sold with their heads on.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is that not true? Is it legal to sell turkeys in the retail trade with their heads oft?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend would know far more about that matter in Ontario than I do; and no doubt he can tell me whether or not it is legal. But I would say if it is legal to do it one way or the other, it is enforced by the provincial law.


Percy Ellis Wright: Apparently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture thought the responsibility for making this investigation lay with the federal government. Did the minister advise them, when they made this presentation, that they should make their request to the provincial government rather than to the federal government, if they wanted an investigation into the spreads in meat prices in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was trying to think what it was I had forgotten to tell the hon. member when I was up on my feet before. I am pleased that he has reminded me of it. Every time the federation has come to me since 1948, when we ceased to have authority to do these things, I have told them that they would get along much better and accomplish much more if they went to the provincial governments. The result is that now they do not bother me much about it but they go to the provincial governments.


Percy Ellis Wright: They made that recommendation?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all right. They made that recommendation. They were advised to go to the provincial governments, and they have gone there. They got far more action by going there than they could get here, because that is where the authority is.


John Alpheus Charlton: I believe the hon. member for Lake Centre asked the minister to give figures regarding the imports of cheese and pork into this country. Has the minister those figures?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the exports, but it is a rather long list. I do not happen to have the imports of the products that might come into the country.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member for Lake Centre could not be here, but the minister promised to give him these figures. I thought this was a good time to get them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry; it was around five o'clock when we were discussing them, and there are not very many people around after five o'clock to get us the information. I am not suggesting that it ought to go over until tomorrow morning, but I will get full information and send it to the hon. member, whether we are still on the estimates or not.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was interested in the minister's remarks on the constitutional question and how the federal government works in this field. Governments have been able to arrive at a satisfactory relationship in the marketing of wheat, oats, barley and other agricultural products. They have controlled the marketing of them, and this policy has been followed out in a manner that is highly satisfactory to the producer. I believe it is the most satisfactory method even so far as the consumers are concerned. If it is constitutional to have a marketing board in the field of grain, why is it not constitutional to make similar arrangements for the marketing of other agricultural products? If you could have a board similar to the wheat board for these other agricultural products you might solve this problem of such large spreads between the producer and the consumer and such highly fluctuating prices from month to month and from year to year. If it is constitutional in one place, why is it not constitutional in the other?


[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, $578,729.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: In this item there is an amount for the Kensington Dairy Company and in the supplementary estimates there is an estimate for the Crapaud Dairy Company.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the supplementary estimates here at the moment but we shall be coming to them. The Kensington Dairying Co-operative Association is $3,300.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The Crapaud should be about $9,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the amount is $9,000; I have not it here at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
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.
Percy Ellis Wright: In the details of this item on page 115 we find: "Advertising and other informational publicity, $92,278." Does the department provide advertising? I always understood that any boards handling agricultural products had to provide their own publicity with regard to the sale of apples, butter and various other products for which we have boards operating. Is any of this grant given for the advertising of particular products?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an amount of $92,278 for advertising and other informational publicity. It is exactly the same as it was a year ago. What is the question?


Percy Ellis Wright: My question is, what particular type of advertising does this cover? Whom is this money paid to?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is used to advertise the sale of any commodity that we may be handling. The display advertising we had in stores for a while which said "Butter is Better" and that kind of thing would be put out under this item.


Percy Ellis Wright: This money is spent directly by the department? Grants are not given to other people?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is spent directly by the department.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is only for the sale of products which have been taken over under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not only that. Take the slogan "Butter is Better"; it was a sort of promotional campaign to have people eat butter instead of eating some substitute for it. That was put out all over the country and paid for irrespective of whether we were selling the butter or someone else was selling it.


Mr. Low:: Was the minister satisfied with the results?


James Garfield Gardiner: We think we had good results from it. The consumption increased right from the time we started.
Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it used to advertise canned pork?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it includes that. We have been advertising it.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the intention of the department in relation to the marketing of the 71 million pounds of canned pork? Are you trying to feed it back into the Canadian market, or are you getting rid of some of it in the export market?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are selling it, I was going to say, all over the world. I do not suppose it is right to say all over the world, but I am told we are selling it broadcast all over the United States. The statement was made to me the other day that in the larger distributing stores in the United States that pork has found its way right down to Texas, which takes us as far south as we can go. Our estimate is that all that pork will go on to that market and the other markets. We are selling smaller amounts of it this year.


Hazen Robert Argue: What part of the pork is being sold in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: We started out with about 98 million pounds, and we have somewhere around 70 million now. The greater part of what has been sold, to date, has been sold in Canada. However, we have had an advertising and promotional campaign in the United States, and in recent weeks the product has been getting down as far as Texas, and is being sold widely. We expect that by far the greater part of the 70 million pounds will be sold in the United States.


Solon Earl Low: And is the portion sold in the United States sold at the same price that is received here?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it must be. Otherwise we would get into difficulties in connection with dumping.


John Alpheus Charlton: What form does the advertising take? I understand the pork is in tins, with the packers' labels on them.


James Garfield Gardiner: The tin going out bears a Canadian government label. It is a specially made container, different from those in which the other products have gone out. The advertising is done through window streamers and newspapers.


John Alpheus Charlton: When did you begin using the government label?


James Garfield Gardiner: About November.


John Alpheus Charlton: Prior to that it was sold with their own name on it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.

Supply-Agriculture


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
37. Freight assistance on western feed grains, $17,000,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: I notice that this item is headed, "Terminable services". That heading, in itself, is alarming to the eastern consumers of feed grains. Eastern Canada is trying to build up a livestock industry, and they have to depend upon the government from year to year to provide this freight assistance. I know the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its presentations to the government in the last two or three years has asked that this be made permanent legislation. I believe it has been carried on since 1942, and it has been beneficial to both eastern consumers and western producers.
I suggest that after eleven years we should be able to make up our minds as to whether or not this should be a permanent policy. I would like to see it made permanent. Has the government considered this matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: This service has been going on since 1941, and has developed into a considerable cost from year to year. I do not know that anything is to be gained by raising the question as to when it will terminate. The matter has been up every year since 1941, and it is still going on. I have concluded in my experiences here that probably one gets into more trouble by raising questions like that than he does by leaving them alone. It has been left alone; it has been accepted from year to year, and I have not heard anyone say it will be stopped. So I am not raising the question myself.


Hazen Robert Argue: Am I right in stating that the freight rate subsidy has been going down. I may be wrong in my understanding of this, but is it not correct that the freight rate increases are not taken into consideration in connection with the subsidy? Are they not paid on the basis of the old freight rate, with the result that every time there is a new increase, the subsidy is that much less.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: It might be possible to show that it has not taken up all the increase. There may be some places where it has not; but it has followed the increase in the upward trend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
39.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $6,000,000.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Does the government propose any change in the premium paid on hogs, or is it left the same as it was?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have already announced that for this hog year, which closes at the end of September, there is to be no change. But of course I cannot say beyond that what the position will be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special
[Stage Direction]
40.	Agricultural products hoard administration, $10,000. '
Mr. Kickham:: Is this the item under which the agricultural prices purchase board operates?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Joseph Kickham: What amount is made available to the board for purchasing products?


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the hon. member referring to the agricultural prices support board?


Thomas Joseph Kickham: No; I am referring to purchases.


James Garfield Gardiner: This item does not refer to the agricultural prices support board, but rather to the purchase board which buys any product which may be bought. For instance, when we bought New Zealand butter, it was this board that bought it. Its activities are more limited than those of the agricultural prices support board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
41.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,000,000.
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in assuming that considerable quantities of various types of cheese, other than common cheddar and other types produced in this country, are imported into Canada? What efforts are being made to develop the manufacture of other types of cheese in this country so that we may be able to supply our own markets?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are a few organizations which are attempting to produce substitutes for some of the cheeses that come in from European countries and elsewhere, which are a little different from the ordinary run of cheese. There is a church organization in Quebec which makes a certain type of cheese that I buy from time to time and like just as well as a similar looking cheese which comes from Europe. There is another one in Saskatoon which makes a blue coloured cheese which I like very well. There are

plants across the country, but they are not producing in great amount.
On the other hand, there is not a great amount of these varieties of cheese being imported. Taken together they do not amount to a large quantity. Most of the cheese consumed here is Canadian Cheddar and the varieties made from that cheese in spreads or other special forms.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
42.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $300,000.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Who gets this assistance? How much has been paid to each province?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I have explained this item every year since about three years before the war. I have said on one or two recent occasions that I think probably we will have to have another look at it one of these times, with the government of Quebec. It is an expenditure that was set up two or three years before the war for the purpose of replacing equipment used in the production of maple syrup and maple products in Quebec, because of the fact that the equipment then in use was placing lead in the maple products with the result that the United States government had taken action against it being shipped into that country.
We undertook to assist the Quebec government in having this equipment changed over to something that would not have a lead covering on it. We have been paying now for some considerable time. The Quebec government does the work; it administers the fund created. Quebec is supposed to put up a third, the farmers are supposed to finance a third themselves, and we finance the remaining third. While we do not say this could happen only in Quebec, nevertheless Quebec is the only place where it has operated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
44. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,750,000.
William Scottie Bryce: Can the minister tell us about a P.F.R.A. development near Plum Coulee. This is not in my constituency, but some friends there wrote and asked me to find out about it. I took the matter up with the department and found out that this project evidently was started in 1936 and there was some preliminary work done up to 1939.
The important point in regard to this dam is that the creek drops about 40 feet to the mile and a dam 500 feet long and 40 feet high would be required to hold the water. The
Supply-Agriculture
cost would be in the neighbourhood of $100,000 under present construction conditions, which may perhaps be high in relation to the quantity of water that would be stored. Is this work being proceeded with or is it considered not to be feasible? I have never been near the place at which the dam is expected to be built, but I have been at Morden and saw the dam which was built there under P.F.R.A. and I consider it a wonderful piece of work.


James Garfield Gardiner: A proposal has been made to have a dam built at this point but it is just in the investigational stage and I have no complete report on it. It has not yet been determined that a dam can be built there, and we have made no preparations for doing so.


William Scottie Bryce: I think the survey was started in 1936 and completed in 1938, and then the war years came along. I think some work was done around 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member know the name by which it is known? There is no dam at Plum Coulee.


William Scottie Bryce: The officials know, because I have taken it up with them.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have a long list of dam construction works in western Canada, and there is no Plum Coulee dam.


William Scottie Bryce: It is under 625 in Manitoba.


George Matheson Murray: The hon. member should come well armed with information when he starts talking about dams in this house.


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister is prepared if I can have the name of the dam.


William Scottie Bryce: Perhaps it would save time if the minister looked it up and then either sent me the information or told me tomorrow.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is the item under which the South Saskatchewan dam would be built if it is ever built?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Item 45 covers major irrigation projects in the prairie provinces.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would this vote cover British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: The P.F.R.A. does not apply to British Columbia. There are special votes covering activities in British Columbia, No. 47 being one.


Solon Earl Low: Has the minister a list of the major projects that it is expected to carry forward, and the money being voted here for each?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are only four that are under consideration. One is the St. Mary river; another is the Bow river;

Supply-Agriculture
another is the Red Deer and another one is the South Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
45. Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,893,420.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, since this is the item under which the South Saskatchewan dam could be built, how can the minister in good conscience suggest to the government of Saskatchewan that they forward him proposals for building the South Saskatchewan dam when there is no item in the estimates under which that could be undertaken? There are a few hundred thousand dollars, but it has been getting less and less every year. The supplementary estimates are in and no money is provided there. The session will soon be over. I suppose an agreement could be made next week and the minister would still be all right, at least for one more year, because he would not have any money to do anything with anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of the $7,893,420 there is an amount that it is understood would be there for the South Saskatchewan if it were necessary to expend it, and that amount is $1 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not in there.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is in there if you look in the right place. The arrangement that was agreed to was that the amount would be left the same as it was last year in so far as the understandings between the department and the treasury were concerned, and the amount last year was $1 million. The total amount of the vote is higher this year than it was last year; it is $7,893,420 as against $7,564,630. To say there is not any money there is just-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just saying the truth.


James Garfield Gardiner: -going on saying what my hon. friends have been saying all the time; anything that suits them, they say.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance a question. Is this item of $500,000 correct, or should it be $1 million? If it should be, will the minister move that it be increased to $1 million. We are passing the items printed in the estimates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The item is $7,893,420. All of that, if they wanted to, could be used for the South Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no, it could not. Of the $7,800,000 there is $3,400,000 for Bow river and $1 million for the St. Mary irrigation project. The only amounts here that could be used on the South Saskatchewan are represented by the items that are labelled

"South Saskatchewan", and they total $636,000 compared with $2 million before the last general election.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who is going to stop them?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is just one-third as much as we had in 1949. Instead of getting closer to the project we are getting farther away from it. If we had a pretty good chance of the project being started in 1949, we are down to one-third of that chance tonight.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I want to add is that if you can convince the people of Saskatchewan that there is no money you will probably not get the dam, but I am going to spend my time trying to convince them that there is some money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Randolph Pearkes: Money or no money.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE


Donald Ferguson Brown: May I
revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of presenting the second report, in French and in English, of the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 93, letter O of the Senate, entitled an act respecting the criminal law and all matters pertaining thereto.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before consent is granted at this unusual hour, may I ask if this is a unanimous report?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I did not say it was a unanimous report. I said it was the second report of the committee.


George Alexander Drew: If it is not a unanimous report, there is no occasion for consent at this time. It can be dealt with in the ordinary way at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As unanimous consent is not granted, the report cannot be presented at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue consideration of the estimates, starting with agriculture and then taking health and welfare, mines and technical surveys, post office and secretary of state.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply:]

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $354,893.
2.	Information service, $370,848.
3.	Advisory committee on agricultural services, $5,000.
4.	Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux in a total amount of £34,928, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1953, which is $95,179.
Science service-
Science service administration-
5.	Operation and maintenance, $604,441.
6.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,534,850.
7.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $197,830.
Botany and plant pathology-
8.	Operation and maintenance, $1,238,147.
9.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $121,210.
10.	Chemistry, $661,188.
Entomology-
11.	Operation and maintenance, $1,876,485.
12.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $106,955.
Forest biology-
13.	Operation and maintenance, $1,679,948.
14.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $288,005.
15.	Plant protection, $779,028.
Experimental farms service-
16.	Experimental	farms service	administration,
[Stage Direction]
Central Experimental Farm including research and co-ordinating divisions for the experimental farms service-
17.	Operation and maintenance, $1,980,994.
18.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $212,050.
Branch experimental farms, substations and illustration stations-
19.	Operation and maintenance, $5,570,409.
20.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $891,260.
Production service-
21.	Production service administration, $69,607. Animal pathology-
22.	Operation and maintenance, $489,799.
23.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $40,650.
Supply
Health of Animals-
24.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $5,002,862.
25.	Compensation for animals slaughtered including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $641,200.
26.	Live stock and poultry, $1,625,041.
Plant Products-
27.	Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian seed growers' association, $1,395,084.
28.	To provide for grants to fairs and exhibitions in accordance with the regulations established by order in council of December 22, 1952, P.C. 4602; for payments on account of agreements in force on December 22, 1952, with exhibition associations covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and for a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments thereto, $668,623.
29.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $75,400.
Marketing service-
30.	Marketing service administration, $260,925.
31.	Agricultural economics, $579,725.
32.	Dairy products, $695,345.
33.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $578,729.
34.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian horticultural council, $1,158,690.
35.	Live stock and live stock products, $1,365,320.
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, $17,000,000.
38.	Agricultural lime assistance, $500,000.
39.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $6,000,000.
Special-
40.	Agricultural products board administration,
[Stage Direction]
41.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,000,000.
42.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $300,000.
43.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council, $25,000.
44.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,750,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 1, 1953