1954-06-18

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, the other evening when my estimates were under discussion, I undertook with the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to reply to certain questions about the civil service commission about which I did not have information available at that time. I think the easiest way for me to reply, if you will permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker, is to read a letter I have received from the chairman of the civil service commission. It replies to both questions and I think that it contains practically all the information on the subject that can be put succinctly. The letter reads as follows:
June 17, 1954.
Dear Mr. Pickersgill,
With reference to the questions of Mr. Michener and Mr. Knowles last evening as to the number of "civil servants, in round figures, for whose appointment the civil service commission is responsible, and the total payroll of that group of civil servants", as well as "the balance of the payroll", and also "the number of permanent and temporary civil servants", the latest available information as contained in a memorandum of the dominion bureau of statistics for the month of February, 1954, shows that in the "classified" positions of the service, which are almost entirely composed of the appointments under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission, there were 135,884 employees with a payroll for the month of $34,819,104. Of these 76,938 were temporary and 58,946 were permanent employees. The comparative figure for 1949 was 123,924, of whom 86,015 were temporary and 37,909 were permanent.
In the remaining section of the service there were 22,245 prevailing rate employees, 10,861 casuals and 1,770 ships' crews, with a payroll for the month of February, 1954, of $6,850,943.
Yours faithfully,
C. H. Bland,
Chairman.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External 83276-392J
Affairs. In view of the turn of events in France and the possible bearing of that turn on the discussions with regard to Indo-China and other international problems, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs considering returning to Geneva?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not given consideration to that matter. The Korean part of the talks, as the hon. gentleman knows, has been completed, and that is the part of the conference with which we are most directly concerned. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose if I returned to Geneva for the continuation of the IndoChina talks.


REPORTED REQUEST BY UNITED STATES TO SEARCH SHIPS OF FOREIGN REGISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have not been able to give him any notice but he will understand why when I ask my question. Has the Canadian government received any representations from the United States government with regard to the reported demand or request of the United States authorities to search ships of foreign registry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No request of that kind has been addressed to the Canadian government by the United States government.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. What steps have been taken to have repairs made to the runways at the Yorkton airport where they have beep rendered unsafe by the recent rains?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I am informed that the runways at Yorkton airport suffered some damage during the spring break-up and that T.C.A. had to suspend its service at that

Inquiries of the Ministry point pending the necessary repairs. I understand that these repairs have now been completed and that the service has been resumed.
I wish to add that our engineers are at present carrying out a complete survey in order to ascertain whether further repairs are needed. As soon as a report is received, everything possible will be done to carry out this year whatever additional repairs might be deemed to be necessary.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the unanimous and wholehearted wish of all private members of the house, will the government even yet reconsider the matter of introducing legislation at this session respecting the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, $432,490.
The Chairman:: Hon. members will find the vote on page 4 of the blue book and the details commence on page 76. Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, when the
committee last considered this item of the estimates on April 30 numerous members joined in expressing their pleasure at the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was restored to health and was back in the house. I should like to join those members in expressing my pleasure that the minister continues in good health and I hope he will for many long years. In his speech on April 30 the minister quoted quite a number of statistics regarding cash income from the sale of farm products for the last ten years. From these figures one would be led to believe that the agricultural industry in this country is quite prosperous, and the impression was left that it was not only prosperous in a general way but prosperous all over the country in every particular.
When I visited my riding not long ago I happened to meet a neighbour of mine who is a farmer. He went to town with me and on the way he said: "I am going to town because I have sold some of my cattle in
[Mr. Langlois (Gaspe).l
order to meet the next payment on my farm improvement loan for my tractor." I asked him how it came about that he was selling cattle to meet this obligation, and he said that it had been a tough year. I said to him: "That cannot be so. The Minister of Agriculture says it is a very prosperous year and he has statistics to prove that you never had it so good." The reaction of my friend was rather astonishing or surprising. He was moved to quote Disraeli. I do not know whether he was conscious of quoting Disraeli but he said: "There are three kinds of lies; there are lies, damned lies and statistics."
That made me realize the importance of examining very carefully statistics which are put forward to support any argument. In the light of whatever knowledge I happen to have regarding statistics I thought it wise for me to examine the figures which had been given by the minister. I also thought it wise to try to increase my knowledge of statistics and the traps into which the unwary may fall if they try to follow statistics without examining very closely what they really mean. I remembered H. G. Wells' comment on our modern civilization when he said that statistics will one day be as necessary for efficient citizenship as the ability to read and write.
With the large volume of statistics that is being thrown at us by government bureaux and other organizations in recent years, I think that time has already arrived. After all, we must have very sceptical minds in order to deal intelligently with such things as advertisements for tooth paste, travel circulars, claims for patent medicines and some statements which are made by chronically optimistic cabinet ministers.
Therefore in self-defence I felt it was wise for me to try to learn a little more about statistics. In line with that idea I got a book which might help me to interpret statistics a little more accurately. I should like to quote from the introduction to the book. In one place it says:
The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse and oversimplify. Statistical methods and statistical terms are necessary when reporting the mass data of social and economic trends, business conditions, "opinion" polls, the census. But without writers who use the words with honesty and understanding and readers who know what they mean, the result can only be semantic nonsense.
The author goes on to say:
This book is a sort of primer in ways to use statistics to deceive. It may seem altogether too much like a manual for swindlers. Perhaps I can justify it in the manner of the retired burglar whose published reminiscences amounted to a graduate course in how to pick a lock and muffle

a football:	The crooks already know these tricks;
honest men must learn them in self-defence.
It is in self-defence that I have resorted to this book. Incidentally, the title of it is "How to Lie with Statistics". I do not mean to imply that dishonesty has been used by any cabinet minister. I think statistics are legitimate material for supporting an argument, but nevertheless by that very fact it becomes necessary for those who are required to present and support the other side of the argument to try to interpret these statistics intelligently. I should like to refer briefly to the speech that the minister made on April 30. It appears on page 4280 of Hansard and reads in part as follows:
I have in my hand a summary table, "cash income from the sale of farm products and from supplementary payments over the years, from 1942 down to the present". I have had those years following
1942	divided into three-year periods; my reason being that we have considered, in arriving at conclusions, that it is not advisable just to take one year and compare it with other years before or after.
It is much better to take three-year periods and compare one three-year period with a like three-year period. From 1943 to 1945 we had income from farm products in the east amounting to $655 million the first year, $703 million the second year and $770 million the third year, or a total of $2,128,562,000. Following the same plan, in the next three-year period we had in the east $2,871,173,000. But I think it probably would be better if I were to take east and west side by side rather than to go through one list and then the other. Therefore going back to the first three-year period, income from farm products amounted to $2,128,562,000 in the east and $2,858,770,000 in the west. In the next three-year period the figures are $2,871,173,000 in the east and $3,348,716,000 in the west. In the third period, from 1949 to 1951, the figures are $3,605,406,000 in the east and $3,952,669,000 in the west. So far as the last period is concerned, we have only gone through two years of it and the figures are $2,444,668,000 in the east and $3,129,903,000 in the west.
I have made an estimate of what the amount is likely to be over the three-year period, and at this time I will read the total amounts for all Canada in each of the three-year periods. They are: from
1943 to 1945, $4,987,332,000; from 1946 to 1948, $6,219,889,000: from 1949 to 1951, $7,558,075,000; and for the last period of two years $5,574,571,000. If I were to add to the last figure the estimate for the present year that total would be $8,200 million worth in each for farm products.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in examining those figures we must realize that, in the first place, in each case we are given two different bundles of figures; one for all of western Canada and the other for all of eastern Canada. Those figures are quite accurate:	I do
not reflect on them in any way. But it must be realized that they do not express in any way agricultural conditions in certain smaller areas which are bundled in with an area that may be prosperous. There is no reference to each year. There again, we have the statistics in a bundle and we have the figures
Supply-Agriculture
for three years together. We may have a very bad year that will put a lot of farmers into bankruptcy, but when you lump that one year in with two other years that have been relatively good the result looks acceptable.
You will notice also, Mr. Chairman, that these figures are for cash income. There is not necessarily any relationship between a farmer's cash income and his profits for a year. There is no indication, either, of the number of farmers amongst whom this amount of money was divided. The minister gave no figures, and I have none, to indicate the number of farm operators who had to share this total cash income. There is no indication of the number of people who were fed from the products of the farmers who received this cash income. Our population is going up very rapidly. Canadian farmers are feeding 15 million people in Canada this year, at least to a great extent. Our food is not all produced in Canada, of course, but the major portion of it is. A number of years ago the population was much smaller, so the amount of food produced for the cash received has gone up and therefore the cash receipts should naturally go up in proportion for the individual farmer to be as well off.
Then, another thing of which we should take note is that so far as the figures for 1954 are concerned the minister made an estimate. He extrapolated two figures for last year and the year before and said they are probably such and so for the present year, and arrived at a figure for the three years in order to convince the farmers that they are prosperous. It may be possible to do that in some areas, but I am afraid the minister will not succeed in the area from which I come. In this area the small operator is in a continually worsening position. The big specialists who produce milk for cities and operate on a large scale near the city are getting a bigger and bigger slice of the cash income for farm products.
What I am chiefly concerned with, of course, is agricultural conditions in my own province of Prince Edward Island. I should like to put some figures in that regard on the record. The first thing I want to indicate is the cash income for 1951, 1952 and 1953. The figures in all cases are for three years. Incidentally, these were the figures the minister gave for all Canada. The figures for Prince Edward Island are as follows: for 1951, $26 million; for 1952, $31 million; and for 1953, it was down to $22 million, a drop of about 30 per cent in one year.


Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: Where did you get those statistics?

Supply-Agriculture


John Angus MacLean: I got them from the dominion bureau of statistics report on farm net income for 1953.
The net income for those three years is $17 million, $20 million and $12 million, that is a drop of 40 per cent in one year in the net income. After all, that is what the farmers' profits are.
Now, on the other side of the ledger, let us examine what has been happening to the farmers' operating costs. This applies to Prince Edward Island. We will start out with taxes. In 1951 the taxes were $475,000; in the next year, $516,000; and last year, $540,000, a continual increase. The figures for hired labour are as follows: $2,756,000; then, it went up to $3,168,000 and in 1953 dropped back to almost the 1951 point, $2,754,000. Then, we have interest on indebtedness, and I think these are significant figures. In 1951 it was $316,000; next year it rose to $325,000; and last year it was $346,000. The cost of tractors increased from $324,000 to $415,000 and then to $469,000. The cost of fertilizer increased from $1,962,000 to $2,684,000, and last year it was $2,844,000. The figures for building repairs are as follows: in 1951, $1,075,000; 1952, $1,358,000 and last year $1,425,000. There is a steady increase in that item.


Mr. Gardiner:: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, Whether my hon. friend would object to reading now what I said about the potato crop?


John Angus MacLean: I am sorry; I had intended to refer to that. I have it marked in his speech, and I thank the minister for having mentioned it. At page 4281 of Hansard the Minister of Agriculture made reference to the situation regarding the potato growers of Canada. He said:
I think I should say a few words with regard to potatoes. There has been a situation in Canada recently which is quite different from that to which we have been accustomed. We are finding it more difficult to sell our potatoes in Canada than we have done for some little time. We had to sell our potatoes at the level which has been set under the measures we took from time to time to establish floor prices. We had to establish a price in relation to potatoes grown in the maritime provinces part of which are exported, and we have not been able to hold that price at the level which was established earlier, with the result that there is a possibility that the government may have to take some loss in connection with potatoes this year.
In fairness I wish to point that out-and I could quote further if the Minister of Agriculture wishes-to express our appreciation of the potato growers of the maritime provinces generally, and of my province in particular. Perhaps I should not say that I speak for the other maritime provinces, because they may not agree with me in this;

but I do appreciate the effort which has been made by the federal government to stabilize the price of potatoes.
I cite these figures, not to be unnecessarily critical of the minister or of any other individual, but to try to bring to the attention of the public the fact that agriculture is not in a healthy condition in my province. I would like every citizen in this country to realize the seriousness of the situation, when agriculture is not healthy in every part of the country. This is particularly true of Prince Edward Island because we depend almost entirely on agriculture for our income. Of course we do have considerable income from the fishing industry as well as from the tourist industry; but those three combined are about the total. We have nothing to fall back upon worth speaking about.
Therefore when our agricultural industry is not prosperous it has a very depressing effect on our whole economy down in that province. The result is that debt increases; and it is a fact that the farmers in my province are continually going out of business. As farmers who have farmed all their lives reach the age of retirement, in many cases their farms are not turned over to the young men, or are not operated even by neighbouring farmers. They just become abandoned land.


James Ralph Kirk: They were leaving the farms in good times, not only in your province but in Ontario as well. In good times they have been leaving the farms and going into industry.


John Angus MacLean: That is true; it is a general situation.


James Ralph Kirk: And
it is not any worse in the maritimes than elsewhere.


John Angus MacLean: I am not suggesting that it is. I am only saying the situation does exist in the maritimes, and in my province in particular. I think it is unfortunate because, as farms become abandoned, they place heavier carrying charges on the remaining operators, especially in connection with community facilities such as power, telephones, schools, churches and the like. I do not think there can be a healthy agricultural community made up of patches of large farms with abandoned areas in between.
It has been said that the farmers have been gouging the consumer for food, and the consumer is paying an unnecessarily high price for his food. It is said that the cost of living is going up unnecessarily, and that this is partly due to increased food costs. My contention is that the agricultural industry has made itself more efficient over

the last few years at a rate which cannot be matched in many other industries-indeed, if it can be matched in any others. The average farmer is producing more per acre and per man than ever before, and the Canadian people are buying food at a smaller expense, so far as the farmer is concerned, than they ever had before. But there are other factors. The costs of processing and distribution have gone up alarmingly. Part of that is due to the fact that people want their food processed and canned, and practically ready to eat, when they take it off the grocer's shelves, whereas a number of years ago they purchased their food more in the raw state, and had to do more preparation at home before it was ready to eat.
I should like to point out that when a person buys a meal in a restaurant or eats a meal at home which has been purchased at a grocery store, the farmer gets an extremely small slice of the total cost. The mounting costs of food are due to the costs of processing and distribution. These costs may be justified, but they should be explained. And it should be explained to the Canadian people that the high cost of food is not because of the price the farmer is getting for it-in many cases, at any rate.
This was brought home to me forcibly by a friend of mine who was an official in my province of the Department of Agriculture. He attended a conference here in Ottawa last year, and while travelling to Ottawa he and his wife went into the dining car to have dinner. He said, "I was faced with a dilemma because most people quote prices in dollars-and that is fair enough, of course- but we in Prince Edward Island have come to think of potatoes as our official medium of exchange. It is from potatoes we have to earn our living. So when we went into the dining car I was faced with the problem of whether to buy a fifteen-bushel meal for myself and my wife or a twenty-bushel meal. We settled for a fifteen-bushel meal and I gave the waiter a three-peck tip, when I left.
The point is that the Canadian consumer is getting excellent value for the amount of his money that gets through to the primary producer, and the primary producer is more efficient than he has ever been before. But he is squeezed between lower prices on the one hand and rising costs on the other. He has to be efficient to survive. Competition is keener in the agricultural industry than perhaps in any other industry in the country; and anyone who is not efficient just cannot compete. It is important that the Canadian consumer be made to realize that, and I think it would be advisable if advertising were done by the Department of Agriculture, and
Supply-Agriculture
perhaps by the industry, or various segments of it, to make people realize the excellent value they are getting for their food dollar.
Perhaps because of high-pressure advertising Canadian people have been led to believe that they should get the necessities of life cheaply. This is especially true of food. They expect to get those necessities so cheaply that they can save enough money to buy the luxuries that are pushed at them through high-pressure advertising in the press, and over the radio and television. Canadians will pay 35 cents or more for a quart of beer, but they will complain if the price of a quart of milk increases from 21 cents to 22 cents. And so it is, all down the line. The Canadian people should be disabused of this notion they have that the high cost of food is owing to the farmer gouging. That is not so. The Canadian farmer is more efficient than he has ever been before. He is more efficient than his opposite number in almost any industry. I would say to the Canadian people that when they complain about the high cost of food they should analyse the cost and see what causes it, and not jump to the conclusion that it is the farmer who is getting the benefit, because it is not always so. I do not think the farmer is getting his fair share of the benefits that come from his produce.
In that connection I should like to recommend to the Canadian people a brief quotation from Artemus Ward, and also to other people who read statistics and are exposed to them from time to time. He said:
It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so.


Mr. Herridge:: We have had a very thorough discussion in this house on the wheat marketing problem. While I recognize the importance of a satisfactory solution to that problem, and sympathize with the growers of wheat, I want to take about five minutes to bring to the minister's attention the particular problems that face the fruit growers of the interior of British Columbia.
I am quite sure the minister cannot complain about the amount of talking that has been done on behalf of the fruit growers during this session.


An hon. Member:: Or elsewhere.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Or elsewhere; quite correct. I think they are quite modest in the representations through their organizations, and the members representing fruit growing constituencies confine their remarks to the necessary comments.
I particularly wish to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the fruit growers of

Supply-Agriculture
British Columbia, as a result of organization, and particularly good leadership, have done all they can within the limitations of present legislation, provincial and federal, to help themselves. This has been their policy all along. They believe in self-help, in doing all they can for themselves, and I am sure the minister will agree with that statement. I want to mention, particularly, the leadership at this time. We have been most fortunate in British Columbia in the leadership of the fruit growers organizations. At the present time we have Mr. Garrish, president of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, who as a grower has had a long experience in production and wide knowledge of fruit marketing problems; Mr. A. K. Loyd, chairman of Tree Fruits Limited, is a grower of long experience, with very extensive knowledge also of domestic and international marketing problems so far as fruit is concerned. Then we have Mr. L. R. Stevens, secretary-manager of the Okanagan Federated Shippers. He has a particular knowledge of marketing and also a particular knowledge of the application of dumping duties, particularly with respect to the soft fruits and their effect upon the growers' income in British Columbia. The growers of British Columbia want the government to do what they can to help them to help themselves in two particular respects at this time.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the British Columbia fruit growers operate in the farthest north section of this continent for apple and soft fruit production on a commercial scale. In fact, British Columbia is between 400 miles and 500 miles north of the centre of the United States soft fruit producing area. That presents a particular problem for the soft fruit producers of British Columbia. This means that weeks before British Columbia fruits and vegetables appear on the Canadian market the California product is being shipped into the western Canada markets and providing the Canadian consumers with an opportunity to do their canning often quite early in the summer. I maintain, the growers maintain and their leaders maintain that for this reason alone British Columbia fruit growers believe they are entitled to particular and careful consideration in the application of dumping duties; that is the day to day situation must be watched very carefully. I see I have the support of the hon. member for Kootenay East in this respect.
They do not believe in the government permitting unfair competition when Canadian crops are in good supply. That is all they are asking for. The government should watch this dumping situation very closely
IMr. Herridge.]
and see that dumping duties are applied in a flexible way in the interests of the British Columbia fruit growers when Canadian production is in good supply. Sixty per cent of Canada's imports of fruit and vegetables come in duty free; so U. S. producers have a fair situation in that regard as far as the quantity admitted from the United States is concerned. Potatoes are free for forty-six weeks of the year, and then pay a duty of $7.50 a ton for the rest of the year. On the other hand, the United States have a tariff of $7.50 the year round against potato imports, and if the quota of table potatoes is over 1 million bushels, I am informed that the tariff is then raised to $15. I think we have been particularly fair in this respect.
I want also to bring to the attention of the minister another fact to illustrate how the growers of British Columbia have tried to help themselves. It may interest the members of the committee to know that the fruit industry in British Columbia was the only section of agriculture in Canada which, prior to the Geneva conference on trade and tariffs, got Canadian and United States interests together and decided on a course of marketing action to the advantage of the growers of both countries. As the result of consultation, common sense and a degree of compromise in that regard, I am informed there was agreement to ship a certain quantity and variety of apples particularly to eastern markets. That is a trend that should be developed. This action is an excellent demonstration of what can be done, when producing groups on both . sides of the line get together and face their common problems.
In addition to urging very careful consideration of the necessity for the application of flexible dumping duties at the right time, the fruit growers of British Columbia want the government to give particular attention to taking every advantage of every opportunity to get our fruit into the United Kingdom market again. While they appreciate the difficulties of the United Kingdom government, the increase of apple production in the United Kingdom, and the fact that the growing of certain varieties that we have been in the habit of growing in previous years, has affected the British Columbia growers market. We urge the minister to do all he can to secure a market in the United Kingdom for even a few million boxes of apples. The recapture of a portion of the United Kingdom market would have a most beneficial effect upon the tree fruit industry in British Columbia and I understand the maritimes. We grow certain varieties of apples in British Columbia to

better advantage than they can be grown anywhere else on the North American continent. The Cox Orange is grown better in British Columbia than anywhere else on the North American continent, because of certain climatic conditions. We also have other varieties, Newtown pippins and other varieties of that type, that are popular in Great Britain that we grow to particular advantage. On behalf of the growers organizations I do urge the minister and his officials to do everything they can to recapture some of the market for Canadian apples in Great Britain.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, this question of the importation of potatoes has, I am fully aware, been discussed by me in the throne speech when I first raised the question and later on when I asked questions about it. In view of the fact that recent representations have been sent to the Minister of Agriculture and others I feel that I must heartily endorse what the hon. member who has just spoken said. While I do not find myself too often on the same side as the hon. member for Kootenay East, I see that we are in agreement on this question at least. We must try to give a certain measure of protection to this industry if it is going to continue.
At this particular time I should like to draw a note to the attention of the minister that appeared in the Country Guide of April, 1954, of a different tenor. It is not too amusing when one considers its far-reaching implications. The heading is, "The Disguised Potato". The article says in part:
Capping it all is the "Case of the Disguised Potato", which is causing agricultural sleuths a good deal of concern on the local markets. United States shippers have been trying to pull a fast one on British Columbia housewives by offering an "early, red-skinned" potato that showed a remarkable talent for sprouting when displayed on the stands. Investigation revealed them to be old-crop, white-skinned potatoes which had been dyed red and then waxed to give that new-potato look. Potatoes with make-up! Shades of Max Factor-what won't they think of next!
Well, they certainly have the new look if they are red. You can understand the feelings of many British Columbia housewives who thought they were buying new potatoes and discovered they had bought potatoes with make-up. I think that potatoes should not be allowed to come in in disguise, and certainly they should not appear in that condition on the market and be sold to housewives as new potatoes.
As regards the other matter of importation duty, I would strongly urge the minister to discuss with the Minister of National Revenue the desirability of trying to get the act changed in time for next session because I am sure such a change would meet with 83276-393
Supply-Agriculture
universal approval, and certainly we would support it. That change should embody a more elastic provision. Such tariff should come into force when the second early potatoes come in from the United States. This would certainly seem to remedy the difficulty. Our British Columbia early potato growers have their potatoes arriving on the market when the second earlies from the United States come on our market, with the result that the United States first earlies are put on the British Columbia market at a dumping price. Unfortunately, that dumping price is not one that can be considered as such because the United States has dropped the price on their home market, and therefore this does not come within the dumping regulations. Other potatoes are not yet on sale, and having been stored they have that greenish look. The result is that when they are put on the market they merely cut down the price to which the British Columbia grower is legitimately entitled for his first early potatoes and he is placed in the unfair position of having to compete with the United States product.
Now, another product which comes in under a similar category is the turkey. We believe that the turkey raisers have a legitimate complaint and we think they should have some further protection on the turkey market. We find that the consumption of United States turkeys in Canada has increased considerably because our industry is not getting the form of protection to which it feels it is entitled. One might ask why United States turkeys are being permitted into this country and how the United States turkey producers can raise and sell them so much more cheaply if the price of feed and other grain is the same as it is in Canada. The reason for it is that in the state of Oregon, for example, the banks own a large number of these ranches by way of loan and they force the turkey raisers to sell their turkeys and flood the market from time to time by giving notice that they intend to recall their loan, with the result that these producers have to sell their turkeys in the nearest market which is accessible, and that happens to be the Canadian market. In certain areas we find our own markets being flooded with birds being dumped from across the border, although they cost the United States consumers the same price; and that is where our difficulty originates. The effect of that is felt by the grain growers of Canada. They probably have not thought of this angle, though I think it is worth considering.
Last year about 250,000 United States birds were sent into Canada. The consumption of that number of birds would indirectly affect the use of five million bushels of feed grain.

Supply-Agriculture
Now, five million bushels of wheat and other grains is not a tremendous amount out of our colossal surplus of 700 million bushels, and I quite realize that, but at the same time every five million bushels helps and we know that these imported birds consume that amount of grain.
I hope the minister will use his influence with the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance, in considering the problem of potatoes and turkeys, to see whether we cannot have a greater amount of protection for the British Columbia industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I do not wish to interfere with the desire of hon. members to express themselves at this stage, but of the last two speeches one has dealt with fruit and the other with potatoes and turkeys, and I think it would be better if we could withhold the discussion on these matters until we come to the items covering them. I know it has always been customary to allow a general discussion on the condition of agriculture, but when it comes to dealing with such things as the sale of turkeys and fruit I think we should reserve that until we come to the item dealing with them so that I can give whatever information is available and deal with questions in a manner which would be helpful. I am suggesting that, and I hope hon. members who have something to say about a particular item will reserve their remarks until that item is called.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the subject of wheat would be relevant to this discussion. My name has been mentioned by the last two hon. members who have spoken and they have indicated that they support me, perhaps more than I support them, in the matter of dumping duties and tariffs on soft fruits and vegetables at this time of the year. I want to say that I certainly support the plea for protection on behalf of our growers who supply fresh fruit and early vegetables, not only because a tariff is necessary to protect them at this time but because I know that their products are of superior quality when they reach the market. A large number of people are inveigled into buying products that are old and somewhat withered although they might appear to be new vegetables.
On the other hand, just yesterday I received a telegram from a hospital society in my riding which wanted to know why a duty was put on new potatoes at this time while they were unable to obtain that product on the local market or from British Columbia producers. I took this matter up and I understand it is an automatic impost having

regard to the fact that there are fluctuations in the seasons, and for that reason it is statutory and also prevents the suppliers from stocking up and selling at a later date as fresh vegetables the products which have been harvested some time before.


Frederick George Hahn: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he be in favour of my proposal that the government refrain from imposing this duty until United States secondaries come in? That, to my mind, would assure that Canadian first earlies would be available for this hospital.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think that is probably a reasonable suggestion. As I said, my riding is so diversified that it is difficult to know just what is going to work in the best interest of the entire area. It might be interesting just at this point to tell you that last fall I was asked by the miners' union to journey to St. Louis, Missouri, to speak on the resolution that was being presented to the government of the United States asking that they do not introduce any further tariffs on lead and zinc. I gladly took that opportunity and I know that the resolution passed unanimously. I therefore cannot come out too strongly-after that decision which I think was the right one-and ask that impositions be put on materials and foodstuffs that the working people are required to purchase. However, I think there is a happy medium that we can reach. I think the farmer and the industrial worker must appraise their various situations and see that one does nothing that is going to injure the other. It is for that reason that I am on my feet on this occasion.
In the past few days, Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal of discussion during which the opposition, and more particularly the C.C.F. opposition, have asked us to put a floor price on wheat. Such a floor price, in effect, at some stage or other would mean a subsidy. Reference has been made to a $65 million payment which was made by this parliament some years ago and which I voted to grant. While no one admits that it was a subsidy, however we may look at it, in effect it was a grant in lieu of certain payments which the farmers felt should have been made. They maintain that their price was stabilized at a certain given period and that they could have received a higher price if it had not been stabilized. But of course those who speak only for the farmers neglect to remind the House of Commons that for many years industrial wages were stabilized and that the prices of industrial products were stabilized. For instance, in the particular industry in which I work, all during the war

there was one set price. Almost at the opening of the war a price was set. The product remained at that price throughout the war and the wages of the people working in that industry remained almost static. It is for this reason that I say we want to work together and that no one should do or say anything that is going to injure the other.
On December 2 of last year I took exception to a statement that had been made by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort. I regret that he is not in his seat at the moment. However, we cannot pick and choose our time for making these replies but must make them as the opportunity presents itself at any given time. I took exception to the statement that he made with regard to the price of fertilizer. I think I can relate this question of fertilizer closely to the price and the cost of production of this extremely important product that we have been discussing for the past few days, namely, wheat. As with any other product, if you raise 20 bushels to the acre it costs you a certain figure, having regard to the cost of the seed, the wear and tear on machinery, the over-all cost of the land itself and of harvesting. It costs almost as much to raise 20 bushels as it does to raise 40 bushels. That fact has been brought out in the house, I think. I know that on a recent trip to the west I visited in southern Alberta and discussed this matter with some farmers. They said that the crops they have had during the last three years have not cost them nearly as much to produce -that is, per bushel-as did the crops during the previous ten years. They therefore could conceive of receiving a lower price without there being any such catastrophe as has been indicated here, or without any disastrous effect on their economy as a result of receiving a slightly lower price. When I say this I am going to give some advice, perhaps. Even if I had not had some experience in the growing of wheat, I would consider myself qualified to do so after sitting here for the last five years and hearing the discussions, which are many, with regard to this question.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort indicated that the fertilizer industry was gouging the farmers.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Hear,
hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: He indicated that the cost of
fertilizer was almost double or three times what it was in relation to wheat in 1939. The hon. member says "hear, hear".


An hon. Member:: There, there.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort said that the figure 1 gave of 83276-3931
Supply-Agriculture
100,000 tons of fertilizer being used on the prairie provinces in 1953 gave an increased production of 35 million bushels was incorrect. The hon. member maintained that the most this could amount to would be 15 million bushels. Incidentally, he said that these figures are from the dominion bureau of statistics and cannot be denied. My purpose in rising today then is to deny that very statement he has made.
One hundred thousand tons of fertilizer will fertilize about 5 million acres, at the recommended amount of 40 pounds to the acre. With the hon. member's figure of 15 million bushels, this would amount to an average increase of about 3 bushels to the acre, or less, having regard to the amount applied in different areas. It would be extremely difficult for a sales manager of a fertilizer company to convince the farmer that this increase would be of very great assistance to him.
The hon. member stated that these were figures from the dominion bureau of statistics, taken, of course, from the experiments of the federal experimental farms. I do not know how the figures became so twisted but it is possible that the plots used by the dominion experimental farm would be areas that have been from time to time built up- that is, the soil itself would be built up-to such a condition, because of crop rotation and so forth, that the introduction of fertilizer would not have a great effect. I have here a report of the Dominion of Canada information service, No. E-97, on the subject of fertilizers for northeastern Saskatchewan. The report was released on March 22, 1954, and reads in part as follows:
Ammonium phosphate 11-48-0 has been applied to cereal crops grown on summer fallow at the experimental station at Melfort for the past 14 years. Agronomist B. K. McDonald says a summary of these results on Melfort silty clay soil for wheat has shown an average yield increase of 6 0 bushels per acre for wheat, 12-5 bushels for barley and 8-2 bushels for oats when the 40 pound rate of 11-48-0 was used. These yield increases have given net returns of $5.50 per acre for wheat, $6 for barley and $2 for oats.
Now an hon. member stated that these statistics cannot be denied. I wonder if he would take the word of the University of Saskatchewan and accept the results they give in a table I have here with respect to the use of a similar type of fertilizer. This circular was issued uy the department of soils, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in February, 1952. A rate of application of 25 pounds per acre in 1941, a dry year, produced a result of 2-8, and in 1942, a moist year, a result of 11-3. The average from 1939 to 1943 was 7-9 bushels. That of course is for wheat.

Supply-A griculture


Mr. Nicholson:: Would the hon. member indicate where that test was made?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If you will allow me, I will
finish this table first. A rate of application of 50 pounds per acre showed an increase of 4-5 bushels in 1941, a dry year, 13-4 bushels in 1942, a moist year, and from 1939 to 1943 the average was 10-2 bushels per acre. These tests were made in various areas throughout Saskatchewan. They were not in any one particular plot.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The first one was at Melfort. Would you indicate where the second one was?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There are several distinct areas. But I have figures showing an even better yield from other areas. This is on summer-fallow in Saskatchewan in the dark brown area. I am sure the hon. member knows more about the areas of Saskatchewan than I do. I know one of course very well, Maple Creek, the area from which the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek comes. Perhaps some would attack the use of fertilizers for large crops there in a very dry and sandy soil. However, the hon. member knows the areas better than I do. In the dark brown soil zone 71 tests made with a 20-pound application produced an increase of 4 bushels per acre, and with a 40-pound application 5-5 bushels per acre. In the black soil zone 83 tests showed an increase of 5-2 bushels with a 20-pound application and an increase of 7-2 bushels with a 40-pound application. There is another area called the degraded black and grey soil zone. With a 20-pound application there was an increase of 4 bushels per acre and with a 40-pound application an increase of 6-2 bushels.


Mr. Cardiff:: Forty pounds to the acre?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Forty pounds to the acre. In saying this I want it to be understood that I want to co-operate in every way to assist the farmers. There are a large number of farmers in my own riding. But I do think that the facts should be kept straight. In that way we can assist one another. If the fertilizer industry continues to expand, as I hope it will-and I see no reason why it should not-if the farmers are acquainted with the facts and are desirous of raising the largest amount of grain or other products they can on the smallest acreage, then they will be able to do so by making use of fertilizer.
I am sure the house would be interested to know something about the situation in Kimberley where this fertilizer is made. At the present time one unit is supplying the market, but there is a potential market on

the prairies four times what we have now. This one unit leaves a residue, from the processing of iron sulphides, of about 200 tons of pig iron daily when it reduces the iron tailings from the Sullivan mine to produce sulphuric acid for the production of fertilizer. I had the interesting experience of visiting the laboratory of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys the other day and I saw steel being made out of this pig iron. On a second trip I saw the steel being rolled out, and from all appearances it is going to be the finest of steel. Of course that requires a good deal of experimentation, but it is hoped that we will be able to make steel of the very finest grade.
We hope to expand the industry and by so doing we will be able to pay more taxes and provide more jobs. If a subsidy should become necessary for certain farm products we will certainly be glad to pay it, but I say: Live and let live. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort also said when he was home at Christmas his neighbours were pledging themselves by way of a petition to refuse to buy fertilizer. I do not know whether or not the hon. member signed the petition. I suppose it was a bit unfair to delve into this matter further, but the hon. member said that he had delved into my figures so I took the opportunity to examine his. I find that despite the fact that such a petition was circulated in that area .asking the farmers not to buy fertilizer, a syndicate known as Cariboo Farms, and I believe owned by Bryson Brothers, took delivery of 11 tons of fertilizer this spring. If the hon. member encouraged other farmers to sign the petition and signed it himself he nevertheless did not see fit to abstain from buying this material, which apparently gives pretty fair results.
There is another matter that I should like to discuss at this time, the question of the extension of the P.F.R.A. into the province of British Columbia. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, as the name implies, provides assistance only in the prairie provinces. Now, British Columbia's population is rapidly expanding, and we hope it will continue to do so. We have some extremely arid areas in the province. Recently, of course, as on the prairie provinces, there has been sufficient rain to grow hay crops and so on, but the rainfall is not dependable. I feel that in order to supply this ever-expanding population we should have this very fertile soil under irrigation. We have other areas also, of course, that are in need of reclamation. I see no reason why, now that we have these very large wheat surpluses, we should not look towards the development of other crops. Certainly in British Columbia, where we

have a much longer growing season, we could undertake more diversified crops. There is no argument against giving assistance, as has been done on the prairies. I am looking forward to having the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act changed at an early date to omit the word "prairie" and make it just the farm rehabilitation act.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether the minister could indicate if he has reports concerning the flood damage in northeastern Saskatchewan during recent weeks, and if so the extent of the damage done? My information is that seeding was delayed for a very long time, and that flood damage has been very serious over quite an extended area. I would appreciate it if he could make some statement as to the extent of the damage, and whether any benefits might be available to the people in the area under federal legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Going back to what I said a few moments ago, I will be in a position to do that when we get to the item covering it, but not on this general item.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The other matter I was going to raise concerns policy, and I think perhaps this would be the appropriate time to take a minute to do so. I do not plan on reopening the wheat debate. An editorial in the Leader-Post the other day suggested that wheat production is still profitable at the prevailing price, and what is more, farmers could augment their returns from feed grains by feeding livestock and selling them on the hoof instead of selling the grain. I am sure the western farmers will appreciate that free advice, as will eastern farmers.
However, if that advice is to be taken seriously, the minister should give some indication that the government is prepared to stand by somewhere along the line. The Leader-Post also mentioned that the request made here in parliament would entail an average annual handout of probably $50 million per year to the Canadian wheat producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think if we are ever going to get through with this discussion we have to have some rules. The marketing of wheat does not come under this department at all. It has been discussed now for several days and I do not think we should discuss it again on the estimates of this department because this department does not handle the marketing of wheat.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, I am aware of that. I am saying that if farmers have to go into livestock, the government should indicate that livestock prices are not going to go down the way they did during the thirties. I may
Supply-Agriculture
say that during my sojourn on the farm I acted on some advice the minister gave from time to time that it would be a good idea to sell some of the damp and tough grain back in 1951 as livestock. We therefore bought from one of our neighbours his herd of cattle, and we have had the company of those cattle now for three years. I was just checking the prices listed by the bureau of statistics the other day, and I find that the price in November, 1951, for medium cows was $23.07, and in this year it is $11.56; for yearlings, common, $13.50 now and in 1951, $29.46.
The point I am making is that if our neighbour would like to have those cattle back now we could give him two head for every one we got from him, and we would not charge him anything for the feed or for the company of the cattle during that period. If he should buy them back and keep them for another two or three years, I wonder if at the end of that time he would need to sell us twice as many as he is getting. We have had very good luck with cattle, but I think the government should indicate at some point whether or not they are going to give some protection to farmers in all parts of Canada. If there is not going to be a floor for grain a very large number of farmers are going to be obliged to go into livestock. It is quite possible there may be a further drop in the price of livestock. Could the minister indicate, even if he is not prepared to give some assurance, that if a large volume of this grain goes into cattle or pigs the bottom will not drop out of the cattle market altogether?


Mr. Fulton:: I just wanted to say a word or two of a general nature on this matter. Perhaps the point at which the hon. member for Mackenzie stopped is as good a one as any for me to start, because I intended to ask the minister if, during the course of his estimates, he would say a word about departmental policy with respect to livestock marketing. The figures given by the hon. member for Mackenzie give an indication of the general experience across the whole of the country. They vary a little from market to market and they may not be necessarily in accordance with the present price in Vancouver, where our livestock is marketed in the main, but they indicate the experience we have been having in British Columbia. Our experience has been that during the last two years cattle prices have been halved; actually, it is a decline of 100 per cent although it depends upon which end you start from. Some might say it is 50 per cent decline.
Inasmuch as farmers' costs have not come down-at least, I have not any accurate

Supply-Agriculture
figures to show whether they have gone up or remained stationary, but by and large I think it would be correct to say they are the same, if not higher than they were two years ago. It will be seen that the substantial decline in price represents a serious problem to the livestock producers of British Columbia. They would like to hear from the minister some forecast of the government's policy with respect to livestock marketing.
Unfortunately, I am not able at this time to discuss the problem with respect to grading, as I should like to do, but I suggest there are certain weaknesses in the grading system. These weaknesses result in a very large spread between the returns to the farmers for the cattle in comparison with what the packers get for the different grades themselves. I have on the order paper a resolution which precludes me from going into detail on that matter at this time, although I hope next year to follow up that resolution and have a discussion of the problem. Perhaps the minister might say a word or two on that subject when he deals with the general one, as I hope he will, of the government's policy with regard to the marketing of livestock.
I should like to say just a word or two in support of what was said by the hon. member for New Westminster in connection with the potato situation. I will keep my remarks quite general; but I think it is proper to make them here because this is a problem requiring co-operation between this department and the Department of National Revenue.
In the constituency I represent, the potato growers operate under two different marketing boards, depending upon where they are. But, by and large, in the Kamloops and Ashcroft districts they operate under the interior vegetable board, whereas in the Pemberton district, with which the minister is particularly familiar they operate under the coast vegetable marketing board. But the problems of marketing and the difficulties with which they are confronted, as a result of the importation of American potatoes, are very much the same.
When I was down at Pemberton last summer they told me it was a great pity that the benefits which it had been expected would be derived from the extensive and generally successful reclamation works carried on by the Department of Agriculture under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act administration were not being realized because of the difficulties they were having in marketing their potatoes.
The solution seems largely to lie in an intelligent and flexible application of the

seasonal duties against the importation of American potatoes. I suggest a fixed seasonal duty is not of much value in assisting our growers because of the difference from season to season in the period during which potatoes come on the market. From year to year the season varies, and the time at which our potatoes come on would be as early in some cases as July or the end of June, whereas in other years they would not come on until well into July, or perhaps August. I do not know whether my dates are exactly correct, but I mention these dates to point out the variation in the dates in which potatoes are offered as between one part of the riding and another.
If a protective seasonal duty is fixed absolutely it will not take account of seasonal climatic variations between one year and another. I would therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would bring the influence of his department to bear on the Department of National Revenue so as to have the application of that protective measure made more flexible.
My understanding is that at the present time it is fixed by statute and, as such, it is not of much benefit to us. I do not think it would have any adverse effect either on consumers or on American producers if it were made more flexible. It would simply enable the growers to take account of seasonal variations from year to year.
I have had telegrams-and I am sure other hon. members on both sides of the house in all parties, including the minister have also had them-indicating that this year, because of the lateness of the season, the protection fixed by statute coming into effect on certain fixed dates is not going to be of any assistance to them. I am hoping therefore that we might be able to persuade the government to amend the act so as to provide for a flexible period, but at no higher rates. We are not asking for higher rates; we are asking only that the season during which these rates are applicable be made more flexible. I would hope the minister would give some indication as to whether his department can make any progress with the Department of National Revenue along these lines. I hope he will be able to say something which will reassure the producers of livestock who, in my section of the country at any rate, are very much concerned as a result of the decline in prices- a decline which has not been accompanied by a corresponding decline in their costs of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say just a word on this matter of potatoes. A resolution did come in about a week ago from British Columbia-I do not

remember the exact date-suggesting that the dates, which now stand at June 15 to August 1, should be changed to July 1 to August 15. I have had that matter submitted to our officials and have asked them to take it up with other departments to see what can be done about it.
I am somewhat surprised to hear that these things are set by statute, because such matters are submitted to me from time to time for my opinion. If they are controlled by statute I do not see how my opinion could have much effect.
However, I shall look into the matter. We now have it under consideration, and we will see what can be done about it.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks at this time regarding the value of extended research in the agricultural industry. As most of us know, agriculture is still the backbone of our Canadian economy, and this economy to a very large extent is dependent upon the farmer as the greatest consumer of the products of industrial labour.
It certainly follows that any reduction in farm income will be felt by way of reduced incomes of people living in cities and towns. Figures offered by hon. members have shown that farm income has been reduced in the east by approximately 35 per cent and in the west by about 15 per cent in the last several years. This would seem to be an average reduction of income of about 25 per cent.
Cheap food and a high level of employment do not go together at all. Any depression, which nowadays, I believe, we call a recession, is always preceded-at least that has been so in the past-by a mounting surplus of agricultural products. This is well exemplified in Canada at the present time by the very large surplus of wheat and by a surplus of milk products.
I think we have to face these facts in order that we shall not repeat some of the mistakes we made in the past. At the present time, despite government statements to the contrary, there is little doubt that many of us would agree that Canada is at present still faced with a rather dangerous economic situation. I should like just for a few minutes to make a few remarks to indicate what has led up to this potentially dangerous economic situation-and I shall not describe it as a crisis. We can go back a little while to cost-plus government contracts, necessary as they may have been in the production of implements of war, and describe them as probably the greatest single factor in starting the long inflationary spiral
Supply-Agriculture
of prices which brought about increased wages, increased costs, increased taxes and demands for subsidies.
I believe we would all agree that the current problem facing agriculture today could be solved if some way could be devised to get rid of the surpluses of farm products now piling up in Canada and-this is equally important-in the United States. It is quite true that international markets indicate a demand for farm products, but they also are faced with the problem of little or no money, with the result that farm surpluses both here and in the United States are simply not moving into the markets where they should be moving.
This problem was recognized a few years ago when it was suggested that a fund be established under the United Nations to provide for the distribution of surplus agricultural production, under the United Nations, to countries where these products were needed. This was then and certainly is today a very good idea. But unfortunately it is one which it is very difficult to implement. As a result, nothing has been done about it. I have heard people argue this point-and I suppose it can be argued in the present instance-that there has never been a true surplus of farm products in the world because there have always been people without enough food. But the fact remains that huge surpluses are now piling up on this continent, and are having a disastrous effect upon our economy-and will have an even more disastrous effect in the future.
The basic problem is not only whether other nations want or need our food or whether or not our farmers can produce it- they certainly can-but whether or not people in those other countries can pay for it and pay for it in some form of currency that we can use. It is this problem which has had such a devastating effect upon our most stable export markets in the past and which I am sure is evidenced by the record of our lost markets in the United Kingdom. Here in Canada our comparatively small population, combined with the high fertility of our soil, gives us a very heavy dependence on export markets. We have found by experience many times in our short history that one of the major problems in building dependable export markets for foodstuffs is the ease with which most importer countries can either do without, buy elsewhere, or themselves increase their domestic food production.
Take as an example our market for agricultural products in the United Kingdom. For years Canadian farmers were the largest

Supply-Agriculture
exporters ol food products into the British markets, selling as they did the big proportion of their imports of oats, wheat, wheat flour, bacon, cheese, condensed milk, apples, salmon, lumber and many other products. From supplying 96 per cent of their total imports of oats, 27 per cent of their total imports of beans, 43 per cent of their total imports of beef and 83 per cent of their total imports of bacon, today we sell hardly any of these products and the volume of our exports has also been seriously reduced.
True, it made good economic sense for Canada to produce large quantities of a variety of food products to supply the British market, but the bald fact is that economic considerations of national importance to the United Kingdom have made it difficult for them to buy from us and pay for it in currency we could use; in other words, it is the sterling problem which has been mentioned so often in this house. Nor could we as a nation, much as we desire to help other countries and especially the United Kingdom, be expected continually to give away our products whether by direct gifts of money or as produce. The economic realities of this fact were clearly expressed by both countries, the United States and the United Kingdom, as one of trade, not aid.
Our experience in selling farm products in the British market conclusively proves another problem confronting agriculture and that is that, for many reasons, economic considerations do not have the same practical effect on the international trade in foodstuffs as they do on trade in other materials. We find that barter deals, bulk buying, price supports and other devices really do not give any assurance of stability of markets for the producer.
As we lost the British market for our primary producers, we were able during and after the war to find export outlets in the United States, and this was also accompanied by a highly speeded-up increase in home consumption. High levels of employment in Canada resulted in greater demand at home for the produce of our farms. This, coupled with the increased exports to the United States, meant that for a while the full impact of the loss of British markets was not felt.
Today, however, we are confronted with the unpleasant fact that these alternative markets are rapidly dwindling. High costs of production in Canada, due to high taxes, higher wage levels than in countries competing with Canadian textile industry and others, such as Japan, Belgium, Germany and so on, have made it increasingly difficult to sell our manufactured goods both abroad and at home. The Minister of Labour has not given

out the most recent figures of those seeking jobs, but the ones that were available a month ago indicated that there were over half a million persons still seeking jobs in Canada, which is a much higher number than those seeking jobs in other years, not to mention those on short work weeks, which has reduced the earning power for the industrial worker and has accordingly seriously reduced his ability to buy not only manufactured goods but farm products as well. Here is a very important fact, and I think it ties in particularly with the Canadian situation.
Increasing surpluses in the United States, arising in part at least from the fact that they too have lost export markets abroad, have resulted in embargoes being placed against imports of agricultural products from Canada. Our alternative market for dairy products formerly sold in the United Kingdom was shut out by the United States embargo against their import. This was later followed by our government's voluntary agreement with the United States to restrict our export of oats to that country until October, 1954, when the situation will be reviewed.
Like Canada, the United States today is confronted with a tremendous surplus of primary products for which there appears no immediate export market. It is expected that at the end of this crop year the United States government will be holding in storage approximately $5,500,000,000 worth of surplus produce purchased by the government but at present without demand in any export markets able to pay prevailing prices for their purchases. I understand that in the United States of course they have schemes for subsidizing exports to help matters at home, but I do not think that has any particular effect on the basic principle and the basic danger involved. Indications point to a desire by the government of the United States to distribute some of these huge surpluses to other countries under its system of aid to combat communist aggression. We have seen examples of that in the past. This of course increases the difficulty of selling our farm products abroad because if countries can get food for nothing, why pay for it? While it is not conceivable that such a policy would be followed as an accepted policy of dumping, the fact remains that whatever action is taken along this line will be adversely felt in Canada.
We are also confronted with the problem of surpluses rapidly accumulating. We have not yet sold one bushel of last year's wheat crop. If the minister is able to make some comment on that later, certainly we shall welcome it. This is only one product surplus in the United States. In addition to

that we are apparently now being faced with the possibility at least of a price war on the international wheat market, which we have heard so much about in the last few days. The question is, what will happen to the export markets we are now supplying? Can these nations be expected to buy from us at prevailing prices if the same or substitute products can be secured for less money or, as mentioned before, for no money at all elsewhere?
If we take the long-term view on a suggested solution to the problem of markets for our agricultural products, it seems to me wise for us to start and consider now how, with the exception of wheat, and possibly a few other products, the output of our agricultural industry can be largely consumed at home.
True, over the years the population of Canada will increase and steps are being taken along that line now. But what we are interested in at the moment is not something that is going to take place ten years, twenty years, thirty years or forty years from now, but something that will take place shortly. It is true that our population may be 40 million people fifty years from now, but that is not going to answer the questions confronting us at the moment. We should direct our attention now to the possibilities ahead in the field of speeded-up research to find industrial uses for Canadian agricultural products. During the last ten years we have experienced a tremendous increase of industrialization in Canada. The demand for raw materials for industry has increased to a point that would not have been imagined ten years ago. Most of these raw materials came, of course, originally from the soil. It is quite true that climatic conditions in this country prevent many of these raw materials from ever being produced in Canada. Nevertheless, the fact remains that that quantity of raw materials needed by industry could be produced by the primary producers of this country if the facts were properly made known to them. In other words, some of the land area of this country, now devoted to the production of food products, of which there is at present a surplus supply, could profitably be directed to the production of new and different crops for which available home markets do or could exist in Canada.
The reasoning behind this proposal is very simple. All over the earth man cultivates only about 1,500 species of plants. Botanists have already named over 300,000 species. In the United States, where great strides are being made to find industrial uses for agricultural productive capacity, the commercial agricultural production of that nation
Supply-Agriculture
comes from fewer than 300 species of plants and by far the most of it from fewer than 30 species, notwithstanding the fact that there are over 15,000 kinds of plants native to North America north of the Gulf of Mexico.
It is quite understandable that in the past man cultivated only a few species of plants because until the last century man was pretty well limited by what he was able to handle and utilize. Today, however, engineering science has provided machines to do work previously considered impossible and chemists have given us the means to convert various kinds of plant material into useful commodities previously unknown. Examples of this are many and obvious. But, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is running short and I do not think T will take up the time of the committee to go into the long list of examples I have here. In this country no real effort has yet been extended towards any systematic examination of species of plants that will grow in this country to determine their inherent chemical composition and potential uses.
In industry today we do not need more production of those things we now have in surplus supply and for which there appears to be no immediate export market available. But we do need more effort expended to find out how much more of the raw materials used in industry we could and should produce on the farms of this country.
I believe that this question should become a matter of study and consideration by every farm organization in Canada. Certainly, speeded-up research at government levels to find out new and profitable uses for agricultural production should be provided at once. By such action the, shall I say, productive might of the agricultural economy of this country can be directed in the way of producing those things for which available markets exist in the immediate foreseeable future.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I would like to ask related to a matter I brought up last Tuesday and which caused some discussion. I want the minister to settle the matter and I think this is the only item under which I can bring the matter up. It deals with the food and agriculture organization. The minister, when he spoke on Tuesday, made it clear that he thought I had gone out of my way to try to discredit or misrepresent him on this matter. I want to make it absolutely clear to the minister that he is quite wrong in this and that there was nothing further from my mind. I have always had a very high appreciation of the work the minister has done in the interests of western Canada. I have expressed that appreciation in the house

Supply-Agriculture
and also in the constituency which I represent. But that is not to say I am not to be allowed to criticize certain policies tor which the minister is responsible, and I try to do that in a fair manner.
I want to say a few words regarding the point he raised. When I spoke last on this subject I pointed out that the minister had always supported the policies of Sir John Boyd Orr, and then I went on to point out the origin of the work the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had done, and the work the international federation of agricultural producers had done, and then I pointed out what had been done by the body of six experts appointed by the FAO council and that their proposals had nothing to do with Sir John Boyd Orr.
I then pointed out that the minister had opposed them and I said the minister voted against their proposals. That is where the minister challenged me and that is where some statements were made that had perhaps better not have been made. I thought I was being absolutely correct when I made that statement and I think I can prove I am correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: What are you trying to prove as being correct? You quoted me as saying I had voted against it.


Victor Quelch: Merely that I was not the one who induced the minister to make the statement he did. I quoted the minister as saying he had voted against the international commodity clearing house. The minister in his speech said he was wrong in making that statement; but I was hardly responsible for that, and I did not induce the minister to make that statement. What led me to say that the minister had voted against it was the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture on previous occasions. It is not the first time the minister has stated in this house that he voted against it. Right back to 1951 the minister has been making statements of that kind, and just to make absolutely clear to the minister what he has said I will quote part of his speech as reported at page 2086 of Hansard for December 17, 1951, when the matter was under discussion. I hope the minister is not going to criticize me for not quoting his entire speech. The minister made a rather long and rambling speech on that occasion, but I will just quote part of what he said regarding this matter:
All Canada ever did in the matter was to say that it would be an impossible position for Canada to head a group of nations who would find it impossible to finance such a proposition, so Canada could not vote for something she could not possibly carry out. Canada voted against that.

That is why I jumped to the conclusion I did, though the minister has now made it clear that no vote was taken; so I will not repeat the statement that the minister voted against it.
Since then I have had an opportunity of going into the report of the council and while it is clear that no vote was taken it is nevertheless clear that the proposal was rejected. The minister in his speech from which I just quoted did say that he voted against it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not.


Victor Quelch: His position at that time was that he was not going to be put in a position of supporting a proposal if that proposal was not going to be supported by the other nations, because if he did that Canada would be left holding the bag with the other nations refusing to support her. That may be a good reason. But, on the other hand, suppose the other nations had taken that attitude and said they were not going to support it because the other nations were not supporting it, and "we do not want to be left holding the bag". But that is not the reason given by the report of the conference.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just ask the hon. member to correct a statement he has just made. A moment ago he said he was not going to say any more that I voted against this, but in his second subsequent sentence he repeated the assertion again that I did vote against it.


Victor Quelch: No, I am merely quoting the minister as to what he said at that time and as to why I said he voted against it. I am not saying now that he voted against it. I have quoted the reasons given by the minister three years ago and I took it from that that he voted against it because he said that Canada was not going to be left holding the bag.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just check Hansard and you will find that what I said a moment ago is correct.


Victor Quelch: That is not the reason given in the report of the conference.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 pun.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, before the lunch recess I had been referring to the international commodity clearing house and the fact that when the food and agriculture

organization conference in 1949-50 rejected the proposal of an international commodity clearing house-and let me point out that, when I say that, I am quoting the exact words of the director general in his report for 1949-50-a committee on commodity problems was set up or was appointed. I was especially interested in an article in the March, 1954, issue of Memo which is an FAO publication. The heading is "Special Measures to Dispose of Farm Surpluses Suggested". I will just quote a short paragraph:
The long-term solution to the problem of food and other farm surpluses lies in increased consumption through higher incomes and the increased demand that will result from the growth of population. A selective expansion of production and the adaptation of farm production to changing needs must also operate in the solution.
In the short-term, however, there is great need for specific action to dispose of existing supplies and to prevent new surpluses from accumulating.
This was the finding of the 8-nation working party on agricultural surpluses which met in Washington from February 23 to March 18 to explore all possible ways of dealing with the current surplus problem.
The working party urged that governments give special consideration to these five methods of surplus disposal: . . .
Then it gives the five proposals, three of which are as follows: Sales on concessional terms for three different purposes; second, sales against importers' currencies, to be used for special purposes; and third, holdings, or segregation, of stocks. I suppose it could be argued that we have already put into practice some of these proposals. We are doing some of these things today. Especially interesting is proposal No. 2. I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce sitting there. He has already expressed, I would say, almost contempt for the suggestion that anything could be accomplished by accepting other nations' currencies in payment for our surpluses. But I see that this is a recommendation that has now been made by the eight nations, and I think that Canada is one of those nations to put forward this proposal. I am therefore interested in knowing whether or not the Canadian government endorses these proposals. Personally, I think they are fine suggestions.
It is interesting to note that the United States were putting into practice the second suggestion back in 1951 under the security act and that now, under the new proposal they are making, they are proposing to go a great deal further; that is, they are proposing to accept foreign currencies and to use them not merely for the purpose of building up nations' defences but for a wide variety of purposes. If the United States are prepared
Supply-A griculture
to sell their goods on that basis, it seems to me that it is going to put us in a difficult position if we refuse to do likewise. The question I should like to ask the minister is this. Just how is a report of that kind dealt with? Will that be considered and be either accepted or rejected by a vote in the agricultural conference, or is it just a series of proposals made to the member nations, leaving it up to each individual nation to decide whether or not they want to act on those proposals, either in part or in whole, independently of one another? The minister might answer that question at his convenience.
I should now like to raise one other question which is also related to farm products, but is of an internal character. As the minister knows, there is in western Canada today a great deal of interest in the subject of marketing boards. The minister knows that in Alberta the enabling legislation was not passed largely because the government apparently was not at all sure that the farmers were in favour of such action. However, I understand that this summer a large series of meetings will be held and that an attempt will be made to get the farmers to indicate whether or not they are in favour of marketing board legislation or rather enabling legislation. If the farmers express an opinion that such action should be taken, I believe that probably a plebiscite will be taken, and provided a majority of the farmers vote in favour of the proposal, then I suppose that enabling legislation will be put into operation.
That being the situation, I can envisage that when I get back home, if I am attending any of these meetings, I am going to be asked a number of questions. I should like to get a little bit of information from the Minister of Agriculture so as to try to make sure that my answers will be correct. In the first place, am I correct in believing that, if these boards are set up, they will be entitled to a guaranteed initial payment up to possibly 80 per cent of the average price of the past three years? I believe the act provides for 80 per cent, although I understand the general practice is to make the initial guarantee up to 60 per cent. Furthermore, would they be entitled to a support price under the Agricultural Prices Support Act if the price of commodities falls to the level set by the formula under the Agricultural Prices Support Act? In that connection, is the formula that the minister explained to the house a year or so ago still in operation? Is the support price under the Agricultural Prices Support Act based upon the three base years, 1943, 1944 and 1945? If I could get an

Supply-Agriculture
answer to those questions, I think it would help a number of us in dealing with this question when we get back home.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Macdonnell:: No, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to ask one or two questions of the minister with regard to professional services. There is a scientific service and an economic service. Let me say this at the outset. Although I am lamentably ignorant about science, I believe I know enough to know how important a part it plays in agricultural production. For example, my friend the hon. member for Huron this morning was pointing out to me that in his part of the world there is a blight on the cedar trees at the moment and that investigations will be going on with a view to discovering the cause and finding a cure. My question is merely this. I do not mean to suggest for a moment that there needs to be less work done. I want to ask whether there is any danger of such a thing as overlapping. We all know that people become enthusiastic in what they are doing and wish to expand their operations. To show what I mean I shall read just a sentence or two from the annual report of the director of science service for the year ended March 31, 1953, which I think is the last year for which a report is available. This is what he says:
. . . but greatly improved laboratory facilities and more highly trained staff have resulted in a much healthier balance between applied and fundamental work. The amount of scientific work completed, during the year under review, is recorded by means of the lists of published research papers, numbering 284, at the end of this report. The value of a more comprehensive and scientific approach to economic problems is becoming increasingly apparent in the amount and quality of the applied phases of the work.
During the year five new, modern and well equipped laboratories have been completed.
And so on. I have here also the report of the minister with a list of publications. I will read just two or three of the names: "Studies on the Treatment of Contaminated Combs and Honey with High Velocity Electrons". I have no doubt that the hon. member for Middlesex East will know all about that and will be making full use of it. There are other reports listed here, and I come to one with a name so long that I can only take a run at it. It is called, as far as I can pronounce it, "the nonmutagenic action of p-p'-DDT and y-hexachlorocyclohexane". I have no doubt the minister knows all about that. I am only mentioning it to ask two questions. First of all, how is the distribution of a thing like that arranged? Second, and much more important, I want to ask this question. I have already referred to the great expansion of

the minister's department, and I have said in the house before that any man worth his oats in any job seeks to expand his department. He would not be worth his oats if he did not do so. There are various scientific agencies throughout the dominion. We have the universities and various provincial organizations, and I should like to ask the minister this question. When some new scientific work has to be done-and let me repeat that I believe in this work fully-is any attempt made to take stock of the situation and to allocate the work among the various research bodies that are capable of doing it, or is there a danger that when we have this healthy and growing organization it grows just because it likes to grow and without full account taken of the various organizations which are engaged in this kind of work? I would be glad if the minister would answer that when he speaks. I would be glad to know more about the number of scientists and whether full account is taken, in a discriminating way, of the amount of assistance which can be obtained from outside the department.
I also want to raise some question with regard to the economists. If my memory serves me correctly, there are 55 economists in the department. As I pointed out, there are really 56 because the minister is an economist too. I have here a list, which I do not propose to read, of publications of the economics division, and there again I want to raise the same question. It often occurs to me that there are two ways of looking at expenditures. One way is: Will the expenditure serve a useful purpose? The second is: Can we do without it?
We undoubtedly and naturally have been going through a period of high activity, of high government income and high productivity, and I think it would be almost inevitable that the test of public expenditure which has been applied pretty definitely is: Can we make any use of it? Will it give any good result? My question is whether the need which constantly faces us of trying not to let our expenditures get away from us-and we certainly have high taxes from which many people suffer-is having any effect on the professional services maintained by the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question raised by the last speaker is one which I have referred to two or three times since eleven o'clock. I have said that the answers to this question will come on the items either of science service or experimental farms. The work is being carried on in those two sections.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not mean to ask the minister to do it now.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was hoping he did not expect me to. I think two of the speakers who have spoken so far today, the first one and the last one before the hon. member took the floor, raised general questions which there probably was not much opportunity to discuss on the items. But the others were questions which I think could be much better dealt with on the items and I do not think I should proceed to answer them now and make remarks with regard to something which will be discussed a little later on. I hope that the general item can be passed now and that we can get to the other items and discuss them quite fully.


Mr. Zaplitny:: I have a question to ask which deals with policy rather than administration, and I believe this is the proper place to discuss it. When the minister is replying to the question asked by the hon. member for Acadia I should also like him to indicate the procedure followed under the co-operative marketing act with respect to the agreements between the federal government and the boards as to setting the initial price, so that it may be on record.
The other matter to which I want to refer very briefly is the question of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I have had some correspondence with the minister on that subject, and as recently as the 9th of June I had a reply to one of my letters in which the minister indicated that it is not the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session to widen or amend the act in order to make it apply to a greater area than at the present time. In that letter reference is also made to the fact that it would not be wise to do so until agreement has been reached between the federal and provincial governments regarding financing in general.
That is the particular question I should like to have cleared up. I should like to know what agreement the minister has in mind and whether any negotiations are being carried on now between the provinces and his department with respect to the act and financing in general or are contemplated in the near future. I should also like to know whether any representations have been made to his department more recently than the ones emanating from the conference of the four western ministers of agriculture roughly six weeks or two months ago where it was unanimously recommended that the provisions of the act be made applicable to all agricultural areas of the four western provinces.
I could go into detail a great deal more but I will refrain from doing so in the interests of getting the explanation from the minister
Supply-Agriculture
that much sooner. As the minister is no doubt quite aware, the situation in many parts of Manitoba, particularly in the area which I represent, is almost as serious, judging from press reports, as it was last year. Farmers of that area who suffered almost a total loss last year are facing the same situation this year on account of the flood waters. I realize that not all these difficulties can be cleared up by projects under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act but a great deal could be done. It now appears quite clear that this is not something that happens only once in twenty or twenty-five years. It has been happening with greater regularity, and in recent years it seems to be snowballing.
There are reasons for that. One reason is the greater amount of precipitation, but there are others, and I hope that the minister can indicate that at least plans are going forward and negotiations are being held or are contemplated for this year in order that something may be done at the next session of parliament to widen the provisions of the act to include a greater proportion of the three prairie provinces. We certainly appreciate the work that has been done under the agreements between the provinces, municipalities and the federal government since about 1948. They have been of a great deal of benefit but, as I have pointed out to the minister before, the weakness of these agreements lies in the fact that the weakest link is the municipality. The assistance is based on what the individual municipality can contribute as its share of the total cost of the project. Unfortunately some municipalities which have the greatest difficulties in connection with flood waters are the least able to provide any funds. As a result there is a very severe limitation on what can be done under these agreements. I hope that the minister will clear up this question in replying to the general questions asked.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to emphasize again that I am sure it is not fair to other members for me to discuss this question at this stage. The two items to which there has been particular reference are P.F.R.A. and marketing, and they are both provided for in the estimates. There may be members who are not in the house at the moment, but who expect to be here when those items are considered. It would not be fair for me to start answering questions, and to discuss those items, without those members here, because we would probably have to go back over it all again. I am quite prepared to discuss them fully when we get to the item but I wish you would let us get to the item.

Supply-Agriculture


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That suits me fine; I am not insisting that the minister answer these questions now, but I did indicate that these questions having to do with policy rather than administration should be asked now.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the item we are discussing is administration. Questions concerning policy with regard to the different items should be asked when those items are being considered.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: My understanding is a little different. We are dealing with general agricultural policy under the item of administration. I recall that in previous years when we attempted to discuss that general policy under a particular item, we were told it should have been raised on the general administration item. However, I shall not quibble about it now if the minister is willing to answer later.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I wanted to add my five cents' worth to this debate on agriculture. I was greatly impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Queens this morning, when he referred to the various claims that could be proven by statistics. One of the questions that I asked, and that he failed to answer, was who was the author of that book on statistics. I believe if I asked the farmers and my constituents, nine out of ten of them would answer that the Minister of Agriculture was the author, and he would probably take that as a compliment.
You can quote all the statistics you like, but if you go back to the farmers and ask them if they are as well off as the minister would lead them to believe they are, they will vehemently deny it. Of course, I suppose there is a certain amount of logic to that. There is no other business in the country that judges its progress on a gross income basis, and no matter how much the gross value of agricultural products may be, the cost of production is the factor that decides whether or not at the end of the year you operate at a profit or a loss. Statistics have proven that the income of the farmer has gone down some 24 per cent, and his cost of production has gone up at least 3 per cent or 4 per cent. How he can be better off than he was in other years under those conditions is more than I can understand.
There are two or three things that I am going to mention that will indicate why many industries today find themselves operating on short time or with a lesser number of employees. I do not need to go out of my own county to point that out. One day last week I was in Strathroy. I understand that one of the factories there is operating only two days a week. No doubt the employees in that

small plant have a lot less money to spend; and consequently, whether it is automobiles, clothing or food on which they spend that money, they are spending less. There are some other factors that indicate just why there is not as much money being spent. The reports of the dominion bureau of statistics on carloadings indicate that they are down considerably. I do not know that I really need to go into that, because I believe the house and the minister understand the situation. The report ending March 31, 1954, showing the cumulative totals for the first quarter of the year, indicates a 10-2 per cent drop.
The principal source of the decline in the three months total loadings are: grain, down 39,000 carloads; lumber, timber and plywood, down 6,400 carloads. In so far as commodities moving in less than carload lots are concerned, the number of carloadings of these mixed item's is down 20,000 carloads from the total of a year ago for the same period. There were 173,176 cars loaded in the three-month period a year previous, and this year for the same period the loadings are down 20,700 from that figure. I believe that indicates, just as well as anything that can be used, the present situation because that is a barometer of the business of the country.
Then, another alarming feature is the fact that imports from foreign countries are up while exports are down. Every time we buy something from abroad we hire a labourer in that foreign country to produce that article. While we have unemployment here in a good many industries, we have become so tied up with our international trade relations that countries with depreciated currencies are able to produce these goods and sell them in the Canadian market much more cheaply than we can. These nations are anxious to get into the Canadian market because of its dollar values.
Another factor that has not helped us has been the fact the United States has not lived up to its commitments so far as GATT is concerned. I am not going to go into the details of that. The United States dollar policy has certainly been detrimental so far as the sale of Canadian farm products in the world export markets is concerned. Along with this dollar policy, the practice of extending credit to nations in Europe that are in need of these goods has meant those nations will buy in the United States in preference to buying in Canada. Another indication of the trend of events is the number of commercial failures in Canada. I am not going to go into that, but the percentage is up.
Last Wednesday I asked the minister a question concerning the establishment of a floor price for Ontario wheat. I am going to

read the minister's answer. I am quoting from page 6049 of Hansard for June 16, 1954, where the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing done under the wheat board in connection with that price. The price in that regard is set otherwise.
For some time now we have listened to a debate on western wheat. All of the Ontario winter wheat buyers know quite well the wheat board, as the minister said, has nothing to do with the setting of the price for Ontario wheat. I have here a clipping from the Chatham Daily News of July 21, 1950. The parliamentary assistant will remember a meeting held at that time when it looked as though the price of Ontario grown winter wheat would decline from $1.90 to $1.60. There was quite a protest meeting and some suggestions were made as to what should be done to protect the farmer from a considerable drop in price. The price drop at that time was about 30 cents a bushel. Up until recently the price of winter wheat was ranging around $1.55. On Monday of this week I was speaking to one of the grain buyers in my county and he advised me that, so far as he could ascertain at the moment, the opening price would be somewhere around $1.25. Today I again telegraphed to some of the buyers, but so far have had no reply from them. That indicates, anyway, the thinking of the grain trade.
When we are dealing with the price of wheat I just wish to point out, as some of the other members did, that while the consumer thinks the price of food is high, he very often does not realize the percentage of the food dollar that actually goes to the producer. What I am about to quote is taken from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal. Dealing with the food dollar it says:
The farmer's share of a 14-cent loaf of bread Is 2J cents or 16 cents of every dollar spent on bread.
No doubt there are many other farm products in respect of which the percentage of the consumer's dollar that goes to the producer is higher than it is in connection with bread. Supposing the price this year for eastern grown winter wheat is $1.25, the reduction in price will be about 20 per cent. Is the price of flour ground from that wheat going to drop by 20 per cent? I doubt it very much.
Consequently the class of people in the country who are to take all the squeeze will be the producers, and the consumers will not have any of the benefit. I am afraid of that; and I doubt very much whether the price of pastry, of bread, or of flour will go down by 20 per cent.
Then, I come to another subject that a good many farmers are not too happy about,
Supply-Agriculture
and that is the grading of farm products. I think most of them believe grading has done a good deal to improve the quality of the products they put on the market. Because of grading, in many cases the product goes to the purchaser in better condition, and he receives it in better quality than in years gone by.
However, the objection of many farmers is that the grading does not carry through to the ultimate consumer, although in some lines it carries through better than in others. On the other hand the farmer finds that most of the products he has to buy are not graded. Consequently he has no way of knowing whether the product he is buying is good or not, except by depending on the integrity of the companies manufacturing the product. And hon. members know as well as I do that that varies from time to time.
Many of the things the farmers buy are dumped in this country. We heard something about dumping this morning. I am quite sure many of the products would not be purchased if the country of origin were shown on the manufactured goods dumped in here. I have textiles in mind particularly. I am certain that if they were subjected to the same scrutiny and tests to which farm products are subjected, they would not grade No. 1. Some of the products that are dumped in here are certainly not first quality. That was indicated very clearly the other evening by the hon. member for Kootenay West when he pointed out that government inspectors in the Department of Transport dealing with radio interference were quite prepared to jump on the farmer, the blacksmith or the carpenter whose motor might be causing interference, but they shied away from doing anything with the Kootenay power company. And that happens right down the line.
The inspectors jump on the farmer because he is an individual and does not wish to cause trouble; but so far as the grading of their products is concerned, the big companies are not bothered. Perhaps I might mention two or three items the farmer has to purchase which might be looked into. I would refer particularly to lumber, light bulbs, shoes, work clothes, and particularly some of the feeds and minerals that are sold to farmers. I hope some changes will be made.
I turn to one item of production with which I am familiar, namely honey. I say the grading of honey is not what it should be, and recently there have been some disputes about grades. I know that from three samples taken out of one five-pound pail of honey we got three different reports from three different sources. I know also of two

Supply-Agriculture
different samples taken from a five-pound pail that were sent to the same graders, and two different answers were received back.
Furthermore, many of the farm products today are graded after the farmer has parted with them, and he has no chance in the world of disputing or questioning the grader's report. Consequently, he finds himself in a very bad bargaining position. I shall not say any more about that because I produce honey, and some persons might think that I was trying to use some influence in respect of a product in which I am particularly interested. So I will drop the subject right there.
I have made reference to an article appearing in the Chatham News. I shall not review the whole of it, but it discusses floor prices. To the great majority of Canadian farmers the administration of the floor price program promised in 1945 has been a disappointment and a dismal failure. Whether or not we agree with the principle, so far as the farmer is concerned that program has not lived up to expectations.
I have here an article from the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Grower entitled "Who Gets the Consumer's Dollar?". I am not going to take too much of the time of the committee, but I would point out that from a 20-ounce tin of tomato juice selling for 12J cents the farmer gets only 1-8 cents. So that the farmer can scarcely be blamed for the high cost of food.
Recently when the standing committee on agriculture met we had a most interesting talk from Dr. Dimmock of that department in which he dealt with soybeans. I believe the committee appreciated what he had to say, and that a good deal of useful information was gained. In previous years when there were only one or two buyers and processors of soybeans, the growers in western Ontario, particularly those in southwestern Ontario, had difficulty in getting their crop to market because, as was pointed out, they were all harvested in a very short space of time, freight cars were not available, and they had difficulty in unloading at Toronto.
I wish to point out to the committee and to farmers in general that in this past year when an independent grain company engaged in the buying of soybeans, loading them on a boat at Port Stanley, no difficulty was encountered so far as freight-car, grading or unloading facilities at Toronto were concerned. That just goes to show what can happen when there is a bit of competition in any business. It livens it up and gives to the seller a better market at a higher price. I am pretty certain in my own mind that
[Mr. White (Middlesex East) .1
the farmers in that area stood to gain anywhere from 20 cents to 30 cents a bushel because of the competition that developed at that time. That same company is expanding its facilities at the port, and is planning to export not only soybeans but corn and wheat. A lot has been said about the part that the soybean growers association took in the marketing of that crop, but a lot of credit should be given to this private grain company which developed the market overseas and are proceeding to develop it further. We shall have a competitive market for that farm product in southwestern Ontario.
I just happened to mention the grading of lumber. I hold in my hand the Ottawa Journal of May 26 of this year. It says: "White pine grading studied by dealers". The story goes on to say that one of the firms today was trying to educate its dealers across the country in the proper grading of its products. That is one reason I mentioned the grading of the things the farmer has to buy.
In conclusion, may I say I have a Canadian Press dispatch which is headed: "Government unworried over lost markets, Gardiner". Perhaps he is not, and perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not, but every farmer in the land is worried and I hope that the government will do something about it.


Mr. Blackmore:: Just to make sure that I shall be in order on a certain item I should like to ask the minister whether or not I would be in order under item 21, or under some other item, to discuss two questions that are of vital importance to us today in Canada. The first one is whether or not the minister has a policy in respect to the expanding or contracting of production of various agricultural products for the production of which Canada is fitted; whether he has any plan in determining whether or not we are going to limit the production of wheat or any other commodity, or expand the production of certain commodities. Second, whether he has any policy in respect to storing any particular kind or kinds of non-perishable commodities such as beans, corn and the like. Would I be in order if I asked those questions under item 21?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the hon. member would be in order in discussing it under production, or certain features of it under marketing, and they are items still to come.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3. Advisory committee on agricultural services, $5,000.
Mr. Charlton:: Can the minister tell us how many meetings have been held by this advisory committee in the past year?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have two meetings a year, and two meetings have been held within the last twelve months.


John Alpheus Charlton: Two meetings each year?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the general practice, and if they want more we have more.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4. Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux in a total amount of £43,959, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1954, which is, $120,393.
John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister tell us whether this commonwealth agricultural bureau has anything to do with the FAO organization, or is connected with that organization in any way?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it has nothing to do with FAO. This has been in existence for a long time and was in existence before there was any FAO, and is still operating.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister give us an idea just what this particular organization has done for us during the last year and what it is contemplated it will do for us next year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The general position is that there is a bureau set up that operates from Britain, and the different parts of the commonwealth contribute all the information that they have to that bureau, and when we want to get information with regard to what is going on in other parts of the empire we can get it there, and others who need it can get our information there. This bureau operates for all of us.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there any thought of co-ordinating the efforts of the various members of the empire or the commonwealth?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the way it is done now. They are co-ordinated into this bureau, which has a central office. We all co-operate by putting our information there so that they can all get it.


John Horne Blackmore: In what way have we actually co-ordinated our efforts in regard to certain commodities, for example, wheat or butter or cheese? Have we actually co-ordinated those efforts? If so, how comes it about that Australia and Canada are competing with each other in cutting the price of wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have all been considered, but wheat is probably an item that is more immediately to be considered by the council which is meeting over in Britain, which has under consideration that very matter. They probably will give more consideration to it than this particular bureau, but this
Supply-Agriculture
bureau gathers information with regard to fighting parasites, fighting rust, for example, which affects wheat, and all that kind of thing, and making any information there is available to all parties.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
6.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,514,806.
Mr. Harkness:: Can the minister tell us what is contemplated this year along the line of the construction of new buildings, works and so forth for scientific purposes of the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister was answering something in connection with item No. 4 about which we have not yet asked. What I asked was for the construction under item No. 6 which is the item we are on at the present time. There is an expenditure under this item of $1,514,000, and in fact it is down about $250,000 from last year. I was wondering what construction is being provided under this item.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is quite a long list here and I do not know exactly what my hon. friend wants to know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not really want the entire list. I wondered if there were any new laboratories being built which would assist our services materially.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are some items on which we still have to spend money. There is only one new building included in this item which is being built at Winnipeg. What I think my hon. friend has in mind is the situation at Lethbridge, which I know he has discussed on a number of occasions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I was interested in that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that has now been completed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But, Mr. Chairman, there is no breakdown given here and all we have is the bulk item. It seems quite a lot of money and I thought that perhaps new buildings, laboratories, and things of that sort were being undertaken by the department. Apparently this is for additions and things of that sort.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I had better read the details so that you will have a general idea. At Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, under item 12, there is an extension to be made to the pumphouse at Upton farm, and reconstruction of a temporary header-house adjoining potato indexing greenhouse. Then the paving of a roadway, and a parking area at the new laboratory building. The

cost of these items will be $12,000. Then at Kentville, Nova Scotia, there is a new item of $22,000. This item provides for the construction of a greenhouse at this location. A new laboratory building, headerhouse and one greenhouse were erected at this establishment over a period of three years and it is considered that with the addition of one more greenhouse, the requirements at Kentville will be adequately met for the next few years. Then there is an item with regard to Fredericton for a new modern science service laboratory and other items at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Quebec city, St. Jean, Ottawa, Belleville, Ontario, London, Ontario, Harrow, Ontario, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Lethbridge, Alberta, and the acquisition of equipment $75,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister say what is being done at Lethbridge this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: At Lethbridge there is an amount of $48,300 dealing with a feeder shed required to conduct a program of experimental livestock insect control. The procedure will involve a considerable number of livestock which must be maintained on laboratory grounds under specific conditions that are subject to manipulation according to experimental design. Then there is an item covering the construction of a direct road between the main buildings at Lethbridge and the livestock insect establishment. That amounts to $5,000. Then there are miscellaneous items amounting to $1,300 providing for automatic power vents to greenhouses and complete screening of living suites.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to give some details of the expenditure at the new science service laboratory at London, Ontario. Are there any new experiments and research being undertaken there and any extension of the present buildings or additions to the staff?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I had better just read the item and give the hon. member the information in that manner. At London, Ontario, there is a revote of $20,000 and a continuation of $42,500, making a total of $62,500. An amount of $55,000 is required to complete plant growth chambers, construction of which was commenced in 1952-53. A total of $215,000 was provided during the current year, that is 1953-54, for this project. Of this amount, $50,000 was a revote of 1952-53 funds, the entire amount provided in that year. It is estimated that $20,000 will remain unexpended at the end of the current year, 1953-54, and a revote of this amount, together with an additional $35,000, will be

required to complete the work. The installation is extremely delicate and complicated and has presented difficult engineering problems as construction work proceeded. Most of these problems have now been solved and it is considered that the research results will more than justify the capital outlay. The remaining $7,500 is for the purpose of completing benching and cupboard work in 17 rooms of the main building and in the new headerhouse.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
7.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $213,395.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Can the minister explain the expenditure under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: The chief functions of this division are carried out chiefly in co-operation with the experimental farm service and science division of the service. They deal with the dairy bacteriological pure milk production development, and economic methods for maintaining milk quality; also the problems of manufacturing butter and cheese; control of defects in commercial products such as butter, cheese, milk, and powder, and methods for the evaluation of quality in milk dairy products.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would that have anything to do with the equipment the dairy men have been forced to put in recently to take care of the milk before delivery?


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that this comes under the control of the milk board and they are, of course, provincial, as my hon. friend knows.


Mr. Yuill:: I would like to ask the minister a question in regard to what research has been made in combating Bang's disease within the last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if my hon. friend would wait until we get down to the production services and the health of animals?


Charles Yuill: Which item is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Item No. 24.


John Alpheus Charlton: What developments have there been in determining whether butter had been adulterated with vegetable oil products? There was some difficulty about that last year and perhaps the minister can tell us the latest developments.


James Garfield Gardiner: That method has been developed in the health department and is applied by them. Of course they make
Supply-Agriculture
investigations on our account also. But they are able now to determine whether or not there is vegetable oil in butter.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is carried on under the food and drug section? Part of the experimental work would be carried on there, would it not, with regard to the tests?


James Garfield Gardiner: The food and drug section of the health department-not the health of animals but the health department-under the Minister of National Health and Welfare work together on the matter.


John Alpheus Charlton: Quite rightly.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have discovered some cases in which an attempt was made-and carried out, as a matter of fact-to mix vegetable oils with butterfat and to produce what they called butter. We have had some difficulties in connection with the matter.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Are they able to detect whether butter has been adulterated with margarine or has been mixed with margarine?


James Garfield Gardiner: Margarine, of course, is made from vegetable oils largely and they can detect the vegetable oil content.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Botany and plant pathology-
8.	Operation and maintenance, $1,403,534.
John Horne Blackmore: Under this item, would the minister care to discuss the progress being made with respect to stem rust in sunflowers? I understand there are one or two varieties of rusts which have done considerable damage to sunflower culture in Canada, especially in Manitoba.


James Garfield Gardiner: Epidemiology, and varietal susceptibility studies of downy mildew of sunflower are being conducted at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere to determine the means of dissemination of the causal fungus and the relative resistance of different host strains.
In Manitoba, the peak sunflower acreage of 60,000 acres in 1949 was reduced to 5,000 acres in 1953 because of severe losses from rust and, to a lesser extent, from unfavourable growing conditions in some of the intervening years. The most promising solution of the rust problem consists in the breeding of rust resistant varieties, which has recently been undertaken at the Morden experimental station. Assistance given to this work involves the testing of numerous varieties and new hybrids for reaction to rust and, furthermore, a study of the rust organism to determine to what degree specialization

Supply-Agriculture
for pathogenicity exists in it. Studies thus far carried out indicate that most varieties are susceptible in early stages of growth but that a few develop some resistance in later growth stages. No evidence has yet been found for specialization in pathogenicity within the rust.
Plant disease surveys have shown that Sclerotinia wilt occurs throughout the sunflower area and is severe in occasional fields. All varieties appear to be susceptible to this disease but a considerable measure of control can be obtained through suitable cultural practices and appropriate crop rotation. Several other diseases have been found but none of them is of economic importance at present.
I will see to it that this item gets into the hands of Hansard. The words will be correct when they are in Hansard even if I have not pronounced them correctly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I could at least spell
them.


Mr. Hansell:: I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to the production and distribution of the new Selkirk wheat. I have had some complaints about the distribution.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would my hon. friend wait until we get to experimental farms?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest biology-
13. Operation and maintenance, $1,923,859.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would this item have anything to do with trying to find out about the blight or disease in cedar trees that is prevalent this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It will include that.
That work will be carried on there.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister tell us
something about this new insect that is bothering Scotch pine?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Give us the name first.


James Garfield Gardiner: Can the hon. member tell
us by name what the insect is?


John Alpheus Charlton: There are a great many
people who wish they knew what it was and how to stop it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a little bit difficult to
find it in the book here without the name because we have it indexed only according to names. I am told by the officials that an investigation is being carried on with regard to it. However, the results up to the moment are not such that we are able to give anything very definite with regard to it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister explain
the purpose of the increase in this vote? Can he tell us what work it is being expended on?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is an increase of about


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: On page 87 of the estimates, of which the hon. member no doubt has a copy, he will find the items given there. There is quite a long list of them. I do not know that I need read them. There is only one increase in the personnel.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is any particular new project being undertaken which causes the increase?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will read what it says
here. The over-all increase in this vote amounts to 8 per cent and can be attributed to the normal increase in salaries, material costs and travel. Some expansion work on projects has taken place but generally speaking such expansion has been as a result of more efficient use of present facilities and an increase in capital assets provided under other votes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15.	Plant protection, $838,448.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will the minister explain
some of the work carried on under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: The chief part of the work is the checking of everything that comes into the country in order to prevent the entry of plant diseases along with the plants that are being imported. It has to do with the difficulty with which we are all familiar that we have when we come to the Canadian boundary after making a trip to the United States. We may buy some vegetables or fruits while we are in that country, and when we come to the boundary line we cannot understand why we have to eat all of the product if we want it at all rather than bring it into the country. That is a constant trouble with us all, but the greater part of the work has to do with that operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service-
16.	Experimental farms service administration, $181,201.
Mr. Decore:: I should like to draw a matter to the minister's attention which I have raised on the floor of the house on previous occasions from time to time. I hope in bringing it to his attention now my persistence will not be regarded as a nuisance. I refer to the need in the northeastern part of Alberta for an experimental farm, experimental substation,

or whatever you wish to call it, but some type of project which, combined with research, experimentation and demonstration, would assist the farmers in helping to solve their farm problems.
The minister will recall that he paid a courtesy call to the Vegreville constituency over a year ago. He will remember that at that time various delegations from miles and miles around made representations to the minister with respect to the need for such a project in that area. Generally speaking, we in western Canada have to contend with the cost of production. We are situated far from the markets. We have the problem of the cost of transportation. Therefore it is imperative that the cost of production be minimized so far as the farmer is concerned if he is to remain in business.
With regard to my constituency or northeastern Alberta generally, I should like to point out to the minister, and I think he is aware of the fact, that it is an area where the people engage in very extensive mixed farming. Time and time again, year after year, farmers from that area have received recognition in international fairs for their cattle exhibits and their grain. Year after year they have received world recognition by winning the oats championship or the barley championship. Just last year a farmer not very far from Vegreville received such recognition.
As I say, that area is definitely interested in mixed farming and there is a need for this type of thing. The reason I bring this matter to the minister's attention again is that the nearest establishment of this type is at La-combe which, for most of the farmers in my area, is more than 200 miles away. The Lacombe experimental farm is doing very useful work, but for many farmers it is difficult to go that far in order to be able to see on the spot what is going on. Therefore I hope that the minister has given this matter consideration with a view to the establishment of some such project in that area. I am not saying that it has to be as big as the Lacombe enterprise. Neither, of course, would I like to see it as small as the demonstration farms. I should like to see something in between, and I am sure that such a project would receive the widest co-operation and support from the farmers of that area and that it would be a success. Has the minister given this matter any consideration?


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member has said, this question was raised last year, I think, when my estimates were being considered, and I believe the year before. The representations made to me when I was in Alberta the summer before last were to the
Supply-Agriculture
effect that they wanted an experimental farm. I had to say to them that we had an experimental farm at Lacombe, another one in the far northern part of Alberta and also two in the southern part, and that it was thought that was about all we required at the present time in order to take care of the situation in so far as experimental farms were concerned. But then it was suggested to me that there should be something in the nature of a demonstration station, as my friend says, although we call them officially illustration stations.
The question has been discussed and the discussions have led to the consideration of where the station should be. I think some agreement has been reached between the people who live in the immediate area referred to and those who live across the river, I believe it is. The soils are somewhat the same, and the question is being considered now as to where a station of that kind might be located. The actual location has not yet been determined but an effort is being made by the officials to locate a place where it can be properly established in order to carry out the activities which are thought to be essential there.


John Decore: Do I understand that the minister has in mind the acquisition of land, or is land going to be rented from some farmer? What has the minister in mind?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have in mind the possibility of having to purchase land in that locality in order to get what is required. The general policy is to rent land, but on this occasion it is thought, after some investigation having been made into the matter, that it may be difficult to get suitable land with a person on it who is prepared to carry on in that way. If that is found to be the case it may be necessary to purchase land and to put someone on it.


John Decore: How much land does the minister have in mind?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member is getting too much into details now. That is a matter which is left largely to the officials to investigate and to make inquiry as to how much they require for what they intend to do.


John Decore: Can the minister say what type of program will be carried on at this project?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not really the minister's job. The question whether there is going to be a station there is. The kind of program which will be carried on will be that which practice has indicated should be carried on with that kind of set-up.


John Alpheus Charlton: Rumours persist, and I have heard them in many places, that there is

Supply-Agriculture
some thought of moving the central experimental farm from Ottawa. Has the department any such idea in mind? Is it considering changing the location of the farm by moving it farther out from the city?


James Garfield Gardiner: No consideration has been given to the possibility of moving the farm. There are people making suggestions all the time, of course. We listen to them, but any suggestions that have been made that anything along that line should be done at an early date have always been replied to in the negative. We do not intend to do that kind of thing. Many people have taken the position that this farm, so far as agriculture is concerned, provides opportunities that no farm in any other place could. There are so many people who come to Ottawa who probably would not go out of the city ten miles to look at an experimental farm, but in this case the farm is right here. These people are told by everybody that it is one of the beauty spots of the area and they go there. If they are farmers, they get a great deal of good out of it. If they are people from urban centres throughout the country they also get a great deal of good out of it. They find there are many things they can learn that they can apply on their own home properties which are very helpful. From that point of view we think the farm is in a good place.
In addition, I find that no matter where I go, whether I am in Europe or in Washington, a great deal of attention has been paid to keeping areas in their natural state. For example, when I go to London and look out over Hyde Park, I wonder why we do not have areas like that in our cities in Canada? The experimental farm in Ottawa is the nearest approach that we could possibly have to that. Even if it becomes necessary at some time to move some of the activities a little farther away, I do not believe that farm should be closed up or eliminated by allowing people to build on the area, or doing anything else with it. I believe it should remain there just as it is now.
I might say that I agreed when the hon. member for Greenwood was speaking that we might deal with his question either under science services or under experimental farms. In answer to his question I want to say that there has been quite a lot of discussion over the years as to whether or not research work in the Department of Agriculture, either under experimental farms or under the sciences, should be carried on by this department or by the research people. Any decisions that were made about it were made before I came here. I do not wish to take any credit for having that work done as an

increased activity on the part of the Department of Agriculture, as was suggested. This decision was made before I came here.
I was on the committee of council for some years that had to do with research. I think I am still on it because of the fact that agricultural research does come into the picture. We have always taken the position that the research work which is of benefit to farmers is better conducted on the experimental farms because the farmers can go there and see the results of it. It is much better to have it done there than to have it at some centre which is controlled by the research council. It is for that reason we have conducted the research out there. We have not thought we were overlapping in doing that kind of thing. We thought it was very necessary that work be done as close to the farmers as we could get it, in order to make it possible for them to see it.
The best illustration I have of what I am trying to say is that I can still remember when I was a boy in Ontario they used to organize trips to the Guelph farm. The hon. member who sits behind you will recall that.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: They still do.


James Garfield Gardiner: The young people of the counties of Huron and Bruce used to go down to the Guelph farm for a day. They used to talk about it from the day they went down until the day they went down there the following year. The older members of the family always encouraged the younger member to go. With that idea in mind, we think it is well to have this research work carried out on the experimental farms in so far as that is possible. Then, the people can see the results of it and go back home and put some of these things into general use to help farming operations. That is the one real reason why we keep the research in the agricultural department. We do not think we are overlapping in a way that is costing the taxpayer too much for the service that is being given.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would not disagree with one word the minister said about doing the work he has described, and which is visited by practising farmers at Guelph and other places. I take it that the pamphlet to which I referred this morning, the name of which neither the minister nor I could pronounce, referred to fundamental research. It does not seem to me the minister's answer covers that at all. I noticed his wording. He referred to research that was being done by them or by the research people in the department and I take it the "them" meant outside agencies or by the research departments of

the provincial departments of agriculture. It seems to me the minister's answer has not covered at all what I understand is correctly described as fundamental research. Just from reading the list from which I took a couple of names this morning, it seemed to me a considerable amount of that was fundamental research, and therefore my question is still unanswered. Is the fundamental research, as well as the special research for this or that problem, being done in the federal Department of Agriculture without regard at all to the possibility of there being other agencies that might do it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, if the hon. member means provincial agencies or those who are operating in connection with our university staffs, that kind of thing, there is every coordination of those services. They have access to everything we do and we have access to everything they do. We work hand in hand in doing that kind of work. If we require something done for which we have not the official or the expert, and one of the universities in Canada has them, then we get in touch with those people. There is co-operation between the two groups. I do not think any overlapping will be found.
Some of these things, like mycology and so on, that have to do with diseases of plants, are dealt with in this research work that is carried on on our experimental farms to show people how to proceed in handling them as a result of the research on that problem.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister's last answer does come exactly on the point to which I was referring. I just want to be sure that this is the position. Can I take it not merely that the department is ready to make use of the research facilities here or there, but that when a bit of research is to be done there is really a definite procedure by which consideration will be given to whether it can be done adequately elsewhere in Canada at the moment? It is so easy to go on adding new facilities and, as I say, building up a department of which a man becomes proud so that he naturally wants to extend it. Can I take it from the minister's answer that there is real co-ordination and co-operation in the sense that when a job is to be done full regard is had as to whether at the moment it can be done anywhere else in Canada adequately?


James Garfield Gardiner: Absolutely; you can take that as absolutely correct. I am not taking credit for it. It has been that way ever since I came here and was built up that way before I came. There is absolute coordination in the work as between the provinces, the universities and ourselves.
Supply-Agriculture
I was down, for example, at Guelph about two weeks ago and the officials out there spent all afternoon taking me around to show me the things that we were helping with and the things upon which they were working along with us. In that connection they impressed on me the importance of seeing that our votes in connection with these matters were kept up to the usual. I quite understand that that farm is not part of the organization of this government, but of the Ontario government, but their officials and ours work hand in hand on all these things. Any money they put into this is spent to good advantage, and what money we put in is spent to good advantage, too.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister's assurance is far-reaching. I can only hope he has not been infected too much by the optimism of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I want to draw the minister's attention to the applause he received a few minutes ago when he intimated the experimental farm at Ottawa would not be made available for subdivision. I think it is a great pity that in the development of Canada we have kept so little park land in our centres. I am sure I speak for every member in the house when I say that the experimental farm at Ottawa is one place that every person who visits Ottawa likes to see, and agrees is a place that should give us a great deal of pride.
The idea has gone abroad that farming is a very prosperous business in Canada, and I believe the minister himself must take some responsibility for creating that impression. I should like to suggest that consideration be given to having the experimental farm service set up a number of experimental farms in the maritimes, in Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia, to demonstrate just how profitable farming is with present costs. I realize that in the past experimental farms have been chiefly concerned with the development of new varieties in a good many fields, and that service has been helpful. Up until now we have not had direct assistance in demonstrating how profitable it is to go into hog production, cattle production or wheat production. It would appear to me that now, when nearly everybody else expects a 40-hour week, the Department of Agriculture should set up some experimental farms and pay reasonable wages on a 40-hour week basis, and demonstrate over a period of five years just how profitable this business of cultivating the land and producing food for the nation can be. Would the minister indicate whether he has considered that proposal, and would be disposed to use some of this appropriation for that purpose.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, we have 228 illustration stations across Canada, some in all the provinces. We have a number oi experimental farms, some in each province. I believe there are four in Saskatchewan and four in Alberta, and others across the country.
It has been argued on the floor of the house-and there is no use my saying it has not been considered, because before I was in the government, some years before, I sat in the gallery and listened to a discussion on the floor of the house in which members were saying that the government of that day should make those experimental farms pay.
I believe, in principle, that any member would give the same answer to that question as was given on the floor of the house at that time, namely, that if you are going to carry on experimental work you defeat the very purpose of the operation as a farm if you pay attention to trying to make it pay. You might try to keep down the cost of carrying out experiments, and that sort of thing, to the point where it would not cost too much. But to try to make it pay a profit would be most difficult.
In connection with our 228 illustration stations our procedure is this: As a rule we go on the farm of a farmer in a district who is known to be a particularly good one. Perhaps in a hundred cases out of a hundred he makes his farm pay. That is, he is known to be able to make his farm pay in the district where he lives-because he is that type of farmer. We go to his farm and rent some of his land. We ask him to do certain things on the land in order to indicate to people the results of experiments we have carried on at the experimental farm.
We have the farmer sow a certain variety of grain, perhaps, and then at a certain season, after the grain has matured, we invite all the people in to see it. Our cereals man would be there-if a cereal were involved- or, if it were livestock, our livestock man would be there. One of those men would go to the farm and invite the neighbouring farmers to come in. He would lecture them right alongside the plot, showing them how everything is done to get certain results. The farmer who has visited the plot will take back home with him the knowledge he has gained from that visit and will apply it in order to help him on his own farm, so as to make it pay.
But I am afraid that if we were to try to demonstrate that we were making a profit from the 10 acres, 20 acres or even 50 acres of which we get control, as part of a farming operation, we might have difficulty.
[Mr. Nicholson.!
I might say in this connection that I had a suggestion made to me one time in Alberta- and I shall not use any names in what I have to say. I was travelling on a train with a certain gentleman who said, "The farmers in Alberta do not like the oil development on their farms." He was one of the oil men himself, and made the suggestion that probably the oil people might be able to gain a little more favour with the farmers if they were to select some of the most successful farmers in the district and help them to demonstrate ways and means in which they had made their farming operations successful.
I must say my reply to that gentleman was that that was exactly what we were trying to do in our illustration stations. I did not know just how it would be looked upon by the farmers themselves, if the oil people were doing it, and my reply was that they would have to find that out. My own view is that the weakness in the system, even as we apply it, is that some people find it difficult to agree that the other fellow is doing a better job than they are. And to the extent that that is true, it is sometimes difficult to have your suggestions applied. Generally speaking, however, it has been pretty successful across Canada, and I do not know that we would want to change it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I do not suggest in any way that what is being done should be discontinued. I think that any effort to make an experimental farm pay, when research work is being undertaken, would be very difficult. But with a fairly large vote, and with an economics branch in the minister's department, I think that department could demonstrate on a half section or a quarter section basis how mixed farming might be undertaken or conducted over a five-year or ten-year period. Profits and losses could be set out carefully, so that people would know exactly what went into the operation by way of land, interest, taxes, wages and the like, so that at the end of the year there would be a balance sheet to indicate how profitable or unprofitable the operation had been.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was done in Saskatchewan. Perhaps I could refer to it, because it does not concern either the government there now or the government of which I was a member when I was there. It was done when the Anderson coalition government held office in Saskatchewan. They selected a number of farms over Saskatchewan, one of which I remember was near Lockwood. I remember it very well, because I was teaching school there when they were homesteading. The land was of a type which, when broken up, would grow some of the finest crops for

two or three years that could be grown anywhere. But it turned out to be comparatively light ground.
The objective they had in going there and buying that farm, one which for three years had paid very well and then had run into financial difficulties, was to see if it could be operated in a way which would make it profitable. I am not sure what is being done on that farm now, but I think most people were convinced that that land could not be operated profitably. Probably it was a good thing to prove that fact. However, there may be less expensive ways of proving it than that-I do not know.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Two years ago I had occasion to visit the experimental farm at Ottawa. Looking at some of the pigs they had out there I must say I do not think I ever saw worse pigs in my life. Perhaps they were experimenting with them, but the impression I got when I left was a very poor one, and I am sure other people who visited there must have gained the same impression. I have not visited the experimental farm for a year or so, but I hope they have a better class of pigs out there now to show the people.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course my hon. friend understands that some years ago it was thought by some members that we should import Landrace hogs, and try them out on the farm. We did that. After they had been there for some time and it had been demonstrated there was no advantage in them over the Yorks, an attempt was made at crossing them. We got certain results by doing that. Then, too, the Chester white was brought there for similar purposes, and there has been a crossing of those. I agree the results we have had are not too good. But it is not doing any harm to anyone, and proof has been found that what some people thought might be helpful was not helpful, and it is being done away with to a certain extent.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It left a very poor impression on visitors, who say, "Those pigs around there!" Anyone who knew anything about pigs certainly would not have them on his place.


Mr. Deslieres:: The minister has said that there are 228 illustration stations throughout the country. Has the department given consideration to the erection of such a station in the eastern townships, particularly in the constituency of Brome-Missisquoi?


James Garfield Gardiner: There do not appear to be any in that county. There is one at Compton. There are some near to it, but none in the county.
Supp ly-A griculture


Joseph-Léon Deslières: There is no question that there should be one. Is the department taking into consideration the erection of such a station in that county?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an experimental farm at Lennoxville, of course, which is not so far away, and there is this illustration station at Compton, and there are some others. The question arises as to whether there is a different type of soil located in other areas over a large enough area that would require another station there. That is the real point.


Edward George McCullough: I join with the hon. member for Mackenzie and the minister himself in their lauding of the beauty of our experimental farm at Ottawa. It certainly is a pleasure and a thrill to go through the grounds over there. However, about two weeks ago I had occasion to visit the farm with one other hon. member. While we were not fortunate enough to see some of the officials there, we went through some of the buildings and saw the hogs they have at the experimental farm. I do not want to be too critical but in looking over the hogs it seemed to me that they would not give one an incentive to go into the production of hogs. The condition of the hogs was very bad. I wonder whether there is a reason for that. Were these hogs being specially fed in an effort to determine something in respect to formula feeding, or is there some other reason for it? This is something that should be looked into. Certainly there was every indication that there was something wrong with the production of hogs over there.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be recalled that some years ago some of us had black hogs, some had red hogs, some had white hogs and so on. I have just forgotten the year when the department undertook to produce one type of hog across this country that would produce a type of bacon that would be satisfactory to Britain.


Edward George McCullough: might interject, I may not have made myself clear. I am not referring to breed. I am referring to physical condition.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming to that, too. Our real work on the farms for many years was developing this type of hog that we now have right across the country. You will scarcely ever see a hog on a farm today that is not a white York. The white York is a different type.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Every Tamworth breeder will be down your neck.


James Garfield Gardiner: You may have the odd Tamworth because you think that his nose is not the same as the York, but most of the

Supply-Agriculture
people have Yorks. These were bred by our experimental staffs on the experimental farms to begin with, and then they were spread all over the country until today we have them everywhere. To come back to the hon. member's point, he says there is nothing there to encourage him to start to raise the particular kind of hog that is there. Well, the particular reason for that is that we have got to a different stage in the experimental work. We are now examining to find out whether cross-breeding will result in a better type of hog than we have at the present time, and that work is being done at the experimental farm here, and on the farm at Lacombe in Alberta. They are trying to cross-breed; they are trying to inbreed them, and as every breeder of stock knows, sometimes you get bad results in inbreeding and sometimes you get an improved line by inbreeding. So far as the hogs are concerned, apparently it is not doing as well as it does in some other types of livestock, cattle for example. That is being found out and as it is being found out, people are being warned against that kind of thing. We do this much better at the experimental farm. We find out the weaknesses as well as the strong points, and that should indicate to farmers what they should not do as well as what they should do. Therefore you will find there some hogs that have been the result of that kind of experimenting that would not encourage the hon. member or any other farmer to get that particular breed for their farms.


Edward George McCullough: May I
be permitted to ask the minister another question in line with the answer I have just received? This question has to do with dwarfism in certain cattle breeds. Is the department doing anything to investigate methods by which that might be controlled or eradicated in the production of beef cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we are doing some investigations on how that can be eliminated and prevented from showing up in herds. I cannot say that I have anything very much to report at the moment. Progeny tests are the means by which it is done.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Under this item I want briefly to bring to the minister's attention the excellent work being done by the Summer-land experimental station which has been operating for many years and has been of great value to the fruit farmers, farmers and livestock people, vegetable growers and so on in the interior of British Columbia. That work is very much appreciated by all the farm organizations, farmers and fruit growers in this area. The Okanagan conditions are

dry land conditions, and are very much similar to those in the North Columbia valley in East Kootenay. I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that in Kootenay West there are different climatic conditions. The minister would know what I was speaking of if I referred to Kootenay West as the Garden of Eden. We have a great variety there, greater rainfall conditions, and they vary over a few miles. Well, the results that have been obtained at Summerland with respect to certain fruits, livestock, legumes and things of that sort are applicable over a wide area. Some of the results cannot be used in Kootenay West because of the different climatic conditions. At the request of the farmers' organizations and fruit organizations in the district I am going to ask the minister whether he would establish two or three illustration stations. I understand they are quite inexpensive. For instance, one in Inonoaklin valley, which is a dairying valley, some twelve or fifteen miles long, for the dairymen in that area, and one say in the Lardeau valley, which is new country opening up, and one in the Kootenay lake area, dealing particularly with fruit-growing conditions, would be of great help.
In recent years newcomers have come into the area, and it is the old story of history being re-lived. They have been spending their time clearing and developing small farms and planting the wrong varieties, and doing the things that should not be done, and they are doing it because they have not the experience and have not taken advice. If there were two or three illustration stations of that sort, particularly in those districts where climatic conditions vary so much in a few miles, it would help the farmers greatly.
In addition to that, while the Summerland experimental station is a beautiful place to visit, large numbers of people cannot travel great distances through the country. It is very awkward. A few illustration stations well located and well advertised could be the centre around which the local farmers' institutes and farmers' organizations could have their annual events, and so on, particularly their summer events. I do ask the minister and his officials to give consideration to my suggestion.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there are 23 illustration stations in British Columbia. There is one at Creston, with which I know my hon. friend will be familiar, though it is slightly different from the regular illustration station. I have been there myself and I must say it is doing particularly good work. But British Columbia is a little different

from the other areas about which I have been speaking. Take the prairies, for example. It is very much a matter of difference in the soil and that is the situation we face in British Columbia. You have a mountain range on one side and the soil condition on one side may well be ihe same as on the other side. But the fact that you have a mountain range on the west side and a range on the other side makes quite a difference and there is always the necessity for different treatment within limited areas. But we have been giving consideration to the possibilities mentioned and will continue to do so.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, at this
moment I would like to take a little time to express as a farmer my appreciation and I think the appreciation of all farmers, certainly within my own province, of the excellent liaison maintained between the practising farmers and the officials of the minister's department, especially in the science service division and experimental farm service. I know that in my own province at least the men who are responsible for carrying out the program of the department are men who have devoted their life's work to the betterment of agricultural conditions, and it is not an exaggeration to say that they are men who are dedicated to their profession. I think it is only fair that I should add this word in appreciation of the fine work they are doing.
A few moments ago mention was made of the fact that considerable work has been done with regard to the development of an improved type of bacon hog all across the country, and much outstanding work has been done in that regard in my own province. If I were to pick out any one in particular I could think of one man who has done excellent work in that connection and, one might say, given his life to the improvement of the type of bacon hog which is produced in Canada. He has also done extensive work on the question of advanced registry and developments related thereto with the result that in my own province the number of hogs graded "select" is much higher than in any other province of Canada. That is just an indication of what can be done through the devoted efforts of one man.
I want to support what other members have said with regard to retaining the experimental farm. I know the minister will strongly resist any move which might develop to have that beautiful and worth-while experimental farm subdivided for building or anything of that sort. I think it would be a tragic loss not only to the city of Ottawa 83276-394J
Supp ly-A gr {culture
but to the agricultural industry generally and to the many people who benefit through having an opportunity to visit the farm out there.
While I am on my feet I would like to ask the minister what attention has been given to experimentation with regard to the adaptability of certain breeds of cattle and other farm animals to this country, especially with regard to those which have not already been generally introduced here. I am thinking of breeds of cattle which are foreign to us. Although it may be said that the British breeds of cattle are excellent, nevertheless there is a possibility that certain characteristics existing in cattle in other countries, and I am thinking especially of the Brahman cattle, may be crossed with the British breeds for certain purposes, and also with some French breeds of cattle such as the Charolaise.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the point the hon. member has raised I might just say that we are doing a little work on that at our farm in southern Alberta with Brahman cattle and crossing them with some other breed. I do not know whether that is done with the object of getting better breeds or for producing steers to fight at the stampede but in any event we are doing work with that breed of cattle.
I might say that when I was over in Europe last year at the FAO conference I was very much surprised to see one of the largest animals I have ever seen in the way of cattle in the old white breed they had in Roman days. They still have them there and they are very big cattle. They also have a brown type of cattle which came down from the north. I saw both of them, and both are very large animals, though I do not know if they would help our breeds here if we crossed them. I think, though, it would be a worth-while experiment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Branch experimental farms, substations and illustration stations-
19. Operation and maintenance, $6,351,995.
Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to pay my tribute to the superintendent of our substation at Fort William. That station is attracting more interest every year and this man not only runs the substation with great benefit to the community but he is also an expert in other fields and his services are much in demand by the community as a whole. He is very helpful and very patient and very considerate to all those who want to benefit from his advice. He experiments in grains, grasses, fruits and vegetables with great success.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supp ly-A griculture Production service-
21. Production service administration, $84,843.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I spoke
some time ago about the desirability of discussing two important matters. I presume this would be the item under which they could best be discussed. People from coast to coast in Canada today are wondering what is going to happen to agriculture unless something is done to regulate the amount we produce.
We are spending great sums of money through the Colombo plan and the United States point four program and through other agencies in fitting other nations to produce their own foodstuffs. That is the objective at which we aim. We say that if we can just get into India, Burma, Pakistan, the African countries, and other countries all over the world and assist them in producing their own needs then we shall not have to worry about supporting them. But we have overlooked this important fact:	Once we have
them producing all their own needs, or a major portion of them, they will have little need for our production. The result will be that we will have more difficulty in finding foreign markets for our own production.
Now, I am wondering, presuming matters develop in a normal sort of way, whether the minister has a policy or is formulating a policy in accordance with which we would be able to introduce-I do not like the word "limit", and I do not like the word "regulate", because both those words connote a certain amount of telling people what they should or should not do-but some sort of modification of our production so as to take some precaution to see that we do not produce too much more than we ourselves can consume or sell abroad, and, along the same line, probably changing our wheat production or a certain amount of it to the production of oats, barley, rye and other commodities for which we might have a good market. As I read the news, we have no difficulty in disposing of our oats and barley but we are faced with disaster if things go in the right direction, or rather in the wrong direction, in respect of our wheat. If we could manage so that we could produce more oats and more barley and less wheat, probably we might be better off. I believe I have said sufficient to indicate what is in my mind, namely the matter of regulating production so as not to produce more than we can use and can sell, beyond a certain limit, at least.
Along with that question goes this one. Are we planning to save up supplies of nonperishable goods? By that I mean goods that are non-perishable within limits, of
[Mr. Mclvor.l
course. Roosevelt used to talk a good deal about an ever-normal granary. He had a good idea, I think, in times like these. Are we planning in such a way that, in case disaster were to strike us-which it could easily do, as everyone knows-we would have in store in safe places all the oats, barley, rye, flax, mustard seed and various other kinds of seed that we would normally use, all the wheat we would normally use for a considerable length of time, as well as all the honey, sugar, soya beans, corn, peas and all that sort of thing, all of which we could so easily store?
Of course I do not wish to be an alarmist any more than does any other hon. member of this committee. But we might just as well face possibilities. There are plenty of indications that the Russians have the cobalt bomb. All hon. members know that if the cobalt bomb were used there would be little production of anything for a considerable period of time after its employment. As the minister can quite readily see, what I am wondering about is whether or not he is drafting a plan-along with the provinces, of course-under which we could preserve a considerable amount of these commodities.
As the minister and hon. members of the committee know, I gave a speech on November 17 in which I proposed that we institute an arrangement by which we would establish storage facilities on the farm-storage facilities that were acceptable and approved- under which the farmers could store their excess wheat, receive payment for that wheat stored in those facilities and be paid storage on the grain in those storage facilities just as the grain would have storage paid on it if it were in an elevator.
If we would make that sort of arrangement, I am quite positive that we could store with perfect ease on our farms all the wheat we have and that we could pay for that wheat so that the farmers would be able to carry on. Then we would have no pressure for selling abroad, something which is likely to drive governments, and people too, into a sort of panic.
While we are talking about wheat, may I say that I fail to see how we could store anything of greater intrinsic value than wheat. It seems to me that a nation which had its full wheat supplies for seven or eight years stored up in safe places would be in a most fortunate position. The wheat so stored would not be on the open market at all. It would be recognized that it is bought and paid for and that it is not for sale on fire-sale terms. To illustrate the value of such a thing as that, all we have to do is to refer to the way in which our wheat board has managed

large wheat supplies with great skill and judgment in times past. We have had vast accumulations of wheat in times past, as in 1943 and 1944, and those accumulations worried us. But the wheat board just held on until, by and by, conditions arose which used all that wheat. I fail to see why we would be doing an imprudent thing if we looked upon our wheat supplies in some such way at the present time. But as the minister well knows, if we have to rely on the big elevator companies to provide the storage for that wheat, we are going to oblige the elevator companies to build far more elevator capacity than they would be able to use under ordinary circumstances, and consequently incur an overhead which would constitute a serious liability. But if the farmers were building bins on their farms, there would not be the overhead, the need for the high degree of insurance, or the obsolescence that will be noticeable in the elevators. In those and many other ways this kind of instrument would not constitute an overhead that would threaten to impair our economic position.
That is the way I see it, and no matter how carefully I examine it nor from how many angles I look at it, the whole concept looks to me to be worthy of serious consideration. If we had similar means whereby we could store all the oats, barley, rye, flax, soya beans, sugar, honey and the other things which we could store in this country, we could then in adequate measure divert our attention from the production of wheat to the production of these other commodities, could store several years' supply of those commodities and thus would be so much the more in a safe position in respect of supply.
I just wonder what the minister has been thinking along this line. Of course, he would not take any measures of this kind without careful consultation with all the provincial governments. Any move to modify crops, plantings and so forth would be made entirely with their understanding and through their agencies among the people in the provinces so that we would work this thing out without anything like dictatorship or telling people what to do. It looks to me as though we would certainly be much safer in following a line of producing a wide variety of commodities and of storing them than we would be by running a risky business such as that which we quite obviously have been running in respect of wheat.
The question will arise as to how we can pay for all this. People will say this: You see what is happening in the United States. The Americans have a vast supply of goods which it is beginning to cost them so much
Supply-Agriculture
to maintain that they are trying to get out from under the cost; hence they are beginning to force their way into the world markets and they will probably wreck the whole of the world's markets.
I do not wish to enter into a prolonged or detailed discussion of this matter but I would just make this point. If we go down to the United States and see what their constitution tells them they can do, we will realize immediately that if use were made of the constitutional power which is given to congress by the constitution, there would be no difficulty whatsoever. Their constitution says specifically that congress shall coin money and determine the value thereof. There have been presidents of the United States who have used that power. One of them was Abraham Lincoln. If the United States would use that power today to pay for the wheat, to pay for the storage and the storage facilities with money out of the national credit they would immediately get out from under the grievous weight of the burden of supporting their great surpluses.
Looking at it in a very general sort of way, it does seem clear that the United States, with all her tremendous industrial potential and her vast wealth, should be able to store wheat as well as Joseph did in Egypt for seven years. It would be hard to give a reasonable explanation why what the Egyptians could do in Joseph's time could not be done by the United States today, and so with Canada.
While I am on the matter, may I say that the same power to create money is in the hands of the parliament of Canada and was used under the finance acts of 1914 and 1923, as I have outlined in speeches on the floor of the house much to the annoyance of a great many of my colleagues, I know, but nevertheless probably containing the germ of a solution to a problem which to them at the present time is utterly unsolvable, using the orthodox economic system under which we now operate.
May I ask the minister if he would tell us what he has in the way of plans as regards policies for the regulation of the production of this nation and for the storing of goods for this nation in preparation for any time of grave peril.
Before I take my seat may I draw this to the attention of hon. members. They have all thought about it many times and in thinking about it they have been filled with dread and have turned away from it. Suppose an atomic war should be waged in Europe and terrible destruction of supplies resulted in Africa and other places. Think of the tremendous need there would be for the food

Supply-Agriculture
which we have now and can store. We could probably save the lives of millions if we could only make use of the blessings God has given us by abundant crops in the last three or four years. Now that I have said all that, the minister might talk for a while and tell us what he has in mind for modifying the production of crops, what he has done and thinks can be done, what he contemplates and what he has in mind for the storing of crops.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I rather hesitate to say again what I have said every year, I think, since 1939. We have had a plan all the time. The trouble is that some planners do not regard it as a plan with which they can agree. When I came here nineteen years ago and took this position I was told by Britain that we could not produce enough bacon to feed Britain, that we could not produce enough dairy products and other things to supply that market, and that therefore they were going to get them somewhere else. That, in a few words, is what we were told back in 1936. The war came in 1939 and we established a plan under which we set out to prove to the British that we could produce the food and, as every member of the house knows, by 1943 we were producing 700 million pounds of bacon for Britain, 85 per cent of all they were consuming. Then they took the trouble to send a man over here to say after the war was over they had to go back to the old method of dealing.
If hon. members do not realize that the government did something about that, well, I feel sorry for them. We held a meeting in the first week of December of every year, and we are still holding it, to indicate to farmers the things that they might produce to advantage in this country. Immediately after that statement was made by the British we communicated it to that meeting in December and suggested that we were not going to be able to sell so many hogs after the war was over and we were not going to be able to sell dairy products in the same quantities.
We did not have to do any more than tell the farmers that. We did not have to tell them what to do about it. They did the job themselves, and it has been done year by year until by the time we got into the position where Britain would not take our bacon we were not worried whether or not they did. That was not just done by nobody doing anything about it. The gentleman who is sitting here at the table has been the chairman of all these meetings except the last one, and on that occasion he was sick. I should not say he was sick, but he went out and tried to do something that a man of his
fMr. Blackmore.]
age probably should not do and he was under the weather for a few days and was not able to be there. Nevertheless we held that meeting and discussed the whole question again, and the result is to be found largely in figures which I have here. I will only use two sets of them, cattle and hogs.
I will not go back too far, just to 1939, the year the war started. Net marketings of cattle were 1,026,000 and the domestic disappearance was 986,000 and exports 218,000. The price at Toronto was $6.77 a hundred or 6-7 cents a pound. Then I will take the year to which I referred, 1943. We marketed
1.072.000	cattle, not very many more, and the domestic disappearance was 1,006,000 and exports were only 90,000. Coming down to 1953, net marketings were 1,546,000, or 50 per cent more than they were in the last year I gave, but domestic disappearance was
1.470.000.	You will note that in 1943 it was
1.006.000.	In 1953 it was 1,470,000, or almost
500.000	more were consumed by the people of this country.
The other part of the plan was to make it possible for them to buy and consume. To mention only two aspects of that part of the plan, there was the extension of old age pensions and the payment of family allowances to every family in the country at an average rate of $30 a month. The purpose was to make it possible for people to eat our farm products. In addition, wage increases made it possible for considerably greater consumption.
What was stated by someone a little while ago is quite true. Of course there are more people in the country now than there were then. That also helps, but the whole thing was part of a plan to have production equal consumption or, to put it the other way, to have consumption equal production, and it almost does. Exports of cattle in 1953 were only
123.000	head, with 50 per cent more cattle. In 1939 we exported 218,000 head before the war started at all. In 1944 we exported
280.000	head, in 1948 732,000 head and last year only 123,000 head. There are no surplus beef cattle in this country, and there is no surplus beef in this country. The plan worked out in so far as beef was concerned, as is illustrated by these figures.
Now, coming to hogs, I said a few minutes ago we had a very high production in 1943. The inspected slaughterings of hogs back in 1939 was 3,793,000 head; coming down to 1943, it was 7,174,000; and in 1944, it was
8.766.000.	Now, that is the year our friends came here and told us they were not going to be able to take our hogs in the years after the war. They did not tell us we had better do something about it. We knew we had

better do something about it, so by the year 1949 the inspected slaughterings were down to 4,099,000. In 1952 they were back up to
6,234,000	and this last year they numbered
4,611,000.
In so far as consumption is concerned, may I say that in 1939 it was 2,302,000 head; 1943, 2,778,000; 1953, 4,314,000. These figures show that this country consumed twice as much as we were consuming, or practically twice as much as we were consuming back in 1939. All of this was part of a plan. In 1939 hogs were selling at $11.88, and in 1953 they are $30.40. This illustrates what the plan was, or at least it illustrates how it worked.


An hon. Member:: Did you have a plan in 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly, we had a plan in 1939, and because my hon. friend did not think it was a plan he did not come back after the next election. I would suggest he follow the plan this time. Those are the facts with regard to two of the most important products. We could go through the others and come to similar conclusions in regard to those. We have a plan, and the plan has been working ever since 1935 when we first came here as a government. It has developed from that up to the point where it has brought production up to where it is today, that is the production of all commodities of which we can dispose either at home or somewhere else. There are people here who say that we depended on the United States market. We do not sell any hogs or hardly any in the United States market. We sell a few cattle in the United States market, but we are not selling anything like the number we did a few years ago. We sold over 500,000 a few years ago, and last year there were 123,000 sold outside of Canada.
Now, that is the plan, and the plan is working. In so far as storage is concerned, we have been encouraging the building of cold storages across Canada. Away back at the beginning of the century, we started to subsidize the building of cold storages. When I came here in 1935, I was told we ought to stop that policy. This idea got into the minds of people because the production in Canada was not sufficient to utilize the cold storage facilities we had. We had almost been convinced we ought to stop it when the war came along. Since the war, and while the war was on, means were developed of making use of the cold storage facilities such as the world never dreamed of before in connection with frozen products. Now, instead of starting to slow up that policy, since the war we have been stepping it up. Two years ago we changed the policy from a support of 30 per
Supply-Agriculture
cent of the cost of cold storage spread over four years to a 33 per cent payment in full the year the plant is built. We are, therefore, getting more and more cold storage facilities right across this country.
Well, now, that is the system of storage that has been provided for our perishable products. When we come to the non-perishable, I am in complete agreement with my hon. friend when he suggests that we farmers would be better off if we had enough storage on our own farms to store all our own grain. Personally, I believe that the most expensive way of storing grain is in a company's elevator. Because I believe that, I have enough storage space on my own farm to store all my own grain. I do not put it into the elevator until I am going to sell it. It is not a matter of paying for storage in an elevator. There are many other farmers in western Canada who follow that practice. The trouble is that many of the people who talk about this problem are the people who have not any grain to sell and never did sell any. Those of us who produce grain on our farms know what we are going to do with it, and know where to store that grain and how to look after it.
For example, a short time ago somebody started to say that we ought to have a battle with the United States over oats. I believe that the last thing in the world we ought to start a battle over with anybody is oats. In this country we cannot feed livestock without oats. There are other countries where you can, but it is an entirely different thing from feeding barley and wheat. If you feed barley and wheat, you have to have about as much oats to feed as you feed of those two grains in order to keep your stock alive while you are fattening them. The best practice to follow in western Canada is a practice I learned about the third year I was in the west. I went out in 1901 to help harvest the crop in the fall of 1901. In the summer of 1904, I helped a man for whom I was working build a barn. When we got the barn all built, and it was 84 feet long, he put a bin 16 feet wide right up the whole length of the barn.
Naturally, I said to him, "What are you going to do with that"? He said, "We have a good crop of oats this year, and I am going to fill the bin full from one end to the other." He did. I was back there in 1934 to visit the people on that farm, and they told me that was the first year that the bin had ever been empty. He used it, from one end down to the middle, to feed stock, and the next year he started from the other end and worked down to the middle. He always had a year's supply of feed oats in that bin right

Supply-A griculture
down to this period during which we had crop failure. Well, that is the only way to farm in western Canada. It is the only way to feed.
When I was out west last week I saw an item in the newspaper inserted by some people. I presume some of the members in the opposition would say it was inserted by someone on instructions from this government. It was not. The item said that there is not enough oats coming into Fort William, and we want more. I got right up on the platform and said any farmer who would ship oats out of Saskatchewan now either to Fort William or anywhere else does not know what good farming is, if he is feeding any livestock. Any farmer who kept oats down to this time of year kept the oats because he believed he needed them for feed. If he shipped them out now, and what could happen to our crop between now and the time it is harvested happened, that fellow would be without oats. Without oats he cannot feed even this wheat that is piled up there and part of which could be used for feed. These are some of the facts in connection with carrying on agriculture in this country.
We hear talk about what some other country ought to do. Certainly it is necessary for us to go down to Washington from time to time to talk to them. Certainly it is necessary for them to come up here from time to time to talk to us. The United States Secretary of Agriculture came up here one year and the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I met him. We were having a terrible row about our potatoes going down into the United States. When the secretary was here I said to him, "Why, you are getting many potatoes down there from Canada; we are getting many from you." He looked surprised and said, "Is that true?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Can you give me the figures?" I said, "Yes." "Well", he said, "I'll guarantee you when I take these back and give them to the senators who have been talking about it, and show them that they did not know what they were talking about, you will not hear any more about it." And we did not hear anything more about it that year.
And so I say again in connection with these matters such as oats, and wheat we can send down to the United States, as well as what they can send up here, that we have got to get together on this subject and talk about it, get them to understand our position, and get to understand their position. Then the question of storage, the means of financing, the price we are going to get for the commodity and everything else will be on a better level than if we had not discussed it with them.
I think we have had a plan which has worked out very well, and we are in a position today where we have not surpluses such as are being talked about on the other side of the house. We do have one surplus in wheat; and the reason things have come along in the way in which they have is that we believe you can store wheat to better advantage than you can store any other agricultural product. So if we have wheat in greater quantities than we need it in Canada or greater quantities than the world needs it at the present time, it is one commodity that you can put behind an inch board and pile it up as high as you like, and it will stay there in good condition for ten years or more. They tell us it stayed in the pyramids from the time they were built until now, and that you can take wheat out from there, plant it, and it will grow. If that is true, then it is one product you can bank on when you are talking about storage. And I agree with hon. members that if we can get the storage on our farms and elsewhere it will help everybody to carry on.


John Horne Blackmore: I think we have profited a great deal from having the minister announce on the record that he agrees we should have wheat stored on the farms. The minister knows, of course, as everybody else in the house knows, that there was just one flaw-


James Garfield Gardiner: There is only one word in what the hon. member has said that I would not use. I would not say they "should"; I think it would be to their best advantage if they did.


John Horne Blackmore: There is one flaw in the illustration-and it was an excellent illustration-in that the man who was operating the farm and storing the oats evidently was not dependent upon the immediate sale of those oats to provide him with the money to finance his next year's operations. He was probably dealing in livestock and selling it as a cash crop, or probably he was producing butter or cheese or some other commodity from which he was getting money he needed to carry on.
Of course the minister knows as well as I do that the big difficulty out in the west now, particularly in my area, is that no matter how much wheat they have stored on the farm-even behind inch boards-it is tied up until they can sell enough wheat to get the money for next year's operations. If the minister can tell us what solution he has for that problem, then I can assure him that many of the farmers in my area would cheer as soon as they heard the news.
As I have said, there are a great number of farmers in my area who have plenty of

wheat to enable them to pay off all their bills and finance their operations; but some of the saddest stories I have ever read are coming to me in letters from men who have done their very best. These are right good men who have wheat they cannot sell. They cannot borrow money on it; not enough to carry through beyond just getting their grain in. One writes me that he has exhausted-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say at once that the reason I did not deal with that subject is that it is not under my department, at all. We have already discussed that question for two days, and come to some conclusion about it. I do not think under the rules of the house it is proper for us to discuss it under these items.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not propose to violate the rules. But the simple fact is that the conclusion we came to through those days of discussion was just simply pathetic; it just left the farmers, the wheat producers of Canada, right out on a limb, with the possibility of stark ruin facing them. The minister knows that, and I do not propose to enter into a discussion about it.
The reduction of 10J cents constituted practically the total profit on the production of the wheat farmers now have, which means that all their work for two years or so has been at a loss. 1 can understand the minister's reticence to enter into a debate on this matter. However, although the matter does not come under his jurisdiction, may I say it comes under the jurisdiction of the government of which he forms a part, and in which he must have a potent voice. So we will leave it there.


Edward George McCullough: Earlier [ asked the minister a question with respect to the production and distribution of Selkirk wheat. I have had complaints in connection with the distribution of it. Would the minister explain how it was produced, how many applicants received some of the wheat, and whether any of it went to the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: As hon. members know, Selkirk wheat is a wheat which was produced in the last few years to offset the new rust which has come into being, starting down in South America and moving north, until it has now come part way across the United States, and we even had some of it last year in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. To answer the first question, the wheat was produced by taking a sample which an elderly gentleman had produced in Manitoba, a gentleman for whom we provided a gratuity this year. It was produced in one of those accidental ways in which men of that type get certain varieties of cereals. We crossed it with other plants until we got 83276-395
Supply-Agriculture
what is known as Selkirk wheat. When that was developed we took some of it down to California and increased the quantity of it by growing it in what are our winter months so that during the succeeding season we had a very considerable amount of this wheat which we otherwise would not have had. Then we brought it back to this country and distributed it among people who had been accustomed to enlarging the quantity of wheat, so many bushels to each one, and also we sowed quite a bit of it on the lands that we are putting under irrigation out in Alberta, at Bow River and elsewhere. We grew the wheat there; we grew it at the experimental farm and elsewhere until we had a considerable amount. Then we distributed it this year to persons who desired to get it and who after they were checked were found to be people who could handle a quantity. We gave them six bushels each and they are now attempting to produce wheat which they themselves can use in succeeding seasons as seed wheat.


Edward George McCullough: This wheat was given only to registered or certified seed growers, is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that was what was done in practically every case. There may have been some few cases of persons who got it who had not been producing certified seed, but very few, if any. The wheat was given out, so far as possible, to the persons that the hon. member has indicated. They are now producing and they will not only supply themselves, but they will supply neighbours and others. A check will be kept on what is done with the wheat and where it goes, and it will be distributed over the west. It is hoped that there will be a considerable amount of that wheat produced next year.


Edward George McCullough: Can
the minister tell us why there was a delay in the delivery? In some cases it was after the normal seeding time before some farmers received it.


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be some cases but I really never heard that complaint at any time. I can hardly understand why that would be a complaint this year, because the great complaint out west is that the farmers did not get their crop in until about one month later than usual. Therefore I do not know how it could have done very much harm. Of course down in the section where my hon. friend is located it is just possible that they did get their crop earlier than they did in some other places, but most of them did not get it in until quite late.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Suvvly-Agriculture
Production service-
Health of animals -
24.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $5,540,940.
Mr. Nowlan:: There is a matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister on this item. It is a matter with which I have had some correspondence with his officials in the past, and as a result I have received some co-operation. I know that representations have been made by other organizations as well. It is true that this is a matter that affects a local area, but it is important enough to be brought up at this time. I am referring to a situation which was created in an Annapolis county. In that county some years ago, through negotiations which were entered into between farmers, the department of agriculture of the provincial government and this department, arrangements were made for Bang's disease eradication in that county. Probably a different arrangement was made from what had been made before. Perhaps it was one which the department entered into with some mental reservation, but the letter I have here from the deputy minister said that representations were made from the provincial government and they felt they should cooperate with what was a very well organized scheme. In other words, what happened was that all the individual farmers in that county were so well organized through public meetings at schoolhouses and every other organization was brought into play that we did achieve in that county what I am told is a hundred per cent eradication of Bang's disease, and that county was declared a disease-free area. I am told by the officials of the department that it was the only one in Canada that did achieve that distinction. That happened in the years 1948 and 1949.
Since then the department has decided that it was impossible or unwise to maintain this policy with respect to all of the farmers in the area, and it is being restricted, I believe, as a general principle, to farms on which there are ten or more in a herd. I can quite appreciate that in many cases that is perfectly all right, and it would sound reasonable to farmers in areas where large herds are maintained. I suppose that 60 per cent of the farmers in that county have fewer than ten head of cattle on their farms. Up until a year ago all of those people were boasting of the fact that they had a certificate such as I hold in my hand showing that they were in a Bang's disease-free area. I have a letter which I received this morning, and it is typical of what is going on throughout the country. This is a letter

addressed to a certain farmer in the county; as a matter of fact, it is addressed to Mr. Robert E. Mason, and reads:
Dear Sir:
X am in receipt of a report covering the re-test of your herd under the-
And then there is a very long word which I would have great difficulty in pronouncing. I continue:
-Brucellosis policy of this division, and it is noted that your herd proved negative.
In other words, clear. The letter goes on:
Due to the fact that your herd contained less than ten head your certificate is being forwarded to Ottawa for cancellation.
That letter is going out to everyone who has fewer than ten cattle. A year ago they decided not to carry on the tests at allowing to representations, in which possibly I had a little part to play as well as others, the department is carrying on the tests this year. They are carrying on t.b. tests and Bang's disease tests together, but this is the last time in which they are going to do that. The farmers are being told that the whole situation will have to be changed, I suspect largely because of a shortage of veterinarians. I imagine, if the facts were known, that is the reason rather than as a matter of economy; but this was an agreement. Agreements were entered into between the farmers and the department. It is true that the department did not sign, but I have a copy of one here which was signed of one of the hundreds of thousands that were signed by the farmers throughout that county.
When you think of the tremendous amount of organization that went into that drive, and you can imagine how difficult it is to organize farmers, it is too bad that a change is being made. When you can organize rural districts of this sort and get a hundred per cent co-operation, such as was received down there, and get the assurance of the government that this program is going to be carried on, it is a great disappointment when a change is made. We are now told that the program will have to be dropped in so far as herds of fewer than ten cattle are concerned. I know that technical reasons can be given for that. I know the minister will say that we have calf vaccination and that there has been such a wide degree of acceptance of this policy that probably we are going to be in pretty good shape anyway. Certainly, that county is going to be in far better shape than before this program was initiated. The fact remains, as I say, that probably 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the farmers will lose the benefit of this. They

are losing the certificates which they have valued, and they have the feeling well, after all, this is an undertaking into which we entered with the government and now it is being broken.
And that is the frank summation of it all. If I am right in the information which I received from the department's officials, this was the one area in Canada where this situation was achieved and because of the tremendous degree of co-operation which was received and the great amount of hard work that was put into it, I wonder whether the minister cannot have the situation reviewed and have this policy which was inaugurated kept on for a while longer. The farmers have gone a long way to maintain this policy but now, as I understand it, the certificates are being picked up and they are being told that this is the end of it.
I would ask the minister to have this situation reviewed and see if it cannot be kept on for another two or three years, and by that time the situation will be so clarified that the farmers will accept this statement of the change in policy as one which would be fair and reasonable. I think this should be supported after the great deal of work which went into it during the years 1948-49.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the best thing I can do is just to read the directive to the district veterinarians and indicate the reasons why certain things have been done. This reads:
At the conference of district veterinarians held in Ottawa from September 23 to 25, 1954, it was the opinion of all present that the conducting of annual retests on small herds was costly and time consuming.
I think perhaps the second reason is stronger than the first if the idea was to get over the initial difficulty and get the declaration made as soon as possible. It continues:
Therefore, in accordance with the agreement reached, on and after November 1, 1952, a herd must contain a minimum of 10 head of cattle to be eligible for acceptance under the policy and that this number must be maintained at each subsequent annual retest.
That reason, of course, is tied up with the first covering cost and time consuming factors. And again:
Owners whose herds at present are under the policy will be given one year from the next annual retest to meet the above requirements and must be advised by the divisional veterinarian conducting the retest who will make a notation to that effect. Herd owners who cannot comply will have their agreements and certificates cancelled. This will not apply to federal government owned herds or licensed artificial insemination units. Agreements covering jointly owned herds will be accepted.
83276-395|
Sup p ly-A griculture
In Nova Scotia where areas have been provincially established for brucellosis control by individual signed agreements and reactors' slaughter without compensation, the department will continue to conduct laboratory tests but will not provide federal veterinarians for collecting blood samples.
Now, I think it will be seen that the plan is not brought to an end but that federal government activity in connection with the provision of veterinarians is discontinued. I presume that has something to do with the way in which veterinarians operate in that particular province. I have some sympathy for what my hon. friend has said but since we have gone so far with it, and apparently it has worked so well, if anything can be done to see it is maintained at the present standard then it ought to be done.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would just like to add one further word. In the first place the minister probably knows, and if he does not I would remind him that before the scheme was brought into effect one of the conditions the farmers had to accept was that they were to pay for three tests on their own by privately operating veterinary surgeons. The farmers accepted that and expended the money in good faith. It is true they got the results of these tests, but many of them would not have paid out that money for three separate inspections had they known this was to take place. But they had the three tests made and then called upon the departmental veterinary to make the fourth and final test. These farmers were therefore called upon to make a substantial investment in the scheme when they had not intended to do so, and they made that agreement in good faith with Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the right hon. gentleman sitting across the way, though I am quite sure, in view of what has taken place, it is not one with which he would wish to associate himself. I would point out too that when the minister quotes from the memo in which it was said that many of the farmers found it difficult to live up to the regulations that there is another clause of the regulations which was distributed to the farmers and which states:
8. The veterinary director general may in his discretion cancel a certificate issued under these regulations whenever he is of opinion that the holder thereof has violated any of the provisions of his agreement, the act or these regulations or has failed to comply with any directions made pursuant to these regulations.
Certainly if any of the farmers violated the agreement the certificate should be cancelled and I do not believe any of the farmers would object to that. But do not let us cancel them by saying that only a few of

Supply-Agriculture
them were able to comply with the regulations. That is evading the question to say the least. It you are going to cancel the scheme-and I trust the minister will give further consideration to this matter as he has done in the past on other matters-then I trust he will take a very careful look at some of these clauses. Before he closes the volume and says this book is lost, then I would ask him why these certificates should be cancelled simply because a man happens to have eight or nine head of cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was agreed to by all of them. I am not conversant with all the details.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is not my information.


James Garfield Gardiner: But they all know what the regulations were.


George Clyde Nowlan: Not according to this.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what I am told.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the whole argument. This was entered into in good faith by all these farmers, but now we are told that because a man may have three or four head of cattle, the certificate is to be cancelled. We are told that because of the difficulty of administration a man must have 10 head of cattle. I wish to protest against this. These men are to lose this certificate in the same manner as other people might lose a licence, and they are to be sort of blacklisted. I suggest that a man who obtained this certificate in good faith should not have his certificate cancelled and I would ask the minister to give this the most careful consideration to see if there cannot be some amelioration of this situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just wish to correct a statement I made earlier. I find on checking that it was our own officials who agreed to this, and the other people were not there at that time. I would say further that as my hon. friend has brought this matter to our attention we will give it every possible consideration. I have a good deal of sympathy for the question he has raised.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think even if there was an agreement entered into certainly you could not control brucellosis by eliminating the small herds in that county. It is quite ridiculous. If there was an agreement made with that county then I say along with the hon. member who has just spoken that it should be left up to them. I understood the minister to say these small herd owners would have their certificates sent back to them when they sent samples in. I take it these samples would have to be drawn by accredited veterinaries and they would pay the cost of drawing that sample and if they
IMr. Nowlan.]
were sent in they would be tested free by the department. Just to have the samples sent in by anyone would certainly be, I think, a questionable practice.


Charles Yuill: Mr. Chairman, on item 7 I asked the minister a certain question and I was asked to wait until this item came up. My question is what progress has been made in combating Bang's disease? I have some supplementary questions. Where does that research take place, and are there any statistics available to indicate what success has been achieved? While I am on my feet I would just like to include in that the question of another disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, we have been carrying on research work in connection with Bang's disease over at the animal diseases research institute at Hull ever since I have been here and indeed some time before that. That is for more than twenty years. One of the members-I do not know whether he wants to say anything about it himself or not-sent me down this note:
My herd has been accredited since 1923, thirty-one years, and the stipulation at that time, 1923, was ten head including a bull.
So it has apparently been that way for a long time. It does not just apply to Nova Scotia but applies apparently quite generally. I just wanted to make that known.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is t.b. accreditation?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The hon. member keeps cattle and I think he understands the difference between Bang's disease and t.b. I am sure the member who sent me down the note understands the difference between Bang's disease and t.b. I would hope that he was speaking of Bang's disease when he said this. As far as the other matter is concerned, I think I have given the answer. Experiments are carried on over at the institute at Hull.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have a matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. In the Roosville area of British Columbia there is a disease called vibriosis ravishing the breeding stock. I understand that the method of eradicating this disease is by either disposing of the sires or by artificial insemination. In range cattle this is quite a costly undertaking, inasmuch as the cattle are not confined as they would be in the dairy industry. The farmers are therefore finding great difficulty. While the provincial government has undertaken certain steps, representations have been made to me to the effect that there should be some contribution by the federal government in the way of grants or some similar assistance. Will the minister make some comment on this matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the disease?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Vibriosis.


James Garfield Gardiner: The health of animals division have a report on the condition which exists there. They say it is not a reportable disease and therefore not one that we have been dealing with directly. However they are keeping a check on it. If it begins to make great difficulty I presume that more attention will be paid to it. However I imagine that it will be done through representations from the provincial department. We help in every way we can in these matters having to do with disease; but the diseases that are not reportable are, in the first instance, the responsibility of the agriculture department in the province. If they call upon us for assistance they always get it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Now that the veterinary
director general is sitting in front of the minister maybe he could tell us when the first listed herd certificate was granted in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: The doctor tells me that it was back in about 1923-he has not the exact date here-when they had the first herd.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I want to ask the
minister a question based on sessional paper No. 28-A. The question asked was this, and I think this item is as good a one as any other on which to raise the matter:
In how many cases, giving department vote number, and total amount of money involved in each case, were executive orders issued in each of the fiscal years ending March 31, 1949, to March 31, 1954, inclusive, temporarily or otherwise, supplementing votes of money by parliament?
I have here, under the Department of Agriculture, under the various years, quite a number of items. I notice, for example, item 17 in the year 1951; that is production service. Then there is an item there of some $50,000. There is a whole list of items. It is about the principle that I want to ask. Let me make one further explanation. This answer gives, in the left-hand column, the number of the vote, then in the middle is given the amount and then in the right-hand column is given the number of the supplemental vote; the heading is "Supplemented by vote" and below are given the numbers of the supplemental votes. I want to make my question clear. I have been familiar with the procedure of governor general's warrant by which, in an emergency, money could be got when parliament was not available. Will the minister explain the exact nature of these items and whether this money is taken
Supply-Agriculture
and spent before there has been any appropriation by parliament, or whether the supplemental estimate comes along first?


James Garfield Gardiner: The position is this. We have supplementary estimates for this year now before us. There is a list of items starting with the science service, then the production service, marketing service and special. There are items under all those headings that are voted now and we must have the vote before we can spend the money.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then what the minister is saying to me is this. He is telling me that this is not a case where money is used before it is voted by parliament?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is my question.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Harry Oliver White: No, Mr. Chairman. There is one question I should like to ask with regard to item 24. What experimentation or research is being carried on to control range paralysis or leucosis in poultry.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not carrying on any particular work with regard to that matter at the present time. Most of the work that is being carried on is being carried on provincially. I presume what my hon. friend has in mind is this matter of putting turkeys up on wire and that kind of thing in order to prevent them from getting the diseases they are accustomed to get, by keeping them off the land where it is infested with it and so on.


Harry Oliver White: That was not what I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. In Middlesex and in some other places some of the poultry producers have complained that this disease is becoming serious and that so far there is no known cure for it. While there may be some experiments which are being carried on at Guelph or elsewhere, there is no official word or nothing to guide the poultry raisers as to what action they should take.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have a man named Moynihan who is studying this disease in collaboration with provincial authorities and others. Beyond that, nothing is being done here.


Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: There is no progress to report as yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice that the cost of this brucellosis vaccine is $110,000. Can the

Supply-Agriculture
minister tell us where that vaccine is purchased and how much it costs per shot? Is any of it produced in the laboratories of the departments themselves?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is produced in the Royal Connaught laboratories in Toronto.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the cost per shot?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 37 cents; in that neighbourhood.


Charles Yuill: The minister has not answered one of my three questions. I wonder whether he would be good enough to answer the first one particularly. What progress has been made in combating Bang's disease? The other matter that I am particularly interested in is whether or not there are available any statistics to indicate the progress made in combating that disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: I remember that a few years ago we did not accept the idea that inoculation was very helpful but after the experiences which they had in the United States we decided that it was helpful. The plan that is provided now is that the provinces do the inoculating and we supply the serum that is used for that inoculation. It has been carried on right across the country and has had very beneficial results. It is a preventive rather than stopping the disease after it gets under way.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not like to go further
on what we were discussing a few moments ago, but the minister used a letter on accreditation from some member of the house against the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not use it against him.


John Alpheus Charlton: You used it to prove your point, and I think it is misleading because there is a difference between accredited herds and listed herds. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was talking about brucellosis. That had nothing to do with accredited herds. A listed herd is a herd that is tested for brucellosis. I do not believe they were listing herds as far back as 1923. We had one of the first listed herds in our county and I know that was not until after 1930.
I would not say it was the first, and I would not say it was after 1930 they started, but I do not believe it goes as far back as 1923.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were doing something about these herds in 1923, but the listed herd name was not used until some time in the thirties, I understand. There had been a great deal of work done in connection with Bang's disease before I came here twenty years ago. I remember that one of the chief subjects of discussion at that time was what 
we were going to do about cattle with Bang's disease. It was entirely new to me. That is one of the reasons I remember it so well. It was not a thing that affected us in the west very much, but the dairy farmers down here were very much worked up about it. They came here wanting the plans which had been followed up until then changed. I am not in a position to say how far back those plans went, but they certainly had been doing a great deal about it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I appreciate the fact that much work had been done, but what I asked the minister was when they gave their first certificate for a listed herd.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, I do not think any great point is going to be served by proving that it was one year or another. I just gave you the information that a member had sent to me, and he is just as good a cattle man as my hon. friend. I merely gave you the facts as he gave them to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $482,550.
John Alpheus Charlton: I understand that the condition in Ontario now is that each county can be designated an accredited area in Ontario. Are there any counties that have not been tested yet for tuberculosis and, if so, where?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have all been covered once. Some of them have been covered twice, some of them three times and some of them more than that. As my hon. friend knows, before they are declared to be pretty well clear they have three tests.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then it is not true to say that the entire province of Ontario is free of tuberculosis.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not say it is tubercular-free but it has had one test at least. That one test may show there is a certain percentage of cattle that go down under the test. Our experience has been that when we make the second test there are usually fewer, and finally you get to where you do not find any. Then it is free.


John Alpheus Charlton: I realize that, but there is a percentage where you do not require any tests for five years. My understanding was that the reason they had arrived at that stage was that the counties had not required any tests for five years. That means we can certainly not hope to be free of tuberculosis for a number of years, but there are places where it is less than one-half of one per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: One-half of one per cent will accredit them for three years and two-tenths of one per cent or below will accredit them for six years. Then you have to have a test again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
26.	Livestock and poultry, $1,644,413.
John Alpheus Charlton: The minister made the statement a moment ago that we are not sending any hogs to the United States. It is true that we are not sending any hogs


James Garfield Gardiner: A few but not many.


John Alpheus Charlton: -other than for breeding purposes, but the minister left the impression that we were not sending any hogs. Probably some people would think that we were not sending any pork either. I think that that is very misleading. I should like to know how much canned pork, cooked pork and processed meats have been sent to the United States in the last year and if it is not a fact that much of our best bacon is going to the United States right now?


James Garfield Gardiner: The position in connection with hogs is that our hogs have been higher in price than they are in the United States so hogs just do not go to the United States when you can get more for them at home as hogs. It is true, however, that there are certain cuts that can be sold in the United States. The year we had the foot-and-mouth disease we had estimated that we would sell 50 million pounds of cuts in the United States, and of course when the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic came we could not sell them and we had to can them and do other things with them. But there are certain quantities going to the United States in the form of different cuts and there is a certain amount goes over as bacon but nothing like the amounts that we used to ship out of this country as bacon. Most of our bacon is consumed here. There is nothing to prevent it going to the United States if you can get as much money there for it as here. But when anyone looks at the price of hogs at Toronto and then looks at the price at Buffalo or somewhere else he will find a very good reason why they do not go there.


John Alpheus Charlton: Fifty-five million pounds of canned meat were exported last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: That 55 million pounds of canned meat contained part of what we canned the year before because of the foot-and-mouth disease, but that has nothing to do with the ordinary shipments across the line. We figured on shipping 50 million pounds as cuts. We could not ship them so we canned them but we did export a considerable
Supply-Agriculture
quantity of canned meat during that period. What we usually figure on sending is 50 million to 60 million pounds in some form or other, but not as hogs.


Edward George McCullough: When I tell the minister that I am very interested in the matter of fertilizer he will recognize that when I was here from 1945 to 1949


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Is item 26 carried?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
27.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian seed growers association, $1,483,598.
Edward George McCullough: When I was here from 1945 to 1949, I think in each of those years I made a speech and tried to indicate to the government the serious condition existing with respect to the production and sale of fertilizer in Canada. Before I go into the matter I want to reply to the hon. member for Kootenay East who this morning took exception to what had been said by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort in a speech earlier in the session. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort pointed out that the prices of fertilizer were such that in many cases it was not economical for farmers to use it.
In substantiation of his argument he indicated that in his constituency of Humboldt-Melfort there was a petition being circulated by farmers to more or less boycott the purchase of fertilizer. In bringing that to the attention of the house the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort Was trying to indicate that the price of fertilizer was so high farmers were in many cases taking action to boycott the purchase of it.
Now, whether or not the hon. member for Kootenay East was attempting to mislead members of the house, I cannot say. Certainly if the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort used fertilizer on part of his land, he felt it was necessary. I want to say to the minister and to the house that there can be no doubt farmers are concerned about the price of fertilizer in Canada today. In this respect the minister knows quite well-I do not think it is an exaggerated statement- that every Canadian farmer was betrayed by the Liberal government when they sold the fertilizer plants which, during the war period, were owned by the Canadian government and paid for by the Canadian taxpayers. These plants were sold to private industries at fire sale prices. All this is a matter of record and it is not my intention this afternoon to make a lengthy speech on the matter, other than to indicate that contrary to the

Supply-Agriculture
wishes of organized agriculture in Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as well as the wheat pools, and in spite of the assurances given by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the fertilizer plants belonging to the Canadian people at Welland, Trail and Calgary were sold to private enterprise.
I am very concerned about this because we hear a lot these days about the government's program to conserve our natural resources. Indeed, they have set up an individual portfolio for that purpose. Coming from an agricultural area, and having been interested in this matter, I cannot see how the government could allow the situation to exist whereby the agricultural land could deteriorate because of the lack of fertilizer. I know well that more and more farmers have become accustomed to using fertilizer. They would like to use it, and in many cases are still using it even though the price has now gone up to $120 a ton for 11-48 which is sold on the prairies. At the same time I know that many farmers, because of the price of fertilizer in relation to the cost of production, are turning away from the use of it.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the government should look into this matter; that the whole production, sale and distribution of it should be investigated in an effort to provide fertilizer at more reasonable prices. I know that during the latter part of the war period this same 11-48 was sold on the prairies at $63.50 per ton off cars. Indeed, that price existed until 1945. It went up then, of course, and the government had to step in in 1947 and ask the firms producing fertilizer to put their prices back again. Now, it has gone up, without any government control, until now this fertilizer is selling around $120 a ton in the western provinces. I feel that the farmers have a right to complain about the policy of the government in not at least taking into consideration the representations made by organized agriculture to at least keep one of these industries under government control.
The minister knows full well that in the past I have quoted commitments he and the Minister of Trade and Commerce made to the effect that one of these plants would be kept by the government so we would not have a monopoly in the production of fertilizer in Canada. That is all I have to say today in this regard, Mr. Chairman. I only hope the government will take some action and that some investigation will be made concerning this important matter.


John Alpheus Charlton: Does the inspection of canned dog foods and canned cat foods come under this item or are there any regulations governing canned dog or cat foods?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they are produced in inspected plants, they would be under general inspection, but other than that I do not know of any unless there are provincial regulations.


John Alpheus Charlton: Of course the meat that is put into them, if it is purchased from inspected plants, naturally would be inspected. Is there any regulation at all governing the canning of dog foods?


James Garfield Gardiner: The officials tell me, not to their knowledge.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would it come under the health of animals or fertilizers and foods?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I shall try to find out at the dinner hour.


[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 31, 1953, 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 for exhibition thereat, $856,957.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Under this item there used to be a list of the various grants made to the different exhibitions, but that is not done any more. It is all in a bulk item. I notice that the vote is up by $200,000. In looking at the details for the item, I think that increase is chiefly due to grants that have been made for buildings. I wonder whether the minister would be able to give us a break-down of this item? I should particularly like to know the amount given under this vote to class A fairs in western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: The grant to class A fairs is now up to $3,000 and the amount for capital expenditure is $20,000 under one vote. The grant to class B fairs is up to $1,800. We did have a plan that is not entirely completed whereby you could capitalize the regular grant for class A fairs over a period of 10 years. Under that policy the fair and province or municipality usually put up a similar amount, so they could spend three times the amount we put up for a building. A similar plan was followed for class B fairs. There will be a considerable part of these expenditures still to be met and they are voted from year to year. Last year, we made

provision for these latter amounts to be capitalized over a period of years, and that simply meant we did not make any further grant to the fair during the time the capital grant was being paid. As my hon. friend has said, it is here in the form of the amount to class A fairs and the amount to class B. Those two are put together, and the figures given are those found in the back of the book.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They used to be listed separately; the amount for Calgary was so much, and the same for Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, Brandon and so on.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount to those class A fairs would be $3,000 each.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They will each get $3,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And how much do each of those five fairs get, if anything, out of this $500,000 building grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will dig up that information during the dinner recess.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, could we have an understanding on one point. I know some hon. members have appointments but, due to the sausage machine production line from six to seven o'clock it is impossible to be here promptly at seven. I wonder if items 30 and 31 might be allowed to stand with the understanding that we would discuss them later, perhaps after eight o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will let them stand until after eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven o'clock.
Mr. Purdy:: I was also interested in item 28, particularly that part having to do with the grant of $494,000 to assist in the building of premises of various exhibitions. I am particularly interested in two exhibitions in my own riding, that of Windsor in Colchester-Hants and the central Nova Scotia at Truro. Perhaps hon. members would be surprised, after the gloomy remarks of the hon. member for Queens this morning with respect to agriculture in the maritime provinces, to hear that we really do have agricultural exhibitions in that area. However, I am happy to say that the Hants exhibition at Windsor is the oldest exhibition in North America. This year they are having the 189th consecutive agriculture show at Windsor.
Supply-Agriculture
My purpose in rising is to ask the minister what, if any, sums in that amount of $494,000 are to go to either or both of these exhibitions.
I understand that this year the central Nova Scotia exhibition is erecting a new building costing a considerable amount of money. I am hopeful that some federal grant will go into that show. I believe that Windsor has already received a considerable sum for their new premises. Can the minister give me the amounts that are to go to these two famous shows in Nova Scotia? Last year we had the extreme honour of having the Prime Minister visit our central Nova Scotia exhibition and we hope the Minister of Agriculture will be able to pay us a visit during one of the shows this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Truro got $4,000 out of
that amount of money and Windsor got $7,033. The answer to the other question asked by someone on the other side of the house, I think the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, is: Truro, $4,000; Lachute, $2,268; St. Hyacinthe, $3,945; Three Rivers, $4,000; Sherbrooke, $4,450; Galt, $1,096; Lindsay, $2,145; London, $21,000; Ottawa, $4,500; Peterborough, $4,000; Toronto, $4,000; Simcoe, $20,937; Brandon, $21,000; Regina, $4,000; Saskatoon, $4,000; Calgary, $3,500; Vancouver, $21,500; Edmonton, $11,000. Those that received over $4,000 received it for capital expenditures in addition to the grants that were spent that year.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: Is it right that toward this $100,000 building for the central Nova Scotia exhibition the federal contribution is going to be only $4,000? They are putting up a new central building to cost $100,000. Surely there is some mistake there.


James Garfield Gardiner: If there is it does not show it in the records here. If the building was put up-


Gordon Timlin Purdy: The building is going up this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, I beg your pardon.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: The arrangements were made last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: If they were made last year and if they had a capital expenditure they can go along with $20,000 and they will get whatever is coming this year, too.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: There must have been some definite arrangement or they would not have gone ahead with this capital expenditure.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is quite certain it is
signed if they have gone ahead. If it was $20,000 then they will continue on until it is

Supply-Agriculture
completed. It was the hon. member for Mr. Gardiner: Usually I either buy a Calgary North who asked the question about ticket or have one given me, but I have the fairs.	never won a car yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On what basis are those grants for capital assistance given? I notice that Calgary is the smallest of any of those class A fairs in western Canada, although it is much the biggest fair of any of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the arrangement is they can get the $20,000 if it has not been paid before. I would take it that one of the reasons why Calgary is one of the biggest fairs is that quite a bit of this building has been done in the past, and they are still using that accommodation, but that was all that was paid there last year. That does not mean they did not get as much as the others. London has $21,000 and Simcoe has $20,000; Brandon has $21,000 and Vancouver has $21,500; Edmonton has $11,000. These are all grants that have come under part of the arrangement that had been made previously or because they had not had payments before.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My question was, on what basis are these grants made?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I explained it this afternoon, grants are made to a grade A fair of $2,500 plus-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am talking about the capital assistance grants.


James Garfield Gardiner: The capital assistance grant can be $20,000. But these particular figures are more than the capital payment. I understood my hon. friend to ask for the entire payments they received last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I asked about the whole payment and you said they received $3,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Calgary had no capital payment last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I then asked about capital assistance and I understood from what the minister said that they received $20,000 in a year if they did a certain amount of building. Is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not every year. When they get it once they are through.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister a question. There is a tendency in our modern society to increase sales by selling tickets with a car as a prize, and sometimes these affairs take place every night. I just wanted to ask the minister if he agrees with this sort of thing and thinks it is in the interests of good husbandry, or any other kind of industry. Port Arthur does not agree with it, though Fort William does.
I do not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Depuly Chairman: I understand that items 30 and 31 are to stand until later.
33. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $450,538.
John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, in the details relative to this item at page 107 there is a cold storage item in the amount of $254,667. I wonder if the minister would tell me the total cost of that cold storage and whether it is for a co-operative or otherwise. It concerns the Mount Royal, Empire Cold Storage.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might first answer the other question about dog and cat meat. I understand there is no provision in our legislation for that, and as a matter of fact it is excluded from the fees.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then there are no regulations covering that?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: I would seriously urge the government then to consider this matter because some of the existing dog and cat foods are probably below standard and I think they should be investigated.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no provision for checking cat and dog food. My officials looked it up over the dinner hour and that is what they tell me.
_ Charlton: I think there should be, and they might well be brought in under the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will take that into
consideration.


John Alpheus Charlton: I would be pleased if the government would consider the matter and try to do something about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know the reasons why they have not been covered but there must be some reason.


John Alpheus Charlton: I asked a question regarding the Mount Royal, Empire Cold Storage grant covering about $250,000 and I wonder if the minister could give me that information.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a limited stock company and not a co-operative.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the ordinary grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: The ordinary grant would be 33 3 per cent of the cost.


John Alpheus Charlton: And the regulation is that a certain percentage has to be for public storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the only stipulation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The entire storage has to be for public storage.


John Alpheus Charlton: The entire storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: We pay 33J per cent. It is custom storage. That does not mean that everyone has a right to store their products there. But they can store them there at a certain rate. A joint stock company owns this particular storage and not anyone can store there. We say it has to be opened for that kind of storage.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then the entire storage space has to be available for public storage. I understood that it was just a certain percentage.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was under that impression too but they tell me that is not the case.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the regulation been changed?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can an individual get this grant if 100 per cent of the storage is available for rental to the public?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be all the more reason for them receiving it. The only reason a person would not receive it would be if he used it all for himself and if he had the kind of business where he used it all for his own product and it was not available to others. That is the principle behind it, although I do not say that a man could not store his own products. If he is using it for his own products there might not be any space available for the public.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This would appear to be a very large item concerning the city of Montreal. I wonder how the Minister of Agriculture happens to be making such a large grant in regard to Montreal. What about Canada Packers in Toronto? Would they come in under this sort of grant from the Department of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, Canada Packers have not had any assistance. Nearly all of these cold storages are in urban centres. I cannot recall any at the moment in country districts. There is probably one for apple storage in Quebec out in the country, but nearly all the others are in urban centres. There are some at London, Ontario, some at Montreal, some at the city of Quebec, and so on, and in our part of the country there are some at Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, and Calgary which are used for the storage of farm products. But they are not necessarily in the country. In this case, butter, cheese, apples, and everything of that sort from that area are stored in Montreal.
Supply-Agriculture


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if the minister would say whether the storage owned by a co-operative would be considered to be publicly owned. If the co-operatives received this grant would they be able to store their own products in this kind of storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is a co-operative in every sense of the term it is very likely. In so far as its operations are concerned, it is not storing its own products but the products of the people who belong to the co-operative.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is considered as such?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then that is a method by which the co-operatives can get out from under the regulations. In other words, their products belong to individuals and do not belong to the co-operative which has received the grant.


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulations define what constitutes a co-operative but I would say that the government of the day which handled this matter, and that was long before my time, were concerned in all probability with supporting the co-operatives and special reasons are put in for some individuals who start a cold storage and the regulations largely apply to them.


John Alpheus Charlton: What I was trying to get at was whether, if an individual had the grant, it would be 100 per cent that would have to be available to the public or whether there would be a different regulation for a co-operative, for instance.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is no difference; the regulations are the same.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Other grants made were at Summerside, to Amalgamated Dairies Limited; to three co-operatives in the province of Quebec; at Eastend, to the Eastend Locker Plant Co-operative Association Limited in Saskatchewan; and at Cawston, to Simil-kameen United Growers Co-operative. All those co-operatives together received less than half of what has gone to this joint stock company. It seems to me that this is a new precedent. I do not recall ever having noted as large a grant as this. Probably I am wrong, but the minister will correct me. It seems to me that if a privately owned firm in Montreal can get a grant of a quarter of a million dollars, Canada Packers probably should be entitled to several millions because they store farm products. I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether there have been larger grants previously.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are entitled to the same, no matter where it is. They are entitled to one-third of the cost. If a concern

Supply-Agriculture
out in Eastend or some place else has capacity available to them, that is what it will get. But in Eastend they will only want capacity for the size of the community in which they are. They are not going to spend as much as they are going to spend in Montreal where goods are stored from all over Canada. Butter is shipped down from the co-operative in Saskatchewan and it is stored in Montreal because they can sell it in Montreal. They do not ship it to Eastend or places like that. But Eastend gets one-third of the cost, just the same as they get one-third of the cost in Montreal.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister say what is the largest grant that has been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know; something over $1 million.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A single grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not a single grant.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is the largest single grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be a third of whatever the cost is.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister indicate what is the largest single grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot tell the hon.
member that. It is back over twenty years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister's officials
should be able to tell whether or not this is the largest amount that has been paid out to date.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure it is not because I recall one going through a short time ago which was over $1 million. Three times this one would not be a million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
34. Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian horticultural council, $1,328,444.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to ask the minister why it is that the government still supplies pails and so on free of charge to Quebec producers of maple products.


James Garfield Gardiner: That question, of course, has been quite naturally asked during each of the last three years, I think. I have explained that this was something we started before the war, discontinued during the war and then tried to complete after the war. I have been a little bit concerned as to why it has been necessary to carry it on so long. We had notified them at one time that this would be the last payment. Some representations have been made to us to the effect that we might have to carry on for one more year in order to clean it all up.

The present position is-and it has been that way since back about 1937-that the Quebec government are replacing pails which were used to gather sap and pans and to boil down the sap and which were covered with some lead covering to prevent them from rusting. It was found that when the sap was allowed to remain in those buckets or in the pans under certain conditions it caused lead poison to enter into the sap and that poison was found in the syrup. We undertook to assist the Quebec government in getting that equipment replaced. They were to pay a third of the cost, the farmer was to pay a third of the cost and we were to pay a third of the cost. It is on that basis that we are still paying this $100,000 this year.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is that privilege granted to any other province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any province that asks for it. Quebec is the only province that asked for it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring a certain matter to the attention of the minister. It concerns the manner in which some of the fruit and vegetable inspectors are retired. I think this matter should be looked into so there is no recurrence of the incident which I should like to relate to the minister. The incident is as follows. It concerns one Wilfred Corp who lives in the north part of my riding. He has been a fruit and vegetable inspector for nearly 24 years, or since 1930. I understand that he never had a day's sickness and that he carried out the job very well. I have seen the man. He appears to be about 50 or 55 years of age; much younger than he actually is.
As I understand it, under the regulations in this matter, people in this type of employment are employed until they are 65, and then at that time or before they reach the age of 65 they are allowed to make application to continue their employment. I will deal with the details of that matter in just a moment but I think it might be as well to tell the story from the beginning. I have here a number of letters to which I should like to refer. The first is a copy of a letter written by Mr. Corp to one Mr. Eardley, who is fruit and vegetable inspector at Ottawa. It reads as follows:
Tavistock, Ontario, January 5, 1954.
Mr. E. A. Eardley, Chief,
Fruit and Vegetable Inspection,
Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Eardley:
Since I am nearing retirement age and, I believe, legislation has been passed whereby the time may

be extended if so desired, X should like to know just what the procedure is in this connection, as I should like to continue in the service.
Since my health is good and, I believe, I have not lost a day due to sickness in twenty years, I feel that I can still fulfil my duties to the satisfaction of the department.
I should appreciate hearing from you in this connection. Please advise what steps I need to take if this letter is not sufficient.
Yours respectfully,
Wilfred Corp.
The next letter in this connection is dated January 7 and is from Mr. Eardley, to whom the last letter was addressed. This letter is dated Ottawa, January 7, 1954, is addressed to Mr. W. Corp, fruit and vegetable inspector, Tavistock, Ontario, and reads as follows:
Acknowledging your letter of January 5th regarding your approaching retiring age and your desire to have your employment with this department extended beyond such age, the new legislation regarding extensions beyond the age of sixty-five has not yet been definitely passed on to the different departments and we are therefore not clear as to what the new provisions are. Certainly it appears at the moment as if this matter of extensions will not be as simple as has been indicated in certain press dispatches.
Your request will be kept in mind and when we are clear as to the new provisions we will get in touch with you and you will then be able to re-submit your request, this time through supervising inspector Frank Strong and then the district office in Hamilton.
E. A. Eardley,
Chief, Fruit and Vegetable Inspection Service.
The next letter is dated March 4, 1954, is addressed to Mr. W. Corp, Box 123, Tavistock, Ontario, and reads as follows:
I have just received word from our Ottawa office that your employment as a fruit and vegetable inspector terminates on March 23, 1954.
That is approximately 19 days from the date of this letter. It continues:
There is apparently no extension after one reaches the age of sixty-five except under exceptional circumstances. You also have nine days leave coming to you and it must be taken before March 23. It is quite possible that owing to weather conditions, we may be able to fill those nine days in between inspections. I will be up some day next week and we can talk matters over and probably clear up any problems that may arise.
Yours very truly,
W. F. Strong, Supervising Inspector.
That was on March 4. On March 11 there is a letter written by Mr. Corp to Mr. E. G. Paige in Ottawa. It reads as follows:
Tavistock, Ontario, March 11, 1954.
Gentlemen:
On January 5. 1954, I wrote to Mr. E. A. Eardley regarding an extension of employment after reaching retirement age. His reply on January 7th stated that as soon as he had something definite from the civil service he would let me know and
Supp ly-A griculture
that I might then make application through Mr. Strong, supervising inspector and through the Hamilton office.
However, to my surprise, instead of this course being followed, Mr. Strong notified me on March 4th that my services as fruit and vegetable inspector would conclude on March 23rd.
As stated in my letter to Mr. Eardley on January 5th, I am in good health and feel that I should be able to continue as an inspector for some time to come and hereby make application for an extension of employment as fruit and vegetable inspector.
In years gone by I have inspected as many as 42 cars in one week with rarely a rejection at destination points. Since the district has been divided, my work is considerably lighter.
As I understand that others have been granted extensions, I trust that you may see fit to reconsider the notice sent me on March 4th.
Yours respectfully,
The next letter-there are only three more -is dated March 17, 1954. It is addressed to Mr. Wilfred Corp and it is from Mr. J. G. Taggart, the deputy minister. We are going up the line. We started at the bottom but we have now got to the deputy minister. This letter reads as follows:
Mr. Wilfred Corp,
Tavistock, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Corp:
It has been brought to my attention that you will reach the age of 65 years on March 24, 1954, and at that time will be eligible for three months of retiring leave to be followed by superannuation as a result of over 13 years of service as a faithful and conscientious employee of this department.
The new Public Service Superannuation Act does make provision for the extension of employees beyond the age of 65 provided that they are willing to continue and are physically fit to do so, but serious consideration must be given to the problem of the development of staff to carry on the work of the department in the future. In making a decision with respect to extension of any employee's service, the first consideration must be given to the department's needs.
The question of whether or not you should be asked to continue beyond the age of 65 years has been discussed at length with the appropriate officers of the department. After most careful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it would be best for you to proceed on superannuation in the normal manner.
Yours very truly,
J. G. Taggart,
Deputy Minister.
With this letter there was attached a copy of order in council P.C. 1953-1863. That is the way it is referred to, and I presume it is order in council 1863 passed in 1953. The pertinent part reads as follows:
16. (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2)-
I will read it in a moment.
__a contributor shall cease to be employed in the
public service upon attaining sixty-five years of age unless
(a) the contributor advises the deputy head of his department, in writing, not later than thirty days prior to attaining such age, that he desires to continue to be so employed:

S upply-A griculture
(b) the contributor is certified by a qualified medical practitioner, upon examination not less than thirty days prior to attaining such age, to be physically fit to continue to be so employed;
(e) the deputy head, upon receiving from the contributor the advice referred to in paragraph (a), approves, in writing, that the contributor continue to be so employed; . . .
Paragraph (d) is not relevant because it deals with people who receive over $3,000 a year. Subsection 2 says:
(2) The deputy head of the department shall, not later than six months prior to the time when the contributor reached sixty-five years of age, notify the contributor by registered mail of the provisions of this section respecting employment in the public service after the age of sixty-five.
I should like to point out at this time, as must be very evident, that the first communication Mr. Corp had informing him he was to be retired was on the 5th of March and it indicated that he was to be retired on the 23rd. In order to apply to remain in the service he would have had to advise the deputy head of the department within thirty days, which was not possible, and he would also have had to have a physical examination at least thirty days before, and since he did not know he was going to be retired, although in January he had written asking for information, he had no opportunity. More than that, it would seem to me that before the man could be retired the condition precedent which is quite clearly set out in subsection 2 would have to be observed.
It says that the deputy head of the department shall, not later than six months prior to the time when the contributor reached 65 years of age, notify the contributor by registered mail of the provisions of this section. The whole purpose of putting that in there is to give the contributor or person who is to be retired ample warning of the fact he is to^ be retired so that if he wishes to comply with the terms of subsection 1 of section 16 he will have an opportunity of doing so. The purpose is so that he will have plenty of opportunity to make up his mind whether he would like to continue. If so, he would then have a chance to make application to the head of the department and would have plenty of opportunity to get a physical examination.
In this particular case Mr. Corp, not knowing about the regulations, wrote the department in January asking what he was supposed to do. He wanted to know if a letter would be sufficient. He received a letter in a couple of days saying that the department was not quite sure, that they did not know what they were supposed to do although the order in council was certainly passed in 1953 and this correspondence took place in 1954. 
This man wrote again and nothing was heard. He waited all during the rest of January and February and then on March 5 he received a letter saying that his services were no longer required and that he would be retired on March 23.
He had no chance to do any of the things that are set out. It is my submission that the department is entirely in the wrong, that they had no right to let this man out under these conditions and have not carried out the condition precedent of giving him six months notice. I know that section 16, subsection 1 starts off with the words "notwithstanding subsection (2)" but just the same the whole sense of the two subsections taken together is that it is impossible to carry out subsection 1 without the department having previously carried out the terms of subsection 2. In this case the matter was aggravated further by the fact that the man had written to the department, had asked for but had received no information.
An hen. Member: Carried.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Oh no, it is not.


James Ralph Kirk: What happened to Mr. Corp's predecessor?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Was he a Liberal?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That I could not say. I do not wish to give the name. It is not exactly fair because naturally this man is not in the house. He has been given an extension, and he will be retiring shortly. The point I would like to get at is this. If the department lays down regulations as to the procedure for retiring people, why are those regulations not followed out? When they are not, it is an easy way of getting rid of people and providing somebody else with the job. I should like the minister to tell me who is now to get the job Mr. Corp held for nearly 24 years? I would hope also that the minister would make a check that this kind of thing does not continue in the future.


Mr. Palleil:: I rise at this time to ask the minister a question concerning the Ontario food marketing terminal. This terminal has been built after years of labour and co-operation and is a splendid example of the result of co-operation between the government and the growers and the wholesale merchants, who worked together towards a common end. The effect of this market will be to enable the fruit and vegetable growers of Ontario to put their products on display under first class conditions, and perhaps therefore obtain higher prices than they would otherwise have obtained. It will permit the movement and delivery of articles more quickly within the Toronto market, and under more favourable conditions. Will the minister tell me if he has any arrangement whereby services may be provided for those growers who may at some time wish to export directly from that market?


James Garfield Gardiner: The marketing centre at Toronto is one which we have been talking about for a long time. We have also had under discussion a similar set-up for Montreal. I believe both of those plants were talked about before the war and considerable negotiations had taken place suggesting that the provincial governments and this government should contribute something toward the building of those plants. Nothing had been arranged before the war, and the matter was again taken up and gone ahead with after the war.
I am quite certain there has been no undertaking on behalf of this government to pay anything towards them whatever. If there is no provision for our paying anything, of
Supply-Agriculture
course, we would not have anything to say about the conditions under which the market operates. It will be a matter entirely between the city of Toronto, I suppose, the government of Ontario and the organization that is setting up the market. We would not have anything to say about that.
Mr. Pallet!: I gather then that you have no marketing agency, and do not propose to have any marketing agency set up in that market with respect to the export of fruit and vegetables? That will depend solely on the operations of the Ontario government?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have an organization, of course, with regard to the export of fruit and vegetables from this country to the United States or any other country. It is not necessarily associated with any market set-up such as you have in Toronto.


Mrs. Fairclough:: I should like to inquire from the minister about a problem that has come to my attention just recently concerning the importation of cherries from Italy for use as maraschino cherries. As I understand it, within a reasonably short space of time the inspection has become considerably more rigid, I believe under an agreement between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of National Health and Welfare. The problem that I have in mind has to do with the establishment by the department of a stated tolerance of infestation. Jusi recently a shipment was returned to Italy because the infestation was found to be quite severe. I understand that about 70 per cent of these cherries that come in are entirely free of infestation, and the suspected percentage of the remainder only runs around 2 per cent or 3 per cent. In rare cases, some of them are rather badly infested.
However, the difficulty is that the exporters themselves have no rule by which to go on; there is no published or expressed rule laid down by either department, with the result that the exporters are a little loath to ship unless they know just what standards they may be required to meet. It seems to me that no great harm could come from at least laying down some sort of standard to which they would know they must adhere, rather than having shipments coming into the country all the way from Italy, being turned back and the exporter paying the freight two ways. Quite apart from the inconvenience to the exporter in this matter, of course there is the resultant inconvenience to the importer who is likely to find himself, over a period of time, without a source of supply.

S upply-A griculture
There is the inconvenience, not only in the matter of cherries but other things as well, such as olives and so on, of having shipments held up for a considerable length of time while they are being examined. Sometimes these examinations do take a considerable length of time, and freight, storage and other charges are accumulating against the importation. I should like to ask the minister if his department will seriously consider placing a reasonable tolerance on these goods so that both the exporters and importers alike will have an idea of the standards to which they must adhere.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the infection in this particular case is the result of the fact that an insect has laid its eggs in the cherry, and they produce an insect. There is no tolerance in connection with that. If the insect is an insect we do not want in this country stinging cherries, it is just about as bad to have three or four as it is to have 50 because they will increase very rapidly. The intention is to keep them out altogether.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But these cherries are in brine. Surely the insect would be dead by this time. I am not disputing that there may have been ample reason for sending back the shipment I mentioned; that was not the main point. I merely gave that illustration. I understand that one of the reasons the shipment was turned back was that it showed traces of insects having been there which were no longer there.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood at first that these cherries were fresh cherries, but you say they are in brine. I am informed the real reason for turning them down is that they were not fit for human consumption, the same as if there was a worm in an apple or some other fruit. For a person to get even one of them out of a lot is going to cause considerable complaint, and therefore they are not permitted in. There is no tolerance allowed in connection with the matter. I can have the hon. member's suggestion that some tolerance be allowed considered. However I assume it has been considered many times before.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No; the information I
have is that the regulations have been tightened up considerably in the last little while, and that there have been shipments let in with some traces of infestation. As I said, quite a bit of the remaining 30 per cent would probably have only 2 per cent or 3 per cent infestation. One source of information indicated that the high was 15 per cent, and another that it was 26 per cent. It is simply ridiculous to allow imports that are in that condition.
(Mrs. Fairclough.]
But where the infestation has been only 2 or 3 per cent, in the past they have been allowed in without any complaint. I cannot see why there should not be a standard set so that these exporters will know the standard to which they are required to adhere. I am also informed that this is a bad year in so far as cherries are concerned, because of the weather conditions. Possibly by another year the condition would have cleared itself up, and there would be an almost perfect crop. At the same time there would always be a certain amount. The very fact that most of the shipments which come in are about 70 per cent free indicates that it is not a great problem at any time. The great problem is that the exporters should know what they are required to produce.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume they understand pretty well now, or there would not be a complaint about it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Apparently not.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact that they have had them sent back indicates what the amount of the tolerance is. I would rather hope that there is not much likelihood of people on this side complaining so much about getting fruit into the country which is not entirely free of that kind of thing. I know we would raise quite a bit of trouble about it in this country if we were getting in apples, cherries, or any other fruit that was affected in the same way. If we were told after, "You let other fruit in from outside similar to this" I am sure it would raise trouble. In any case I will have the matter inquired into, see what the reasons are and whether any change can be made.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister will find the situation is slightly different from what he imagines, I believe, if he will inquire into the matter.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I set out before the minister a regrettable set of circumstances concerning a certain man who, I suggest, has suffered considerable injustice.
I wonder if the minister could give me some assurance that he will look into the matter and try to get to the bottom of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I quite
understand the story that has been told, although I had not heard it before. These matters come along from time to time, and usually I have to sign them. Sometimes I do not, but it may be that I did sign this one. If I did not, then it was signed by someone acting for me.
Since the age limit of 65 years was put in -and that has applied all the time I have been here, and I do not know how long

before-persons have been retired at the age of 65. After all until this last year there was no special provision made. Anyone could be retired at 65, and anyone could be allowed to continue on until the age of 70. The fact that conditions were put in last year did not make it any easier for a man to be retired. In fact there were conditions put in which made it somewhat more difficult for him to be retired.
All that had to take place before was to have an official in the department recommend such a person for continuation in office, on the ground that there was no one prepared to take his place, or that he was still in good health and able to carry on. Then that matter would come to me as minister. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred no one would have written in to me about it. I would not know the individual, or anything about him at all, other than that he had reached the age limit for retirement. Sometimes it has been asked that a person's time be extended for another year. For a time we had a rule that it could not be extended more than six months at a time. Then for another length of time we had a rule that it would not be extended more than one year at a time, and it never was for more than a year.
Then the legislation came along and, as I understand it, the legislation says there must be six months notice. It so happens that it did not come into effect until January 1, and this man had been notified before that date.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No, he had not been.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood from what the hon. member said that the order in council was passed before that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps I should clear that up. I realize the facts are somewhat complicated. What happened was that apparently this order in council was passed in 1953.


James Garfield Gardiner: What was the order in council in 1953?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Setting out the regulations and the conditions precedent-in other words the procedure-with which a person who wished to remain on after the age of 65 years had to comply. There were certain things the department had to do. The department was to give notification six months in advance of the retirement age that such a person was to be retired at a certain age, and if the person wished to remain on he had to inform the department thirty days before the retirement date, and had to have a medical examination.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand now that the regulations were drawn up in 1953 and
Supply-Agriculture
applied when the act came into force. The act came into force on January 1. So far as this man was concerned, there was not any six months period to carry that out.
My understanding of the case is that there were several men below him who were younger and who, until someone did retire, would have no opportunity for promotion. The promotion in this case was possible because those persons were there. The officials in the department simply took the position that this man should be retired and the other men advanced to his position. I must say I cannot take very strong exception to that procedure. However, I shall look into it and see what happened in this particular case.
I looked into one case within the last three weeks concerning which someone from the other side of the house had written to me. This individual had been dropped off and the case was reconsidered. The circumstances were not just the same as the one the hon. member has brought to my attention. There were not so many other persons available, or who were in a position where they had to be held back so long as this man was kept on.
However I shall have the matter investigated, and if there is any possibility of doing something about it, I shall have it done. But there may be the possibility that there would be no opportunity to do anything.


Mr. Hosking:: I will talk it over with Clark Murray and keep you informed as to his opinion of the situation.


Victor Quelch: I wonder if the minister could answer the question I asked about livestock marketing. What governs the amount of the initial payment under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act? The act states up to 80 per cent of the average cost per year. What determines whether it would be 60 per cent, 70 per cent or 80 per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the co-operative marketing act of 1939 it is provided that any organization may apply for the right to operate with the assistance of that act. The act provides that the board which is set up to handle the operations of the act may guarantee up to 80 per cent of the average price of the last three years in order that the organization may go to the bank and make arrangements for an initial payment on the product. The limit is 80 per cent; but anyone who desires to operate under that act, either by correspondence or by coming here and meeting the board, puts up a case for their particular product. The officials

Supply-Agriculture
here naturally try to keep the guarantee down to where the government is not likely to be liable for any payment.
Then the arrangement as to what the percentage is to be is made. Some percentages have been down as low as 25 per cent, and one has been up to 80 per cent. That was in respect of Ontario cheese. The board that handles cheese in Ontario has had to guarantee 80 per cent of the price of the last three years. In that case 80 per cent of the price was 24 cents. They got a guarantee at the bank from this department. They went to the bank and borrowed sufficient money to make the initial price, based on the 24 cents, to the cheese producer. Then they go ahead and sell the product and at the end of the period we must pass an order in council giving them the authority to pay out anything that they have left before they are able to pay it out, and they pay that out as an interim or a final payment. That is the basis on which it works. It is a matter of agreement between the persons who come here and ask for it and the board who handles it.


Victor Quelch: This is the only other question I want to ask. I noticed that when the minister was in Saskatchewan the press carried a statement that no support price would be allowed to the livestock marketing board. Does that mean at this time? For example, if the price fell and a support price was given to the packers, would that apply also to the marketing boards then?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no; I did not say-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order; just before the minister replies may I say I think the question the hon. member for Acadia is asking comes under item 35.


Victor Quelch: No, item No. 40, agricultural products board.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I understand we are at item No. 34. Item No. 35 is a livestock item; item No. 34 has to do with fruits and vegetables. I would like to dispose of it.
Mr. Pallet!: I have a question on item No. 34. Can the minister say whether or not consideration has ever been given to setting up farm marketing agreements similar to those set up in Ontario under the Ontario farm marketing act with respect to fruits and vegetables sold for processing. I refer specifically to those fruits and vegetables that are taken interprovincially for processing, and therefore at times in the past they have escaped the requirement of being sold on grade. Can the minister comment on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Arrangements were made during the war under the contracts which

were made at that time under which we assisted in Nova Scotia in the matter of having apples canned and dried and sold as dried apples; in other words, having them processed in different ways. But that was an arrangement made under the War Measures Act during wartime, and continued in so far as that kind of assistance was given after the war. But there have not been any other arrangements of that kind at any time.
The other matter that the hon. member for Acadia asked about is in this position. I am not sure that I completely answered his question.


Victor Quelch: This comes under the next item.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. My hon. friend said that I had said something when I was out in Saskatchewan.


Victor Quelch: The press carried a statement that the minister had said that there would be no support prices under livestock, and I do not know whether that meant at this time on account of the fairly high price of livestock or whether the minister meant that even though a situation developed where a support price was paid to the packers it would not be paid to the board.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will the committee please help the chairman to keep livestock away from the fruits and honey?


John Cameron Pallett: The minister answered one-half of my question and not the other half. The second half was in respect to maintaining the grade of the fruits and vegetables that are transported interprovincially for canning. Are there any provisions by which the consumers can be protected in the purchase of canned goods where the raw fruit is carried from one province into another and processed there? Within certain provinces there is protection, but I wonder whether there is any protection when the fruit is taken from one province to another for canning purposes?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we have no regulations or grades for fruits that are to be canned; that is, we have grades of apples that are sold fresh and grades of other fruits, but not if it is to be canned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
35. Livestock and livestock products, $1,470,981.
Victor Quelch: I should like to ask whether the same formula is in operation now as the minister mentioned some three years ago: that is, the base for 1943, 1944 and 1945. Is that changed?


James Garfield Gardiner: That still stands. I cannot guarantee that in every case we have been

exactly able to meet conditions, but that does stand. With respect to the other matter, it was not a case of saying that it could not apply on the request that was made. I met the farmers' union executive in Saskatoon when I was west, and they indicated that they wanted to set up a marketing board under the provincial act. They asked me if the government here would agree to setting a floor price under cattle and hogs. I said we already had a floor price under hogs, 23 cents. I said, so far as cattle were concerned-and I think I reported it to the House of Commons after I came back-if we set a floor price which was higher than the United States price we would have United States cattle coming over here and it would do us more harm than good. If we set one which was lower than they were able to get in the United States, we would perhaps be criticized for that. I said, I did not think it was sound to ask us to put a floor price under cattle because the floor price was now up to the price in the United States, and it is in all probability higher than anything we could put on.
Then, the next question was: Well, is there any way in which we can get any assistance under the existing law? I said: Well there is an Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act which makes it possible for you to get up to 80 per cent of the average price of the last three years, and you can operate under that. Well, now, my understanding is that the next day when they went before the open meeting of the farmers that is what they recommended. The other statement I made was with regard to the fact that they were told that this application which had been made to me could not be accepted by the government here.


Victor Quelch: On the other hand, if a situation developed where the market price fell below the support price and you started to take the surplus from the packing plants, would you also do the same thing for the marketing boards?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not understand.


Victor Quelch: Would you take the surplus off their hands in the same way that you would take it off the hands of the packing houses?


James Garfield Gardiner: The provision at the present time is that we do not take anything off anyone's hands. We go on to the market and offer 23 cents at least for hogs and we have been there all the time. If anybody else will pay more than that, we do not get any hogs. Therefore we have not had any since the beginning of last year.
Supp ly

A griculture


Victor Quelch: Would it not be different if we had a compulsory board?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the compulsory board would be a provincial thing and the actual request made to us was as to whether we would allow the provisions which are already there and the authority we have in connection with interprovincial trade to be transferred to some board they might set up in, say, Winnipeg, to handle stocks arriving there, and I said that every organization that had applied for that assistance had received it and I did not know any reason why they would be turned down.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I have had repeated complaints from the canners of chicken to the effect that they are required to can their products in a can of a certain size, the regulations governing which are, I believe, laid down by the Department of Agriculture. United States competitors are allowed to put cans of an odd size on the market in competition with our own producers. One specific case is that the Canadian canner has always to conform to a seven-ounce tin, but the United States producer can compete in the same market with a five-ounce tin which the Canadian canner is not allowed to use. The United States produces a product which looks like a bargain until you read the small print and, in fact, it is not a bargain. The Canadian producers feel it is unfair that they should be subjected to a regulation which does not apply to their United States competitor. I understand the minister's department has no jurisdiction over imported products but I bring this to the attention of the minister in the hope that he will see fit to discuss it with his colleagues with a view to seeing whether the American import can be subjected to the same regulation as is applied to the Canadian product. Would the minister like to comment on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: We established the present regulations in 1943 and I believe there were some regulations prior to that. But these regulations were established at the request of those who were concerned with that trade. The objection was raised that the cans carry small print and usually one does not read it and it is only after you get home that you find you have not got as much as you thought you had. The canners here asked that that be made impossible here and that there be a certain size of can named in the regulation. I think everyone will agree that is probably a good thing, but we have no way of telling the United States that their producers cannot ship their cans in here unless they are of a certain size. We can only say

Supply-Agriculture
that we think our products are such that you know what you are getting when you buy them, and hope that our people will buy them in preference to the United States product. Our department certainly cannot stop it although I can discuss it with my colleagues. Even then I do not know whether we can stop it.


John Angus MacLean: There is no objection to the particular size of the can. It is just that the United States producers can come in with a slightly smaller can and complete with our own producers. Two things might be suggested. One, that there might be an agreement made with the United States government requiring their producers to put their products for export in a certain size of can, or two, the department could make the regulations which apply to our producers the same as those which are applied in the United States with regard to the size of the can.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Chairman, I feel certain this is the item on which I wish to ask a few questions. The first is, how much pork was canned according to the specifications of the agricultural prices support board during 1952, and also in 1953? Second, how much was sold? Third, how much is still held? Fourth, what is the loan or pork subsidy, or whatever you like to call it, up to date? Before the minister replies I would also like to ask a few questions regarding beef. How much beef was processed, and how much was purchased and held alive? How much was sold, and how much is still on hand? Finally, what was the loss on that deal?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will wait a moment I will give him the exact figures. Perhaps in the meantime we could pass on to another item.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up the matter raised by the hon. member for Acadia in connection with the livestock marketing board. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the organizations in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, or any of the other provinces, have negotiated with the board in any way in an attempt to arrive at an initial price which could be guaranteed by the board and whether the negotiations have reached the stage where the price was actually discussed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think they have got to that stage as yet. As the hon. member knows, the board has to be set up under the provincial act and they have not accomplished that up to now. So far as I know there have been discussions in Manitoba between the farmers' union and

the Manitoba government and in Saskatchewan between the farmers' union and the Saskatchewan government, but they would not make any application to us until the board is set up.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The board must be set up first?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Following up the remarks made by the hon. member for Queens on the matter of the importation of canned chicken, I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that the United States department of agriculture certainly requires exporters of canned goods from this country to adhere to the regulations set down by their department and I would think that we could make our own regulations apply in the same way.


James Garfield Gardiner: When we were shipping canned pork into the United States we had to conform to the labels and markings they required and things of that kind and it was a matter of negotiation because we wanted to sell our pork there and we wanted it to go into their market at a price satisfactory to them, otherwise they would have added duty and we would have received no more for that pork. Therefore, we made that arrangement, and one part of it was that we put a certain type of label on the cans.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But, Mr. Chairman, this is not a matter of canned pork. It is a matter concerning anything shipped to the United States in cans and our exporters have to conform to their regulations in so far as the size of the can and the labels are concerned. That applies equally to fish, fowl, fruits, vegetables, and practically everything that we put in cans.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand they have to approve these things but we do not necessarily have to change the labels on all types of foodstuffs. Their regulations are intended to prevent their people being misled, and that is why they raised the objection.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I must say I support the representations made by the hon. member for Queens because, as some of the officials of the minister's department know, I had a good deal to do with the department before this standardization was put into effect back in 1943, if that is when the minister said it was.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it was 1943; yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was quite a hectic job. As he said, the motive was to try to get around misrepresentation. But what is the

good of getting around misrepresentation on the part of canners and packers in this country if we are going to permit shippers in the American market to undercut our own people?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will take up the matter with the other departments.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, Mr. Chairman, the item is not carried.


James Garfield Gardiner: As to canned pork the amount is 98,294,076 pounds. It is all sold or arranged for. It has perhaps not all been shipped but it is all sold. The total received for it was $27,262,756.90. The loss was $31,911,076.48. That is the pork. I am getting the same figures for the beef. It was all bought in 1952. None of it was bought in 1953.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I did not know whether any was processed in 1953.


James Garfield Gardiner: As to beef of all kinds-of course, this was quite a different deal, as is understood; it was largely frozen meat-the amount was 94,434,988 pounds; the amount received was $10,516,511.19. The loss there was about the same as that for pork; it was $33,408,941.15.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Thank you.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister tell us whether there was a different price for quality or grade? In other words, how much a pound did we get for canned pork as it was sold, and to what countries was it shipped? Some of it was shipped to Russia, I understand, and some probably to other countries. Can the minister give us the information with respect to that matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were 60 million
pounds of it sold in Canada and approximately 4 million pounds in the United States. The remainder of it was sold in other countries.


George Clyde Nowlan: As to the 60 million pounds sold in Canada, was that for local consumption?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that was for local consumption.


John Alpheus Charlton: What was the total amount that went behind the iron curtain? Was it just this last 9 million pounds?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have no direct information on that. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other day, that department issued a permit to Canada Packers to
Supply-Agriculture
ship some to Czechoslovakia, I think it was, which probably would be behind the iron curtain. But we sold the product to Canada Packers. We sold it to a number of different sources but some of it was sold to Canada Packers. The condition put on the sale was that the product had to be sold off this continent. That was done in order to meet regulations in the United States and so on and also to avoid its being distributed here at prices at which it was sold. It went to European countries largely. It was sold by local people. The amount that went to Czechoslovakia I think was sold by Canada Packers. I am not certain whether any of the others sold any there or not so I will not attempt to give any figures as to just what was sold.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, this is a point that the minister himself has now brought out in some detail. After all, this relates to arrangements made by his department. Can the committee not now have figures as to the sales to the countries beyond the iron curtain? He has mentioned Czechoslovakia. He has not mentioned the 8 million pounds sold to Russia. Can the minister give us the figures for the sales to countries beyond the iron curtain and the arrangements that were made in each case?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The Leader of the Opposition is perfectly correct. The product was handled by our prices support board in our department. But when it became a matter of its being shipped out of Canada there had to be permits from the Department of Trade and Commerce. In so far as we were concerned, there were 12 million pounds sold to Canada Cold Storage; there were 9 million pounds sold to Canada Packers and there were 13 million pounds sold to a combination of Canada Cold Storage and Canada Packers. Then there were 300,000 pounds sold to Vianda Limited of Switzerland.


Mr. Campbell:: Can the minister give the prices received along with the quantity?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first sale was at 15 cents; the second was at 15| cents; the third one was at 16 cents and the fourth one was at 16-65 cents.


George Alexander Drew: Where is the head office of Canada Cold Storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: Montreal.


Mr. Ferguson:: May I ask whether the minister knows whether Canada Cold Storage is affiliated in any way with Canada Packers? Is Canada Cold Storage Company a regular packing company operating in Canada the same as is Canada Packers or are they a selling agency only?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they are not a packing plant at all; they are a storage concern. So far as we know they are not associated with Canada Packers.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has explained very simply that these transactions are carried out, of course, by the prices support board which actually bought the meat in the first place and arranged for its storage. Will the minister suggest to the committee that discussions did not take place with regard to where this meat was going before the sale took place? Before I ask that the question be answered, may I say that what I mean by that is this: Was there not discussion as to the destination of this meat before the arrangements were made for the sale of it?


James Garfield Gardiner: We knew that the first 25 million were going to West Germany, that is, the 12 million and the 13 million, before it left our hands. We did not know where the 9 million were going. We made it a condition that it had to go off this continent, but we did not know where it would go. After they got it we could not impose any condition that they could not sell it in one place or another.


George Alexander Drew: As I understand it, the figures that the minister has given are 12 million to Canada Cold Storage at 15 cents, 9 million to Canada Packers at 15| cents, 13 million to Canada Cold Storage at 16 cents and 300,000 to a Swiss firm at 16-65. Is that right?


James Garfield Gardiner: That at 15J was what was sold to a combination of companies, Canada Cold Storage and Canada Packers. That is the 13 million pounds at 15f. The amount sold to Canada Packers alone was sold at 16-65.


George Alexander Drew: Is that the 9 million?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the 9 million, and the 300,000 was sold at 16 cents.


George Alexander Drew: Does the minister inform the house that at the time the sale of the 9 million at 16-65 was effected it was not then known that a permit was to be granted for the export of that to Russia?


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact is that so far as the 9 million pounds are concerned Canada Packers, so far as we knew-and I think it is correct-bought it on speculation. They probably knew at what price other sales had been made and they bought it on speculation. We did not know where they were going to sell it. So far as I know they did not know, and eventually they did get an offer from Czechoslovakia, I think it was, and they got a permit from the Department of Trade and

Commerce. That was simply a permit to ship, as I understand it, to the country to which it had been sold. We had no idea where Canada Packers was going to sell it before we sold the 9 million pounds to them. We just made the condition that it must be off this continent.


George Alexander Drew: Just so we will understand this clearly, what was the date of the sale of the 9 million pounds to Canada Packers?


James Garfield Gardiner: January 25 by tender.


George Alexander Drew: What was the date of the application for a permit by the Czechoslovaks in relation to the sale which went to Russia?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not got the exact date. I do not suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce has either, but I am told it was either towards the end of March or in April.


George Alexander Drew: But before that meat left it was known that the destination of the consignment that was being bought by the Czechoslovakian representative was in fact Russia.


James Garfield Gardiner: When they got a permit to ship of course they got a permit to ship it to some place-Czechoslovakia.


George Alexander Drew: That is all I want to know. At the time the government gave the permit for the sale of that 9 million pounds it was known that the destination of that order arranged through Czechoslovakian agents was Russia.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think it was Russia, I think it was Czechoslovakia.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Czechoslovakia.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which some people have said is behind the iron curtain.


George Alexander Drew: People do not say; the minister knows it is behind the iron curtain.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know it was Russia.


George Alexander Drew: Unless Czechoslovakia has been freed today it is still behind the iron curtain.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not be Russia, it would be Czechoslovakia.


George Alexander Drew: There has been no question so far about the fact that the destination was Russia. Does the minister suggest that the destination of that pork was not Russia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a system of area control and the regulations are uniform for the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Certain items are listed as strategic. No permits can be issued for them. Certain others are listed as subject to permit. Canned meat happens to be listed

as subject to permit. We got an application from Canada Packers to issue a permit. I cannot say whether the destination was Czechoslovakia or Russia. I think it was Czechoslovakia. They are exactly the same as far as area control is concerned. They are both behind the iron curtain and both subject to area control. We consulted with those who maintain the area control, found that it was perfectly in order to issue a permit, and the permit was issued.


George Alexander Drew: I have no desire to create any uncertainty about it, but I have reason to believe that Russia was the destination of that 9 million pounds, and I am not basing that upon press reports or otherwise.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no question from what the minister has said that it could go to Russia from Czechoslovakia.


George Alexander Drew: I ask the government if there is any question about the fact that this was in fact consigned to Russia. I only do it so that we will understand what the transaction was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would be glad to find out, but frankly I do not know. I did not sign the permit.


George Alexander Drew: So that we will understand this, and inasmuch as the Minister of Trade and Commerce still has certain items, may I ask him to find out the date of the application, the name of the purchaser, the name of the consignee and the information that was given as to the place where the pork was to be delivered.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will do better than that. I will file a copy of the export permit.


[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, $100,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: Item No. 40 has to do with the agricultural products board and then there is a board under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Would the minister say what this item for the marketing of agricultural products includes?


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish the hon. member would look up at the microphone. I could hear him better when we did not have these machines.


John Alpheus Charlton: What comes under item 36?


James Garfield Gardiner: Item 36 is marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in
Supply-Agriculture
the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $6,000. Under that item we can appoint persons to do marketing for us, the expenditure not to exceed $6,000, without going to the civil service commission. That is all that means, and the item provides $100,000 to be used to assist in marketing farm products.


John Alpheus Charlton: In what way is it used to market farm products? The Agricultural Prices Support Act administration markets farm products. Then there is the agricultural products board under item 40. What is the object of this? Do they do the same work as the agricultural prices support board?


James Garfield Gardiner: The greater part of this amount is used for advertising farm products. We advertise, for example, that butter is better. We used to have that advertisement in every store where butter was being sold, meaning of course that it was better than some other things sold there also. We paid for that, and we have had similar advertisements in connection with other products. This is the vote which provides for that.


Mr. Michener:: Can the minister say how long this provision permitting employment of salesmen for agricultural products outside of the civil service regulations has been in
effect?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been in effect ever since that vote has been in here. I am not sure that the amount has always been $6,000. But with an amount of $6,000, if we employed one person that amount would not provide for his employment for more than a year, and it would probably be for a part of a year.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps the minister could inform the committee as to the number of people who are now employed and paid under this grant and the longest term of service of any of them now employed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are given on page 111 of the book of estimates. It shows that casual assistance amounted to $4,800, and it was $4,800 last year; travelling expenses, $2,400, and it was $2,422 last year; telephones and telegrams, $200 last year and we estimate the same this year; publication of reports and other material, $5,000 last year and we estimate that for this year; advertising and other publicity, $35,000 each year; office stationery and supplies, $200 each year; marketing projects, $52,300 this year and $52,278 last year. Then, there is $100 for sundries.


Daniel Roland Michener: The details on page 111 do not seem to indicate that there is anyone employed.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The first item is for casual assistance. It does not mention any one person, but that is the amount that was spent.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is the total amount for salaries for the whole item. There is not a large staff maintained?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. As a matter of fact, we might employ a person to go out and put in these ads or draft these ads for us, something of that kind.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask what advertising was done? Was it to sell products the government owned or to stimulate the purchasing of various products?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is to stimulate consumption of a product of which we might think, if it were not stimulated, we might have a surplus. For example, we put advertisements right across the country to the effect that "butter is better". We thought we had some butter to sell.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The government had butter to sell.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not necessarily the government. We thought if it were not sold it would pile up, and we would have a surplus of it so we tried to advertise it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is another benefit for the farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: It could be the storekeeper who had butter or the person who had it in storage, not necessarily the farmer.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The greater portion of the interest would be to sell that butter for the dairy farmer. They would be the parties to reap the benefit, not the storekeeper. No storekeeper would keep enough butter on hand to be worried about storage. These advertisements would be primarily of help to the farmer in the sale of the product. I do not believe the farmer or the public are aware of that fact.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the request was not made by the farmers.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was something that the people who are interested in producing butter and delivering butter discussed with the government. I believe they actually did have a certain amount put on butter in Ontario for that purpose. They took a cent a pound off the payment that they got, and then we put in an extra amount in order to make the amount greater, and the ads were put out all over the country.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am in entire agreement with advertising these products. The fruitgrowers of California do the same thing to stimulate the purchase of their products. I am just wondering if every department in government as well as the Department of Agriculture have little caches of money hidden away with which they could carry that idea a little farther. I am glad to see the farmer get it, and particularly the dairy farmer. Does the same condition apply to almost every department of government? Do they have a $35,000 item with which they can say we can just help along Joe, and then he will vote for us for sure? If that is the case, it is a very handy sum of money.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just want to say one thing. We have advertised a lot of things like onions, potatoes and so on. I want to assure my hon. friend that the item has never been hidden away. It has been stuck right out in front every time, and has been voted upon.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I should like to see an ad
from another department that would read, "Buy your ships and build them in Colling-wood". We hear talk about prices dropping by 30 per cent, but in our shipyards there has been a drop of about 100 per cent and that affects my home town. It is pretty near time this government did something about that.


Mr. Dufresne:: I should like to know if the Department of Agriculture ever sold meat or butter at military camps for consumption by the armed forces at very cheap prices?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only meat that we have sold so far as I can recall is some of the beef that we accumulated when we were fighting foot-and-mouth disease. I do not believe it was sold at lower prices. I think it was sold in competition with others. Everyone had to bid for it. When we had that meat, we put in bids and sold it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Has the minister any idea of the price at which it was sold?


James Garfield Gardiner: The beef, I understand, was sold at around 30 cents.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have asked this question because I am informed that at Valcartier Camp near Quebec some surplus pork and beef is being sold now to private enterprise in the city of Quebec at about 18 cents a pound. I should like to know from where that surplus comes?


James Garfield Gardiner: We would not know anything about that. The hon. member had better bring that up on the defence estimates and have it answered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Terminable services-
37. Freight assistance on western feed grains, $17,000,000.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Each year this item for freight assistance on western feed grain comes before us, and generally it is extended for another year. I hope it will be extended again. We in the east like to take advantage of that if we can. If it were not for the fact that we receive some assistance in connection with western feed grain we would not use nearly as much as we do. I have asked quite a number of questions tonight, and up until now I have not been critical of the minister. I am going to be critical at this moment because the minister represents the Dominion of Canada, and he is responsible for the policy that is formed by the government.
If the western farmer were getting what we have to pay for this grain I would not think so much about it, but he is not getting that price. We are paying too much for the grain at this end. There is a large disparity between what the western farmer gets for the grain, and what we have to pay for it. I should like the minister to tell me why there is such a difference in the price?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand the question, Mr. Chairman, it is why someone pays the western farmer a certain price for his grain, and so far as we are concerned it is the wheat board-with others buying oats, barley and so on-and why it costs the farmer in the east so much more to get it? Well, I do not know that it is up to me to explain that. It is not anything over which we have control. We pay a very considerable part of the freight from Fort William to the east; and to the extent that the freight is paid it tends to put the price down, not up. When it gets into the hands of the dealer in Ontario, Quebec or the eastern provinces, or in British Columbia they do all kinds of things with it.
In the first place as a rule they grind it, and then they mix it with other kinds of feed to suit different animals at different ages. Then they put it in a very fancy bag, as a rule, with all kinds of inscriptions on the bag. We have no way of checking that, to find out what these costs are.
When I see a man with a trailer behind his car taking home five or six bags, sometimes I wonder why it does not cost him more, because there is so much cost in doing it that way. When I was in Ontario they took the feed home, and many of them still do. Some of them have trucks today and take it home by the truckload. Others took it home with a team and wagon, a real load of it. And it is very difficult to understand 83276-396
Supply-Agriculture
how the cost could be other than a high cost if you put only five or six bags on a trailer behind a car every time you want a little feed. If you run into town with a trailer and pull it out every few days, it is bound to have a high cost.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is not the answer at all. No doubt there are those who do that, but that is not the answer. The fact of the matter is that we have to pay too much for this, and there is too great a spread. I think the Minister of Agriculture is responsible to some extent.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, he is not. The minister of agriculture in Ontario is, but I am not.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Oh, well, now you are the minister acting for the Dominion of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have nothing to do with the miller in Ontario. He gets the grain and it is his grain. If he is going to sell it to a farmer in Ontario I have nothing to do with it. That is provincial.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The dominion government controls this whole thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they do not.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You could have control over it if you wished to use your facilities to control it. And that is one place where you have fallen down, when you do not protect the farmer in every part of Canada. We have had ministers of agriculture from the west-


James Garfield Gardiner: You are telling me one of two things, either that the farmer out west is getting too little for it, in which case I am not getting him enough, or that the fellow down here is paying too much for it.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is true.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will probably have to split it in the middle.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If the farmer in the west were getting a high price, it would not be so bad. But he is not getting the price. They are not getting any great amount of money after they have grown it out there. And when I get it in Ontario I have to pay more than I can afford to pay for it as feed, to feed it at a profit. And we would produce far more hogs and far more cattle if we could get it, perhaps more than you would want.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister knows that I have spoken on this subject every year since I came to the house. When I first came here it was a matter of an interim vote in the supplementary estimates. I remember two years ago I asked the parliamentary assistant-the minister was away and perhaps I took an unfair advantage-when this would become part of a permanent government

Supply-Agriculture
policy, and he intimated that perhaps it had. The fact that it is now in the main estimates indicates that it is now permanent government policy. I do wish to say I appreciate the fact that it is contained in the main estimates today, rather than have to wait six months as we have heretofore to find out whether it is to be voted or not. This is welcomed by the farmers in the east.
I can tell the minister that last July and early August I was engaged in a certain field activity, as were other hon. members in the house including, I presume, the right hon. gentleman. And more than one farmer to whom I happened to go during those hot July days said, when I asked him if he would vote for me, "Well, if you can tell me why middlings are so blinkety-blankety high I will vote for you". I said that if we were elected and Jimmy Gardiner was not I would reduce it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: After all, the minister has here a vote of $17 million, which is a lot of money. How is that money allocated? One can understand the purpose of it; but does not the minister's department supervise the allocation of it? And to that extent is there not a certain control over the trade?


James Garfield Gardiner: We check it carefully. And I must say that if what my hon. friend said a moment ago could be proved I would have great difficulty in having this vote accepted by the government. I have not had it proven to me, nor have other members of the government had it proven to them, that somebody is getting away with some of the freight payments we have made.


George Clyde Nowlan: But you suspect it.


James Garfield Gardiner: And they would have to be getting away with it in order to bring about the condition described a moment ago. I do not really think it could be proven, and my reason for saying that is that these other costs are added on. It may be argued that they do not need to be added on at all and should not be there; but that is not the way we check. We have checked the question as to whether that grain left Fort William worth a certain amount of money, and when it got into the hands of the dealer it represented a certain amount there.
Now, if you begin adding all these other things-mixing, and adding fishmeal and a lot of other things-and sell it out at so much per hundred pounds it is difficult to get back to the price as between the western farmer and the farmer who bought the grain here. But if the idea that has been suggested could be proven, I am afraid no freight payments would be made.
[Mr. Nowlan.j


Lewis Elston Cardiff: We are not kicking about the freight payments. You have said it is the dealer who is responsible. All right; we will find out if it is the dealer who is responsible. But if it is not the dealer, then somebody else is. And I would like to know who it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what I said at Niagara Falls. The farmers were all there, and they were arguing this question for an hour-that the thing to do was to prove that the dealers were responsible, and then something could be done about it. Some of them thought they were, and kept insisting that they were. I say that if you are going to try to judge that, it can be done in the province of Ontario, by the government there, or in any other province.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Would the minister give the actual figures paid out for this freight subsidy in the last five years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the figures here since we started. We have paid out a total of $208,711,753.87.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What years does that figure cover?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe that averages $6.16 a ton. The figures for the last five years are as follows:
1949-	50	$16,764,0041950-	51	
15,637,7861951-	52	
14,999,2391952-	53	
20,465,5791953-	54	
16,724,647
I should add that part of the figure for 1953-54 is a forecast.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: This complaint of the eastern farmers regarding the cost of feed to them is not something new; it has been going on for a good many years. I am wondering whether the department could not encourage some form of co-operation among those eastern farmers so they could buy their grain direct from the wheat board in carload lots, bring it into their district and distribute it themselves. I think it would cut down the cost of the feed by at least one-third.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing to prevent any group of farmers down here from getting together and buying direct from the wheat board or from any other organization such as the pools out there. That could be done. But the individuals have to take the initial action in connection with it.


John Alpheus Charlton: The only difficulty as I have stated before on many occasions in the agriculture committee, is that your delivery date must be extended to almost three or four months when ordering from the wheat board direct or from any other branch. The only way you can get feed and get it at the

time you want it is to get it through the dealers. If there is any way in which the wheat board can guarantee a reasonable length of tune for delivery I am sure many farmers would buy direct, and many groups of farmers would buy direct, but they have not been able to get delivery of it probably for months after ordering. That is why they will not buy it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
44.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage. $3,899,245.
45.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,077,747.
George Alexander Drew: I wish to make some remarks in regard to item 44. A few days ago we were discussing wheat and, as I mentioned at the time, that seemed for a while to develop into a private war between the members on both sides of the house from the province of Saskatchewan, although there were members from other parts of the country who had a very real and deep concern in this subject. There have been occasions when one of the most important questions arising under this present item seems to have been regarded as a private subject of dispute between members of this house coming from the province of Saskatchewan. I am referring to the question that has been before us on different occasions regarding the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project.
I wish to speak not merely as the Leader of the Opposition but as a member of this house representing an Ontario constituency. I regard this as a question of concern to every Canadian. It is important that we recognize it as a subject that is of interest to every Canadian. During the present session we have been discussing on different occasions the development of the St. Lawrence waterway and power project. On other occasions we have been discussing developments in other parts of the country, and I say to the credit of the members coming from parts of the country distant from the St. Lawrence seaway and power project that I have heard at no time any suggestion that this should not be supported because it was not something that brought an apparent immediate advantage to their own constituencies.
As Canadians in this house we have welcomed the information that came to us that the St. Lawrence waterways and power development would be proceeded with. As Canadians we have welcomed other developments that contribute to the general advancement of Canadians. I suggest that this long debated and very long discussed question of the South Saskatchewan dam will best be examined in the right perspective if we 83276-396J
S upp ly-A griculture
remove it from any suggestion that it is only a question of direct interest to the people of Saskatchewan. I prefer to believe that this is a matter of just as direct concern to the people of the rest of Canada as is the St. Lawrence waterway. True, it is not as large a development; true, the amount expended would not be as great; the electric energy produced will be, in relative terms, comparatively small. The amount, however, would be very large for the area that would be affected and the benefits would be immense to the country in which the development would actually take place. We have before us now under item 44 the provision of $3,899,245 under the heading "Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage". Perhaps it would be correct to bring together the three items, 44, 45 and 46 which are in some measure related to each other.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not item 46.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize that it is primarily the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will permit me, it is item 45 under which the South Saskatchewan river project comes, not item 44.


George Alexander Drew: They are related items. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage of course is the-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the $7 million item that it comes under.


George Alexander Drew: -item covering the operation of the rehabilitation act which is the act in relation to which certain inquiries were made. Item No. 45, "Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces" amounts to $7,077,747, and would be the item that would directly relate to this project. I recognize that. However, it is convenient if we may proceed on that basis to discuss the subject of these two items together, because the one item relates to the act under which certain inquiries have taken place, and the other is in regard to the allowances made with respect to these projects. I mention that because the engineers working under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act have been doing work in regard to this project which is in fact the basis on which much of the discussion has taken place. In fact, it was the information obtained by the engineers working under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which was largely the basis of the consideration given to this problem by the commission which was appointed to inquire into this subject.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to the two of them being discussed at one time on the understanding that when we get through

Supply-Agriculture
with them we shall have the two of them passed and we shall not come back to something else.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite agreeable to doing it either way. I do it this way because there is a related aspect between these two items. It is under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act that much of the preliminary work has been done in regard to the project covered in item 44 that I am actually discussing-


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreeable to the committee to discuss items 44 and 45 together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Drew: Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be desirable to go over as briefly as possible the history relating to this particular project. I do not intend to go back to the early discussions held long years ago, though I could do so for while I would not match my memories of Saskatchewan with those of the minister, who has lived there so many years and has grown up with the developments in the province, nevertheless my memories go back many years to the time when I first heard this project being discussed.
However to bring this up to the time when legislation was actually put on the statute books under which consideration was given to this project, I would mention that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was enacted in 1935 by the Conservative government under Mr. R. B. Bennett. I do not think this is something about which there will be any disagreement between myself and the minister. In fact, to some of the hon. members who have engaged in earlier debates may I just say that I am putting this on the record so as to remove some of the confusion in the Liberal folklore which has been built up on this subject. That act was put on the statute books primarily with the idea of retrieving certain prairie land, especially those of Saskatchewan, from the severity of the drought which had visited those areas.
The building of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river was a local dream of some new development made possible by the fact that the constant flow of the Saskatchewan river between high banks obviously invited the construction of a dam which would permit the development of power as well as irrigation. The building of a dam on the South Saskatchewan would permit the development of a great deal of power in that province and it would be of benefit to well over half a million acres in an area which today is one of the really tragic areas of Saskatchewan and of western Canada.
IMr. Gardiner.]
In that area, as the minister so well knows, there is tragic evidence of homes in which people lived and brought up their families. There are abandoned schools, abandoned churches, and there is the appearance of desolation in many parts of that area which we know perfectly well from the reports before us, and from the evidence of the experimental work which has been carried on, could be made rich productive areas with effective irrigation.
There is, in fact, some experimental development near Outlook in Saskatchewan where some of the finest crops, in a small area of course, are being grown where experimental irrigation has been carried out. As the minister well knows, there are within that area some beautiful homes and some substantial growth of trees which demonstrate beyond all question what can be done with that dry soil if irrigation is carried right through that area.
Now the purpose of this project is to obtain the power, not only for general use but to operate the pumping equipment for the irrigation system and in that way provide the power as well to irrigate an estimated 450,000 acres of land in central Saskatchewan.
This calls for the construction of a dam 205 feet high across the South Saskatchewan river near Outlook at a site at the mouth of Coteau creek. Associated with this plan of irrigation, and inseparable from it because the power is needed for the irrigation project, is the development of 150,000 horsepower from the water head that would be created by this dam. Part of this power would be used to pump water to heights from 15 to 120 feet to irrigate approximately 307,000 acres of the total area. The project also contemplates the provision of water for domestic use, which is greatly needed, in the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina.
This particular part is in an area that is generally known as the Palliser triangle. It was first explored between the years 1851 and 1860 by Captain John Palliser of the Royal Engineers. Warning of the problems ahead was given in his report in which he declared this to be an arid area unpromising for human habitation. It has since then been called the Palliser triangle because of his report.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this possibility has been considered for a considerable time. Engineers working under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act have been examining that site for years, testing the foundation, and carrying out experiments as to the way in which this dam could be constructed. They have reported that this is a practical project.

They have reported that the dam can be constructed. They were right there on the spot near Coteau creek and tests have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the engineers that the foundation is suitable and that there are no practical engineering difficulties standing in the way of the construction of this extremely important dam.
However, in this case the government was not satisfied to take the evidence of its own engineers. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that unless the minister is prepared to say that he is not satisfied with the engineers, who will be paid by the very money we are requested to provide at this time, then it would be proper for him to have accepted their recommendation in regard to the construction of this dam. Either those men were competent or they were not. If they were not then other engineers should be found to do the work. I believe they were competent. I believe the money should be provided for the continuance of their services. I believe those were men who knew best what could be done. Those are the men who have been right on the spot where this project is to be constructed. Those are the men who have examined the structure of the soil and the manner in which the material right there can be used for this particular purpose.
Instead of going ahead on the basis of the recommendation of the engineers who were operating under this department of government a royal commission was established to find out whether this should be proceeded with. But we have no evidence before us, Mr. Chairman, that this government at any time found it necessary to appoint a royal commission to find out whether they should proceed with the St. Lawrence waterway. I do not recall any separate royal commission established to find out whether they should proceed with the deepening of the Welland canal on the most recent occasion that they did so. I do not know that there is any evidence before us that other major enterprises have been subjected to a royal commission of inquiry. On the contrary, the government has said with some pride that it accepted the recommendation of the officials and engineers employed for the particular purpose. Why was it in this case that they were not prepared to accept the recommendations made by the engineers so long engaged in the study of this particular project?
Mr. Chairman, the report of that royal commission raised no question about the engineering possibility of this project. It raised a certain question about costs, however. It is significant that in their approach to this subject those who conducted this inquiry were largely dependent upon the
Supply-Agriculture
information given them by the very engineers whose recommendations we already have before us. From time to time we have asked questions as to whether the government was prepared to proceed with this project and the government has said on many occasions that it had not yet become convinced that this project was a practical possibility or that the time was right to undertake it.
Mr. Chairman, I need not put on the record again the amounts required to construct this project, according to the estimate of the engineers. They are before us; they are on record. I think those figures are just as reliable as are the figures before us with regard to the St. Lawrence deep waterway or the power project associated with it. I think they are just as reliable as are any of the other projected figures we are called upon to consider from time to time. I will say without any hesitation that the engineers who prepared the estimates in this case have had a much longer time to examine the subject and to study the figures they presented than have those who presented other figures upon which we have been called upon to pass.
I think we should also bear in mind the fact that we are not dealing alone with the construction of a dam; we are not dealing alone with the availability of 150,000 horsepower of electricity. We are dealing with the reclamation of soil which we know to be rich, productive soil if a water supply is made available, and we know that it can be made available in this case. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should disregard costs. I have not yet come to the point where I am prepared to accept the simple statement of the government "What's a million anyway?" I believe we should examine not only millions but single dollars. Nevertheless there are certain things which should be examined in this case or certain values which cannot be disregarded by any Canadian in coming to some conclusion on this subject.
It will be of immense importance to all of Canada if that heartland of southern Saskatchewan is made as productive as we know it can be made. A gesture of this kind should be welcomed-and I am sure it would be-by those from the maritime provinces who seek-and have obtained in certain cases, but not in as many as they would like -certain consideration there; by those from Quebec who have received consideration for certain projects; by those from Ontario who at this very moment are receiving the support of all members in this house for a project which will benefit Ontario but which will also benefit the whole of Canada; by

Supply-Agriculture
those from Manitoba and Alberta where they already know the great prosperity brought to the Lethbridge and Taber districts of southern Alberta by irrigation of this kind as well as by the people of British Columbia. They all should, and I am sure would, welcome a gesture of this kind as evidence of the feeling of all hon. members that the welfare and advancement of the province of Saskatchewan is a subject of common concern to every hon. member in the House of Commons as it is to every Canadian.
Let me now see why it is that there is so much difficulty in getting action. Why is it that there has been so much stalling on this matter? Why is it that so many explanations have been given as to why it has not been done? Why was a royal commission used to smother this project instead of proceeding on the recommendations of the engineers, as has been done on other occasions? Mr. Chairman, we have had many explanations but I must confess that hope must be stirring in the minds of some because we have a new statement from the Minister of Agriculture. I find that in Saskatoon on June 10 the Minister of Agriculture held out hope with regard to this project. It was a new hope; it was a new picture. Some of us had not heard this before. Speaking in Saskatoon with regard to this subject, the Minister of Agriculture is quoted in the Regina Leader-Post as saying -and I quote the words given in quotation marks in the article-as follows:
We have been doing all right at clearing obstruction out of the way. There were four when we started discussions and there is now only the one left-the question of power development costs-
Mr. Chairman, some of us will remember that Scotch song, "Last night there were four Marys; tonight there are but three". Now we have it down from four to one in this particular case; we have the four difficulties, which are not mentioned in detail, reduced to one, namely the question of power development costs. That matter is not important; I concede that; but it is a subject that has been known for a long time. Then we come to a quotation that I think requires some explanation. The minister is reported as saying-and again I give what appears in direct quotation marks in the article-as follows:
I am the advocate of the dam, but I am not the government of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, if those words have any meaning at all they mean simply this: I want the dam but the government will not agree to it; and since I am not the government of Canada, my wishes cannot be carried out. While we are discussing this subject, let us
(Mr. Drew.]
have an explanation as to whether there is a difference of opinion in the government with regard to this matter. We are not prying into the affairs of the government. I am putting before the committee the words which appear in quotation marks and which, unless he has been misquoted, represent the position of the minister:
X am the advocate of the dam, but I am not the government of Canada.
I repeat that those words mean nothing unless they mean that while the minister advocates the dam, the government does not advocate it.
This project, Mr. Chairman, is one which would provide, on the one hand, irrigation which would create a rich, productive area. This irrigation would once again bring happy homes to those farms which are now, for all practical purposes, in many cases abandoned. It would once again open these schools and bring into existence new and better schools. It would again bring into use these churches in which people have worshipped in the past. It would bring to that area a spirit and a confidence that would have an impact, not only upon that area itself but upon the rest of the province. Above all, it would stand as evidence of the belief of this House of Commons, representing all parts of Canada, that the welfare of the central part of southern Saskatchewan is a matter of common concern to all Canadians.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend is through quoting the article, I have only one criticism to make of what he said. He referred to it as a speech delivered in Saskatoon. It was not a speech. I was being questioned by a reporter of the Star-Phoenix.


George Alexander Drew: Of course, I simply have the information that is contained in the article itself, and it begins with these words:
Agriculture minister J. G. Gardiner said Thursday night there could be no decision regarding the proposed South Saskatchewan river dam until the question of power development costs had been decided.
With respect to whether it was in the form of an interview or a speech-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not make any speech in Saskatoon at all.


George Alexander Drew: I assume the minister is just as accurate in a press interview as in a speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I am not objecting to that. I just want to point out that it would not be correct to say that I made a speech there and said that. I did not want that quoted across the country.


George Alexander Drew: I naturally accept that. I
simply have the report before me and I have

quoted the opening paragraph that gave me the impression that it was a speech or press interview that is given as the statement made by the minister. Of course, if it were in the form of a press interview, it would still represent a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture with respect to a subject that is now part of the general consideration before us. I do emphasize what I said before, that I am not suggesting that we should disregard costs.	The costs, however, are
not prohibitive.	The costs are relatively
small compared with those of a number of projects that have been undertaken by the government. They are comparatively small compared with the costs of projects that have been undertaken by single provinces in the development of their own resources.
I believe this is a practical project. I say so in the belief that the engineers' recommendations are made by men qualified to make such reports, and also because of such personal examination as I have been able to make on the site of the projected dam. There is this further aspect of the subject. Not only would it provide irrigation but it would also provide basic power for a larger power network in that area. We all know that if you have a fixed amount of continuous hydroelectric power at a low rate you can make that the basis of a largely extended use of electric power through a grid where the peak loads will be maintained by supplementary production by diesel engines, steam engines or other equipment.
In a case of this kind needed power would be made available to an extended area of farm land as well as municipalities during the off-peak period and the peak loads at higher cost could be supplied in the way I have suggested. In that way there would be a reasonably low over-all cost of power through an extended part of that area. This belief has been put forward on many occasions and I wish to say, not only as a member from Ontario but as the Leader of the Opposition, that we believe the time is long overdue for a definite decision that this project will proceed. We ask the government now to declare that it will proceed and we ask that it be done both in the interests of the people in that area and in the general interests of the whole of Canada which will benefit by the improvement of the economy of that part of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Thatcher:: I should like to speak for a minute or two on this subject. I appreciate very much what the Leader of the Opposition has just said. There is one issue in Saskatchewan where there are no politics. Whether the member be a Liberal, a Conservative, a Social Crediter or a C.C.F.'er,
Supply-Agriculture
they are all in favour of the South Saskatchewan dam. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has received much criticism because he has not built the dam. As a matter of fact I do not know whether he deserves all the criticism that he has received because I know that he wants the dam. I know that he cannot sell the idea to the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and a few more of his colleagues, but I also know that there is probably no one in Saskatchewan who has pushed the South Saskatchewan dam any more than the Minister of Agriculture. I wish that we in the C.C.F. and Conservative parties could help him.
I can tell the Prime Minister that so far as the building of this dam is concerned there is no issue in Saskatchewan. We think it would be a good thing. In the 1930's we had the most fantastic drought that anyone could imagine. You could drive your car down the main street of a town and you could not see the end of the engine because of the dust that was blowing. We have got lots of moisture out there at the present time, but we are afraid that these same conditions may return.
In Texas, Wyoming and other states of the southern United States they have had drought. We believe that it may return to our province. That is why we are all very anxious that the dam should be built. I am not going to say much more, but I should like to say that this is a project which is in the national interest. We had fantastic relief costs during the depression and will have them again if the dam is not built. We know that if we are going to have some stability for agriculture we need to have the dam built. I hope that the Prime Minister will give consideration to doing something about this irrigation dam. It is not a political matter. It is something that everyone in the province wants.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I am sure that when the people of Saskatchewan read tomorrow what the Leader of the Opposition has said about the South Saskatchewan dam they will appreciate it. My mind goes back a few years when that grand old Conservative, Mr. John R. MacNicol, was sitting in the house. He probably knew more about irrigation than any man who sat in the house during the years he was here. There is no question that the people of Saskatchewan want and need the dam. They need it not only for farming but for power purposes. The power load in Saskatchewan has been mounting very rapidly and the power commission can hardly keep up with the demand. Last year 5,500 farms went on service and this year there will probably be 6,000.

Supp ly-A griculture
I rode across that territory on horseback in 1905. At that time you could run a mowing machine over it and you would not get a load of hay. I wish that the Minister of Agriculture would take the Prime Minister through the Lethbridge country where they have irrigation on a similar type of land so that he could see what has been done there. We could not only take care of quite a few thousand more farmers but we could help to stabilize the whole economy of the country through that part of the country producing foodstuffs. They would be produced year after year. The farmers would not have to depend on rain.
I wish that the estimates of all departments would be brought down earlier. I think this is a subject which we should spend two or three days discussing. These estimates should not be introduced when everybody is sick and tired of sitting here and wanting to get home. These estimates should be brought down early enough so that we would still have a little pep left in us and could take some time to try to persuade the other members of the cabinet besides the Minister of Agriculture who, I am quite sure, wants to see the dam built. I earnestly suggest that the government bring down their estimates earlier next year so that we can have two or three days' debate on this project.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Will you let us get them through if they are brought down?


Mr. Studer:: Mr. Chairman, those of us who have been living for a great number of years in the dry areas of Saskatchewan cannot refrain from offering a few remarks about the advantages of irrigation in a province such as Saskatchewan. I believe that the only way we learn is as a result of the experience of the past. It should not be necessary to go further than the experience of the 1930's to prove the advantages of water when dry conditions are prevalent in our part of the country. History has shown us that this condition recurs from time to time. I believe we should take those lessons that we have learned in the past into consideration in developing a program for the future that will eliminate those trials through which the people of Saskatchewan have had to pass as a result of the unfavourableness of natural conditions as they have existed from time to time.
At the moment we are utilizing much of the time of this House of Commons in trying to find a solution to the problem of what could be called, perhaps, overproduction. I believe some of this time should be utilized in considering what happens when there is
[Ur. Campbell.]
no production in this country. Our experiences in the 1930's certainly showed us that the greatest problem we have in this country is the problem of non-production as a result of climatic or other conditions that may prevail in this country of ours. I would much prefer to be in the position of endeavouring to provide a solution for the matter of production than to solve the trials and tribulations of a condition of non-production.
After all, it is in production that the wealth of Canada lies. There is only one source of wealth throughout this country, and that is production. We in Saskatchewan, as a result of past experience, wish to be in a position where we can contribute to the wealth of Canada through production, and thus stabilize the economy of this country through a continuity of production. In an area such as we have in Saskatchewan, this can result only through the proper utilization of water. The marriage of water with the soil is what results in production. This is the fundamental basis of irrigation projects throughout the world, and it is for that reason we are advocating consideration of this measure in the House of Commons. We think it is necessary for the general good of Canada because it will stabilize the continuity of wealth through production.
It is food that is essential to the people of this country. I believe it would be to our advantage to learn what action we can take, as a result of what has happened in the past, to safeguard the future. We are talking about rain in the west at the moment. It appears as though perhaps there is too much of it. However, over a period of years there has never been too much rain in Saskatchewan. Climates change, perhaps slowly sometimes and perhaps rapidly, but history repeats itself. The records we have from the beginning of time prove the fact that history repeats itself, and what has happened in western Canada in previous times is going to happen again. It is going to happen because we cannot change climatic conditions. It has been upon the production of Saskatchewan that much of the economic welfare of Canada has depended.
East of the Rocky mountains in Saskatchewan we have a condition that is not only peculiar to the Palliser triangle, to which reference has been made, but continues down through the length of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, part of Texas, Oklahoma, and new and old Mexico. These are the drier areas of the North American continent. I do not know of anything that is in existence at the present

time that is going to give us any hope that these climatic conditions will change. The time when we need consideration is the time when nature is unkind to us. At the moment perhaps we could forgo some of the plenteous production we have, but the time this country really appreciates production is during the dry periods, and we have had those periods in the history of our country.
We have listened to the reference to what has happened in Texas recently. During the past year over 19 per cent of the seeded wheat acreage in Texas had to be abandoned because of drought. In western Canada we have been endeavouring since 1930, as a result of our experience, to build up our economy so that what happened before shall not happen again. We want to be in a position so that if these conditions do recur we will be able to carry on production and provide the essentials for the economy of Canada. It is essential for us to supply this new wealth that is absolutely necessary from year to year. This question, therefore, bears some relationship to the economy of the whole of Canada.
We in the west are agreeable to contributing to the fullest extent possible to anything that will advance the general interest of Canada, be it the Canso project in the maritimes, the St. Lawrence project or any other project that will affect the future welfare of Canada. We ask the rest of the people of Canada to give consideration to that which is of advantage to us to maintain our living in western Canada and so that we can contribute to the welfare of Canada. Everyone knows that life is non-existent without water. It is necessary for the existence of people, necessary for the existence of livestock and necessary for the existence of industry. Perhaps if there is one reason why there is a lack of industry in western Canada it is because of the lack of water which is so essential thereto.
Life is non-existent without water, and neither grain, cereals nor grass can grow without water. All flesh that is in existence in the world is grass. If grass failed for one year in the world life would be non-existent, and that is why we in western Canada, after our experience of the 1930's, realize the importance of water to the economy of Canada. It involves the life and existence of the people of Canada as well as the people of the world.
Most of the other countries recognize the importance of the existence of water. I have been living in western Canada and in southwestern Saskatchewan for 35 years. In the springtime when the water rushes away from 83276-397
Supply-Agriculture
the melting snows because of the Chinooks or as a result of the natural development of spring into summer, every one of us who has lived in that country resents every drop of water that leaves that area. We resent the loss of the overflow that runs away in one direction into Hudson bay and in the other, because of the division of the land, into the gulf of Mexico. This water that is the lifeblood of existence to people flows away, and we watch it flow away with the deepest of emotions, realizing as we do that the water should be impounded and used for the development of the country and of the people of the world.
We hear a lot of talk about the underprivileged countries. We hear about the help we should give those people in a country like India, for instance. Well, Canada has one-half of one per cent of the irrigated land of the world. India has 55 million acres of land under irrigation, and we think of India as an underprivileged country. India is preparing right at this moment, in the Sutlej river project and the Bakra dam a $3 billion investment to provide irrigation so that they may provide food for their people. Five big projects are being developed in India. And in Pakistan, which was included in India before the division took place in that portion of the continent, at the present time they have 37 million acres under irrigation.
I have here a list of all the irrigation projects of all the countries of the world, including those supposedly underprivileged countries, showing that they have made developments through irrigation to the extent of the water they have available.
Many people are of the opinion no doubt that if all the water in western Canada were utilized for purposes of irrigation, all the land could be irrigated. But only one per cent of the total land area of Saskatchewan could be irrigated if all the water were utilized that flows down all the rivers in Saskatchewan in any one season. Hon. members will be interested to know that eight times as much water flows down the Ottawa river passing these houses of parliament as flows through all the rivers in southern Saskatchewan. So that will give an idea of the value of water to an area situated as is the province of Saskatchewan. We watch the flow of water down the Ottawa river and pay no particular attention to it. We see the water flowing through the St. Lawrence, and we think, "Well, that is just a means of commerce, whereby the ships can deliver the products of our country to other parts of the world." We pay no particular attention to it.
But in western Canada our rivers are the life of our people. Let us not for one moment

Supply-Agriculture
anticipate that things are going to continue at the level of production they have reached in the last few years. We would like to have it continue as such. If it were not for the irrigated land in the world civilization would cease to exist, because that irrigated land makes life among the people possible. There are over 188 million acres of irrigated land throughout the world which provides a livelihood for its people. We here in Canada have only one-half of one per cent of the total. And we are a progressive nation!
I would suggest that there is a great future for Canada, but we have much to do. We have heard much discussion about costs. There have been discussions through various channels of government, through commissions and committees, and the P.F.R.A. organization. I suggest that this investment is one that would repay the whole of Canada. I do not want to be a member of a government or a member of any organization that is going to go through the thirties again, or that would not at least in some way, shape or form endeavour to make some contribution to prevent a repetition of what we experienced during those years.
Down in southwestern Saskatchewan we do not have to explain our experiences of the past or what happened in those years. No one believes us when we tell them that there were months when we could not mail letters, that there were months when instead of waiting for box cars to take out our production or our wheat, as we do today, we were waiting for box cars that would bring relief to southwestern Saskatchewan. That is what we were waiting for from Ontario and Quebec, and other parts of Canada. We were waiting so that the people throughout Canada would recognize our terrible plight, a situation in which we had to sell our stock for as little as one cent a pound because there was not enough feed in the country to maintain more than one adult animal and two calves because that was the limit set by the government. No one in Canada could supply the feed for all that country that was suffering from drought.
Two-thirds of the people of Saskatchewan were on a relief basis. It cost the Dominion of Canada $200 million for that experience; and we want to see that that is not repeated in the future. Why should we not learn by experience? The people of Saskatchewan are right, and they are right in more ways than one. I think the Saskatchewan government is doing a service for the people of this country when it is offering to pay for the power that is inherent in or would be delivered through the building of the dam.
This would be a project different from any other in western Canada in that it would

have both power and irrigation in connection with it. I would not hesitate for one moment to say that a Saskatchewan government may build it, itself. And if it did, I think everybody in Saskatchewan would be behind it. But that would not be a fair thing to do. The dominion government has been responsible for the impounding of water throughout Canada, and the provincial government has been responsible for the utilization of water after it has been impounded. I think the least the Dominion of Canada could do would be to accede to the general situation prevailing throughout Canada, and that would be to grant its proportion of the cost of building a project that would be the very lifeblood of the people in western Canada, as history may well prove.
Irrespective of what we do, we are going to save money. We will save the millions that have been spent in western Canada for relief. And remember this, that there is a possibility; no, not a possibility, there is a definite probability of the development of half a million acres of irrigated land through this Saskatchewan river project.
Incidentally, this development would not help us in southwestern Saskatchewan, because our elevation is too high. We are at an elevation of around three thousand feet, and it is difficult to make water run uphill. But I am thinking of the drought years in the economy of Saskatchewan and in the economy of the Dominion of Canada, when those 500,000 acres could average 20 bushels to the acre when there was no rainfall. This would mean an enormous advantage to the Dominion of Canada.
So there could not be any loss. I do not know of any losses in these so-called underprivileged countries through their irrigation projects. They have suffered no loss through those projects. The laws of water flowing on land are the natural laws, as natural as man and wife. They are as natural as life itself. One might say they are as natural as death or as birth, or as anything else in this world. The two have to go together.
I do not want to be a member from Saskatchewan if we do not develop that which is right on our doorstep. The water is there. Every year it flows out of Saskatchewan. It is of very little use when it arrives back in Hudson bay, or in the ocean. Nature has to absorb it again in clouds, bring it back to earth and spread it over the land-and no one has been able to explain how this is done. But it is done through the design of God who has ordained that there shall be millions, billions, trillions of tons of water

spread over the country so that things may grow, and so that people may earn their livelihood through their labours.
Had this irrigation dam been built, what happened in the thirties would have been prevented. Prices were low, and all the rest of it, but there is no substitute for production. One cannot receive a price for anything unless he produces it. So the first essential is to produce. And one acre of irrigated land, we are told, will sustain 20 acres of dry land and make it possible for those other 20 acres to produce.
So let us consider what half a million acres of irrigated land will do in sustaining the economy of western Canada throughout dry years. It will eliminate resettlement in those years. We know that 5,574 persons had to be moved out of southwestern Saskatchewan, to be resettled elsewhere, on account of the drought. It seems to be money lost to have to resettle people when they can be sustained in their own environment and have an opportunity of making their own living. Trainloads of food were brought into western Canada, even from as far away as Quebec. The need for much of that could be eliminated.
I would suggest that one-half of the people of Saskatchewan were on relief in 1937. It was not an economic situation as much as a lack of production. There were no gardens; there was no wheat; there was no grain; there was no livestock. Nothing can exist without water, and we wish to eliminate that lack in the future. I do not think it is beyond the capacity of a young and growing country like Canada to make it possible for a portion of the population of this country to continue to contribute to the welfare of all our people. It has been proven by organizations such as P.F.R.A. that this irrigation development is possible. There may be persons who doubt that because of what has happened in the past in regard to power developments, as to whether coal or water may be the most economical method of developing power in the future, but that is part and parcel of the development of all our country. Wherever you find water, people and the necessary ingredients to develop industry there you will find it.
We in Saskatchewan have had a great lack of power. Water is the first essential. Give us the water and we shall have everything else. Therefore I would suggest to the federal government-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Ten o'clock.


Irvin William Studer: -that we give all the support we possibly can to western Canada in the development, not of something that applies 83276-397J
Supply-Agriculture
to us as individuals so that we as individuals may prosper, although it should be the object of all of us to prosper through what we contribute to the rest of the Dominion of Canada. We have no right to accept the benefits of what others produce unless we produce ourselves. We have no right to expect to enjoy happiness if we do not contribute to happiness. I think that from the short-term and long-term point of view we can contribute to the welfare of all the people of Canada by giving more consideration to what is involved in the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam than we have in the past.
Indirectly we have been contributing to the building of that dam. There is the development of oil in Saskatchewan. During the last seven years Alberta has obtained over $270 million from the development of oil. Through their natural resources they contribute to the building up of additional natural resources. Saskatchewan government officials and members have claimed that Saskatchewan has 40 per cent of the oil of western Canada. Well if that oil is a natural resource it may perhaps contribute to the building up of other natural resources, the building of the dam.


William Alfred Robinson: I hear some members saying "ten o'clock". Is it agreed that I rise, or is it agreed that we shall continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Rise.


Irvin William Studer: In conclusion I would say that everyone would benefit from the building of that dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps hon. members do not know, but the hon. member who has just taken his seat came all the way back from Saskatchewan to deliver this speech. He has been at home trying to get his seed in under very difficult circumstances, and he came back because he thought this question was going to be discussed. I suppose he is just as anxious to get back and finish his job as anyone. I wonder whether hon. members would allow him five minutes or ten minutes to finish up, as he wants to finish.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Until a quarter past ten.


Irvin William Studer: Mr. Chairman, I was luckily just at the end of what little contribution I am able to make. The minister was kind enough to mention that we came back from western Canada. There were several meetings that we had to attend in western Canada in the last week, including a meeting of the cattle growers of southwestern Saskatchewan, which was most interesting, and several other

Supply-Agriculture
meetings. Incidentally, they were not political meetings. I have before me a list of political C.C.F. meetings that are being held in Saskatchewan during this week, but that does not enter into the picture.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; it is ten minutes after ten. In view of the fact that we have had a very long day-


An hon. Member:: You do not like it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We asked the staff of the house to come back at seven o'clock, and without unanimous consent I do not think we should get involved in a political discussion at this time. I myself will be very glad to take part in the discussion when the estimates are called again. I think you might call it ten o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member is quite right. Unanimous consent is required to continue. I understood unanimous consent had been granted.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understood that unanimous consent was that you rise and report progress.


William Alfred Robinson: The Minister of Agriculture rose to his feet and requested a few minutes more for the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I understood that unanimous consent had been given to him to continue for a few minutes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was given an opportunity to discuss water, but I think it was not understood that he would start in to tell of some of the political C.C.F. meetings that are being held in Saskatchewan at the present time. We are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the election of the C.C.F. government. I think we should not at this stage get started on that sort of discussion.


Irvin William Studer: They are not celebrating that now.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member has unanimous consent to proceed?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, not to make a political speech. We will give him a chance to finish his speech when we return to the minister's estimates later.


Irvin William Studer: I am sure none of us would want to interfere with or enter into any political discussion at this time. I just thought that perhaps the Saskatchewan river dam was more important than the provincial constituency or the C.C.F. conventions in Saskatchewan at the moment. I should like to
(Mr. Studer.]
apologize for referring to that. I do not wish to detain hon. members. I was going to talk a little about what could be saved by the federal government in connection with what has been expended in Saskatchewan, but I think that is something that we can give consideration to under less strenuous conditions than have existed during the past week. Hon. members have been sitting long hours, and I shall refrain from continuing my remarks at the present time.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall start with veterans affairs. I have some reason to hope that the first item will be carried without further debate, or very little in any event, and that perhaps we can complete the items by one o'clock. Whenever we complete them we shall go on with health and welfare. In any event, we shall go on with health and welfare at 2.30, to be followed by fisheries, legislation, post office, citizenship and immigration. On Monday we shall take the amendments to the Judges Act; then national defence and defence production.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was beginning to be afraid the house might close before we got to the minister's estimates.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to delay the discussion on this but is it not likely that we would finish the Department of Agriculture more quickly if we proceeded with it tomorrow morning rather than to have some delay before calling the department again?


Walter Edward Harris: I doubt it very much, Mr. Speaker. There have been a considerable number of expedients adopted over the past few days to arrange the business for today, tomorrow and Monday, and the best solution seems to be the one I have indicated. I would be happy if agriculture could be disposed of in one hour in the morning but I really do not believe that.


[Stage Direction]
It being twelve minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1.	Departmental administration, $432,490.
2.	Information service, $403,628.
3.	Advisory committee on agricultural services, $5,000.

4.	Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux in a total amount of £43,959, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1954, which is, $120,393.
Science service-
Science service administration-
5.	Operation and maintenance, $719,060.
6.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,514,806.
7.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $213,395. Botany and plant pathology-
8.	Operation and maintenance, $1,403,534.
9.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $198,450.
10.	Chemistry, $757,251.
Entomology-
11.	Operation and maintenance, $2,086,123.
12.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $88,741.
Forest biology-
13.	Operation and maintenance, $1,923,859.
14.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $230,093.
15.	Plant protection, $838,448.
Experimental farms service-
16.	Experimental farms service administration, $181,201.
Central experimental farm including research and co-ordinating divisions for the experimental farms service-
17.	Operation and maintenance, $2,242,455.
18.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $307,330.
Branch experimental farms, substations and illustration stations-
19.	Operation and maintenance, $6,351,995.
20.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,250,000.
Production service-
21.	Production service administration, $84,843. Animal pathology-
22.	Operation and maintenance, $554,721.
23.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $101,770.
Health of animals-
24.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $5,540,940.
Supply-Agriculture
25.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $482,550.
26.	Live stock and poultry, $1,644,413.
27.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian seed growers' association, $1,483,598.
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 31, 1953, 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 for exhibition thereat, $856,957.
29.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $160,400.
Marketing service-
32.	Dairy products, $753,903.
33.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $450,538.
34.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian horticultural council, $1,328,444.
35.	Live stock and live stock products, $1,470,981.
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, $875,000.
42.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $100,000.
43.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved, by the governor in council, $25,000.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, June 19, 1954