1955-03-09

MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) presented the first, second and third reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. MacLean:: 1.	How many retired civil servants have their retirement or superannuation benefits based on the salary received during the last five years of their employment?
2.	How many retired civil servants have their retirement or superannuation benefits based on the salary received during the last ten years of their employment?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	10,565 (x).
2.	8,425 (x).
(x) Includes widows of contributors.
"march past" program, cbo


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Are any Canadian military bands featured in the CBO "March Past" program aired each weekday morning at 8.30?
2.	If not, for what reason?
3.	Are recordings of Canadian military bands available commercially?
4.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. Pinard:: 1.	Yes.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Not applicable.


POLIO RESEARCH, MONTREAL
Mr. Richardson:: 1.	Is the federal government making any financial contribution toward the polio research work being done at the institute of microbiology and hygiene in Montreal?
2.	If so, what are the details of such contribution?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	For the fiscal year 1954-55, under the national health grants program, federal funds
amounting to $87,105 are being allotted for polio research work at the institute of microbiology and hygiene in Montreal to assist the following activities:
(a)	$58,475 for the purchase of scientific and technical equipment necessary to the development of adequate research on poliomyelitis virus and the development of suitable vaccine for immunization measures against poliomyelitis.
(b)	$9,430 for the conduct of research on the epidemiology of poliomyelitis in the province of Quebec.
(c)	$4,500 to carry out a study on the influence of adaptive hormones (gluco-cor-ticoids, somatotrophine) on the evaluation and the gravity of different virus diseases and in particular poliomyelitis.
(d)	$14,700 to carry out studies on poliomyelitis virus in tissue culture.


IMPORTS OF TRAWLERS BY FISH PLANTS
Mr. Bell:: 1.	Is each fish plant established in Canada allowed to import one used trawler?
2.	If so, how many permits have been issued since 1950?
3.	Is each fish plant allowed to import one used trawler for each trawler under construction for it in Canada?
4.	If so, how many permits have been issued since 1950?
5.	Do present regulations allow the issuance of a permit before the completion of said trawler?
6.	If so, how many ships, for which such a permit was allowed, have not been completed?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	Yes, if it has required capacity to process the fish of the trawler.
2.	16.
3.	Yes.
4.	2.
5.	Yes.
6.	None.


FOREST INVENTORY, N.S.  GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: 1.	Does the federal government assist the government of Nova Scotia financially in taking a forest inventory?
2.	If so, how much has been expended by the federal government to date?


Mr. Lesage:: 1. Yes. The federal government pays one-half the cost of forest inventory in Nova

Questions
Scotia under the terms of the federal-provincial agreement of June 12, 1952.
2. Expenditures to March 31, 1954, totalled $25,248.46. No expenditures have yet been made in the fiscal year 1954-55. However, it is expected that the total payment to be made to the province in the near future, in respect to the 1954-55 forest inventory program, will be about $94,000.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT LOANS
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many loans were made in each of the provinces under the National Housing Act during 1954, and what was the total amount of these loans in each province?
2.	How many of these loans were for (a) individual family units; (b) others?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1. The number and amount of loans made in each of the provinces under the National Housing Act during 1954 are as follows:
Net loans approved under the National Housing Act, 1954
	Number Number		Amount
of loans	of housing units	($000)Newfoundland .. Prince Edward	. . 127	166	1,665Island	. . 16	16	154Nova Scotia ....	. . 480	746	6,075New Brunswick ..	.. 375	391	3,372Quebec 	.. 6,974	9,056	81,119Ontario 	. . 20,422	26,074	240,683Manitoba	. . 1,913	2,540	21,813Saskatchewan ...	.. 874	1,040	9,152Alberta 	. . 4,500	5,649	49,321British Columbia Northwest	. . 3,882	4,344	39,418Territories ....	. . 	-	-Yukon Territory	. . 	-	-Canada 	. . 39,563	50,022	452,772
2. Of these loans, (a) 36,932 were for individual family units; and (b) 2,631 were for multiple family units.


MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Jones:: 1.	What is the total amount standing to the credit of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act?
2.	When was the last loan made under the provisions of this act?
3.	Will the government consider applications for assistance under this act?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. The amount authorized to be loaned under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1936 was $30,000,000 of which loans in the amount of $7,035,783.86 were approved.
[Mr. LesageJ
2.	Last loans under this legislation were made in 1940.
3.	No. '


DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: 1.	What is the total number of defence research board establishments located in Canada and elsewhere?
2.	How many distinctive defence research board flags have been purchased, if any?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	15.
2.	25.


LOSS OF LIFE IN FIRES
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons have lost their lives in Canada during the past year in fires in dwellings?
2.	How many of these were children?


Mr. Bennett:: 1.	Information for 1954 not yet available. In 1953 there were 409 deaths in Canada due to fires in homes.
2.	Deaths of children under 15 years of age accounted for 205 of the total deaths due to fires in homes in 1953.



TAX AGREEMENTS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How much was paid by the federal government to the province of Nova Scotia in the year 1954, under the federal-provincial tax agreements?
2.	Does the federal government attemnt to exercise any control over how this money should be spent by the provincial government?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Fiscal year ended March 31, 1954- $19,509,373.
2.	No.



MENTAL DISEASES

Mr. Campbell:: 1.	Is the government aware of the alleged cures of mental diseases in the United States through the use of the drugs R.P. 4560 called chlorpromazine, resperine, and rauwolfia?
2.	Are these drugs available in Canada, and has any experimentation been done in Canada with these drugs in the treatment of mental illness?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	The Department of National Health and Welfare, being constantly in touch with developments in the mental health field, has watched with interest the development of new drugs during recent months and is well aware of the alleged cures resulting from the use of these drugs.
2.	Rauwolfia and related preparations have been used for many years but modern refinements of these preparations have more

recently been introduced. These drugs are being used extensively in Canada and a number of centres are carrying on clinical investigations to ascertain their effectiveness in various types of mental disorder.
Two other drugs, largactil and serpacil, are also being widely used in Canada. A good deal of original clinical work is being done in this country by Dr. Lehmann of Montreal. Dr. Lehmann has carried out a number of studies on these drugs, being the first psychiatrist in North America to do so. His work has been widely reported and is presently receiving much attention by those working in the mental health field.
Preliminary reports coming to the attention of the Department of National Health and Welfare do not allow for categorical statements as to the ultimate effectiveness of these drugs. Just as insulin therapy and electroconvulsive therapy have done so much to improve the treatment of mental illness, it appears that these drugs are a further very valuable weapon in combating mental illness. It appears from the evidence to date that these drugs of themselves do not constitute anything in the nature of specific treatment for the wide group of clinical conditions collectively ^referred to as mental illness. There is evidence that other forms of therapy such as insulin, electroconvulsive treatments, psychotherapy and activation programs are still essential and will continue to be required even if later work confirms the present high hopes regarding the effectiveness of these drugs. A word of caution is also in order at this time as there is evidence that these drugs have toxic and side effects which may be very dangerous and irreversible. These drugs should only be used when the patient is receiving careful medical supervision.
An expanding research program is developing in Canada in the field of mental illness. It is well recognized that this group of illnesses constitutes one of our major health programs. Under the national health grants program the contribution to research in this field from the mental health grant now totals about $500,000 per year.
The Department of National Health and Welfare will continue to take a very active interest in these newer drugs, in research in the mental health field generally, and in every effort that may help to improve treatment or prevent mental illness.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Knight:: 1. Do the unemployment insurance offices employ temporary help to complement the permanent staff during the rush season? If so, are they usually hired from among the unemployed who are seeking work at the offices?
Questions
2.	What is the amount per hour paid for such
work?
3.	Are statutory holidays and sick periods paid
for?
4.	Are such casual workers expected to work overtime or on Saturdays? If so, what is the rate of pay on these occasions?
5.	Does the refusal of an unemployed person to accept such employment disqualify him from receiving unemployment benefit?
6.	At what type of work are such people employed?
7.	How does their pay compare with the usual pay for the same type of work in industry?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	Yes, the unemployment insurance commission does hire casual help to supplement the regular staff during the rush season. The commission tries to hire experienced ex-employees, and if they are not available the commission recruits casual help from among unemployed persons registered at the local office.
2.	The hourly wage rate for such work is 90 cents at all centres except Whitehorse, Y.T., and Yellowknife, N.W.T., where the rate is $1.30.
3.	Casual employees are not paid for statutory holidays (unless they work on such days) or for periods of absence due to illness.
4.	Casual employees are sometimes required to work overtime or on Saturdays. The normal wage rate of 90 cents (or $1.30 as the case may be) applies to any period of work whether during normal working hours or not.
5.	Only if the employment offered is considered suitable in his case.
6.	The unemployment insurance commission's casual employees are employed on general clerical work.
7.	Because of the fact that the rates paid in industry vary across the country, the comparison between those rates and the rates paid to the unemployment insurance commission's casual employees would be different in different centres.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Charllon:: 1.	How many bushels of apples have been imported into Canada each year from and including 1950?
2.	From what countries, and of what dollar value in each case?
3.	Under which grade are they entered?
4.	What is the duty per bushel or pound?
5.	Are any processed or partially processed apples imported and, if so, from what country and in what form?

Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



WHITE BEAR INDIAN RESERVE, SASK.

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, agreements and other documents exchanged between any department of the government and any person or persons connected with the White Bear Indian reserve, Carlyle, Saskatchewan, concerning (a) the original setting up of the reserve; (b) disposal of any land originally contained in the reserve; (c) sale, transfer or assignment of land or mineral rights.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I discussed the
matter with the minister and he has agreed to supply me with the information privately. I am prepared to drop the motion on that basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

Mr. Coldwell:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged since December 7,	1950, between the government of
Canada or any department thereof, and the provincial governments or any departments thereof, relating to the calling of a federal-provincial conference.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I am certain that the hon. member will have no objection to the usual reservation about communicating with the provincial governments to find out if they have any objections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Argue:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, since January 1, 1954, which have passed between any department of the government and any person, persons or organizations relative to the appointment of a person or persons to the board of grain commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Notices of motions; shall they stand.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: We arrived at no decision last evening, but if we are not going to continue the debate on unemployment I shall call the notices of motions.



LIVESTOCK


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of an immediate investigation into the reasons why the spread

between prices paid to the producer for top grade beef and those paid for lower grades is not accompanied by a corresponding choice of prices required to be paid by consumers, and into the question of whether there is an abuse under the present system of grading, and into the methods whereby such abuse can be eliminated.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this is the second
year in which this motion in its present form has appeared on the order paper asking that the government should undertake an investigation into the grading of beef and the situation arising out of the fact that, although there are different prices paid to the producers for the different grades of beef, there appears to be no corresponding choice of price available to consumers. During the two years that this resolution has appeared on the order paper, the situation with regard to farm prices and farm income generally has become more serious. In the house at the present time we are debating the subject of unemployment. It has been suggested previously-and I am in full agreement with the suggestion and will discuss it in some more detail later-that there is a direct causal relationship between the decline in farm income and the rise in unemployment in Canada. I am therefore glad that the opportunity has come at this session to debate the motion.
When the system of grading was introduced and given sanction in that the grades now applicable in Canada are established by the dominion Department of Agriculture, that system was, of course, introduced for two main reasons. First, it was introduced for the benefit of the producers in order that those who produced and marketed commodities of a high quality might receive the benefit of their work, skill and enterprise. But equally, and in the general picture of equal importance, it was introduced for the protection and the benefit of the consumer so that the consumer might know that when he was paying a certain price he was getting a commodity of a quality consonant with the price that he was asked to pay. However, in my view, that good purpose is no longer being accomplished under the present situation.
The evidence which is available and which I shall be presenting to the house indicates clearly that this system of grading is working now in many respects to the detriment of the producers and with no corresponding benefits to the consumers of Canada. The evidence suggests that the system of grading as it is at present carried on is working mainly for the benefit of the meat packing industry. I want to make it clear at the outset, as I shall be in my remarks throughout, that the purpose of this motion is not in any way to imply a criticism of the

retailer, the ordinary corner grocery which retails the meat to the consumers. I say that now and I shall refer to it again because there has been some misunderstanding- which has been evident in letters that I have received-on the part of retailers and a feeling that this was a criticism directed at them. In my view the retailer is as much an innocent victim of the circumstances which now prevail in the administration of this grading system as are the producers and the consumers themselves.
In discussing the resolution and in advancing reasons why I believe it is desirable for the government to undertake an immediate investigation into this whole question, I think it will be useful to review briefly the background of the situation. The main complaint which producers have against the application of the present grading system can, I think, be summarized somewhat as follows. At the present time there is far too great a quantity of meat for which the producer is paid low prices on the basis of its potential or alleged low grade, which reaches the consumer at top or near top prices because the grading system works to the benefit of the packers. In British Columbia, at any rate-that is the only province of which I have any immediate knowledge, and my remarks are based upon the situation which I know in my own province-the grading system is applied between the time of the purchase of live animals and the consumption of the meat which comes from those live animals. Grades are applied in that interim period without sufficient follow-through as to the nature of the animal from which the meat originated, with the result that the price differentials paid to the producers as between the different types of animals purchased by the packers are not passed on to the consumers. That is a summary of the main complaint which forms the background of this request for an investigation and review of the whole situation.
There are certain obvious main reasons for the picture as it appears today. As all hon. members will know, there is a vast difference between the prices paid to the producers of beef cattle for live animals being purchased from them on the basis of whether that animal is male or female. If it is a steer, it fetches a much greater price to the producer than if it is a heifer or particularly if it is a cow, although the actual meat produced from the animal may be just as good, from the point of view of its consumptive quality, when it reaches the retail counter, whether it comes from one animal or the other. Nevertheless when it reaches the counter in the meat store-or in fact when it comes out of 50433-118
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading the packing plant as a dressed carcass-it is sold as meat of a particular grade and at the same price by the packers, regardless of the nature or sex of the animal from which it originated.
It must be emphasized that a high percentage of the total of these animals marketed in Canada are female animals. I have here in my hand the last annual Livestock Market Review; it is for 1954. This is, of course, the review put out by the market information section of the marketing service of the dominion Department of Agriculture.
There are some interesting figures on page 9 of this market review which show that heifers marketed in Canada over a five year period from 1950 to 1954 account for an average of about 15 per cent of the total animals marketed during that period, and that cows during the same five year period account for an average of between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of the total animals marketed during that period. Over the five year period the situation is that the total of cows and heifers accounts for approximately 40 per cent of all beef animals marketed in Canada.
These figures must be read in conjunction with figures as to the differential in prices between different kinds of live animals. They must be read in conjunction with a statement appearing at page 6 of the Livestock Market Review. Reviewing the trend in cattle prices for the year 1954, the following statement is made:
With some of the larger buyers of beef showing a distinct preference for A and B grades of steer beef, the price spreads between steers and heifers of comparable grade widened, steers averaging 50 cents cwt. less in 1954 than in 1953 and heifers $1.50 less.
When you take these facts and consider them in the light of the tremendous price differential paid to the producer for the live animals as between his cows and heifers on the one hand and his steers on the other you can see that the low, in fact depressed, prices for the female animals is of very serious consequence, indeed almost disastrous, to the producer.
I have looked at the figures of the official publications of livestock marketing prices over the past few years, and I think it is accurate to say that on a conservative estimate cows marketed for beef averaged to the producer between 8 and 11 cents per live pound less than steers. On a thousand pound animal that will make a difference of $80 to $110 less that the producer receives for the cow which is finally sold as beef, than he receives for a steer. The figures also show that the beef heifers over the past few years have averaged anything from 2 cents to 4J cents per pound live weight less than beef

Beef-Price Spreads and Grading steers. Again, on the basis of a thousand pound animal that means that the farmer receives from $20 to $45 less per animal for heifers, although it is important to emphasize again that the meat produced, particularly from heifers and in many cases from cows if they are properly fattened and handled, will be as good meat to eat as beef from a steer.
The figures, particularly those for heifers, are interesting and, indeed, startling when they are read in conjunction with the results of an official study made under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture into the whole question of beef grading and published under the title, "Report of subcommittee appointed by the national advisory beef committee to investigate the practicability of selling cattle by carcass grade and weight." This report was published in March, 1942, and reprinted in July, 1951, by the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. This study includes a table on page 5 which shows that there is only a maximum difference of 2-8 per cent in the carcass dressing percentage between steers and heifers. In other words, if you buy a choice beef steer it will dress out at a maximum of only 2'8 per cent more than a choice heifer. The maximum difference revealed in the table on page 5 between steers and heifers is 2-8 per cent, and yet the farmer receives a differential of anything from 10 per cent to 30 per cent in the price which he is paid by the packer, depending upon whether the animal is a steer or a heifer.
These figures indicate most clearly and beyond possibility of argument that somebody is profiting at the expense of the producer. Here you have packers buying carcasses which dress out at only 2-8 per cent less than steer carcasses, yet paying the farmer anything from 10 per cent to 30 per cent less for such animals. I have already put on record the figures appearing at page 6 of the Livestock Market Review which show that the differential between steer and heifer prices is increasing at the present time. These great differentials were not so important when cattle prices to the producer were at a level of anything from 25 to 30 cents a pound for choice steers which meant that, on the differential prevailing, cows and heifers although selling at a considerably lower price would still be sold at a profit.
But when steer prices are depressed as they are at the present time to an average of between 18 and 20 cents per pound it means that heifers are being sold at very little profit and cows, which constitute some 25 to 30 per cent of the total of all marketings, are being sold at or below cost of production. That is the situation which prevails today.

It works to the advantage of one group only, the meat packers. It works to their advantage and enables them to make tremendous profits out of the processing of beef that originates from cow or heifer carcasses, and yet in many cases the meat produced from these carcasses is, if the animal is properly handled and finished, just as good as meat from steer carcasses. I submit there is an artificial situation at the present time produced by the application of the present grades and grading methods and a failure to follow these grades through, which benefits the packers by enabling them to buy at depressed prices and to sell at B or A grade prices.
If you weigh this situation against the background of farm prices and the farm situation generally, it will become even more apparent that it is urgent that something be done about this matter in order to bring some relief and some justice to the producers of meat in Canada. It is general knowledge that the level of farm incomes has declined substantially and alarmingly in the past few years. It is generally agreed that the present year, 1955, is going to be a very difficult one for meat producers. Any little increase in production or any drying up of the domestic market could produce a situation which would have very far-reaching consequences on the level of meat prices paid to the producer.
As confirmation of my statement, first with respect to the general tendency of farm prices to decline, I would cite the official statement of the department at page 1 of its Livestock Market Review for 1954, to which I have already referred. They point out that the Canadian average price of all cattle was lower by 85 cents per 100 pounds, or a 5 per cent decline in the price of beef cattle to the producer in the year 1954 over 1953. This review goes on to say that calves were down $1.20 per 100 pounds or 6 per cent, and sheep and lambs declined 7 per cent or $1.45 per 100 pounds. The beef producer, therefore, faced already with a price seriously depressed in comparison with the peak reached after the war, was faced with a further decline of 5 per cent last year.
Then if you look at the net farm income, the full extent of the situation and of its impact on farmers will be realized when figures are produced which show that in 1951 net farm income was $2,155 million. But in 1954 the net farm income is estimated-final figures are not available yet-to be in the neighbourhood of $1,200 million, or a decline of very nearly $1,000 million in the four year period.
Further confirmation of the fact the producers of beef are facing a difficult period

in the year ahead is found in the latest letter on Canadian livestock products published by the industrial and development council of Canadian meat packers, the letter of January-February, 1955. In concluding their survey under the title, "What's Ahead in 1955", they arrive at the decisions reflected in the following two paragraphs:
There are likely to be export surpluses of both beef and pork in the not too distant future, during periods of seasonally heavier supplies. At these times prices will tend to adjust toward the export level.
I suggest that when you divest that of its careful, official jargon, what it says in simple language is that there is likely to be a surplus of beef products in Canada and a glut on the export market, with a consequent inevitable trend towards lower beef prices in Canada. Then, they have the following final paragraph:
In view of the rather sensitive balance between supply and demand, orderly marketing of seasonal surpluses will be desirable to minimize price fluctuations.
Again I suggest that stripped of its official jargon and put in simple language that would say that there may well be a surplus of beef on the Canadian market this year.
That being the official conclusion of the industrial and development council of Canadian meat packers it can, I believe, safely be said that the indications are that there is a difficult and delicate period ahead for the Canadian meat producer from the point of view of the price he is likely to receive for his products. Then if you take a look at the figures on page 15 of the Livestock Market Review, you will see further confirmation of the fact that the producers of beef cattle over the past few years have been experiencing a most serious and sharp decline in net return from their products to the table headed "Yearly Weighted Average Price per Hundredweight of Total Sales on Public Stockyards", it is shown that in 1950 the average price of all cattle sold in Canada was $21.17 per hundredweight. In 1951 it rose sharply to $28.22 because that was the year, if I recall correctly, that the embargo was taken off the export of cattle to the United States and Canadian prices immediately reflected the availability of that export market. The situation had come back to normal by 1952 when the average was down to $20 per hundredweight. In 1953 it declined to $15.30 per hundredweight. In 1954 it had declined still further and the average was $14.45 per hundredweight for cattle marketed in Canada. There was thus a decline from $21.17 in 1950 to $14.45 in 1954. This particular agricultural group is the only one in the position where the prices of what 50433-118J
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading they purchase and sell have declined so sharply, while the costs of what they produce have gone up. I put these facts and figures on the record, Mr. Speaker, because they establish clearly the necessity of ensuring that the grading system which is in effect shall be one which, instead of operating as it does now almost exclusively to the benefit of the packers, will be one which is restored to the purpose it was intended to serve, namely, the benefit of the producer and the protection of the consumer.
Let us see how it is operating, in fact, at the present time. I have pointed out that up to 40 per cent of the total beef marketings in Canada are represented by heifers and cows. Under the present system of grading the producer sees animals which he would sell in recent years for as little as 8.5 to 10 cents per pound live weight-I have seen some good beef cows going for that price- which he knows will make beef of at least commercial grade, coming out of the packing plants to the distributor at 28 cents per pound. He knows quite well, on the basis of cost figures which are available to him, that at the price he was paid for the animals by the packer, they should come out at not more than 20 cents per pound at the most. Someone, then, is getting that profit as a result of this grading system, and it is not the producer.
As for the consumer, he goes into the butcher store and it is true he gets a choice of prices as between the different cuts. He pays one price for prime ribs and he does pay a lesser price for shoulder or something like that. He gets a choice of prices between the different cuts but he gets no choice of price in the same grade of beef as between that which comes from a steer, a heifer or a cow. Someone, therefore, is getting an extra benefit from this situation, and it certainly is not the consumer. The retailer is not responsible. He gets the carcass at a set price from the packing plant, again with no differentiation as to what kind of animal that carcass originated from, whether it be a steer, a cow or a heifer, although the packer has paid vastly different prices for the carcasses depending upon which type of animal they came from.
While dealing with the situation so far as the retailer is concerned, I should like to place on the record some considerations which I recently had occasion to express in writing to one of the retailers who had suggested my resolution was directed at, or implied criticism of, the retail trade in that it suggested they were responsible for this situation. It was a retailer in my own constituency who had written to me, and I replied as follows.

Beef-Price Spreads and Grading I read this letter because in it I have attempted to summarize the problem in brief form, and it may well serve, therefore, as a summary for the purposes of this discussion. I said, in part:
I have perfectly well in mind the fact that there is a choice in price between choice cuts of meat and inferior cuts from the same carcass. But to put it in its essence, what I cannot understand is why the producer should receive one price for his steers, and an average of 10 to 12 cents less per pound for his cows, but so far as I am aware the consumer is never offered a T-bone steak from a steer at one price and a T-bone steak from a cow at a lower price.
I might say that the same would apply to a T-bone steak from a heifer, which should be also at a correspondingly lower price, but is not. I continue:
Now I am informed by ranchers and others with a thorough knowledge of the meat business, that meat from mature cows in good health makes as good beef-and many of them say better-as meat from 2-year old steers. I quite recognize that under the present grading regulations, on account of the colour of the fat and other such features, meat from mature cows may not often grade out as red, but will usually grade blue (or "B"). Yet when beef is sold over the counter, it is simply sold as blue beef at one price, regardless of whether the carcass originated in a steer or a cow.
And, I should add, or a heifer.
My investigation so far has also led me to conclude that the fault here lies in no sense with the retailer. I understand that what happens is that the packer offers the carcass at a set price on the basis of its grade-that is red, blue or commercial-and there is no differentiation in the price of a certain grade on the basis of whether the carcass is a cow carcass or a steer carcass. In other words, the price to the retailer is set by the packer and he makes no differentiation on this basis; and yet the packer has purchased the carcass from the producer, if it is a cow, at prices which are nothing other than depressed prices in relationship to the prices for steers.
And then my letter went on to say:
This is the thing that irritates me, and I am thinking largely of the position of the producer, who finds that approximately 30 or 35 per cent of his marketings are cows. If everything he sold was choice steer, then he could still operate very comfortably. But with that large a percentage of his marketings being cows, and the prices of cows being so much depressed in comparison with steers, then when the whole level of beef prices has declined substantially, many of them are feeling the squeeze.
And as indicated, everything said there with reference to cows applies with even greater force to heifers. So, Mr. Speaker, I maintain it is essential in the interests of both producer and consumer that there should be an immediate investigation into this whole question of grading, and its application as presently carried out. I suggest that the government should take the benefit of advice of provincial marketing experts and of spokesmen for the producers themselves.


The situation at the present time is, briefly, that the grades currently in effect throughout the country are established by the dominion Department of Agriculture. It is true that there would be some difficulty in enforcing these grades, as a matter of law, by the dominion government, because you run into difficulty over property and civil rights, the jurisdiction in respect of which was reserved to the provinces.
But I understand that at the present time, particularly on the prairies where the great percentage of beef cattle originate, there is no difficulty because these grades are voluntarily accepted, and apply when the cattle come on the market. In British Columbia of course the situation is that there is a provincial grading act which, in effect, carries into force, under the provincial legislation, the grades laid down by the dominion department here in Ottawa.
So that there is now a large measure of co-operation, and no reason to suppose that there would not be an even greater measure of co-operation in enforcing grades and grading regulations, which would be worked out so that they did benefit the producer and protect the consumer. I think there would be even more co-operation in enforcing that type of grading regulation than there is at the present time.
That is why I say this situation is not incapable of solution, and that the government should undertake an immediate investigation, in conjunction and in co-operation with provincial spokesmen and representatives of the producers.
A study was made back in 1942-at least the results were published in that year; and to that study I have already made reference. I have mentioned in particular the table appearing at page 5. I am not necessarily agreeing with the conclusions from that study which, as I say, was made under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture. I am not necessarily agreeing with their general conclusions where they seem to recommend that the answer to the problem lies exclusively in the system of rail grading.
But I do suggest that, whether one agrees with that conclusion or not, they did make certain recommendations and have made certain statements which have an important bearing upon this problem, and which establish the necessity for some further action by the government. I would refer particularly to what they say at page 13 under the heading "Summary and Conclusions". What is said there establishes conclusively that the views which I have expressed and which, I know, are shared by a large number of members here-that this situation is presently being

abused, and works to the detriment of the producer-are shared by these experts who made the study under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, and the national advisory beef committee.
The report says:
The results of the beef study, including 3.499 animals studied individually, through the different packing plants in Vancouver, indicate very definitely the need for:
(a) A revision of the present system of marketing cattle by live grade and weight in order to obtain a fairer distribution of the revenue to the producer on a quality basis.
I rest my case on that recommendation. It seems to me that nothing more is required as a basis for my case than this recommendation arising from a study made under the auspices of the department itself.
This is a short sitting day, and I do not intend therefore to occupy the time of the house at greater length because I know there are others who are keenly interested in this subject and who will wish to discuss the resolution.
In conclusion I submit that the evidence discloses that there are abuses under the present system, and that the system works to the advantage of the packer. The evidence shows that it does not give the benefit to the producer or protection to the consumer that it should give, and establishes conclusively that study by the government and a revision of the present system to prevent these abuses is urgently necessary.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, when I left the chamber last night I thought we would be discussing unemployment today. It was considered so important last week that we gave up a private members' day to allow that debate to continue. This afternoon however I find that we are back on this resolution, and that this is being treated as a private members' day.
The present occasion gives me an opportunity to say something on the subject matter of the resolution. I wish to support it, and in that support I know I will be joined by members in this group. It will be noted that the resolution says this:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of an immediate investigation into the reasons why the spread between prices paid to the producer for too grade beef and those paid for lower grades is not accompanied by a corresponding choice of prices reauired to be paid by consumers, and into the question of whether there is an abuse under the present system of grading, and into the methods whereby such abuse can be eliminated.
I support that. I am glad the hon. member introduced this resolution. I think we shall get some consideration from the government on the matter, because the government is not connected with it. The people
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading we shall go after are the packers who are a law unto themselves. It has been said that the government let them get away with it. I would not go as far as to say that. There should be an investigation of this industry to see where the abuses are taking place. I believe a better system could be devised. You would need men who are butchers or packers and consumers to get the different angles. I feel quite sure that the consumer and the producer do not always get a square deal. The big butcher who will sell a whole carcass at a time will get all he can for it, but it will depend on the district he is in. If he is in one of the low income bracket districts, then the price of the lower cuts of meat will be higher, and the select cuts, the expensive cuts, will be cheaper. That is because he has to keep the steer moving out of the store all at the same time. While the people in the lower income brackets will buy the brisket and front quarters, yet he has to charge a little more on the lower priced cuts and a little less on the sirloin steak and the better cuts of meat that the people in his district can buy. Of course, it could be the other way around.
Then you have the small retail merchant who will buy from the packer what he really needs, according to the district he is in. He may buy nothing but low priced cuts. If he is in a big residential district he will supply the best roasts and the best sirloin steaks.
The hon. member who preceded me said something about the retail trade. He suggested that the retail merchants are afraid that an investigation will be made into the retail trade. If their skirts are clean they do not need to have any fear. Nobody will touch them, and they should be delighted to have an investigation into the matter. The hon. member said something about the grades. Let us look at the grades. Take a steer up to a thousand pounds. You have your choice, good, medium and common grades. I looked at the paper a couple of days ago and found that choice steers were selling at $18.50 a hundred pounds. These are Winnipeg prices. I always like to stay as close to home as possible. Good steers were selling at almost that price, $18. Then you had mediums from $16 to $17 and common from $13 down. Then there were steers over a thousand pounds. Steers in this bracket sometimes sell for as much as the No. l's, or the thousand-pound steers, according to the supply on hand. If the supply is not plentiful, they make almost as much as the others. There would not be any difference in the price. Under the present system what may be a No. 1 on Monday morning can be a No. 2
1858	HOUSE OF
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading on Wednesday morning. If you have a thousand-pound steer and you lose $2 a hundred it means that you can lose $20 from Monday to Wednesday.
In heifers you have choice, good, medium and common. Choice is selling at from $15.50 to $16; good, from $15 to $16, practically the same price; medium, $13 to $15; and common, $12 down. Take feed calves, which is a very fine piece of meat. They are selling at from $18 to $19. Of course, that meat does not go into the ordinary working-class district. The swell hotels across this country use that meat.
Then you have cows. Good cows are going from $12 to $13; medium from $9.50 to $11; and canners and cutters from $9 to $6. The packer is buying meat at $6 for a canner to $18.50 for a choice steer. I should have included bulls. Bulls are selling at from $11.50 to $12.50, and the common ones from $9.50 to $10.30. The farmer has to compete with all these grades when he sells on the hoof. The packer sells back the red, blue and commercial and the average man or woman on the street knows absolutely nothing about these grades. If you go into one of these big retail stores and ask for a bit of blue beef, the attendant no doubt would think you were asking for a bit of old Holstein cow that has turned blue with age.
On a market such as I have described we have good feeder steers which are not properly finished. If the farmer who wishes to feed them does not pay the packer's price to get them he will not get them. The parliamentary assistant to the minister knows that. You have to bid against the packer to get them, as long as they are carrying sufficient flesh to go on the butcher block. As I have already said, that meat is bought at from $6 to $18.50 a hundredweight.


Mr. Gardiner:: May I ask a question?


William Scottie Bryce: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is not suggesting, is he, that the housewife does not know the difference between a cutter and a canner, when it is on the block, and red beef?


William Scottie Bryce: It is pretty hard to tell the difference between a cutter and canner, as the minister says; but she buys beef. She does not go into the store and ask for hamburger off a canner or a cutter cow; she does not go in and ask for a roast off a heifer. She does not know whether it came off a heifer or a bull, unless somebody tells her.


James Garfield Gardiner: They do not grind sirloin steak into hamburg.


William Scottie Bryce: The right hon. minister knows that there is not much of the sirloin steak available which he is talking about.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not talking about it. It was you who brought the subject up.


William Scottie Bryce: No, it was you. If you did not want to become involved in an argument you should have kept quiet.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Hear, hear.


William Scottie Bryce: I am certain the minister will agree that meat is never graded down but is graded up.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will agree that your argument is fairly sound if you stay with the top two or three grades, but your argument is not sound when you relate cutters and canners to red beef.


William Scottie Bryce: All right, suppose we consider the top grades. The same thing applies to the top grades. Where does our bologna come from?


Mr. Hellyer:: From the other side of the house.


William Scottie Bryce: We must not forget that this is a serious matter. We must not make a joke of this matter because the housewife is being trimmed today as she never was trimmed before. In my humble way I am trying to do something about this in order to ensure that she gets a square deal when she goes to the butcher shop. In doing this I am looking after myself because I have been a farmer all my life.
There is another class of meat, choice veal calves, about which I do not need to speak. The price range for veal is from $26 to $8 and $9.
It has been drawn to my attention that people do know what they are getting when they buy meat. In this connection I would like to quote-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend attributes that last statement to me I must make it clear that it is not what I said. I did not say that people always knew what they were getting but I did say that the average housewife knows the difference between cutter and canner and red beef.


An hon. Member:: You are an optimist.


William Scottie Bryce: I wish I could agree with you. I think you are a good fellow and all that sort of thing but let me read you this statement which appeared in the June 11, 1950, issue of the Globe and Mail:
Eastern Canadian housewives are ignorant of beef quality and as a result they are handed

whatever their vendor likes to eive them. Prof. E. Stillwell of Ontario Agricultural College told a gathering of 500 Shorthorn breeders and their families at a demonstration of beef grading at the college here today.
Producing 12 cuts of beef, he told his audience that they were purchased in various parts of Ontario as choice prime cuts, at prices ranging from 65 to 79 cents per pound, in the past few days. Not one cut could be called choice prime beef. In no instance was any of the team of purchasers, sent out under the auspices of Prof. Knox, head of OAC Animal Husbandry Department, and the Ontario Shorthorn Association directors, able to purchase red or blue ribbon beef, first and second grades respectively. All the beef purchased was of commercial quality, some of it very poor.
I believe that supports what I have been saying. I believe that the marketing and livestock situation today could be accurately described as "the few who are mighty against the many who are weak."
Our present system of grading does not benefit the consumers or the producers. This is particularly illustrated by the hog situation. I will admit that the first three grades of hogs are perhaps necessary and they have benefited the hog industry in this country. I do not feel however that grades C or D or heavies mean anything. I believe that grading should cease higher up the scale. The lower grades harm both the consumers and the farmers. I believe that the minister understands what I mean when I say this.
During the time when we were sending many hogs to Britain I visited a bacon factory there and I noticed that ours was the finest bacon which was being sent to Britain at that time. This high level could be maintained if our grading system were changed.
The remarks I made concerning beef also apply to hogs. Housewives do not enter butcher shops and ask for a piece of a No. 1 sow or a No. 2 sow.


An hon. Member:: It is all pork.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, it is all pork to her and she thinks only in terms of bacon and pork. For that reason I believe that some of these grades should be eliminated. I would welcome an investigation of this kind because I believe it would eliminate a great deal of erroneous thinking. If I am wrong I would like to know where I am wrong. I would be willing to listen to the opinions of various people who could supply information on the subject and help us to discover whether or not there is abuse in the meat industry today.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion on this resolution. I think that I may perhaps be qualified to express some views because I have been associated with the meat business as a retailer for a long
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading time. I think that if we are going to analyse this resolution we must realize that it has three important aspects: the price paid for live meat, the wholesale price, and the retail price which is charged when the meat is sold across the counter.
Having been in the retail business for 44 years, to be exact, I am aware of how the business is conducted. I cannot agree with the hon. members who have just expressed their views. I am always interested in new ideas which would enhance my own position in the meat business and I am at a loss to reconcile my ideas with theirs.
First of all, I think the producer himself is largely to blame for much of his trouble, and I say that with all sincerity. There are many people in the livestock business today who have learned the desirability and necessity for feeding their livestock before attempting to market them. I think the farmer or producer must build up a sensible foundation herd of the right kind and must see to it that they are properly finished before he attempts to market them. If he does this he will not have a worry in the world. Many of 'them persist in trying to produce off-grade types and of course, whether by sheer necessity or for any other reason, they have a tendency to market them before they are properly finished. I think that procedure opens up a channel whereby the packers can take advantage of the situation. I think it is reasonable to understand that if you were buying in the packing plants you would be cautious and would have a tendency to take the benefit of the doubt so far as grades are concerned. I think that fact is conceded. I think that very often the farmer suffers considerable loss. I would hazard a guess that in some cases he suffers a loss of $10 a carcass just in that one transaction alone. I think that there are perhaps other things that enter into the situation. A large percentage of livestock is sold direct by carload lots. That is, the man who is in the business, who understands the business and who finishes his livestock has a ready sale for it because it is good stock to start with, it has been properly finished and there is no element of doubt as to receiving top grade prices for it. When he ceases to do that, then the trouble starts.
A great deal has been said about the various grades of beef. In the retail business, generally speaking, I think the grades can be reduced to about three, namely red, blue and commercial. With a few exceptions, I think that is about all you can expect to find offered at retail. There are some who buy
1860	HOUSE OF
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading cheaper grades. I think it was the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) who suggested that you do not find top qualities on the retail market. I wish to differ with him. I have sold a good many hundreds of tons of meat and have cut it with my own hands. I know that is not so. You could always get top grade veal, top grade beef or top grade lamb any day of the week that I was open for business. I think that is the situation generally in properly set up butcher shops.
If you want to retail good beef, you can buy it at a price. When you sell it, you sell it at a price. There may be room for argument with regard to the cost price to the packer and the selling price as far as he is concerned. But when you buy cow beef, you know what you are getting before you start. I do not think it is common practice at all for a retail butcher to sell you cow beef for No. 1 steer. Surely it would not be complimentary, to say the least, to a man who knows the business. While I am perhaps taking the side of the packing plants, I think that we must be honest about these things. I think we should appraise the whole situation from its realistic level. In these three steps that are basic, namely the marketing of livestock, meat at wholesale and again at retail, we have got to check right across the board and find where the discrepancy lies. If there is any indiscretion in marketing techniques, then I think we should place the onus where it belongs.
I was happy to hear the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) say that the retailers were not involved. Being one, I should like to plead innocent. But I have seen something- and not later than last Saturday-that to me, from the retail end, is not all to the good either. I had occasion to go in to buy my roast for Sunday. I came to the place where these prices were shown: choice rump roasts of beef were shown at a fairly substantial price. They could not have gotten further from the rump if they had tried because the meat was off the steer as close to the horns as you could get it. I think that is something which is just as serious, and perhaps more so than some of these other things. Let us be fair about this matter.
I am in that business and I am willing to stand on my own feet. When the war regulations were in effect, the meat charts that were sent out certainly were not favourable to the little merchant in a low-price area. According to the charts you had to get what I thought were rather exorbitant prices out of the choice cuts, and you were not allowed to get enough out of the lower cuts to break even. All during the war I had to sell, through one medium or another, all my choice cuts at
[Mr. Yuill.l

15 cents a pound below the permissible sale price. I had two choices. I had either to do that or leave the meat on the shelf. What happens then? You hope for the best. Sooner or later these sirloin steaks that should be sold as such find their way into hamburger or some other medium or they are sold at a reduced rate because the first loss is the best. If you do not do it in that way, it goes out the back through the medium of the bone box.
As I have already said, I have operated for a long time. I have seen these things from various angles. I believe that there are certain indiscretions from the packers' point of view. In and around the city of Edmonton particularly-and I guess it is common across the board-there seems to be a tendency for the packers to go into a huddle and of course agree, beforehand perhaps, what they are prepared to offer for the commodities that are offered. I think that is so. I think it could be proved to be so. I think that there are other things that I cannot agree with. Basically I am in accord with the method of grading. I think there is a rather fair relationship, so far as values are concerned, between the various grades. But in my own experience I have found that when the supplies are down because of bans on the highways, drifted roads or something like that, in the grading of beef there is a tendency to stretch your imagination and perhaps you find coming into my shop or into some other shop beef with a blue label on it when it normally should have been commercial. That has been done, and quite often.
There is another technique that seems to be common. At such times-to kind of help out, I suppose, because of fewer sales, maybe -there is a common tendency to have a kind of sympathetic strike, so to speak, so far as pork is concerned. You will find a sympathetic rise in the price of pork of probably 2 cents a pound without any justification. These are things that are hard for me to understand. In any business, including the packing business, there is a certain need and desire for a reasonable amount of profit. The situation is the same at the retail level, but when anyone tries to camouflage something and sell it not within its true category then I would say that they are guilty of an indiscretion. I do not know just what is involved here. I say that I can see indiscretions at the retail level. I gave an illustration of what I saw last Saturday. I could name the store. I could probably take you back there next Saturday and you would see the same thing repeated. I think that is wrong. When you find that kind of condition anywhere, then in my opinion somebody should have something to say about it.

But if we want to be honest and fair we must look at both sides of the picture. There has been a lot of talk about the relative qualities of heifer beef and steer beef. Anybody who is worthy of the name of butcher knows that there is a difference in quality. It is not so much a difference in the eating quality but from the profit point of view, if you will, because there is a considerable difference in the percentage of meat involved as between a steer and a heifer. There could possibly be some compatibility between heifer and steer prices but there is certainly no compatibility between the price of No. 1 steers and heifers compared with No. 1 cows. Anyone who knows anything at all about meat knows that. No. 1 cows are shelly and have a great deal of excess fat. From the strictly meat point of view they do not rate nearly as high any way you look at it.
I do not think it is fair to suggest that the retail merchant would buy bull beef. He never buys it to start with, but in any case I do not think he would offer it for sale across the counter and try to fool anybody because people are not that stupid. I think all these grades of meat find their proper level. Bull meat is used for bologna. Ninety-nine per cent of bologna is bull meat, and for a good and sufficient reason. It is lean, there is a higher percentage of meat in the carcass and it has the desirable texture and binding effect that is so necessary to make bologna.
It is very interesting to hear a lawyer cut up a carcass of beef. I got quite a kick out of it. However, I do think our job is to be honest about these things and try to talk sense. I do not want to take up the time of the house needlessly. There are many things that can be remedied by the application of a little common sense. Producers do at times receive depressed grades for their product, but I sincerely believe that very often it is their own fault. There is always the human element. No businessman, whether in the wholesale, retail or production fields, is going to buy when he feels that he is going to suffer a loss as a consequence. He will take the benefit of the doubt and I think that is understandable. I think that happens all too often. My suggestion would be, in the interests of the individual who through necessity or any other reason has to market his meat at a substandard level, that the government should give consideration to seeing to it that cattle are marketed at rail grade in the same way as hogs. If there were a tendency in times of short supply to squeeze certain types into a higher grade level then the producer would automatically cash in on it, and why should he not do so?
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading
I have expressed myself quite often on this matter. In my opinion there are trade practices that are not 100 per cent proper, both in the retail and wholesale ends of the business, but if we are going to do a good job I think we should have a look at every doorstep as we go along, find out where the problems are and then collectively find a solution for them.


Edward George McCullough: Who is
going to take the action?


An hon. Member:: Are you in favour of the resolution?


Charles Yuill: I am in favour of the resolution.
I am in favour of anything that will achieve a common sense and humanitarian administration. I do not think it is fair for anyone to have to produce a commodity and take a price for it below its true value, but I cannot help feeling that if a producer, deliberately or otherwise, persists in marketing a substandard product then that is his own problem. I may seem to be engaging in double talk, but I believe that charity begins at home in that respect.
I think the resolution can serve a very useful purpose. When we had regulations and price controls during wartime much unnecessary grief was caused. In my opinion the system was not established in the interests of the corner butcher, the fellow out in the country or in a small town who did not have a choice of customers. The system was all right for the cities. It was designed for the chain stores and large retail meat businesses which had a large clientele of professional people and others who wanted the better cuts and had the money to pay for them. But no matter how good the over-all plan might have been, hardship was caused in areas where the people had low incomes.
I am not in favour of price controls. They may serve a purpose in time of emergency, but I do think that there is a happy level which the government administration, the wholesalers and retailers should try to reach. If we are prepared to do that, I think many of these discrepancies can be ironed out in a sensible and humanitarian way.


Mr. N. C. Schneider (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I knew something about the meat packing business, but I have heard things today for the first time that take me right back to the fertilizer department of the packing house.


Mr. Sinclair:: Page the hon. member for Kamloops.


Norman C. Schneider: After the insinuations and remarks that have been made today I would say by all means have an investigation, and

Beef-Price Spreads and Grading I am sure I speak for every meat processor in the country when I say that. By all means have an investigation.
A short time ago there were some irregularities in Toronto and they had an investigation. There were some convictions as a result of some of the smaller packers who had tricked the government inspectors by improperly branding some meat. I want to tell you that the meat packing industry is the most supervised industry in this country. It is supervised by the Department of Agriculture, which I would say is one of the best run departments of this government. There is no arguing with the meat inspector who comes into your plant. I believe there are five of them in our plant. There is not a move made that is not supervised by these inspectors, who are moved around as bank managers are so you cannot get very close to any one of them.
They do a job, and there is no fooling about it. All the better grades of beef we send out to the retail trade are graded and branded by the government inspectors. We have nothing to say about the grades, whether it is beef or pork. All this meat is graded by government inspectors whose decision is final.
Some of the remarks made here today would indicate that some of these people must be dealing with disreputable dealers. We have disreputable people in all walks of life, and I would say that every evil punishes itself. If a man is dishonest in business he will be found out by his customer, and the customer will go to someone else who will give him an honest deal. It sounds to me as though some very peculiar things have been happening.
In so far as the meat packing house inspection is concerned, there is no fooling about this inspection at all. All the grades are decided by the government inspector and marked on the carcass from one end to the other. It is strip branded, so that a man has to be an extremely tricky person to slip anything over on the customer in a retail store. A person can usually tell whether it is red brand, blue brand or commercial grade.
There was a foolish remark made here this afternoon about the percentage of cows slaughtered. It was assumed there must be dishonesty in the marking of beef because 35 per cent of the slaughterings were cows, and they were not shown in the marketings. This assumption fails to take into consideration the enormous sales of hamburger and sausage meat. This meat is as high in protein and food value as any of the higher quality meats. A great percentage of these cows 
are turned into sausage meat, and that is why they are not shown in the marketings to the retail stores.
If any charge has been made here today that the packers have been carrying on some dishonest practices for the sake of profit, I want to tell you that the meat packing industry in this country operates on the smallest net profit of any business in this country. I am willing to prove that to anyone. The industry has the smallest net profit per dollar of sales of any industry in this country, ranging from -5 per cent to 1 per cent per dollar of sales. It is the most competitive business in this country. The product is perishable and has to be moved quickly. It is impossible to get the packers together to decide on a price, because when they have meat on the hook or in the pickle barrels, it has to be sold. If it is kept in the pickle barrel it will get saltier and saltier until it reaches the point where it cannot be sold. It is a fast moving and very competitive business. I would say that we work on the smallest margin of any business in Canada.
The meat packing business is efficient, and it is supervised at all times by these government inspectors who, I assure you, are honest men doing a real job. I would say, by all means let this motion go through; let us have this investigation. The packers will welcome it.


John George Diefenbaker: The
attitude taken by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider), Mr. Speaker, is certainly most commendable, and I am sure the suggestion will be accepted by the government and this resolution brought to a vote. The hon. member for Kamloops, I feel, set forth his case in an able manner and documented it well. He certainly expressed a viewpoint that is held by the great majority of the people of this country, that there is a great layer of fat, or is it gravy, between the price the farmer receives and the price paid by the consumer. We have had the word of a retailer, the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill), who has made clear what the hon. member for Kamloops made clear earlier, that the retailer is not responsible. We have the word of one of the most successful executives of a large packing company that the packer is in no way responsible. Surely, with the spread that has been revealed between the prices paid to the producer and by the consumer, the case has now been made out for the resolution.
This resolution asks for an immediate investigation into the reasons why the spread between the prices paid to the producer for top-grade beef and those paid for lower grades is not accompanied by a corresponding

range in the prices required to be paid by consumers, and into the question of whether there is abuse under the present system of grading, and into the methods whereby such abuse could be eliminated.
The resolution has something in its favour, too, in that no constitutional issues arise. It is not a case of whether the responsibility rests with the federal or provincial legislative authorities, or whether there is divided responsibility for seeking a cure. What is asked for here is simply an investigation to ascertain the situation. Certainly the idea is generally held by farmers in this country that there is too great a spread, and something should be done about it. As I say, there is no constitutional issue here because this is not a legislative enactment that is requested in this resolution. It is simply a request for an investigation to ascertain why there is this great spread, and to place responsibility for it.
As I said a moment ago, for years there has been a feeling that there is something wrong and that something should be done. As far back as 1943 the Hon. John Bracken, with his great knowledge of agricultural problems, his experience in the agricultural and academic fields, was led to ask for something that is being demanded more and more throughout the country; that is, the establishment of a board of livestock commissioners on a basis similar to the board of grain commissioners. That has been in the policy of the Progressive Conservative party since 1943.
I notice that the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) has a resolution on the order paper to that effect, and in no way would I wish to interfere with his discussion, his support or his advancement of such a motion. However, when the question of a board of livestock commissioners is raised immediately there are those who will say that constitutionally such a course might be a derogation from the legislative authority of the provinces. However, I believe that not only should there be this investigation, but there should indeed be the establishment of such a board in order to protect and preserve the rights of producers.
The hon. member for Kamloops made it very clear that, so far as the write-up of the retailer is concerned, it does not explain what appears to be a quite unjustified spread between the price the farmer receives and that paid by the consumer. Today in Saskatchewan there is a tremendous campaign in connection with this very matter. I was in that province on Monday, and I found the campaign is most unusual. The degree of interest is high; arguments for and against
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading are being advanced with vigour. The Saskatchewan farm union, in its last issue of the Union Farmer, deals with the matter in these words:
Are you satisfied with the present livestock marketing system? Do you believe that the producers of livestock are capable of handling the marketing of their own products in an orderly fashion, to their own benefit?
Or do you agree with those who say that the farmer should put up the capital investment, do all the hard work, truck his cattle or hogs or sheep to the nearest stockyard, take whatever price and grade is offered, and leave the rest of it to the packers?
Then it goes on to say:
The Saskatchewan government has announced that the livestock marketing plan prepared by the provisional livestock marketing committee appointed by producers last April in Saskatoon has been received and considered.
Then it states that public hearings are to be held at various points in the province to give the people who raise the livestock an opportunity to discuss the plan and voice their suggestions for its improvement.
It is in that connection that I read from the representations made to the government of Canada by the interprovincial farm union council, composed of the farmers' unions of Alberta and British Columbia, as well as the farmers' unions of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. At page 11, under the heading "Board of Livestock Commissioners and Livestock Policy", they say:
At the present time, the grading of cattle is left almost entirely in the hands of the trade, governed by an old, left-over grading system with no established grades from any authoritative source. . . Many complaints are received with regard to undergrading and switching of livestock, and we have found that it is hard to discover any authority with power to deal with these complaints.
The hon. member for Waterloo North has said that the livestock industry in general, so far as the distribution of the finished product is concerned, is policed as is no other industry. Well, that being so, my hon. friend was right in almost demanding that an investigation such as the one asked for be proceeded with; for certainly the general feeling is to the effect, and the evidence would be readily available in an investigation to show, that indeed there is something wrong that should be rectified and that is not being policed at the present time by the existing authorities.
I remember, as a boy, when in the grain trade there was a demand that something be done to protect the western grain producer. One does not like to speak about personal experiences but I recall that my father taught school, and on Saturday used to haul wheat some 15 miles to the nearest market. That was before the establishment

Beef-Price Spreads and Grading of the board of grain commissioners. When we arrived at the market the attitude taken by the elevator companies-


James Garfield Gardiner: The board of grain commissioners was set up about 1900.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I am saying that
when we arrived at the market, representatives of the one or two elevators in the community would examine the wheat. One elevator man would say, "There is a heavy amount of dockage in that". On occasion they would say there was 7 or 8 per cent dockage in crops raised on virgin soil. The representative might put his hand down, make an unscientific test and declare that the wheat was damp, and that we would receive only a certain price. And if anyone complained, the answer given was, "Well, go elsewhere", but there was no "elsewhere" to go.
I recall the days around 1906 when the farmers' institutes were set up. I recall how we attended those meetings. One of the things the farmers demanded at that time was the setting up of a national board to protect farmers against injustices and wrongdoing. And, in consequence of aroused public opinion, ultimately the Canada Grain Act was passed. Finally the board of grain commissioners was set up to remove the injustices and unfairness that existed.
What is being asked today is the establishment of a sort of police force with the powers of the board of grain commissioners, to scrutinize the activities of those concerned with the purchase and distribution of livestock and livestock products.
The statement was made in the brief to which I have just made reference that when the farm union delegation requested the establishment of a board of livestock commissioners they were advised by the Minister of Agriculture that the federal department already had a substantial staff performing a goodly number of these functions at that time; and that was the stand taken, as I understand it, by the hon. member for Waterloo North. Then the brief goes on to say:
We would therefore recommend that existing agencies be incorporated into the new set-up, and a board of livestock commissioners be established, on which producers will be fairly and adeauately represented, to perform for the livestock industry a similar service to that rendered grain producers by the board of grain commissioners.
I suggest that the ultimate salvation of the livestock producers is the establishment of a board with powers similar to those now possessed by the board of grain commissioners. As a basis upon which to secure 

the setting up of such a board, my hon. friend's resolution is particularly appropriate and should be adopted. An investigation should take place and evidence secured-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order I would point out that resolution No. 7 is on the point my hon. friend is now discussing. I hope we are not going to be asked to vote on both these questions at one time.


John George Diefenbaker: Resolution No. 7 says that in the opinion of the house the government should consider the advisability of making an investigation into the reasons why the spread between the price paid to the producer for top grade beef and that paid for lower grades is not accompanied by a corresponding choice of prices paid by the consumers.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what resolution No. 5 says. The hon. member is discussing resolutions 5 and 7 at the same time.


John George Diefenbaker: I was advancing this as an argument in support of the investigation which is asked for by the hon. member for Kamloops. After the evidence is gathered, correlated dependable information will be available upon which a decision can be reached, which I believe will assure that something will be done to establish a policing authority so the unfair and anomalous conditions existing today, which are set forth in the resolution, will not only be investigated but will be remedied.


Edward George McCullough: wish to speak on this resolution as a farmer. We have had the mover of this resolution make a speech. He is a lawyer. Then we had a farmer and a butcher in the retail trade, and one of the executives of one of our largest packing firms, I understand, who apparently exonerated themselves from any responsibility for the existing conditions under which the producer and the consumer are not getting a fair break. On that basis perhaps it would be up to the Minister of Agriculture to exonerate himself and say that he and his department have no responsibility for this condition and are not to blame for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Like yourself, I am a farmer.


Edward George McCullough: I agree with the producers who often say they are not getting a fair deal when they ship their livestock to the stockyard. It is a fact that when there is an oversupply of hogs and cattle in the stockyards there is pressure on the market, and according to my information and observation the packers take advantage of it. That statement can be borne out by reference to the daily market stock quotations

of the various yards where livestock are delivered. It often happens that the prices for the various grades of beef cattle fluctuate 1 cent, 2 cents and 3 cents a pound. As the hon. member for Selkirk indicated, under those conditions the farmer suffers a material loss of as much as $30 to $40 a head.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill) who said that a large part of the responsibility lay with the farmer, who often delivers off-grade types of cattle. It is quite true that when the farmer delivers off-grade and unfinished cattle he expects to take a lower grade and consequently a smaller price. Nevertheless the fact remains, as those who are familiar with the sales at the stockyards will admit, when there is an oversupply of cattle in the stockyards, as often happens in the fall months in western Canada, the packers and the buyers will take advantage of that condition and will be very choosey in the number of cattle and also in the various grades of cattle they will buy.
As far as the farmers are concerned, it is rather difficult to trace through to the consumer just what happens to their beef. Before I leave the matter of the farmer's position in selling his livestock to the buyers at the stockyards I wish to say that in addition to the conditions prevailing when there is an oversupply, the farmer often takes a lower price owing to off-colour cattle, and cattle which do not conform to the desires of the buyers. At another time these same cattle will grade higher. That is a common occurrence. That condition existed two years ago when some farmers complained that cattle which were perhaps off-colour, not of the Hereford type, that had white faces and were black or of the cross-bred type, were graded lower. We should have that whole matter investigated so the farmer will not be unduly penalized with respect to such cattle.
During the debate no one has intentionally stated that the packers, or any others for that matter, were dishonest in their transactions. But it does not necessarily follow that conditions do not exist which are unfair to the producer, and that the packing firms do not exploit the situation to their own tremendous advantage. I should like to draw to the attention of the house a part of the report of the royal commission on prices. At page 100 of that report we find:
The three largest packing firms in Canada submitted accounts to the special committee which showed that they made a combined net profit oi $4-3 million in the four months following the simultaneous removal of price controls on meats and the settlement of the packing house workers strike in late October, 1947. Market conditions following the strike probably had greater effect
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading on these profits than the removal of controls. Profits for the corresponding period in 1946-47 were less than $1 million.
From that it can be readily seen that when conditions exist that permit the large packing firms to take advantage of the market- when they have meat in storage that they can put on the market-they can make tremendous profits. It is also true that there is not very much competition today in the packing business. That also permits the packing companies to take advantage of the consumer.
At page 104 of the same report of the royal commission on prices we find the following short paragraph:
There is evidence to indicate that the buying and selling prices of the smaller firms are patterned upon those of the larger firms. There is competition among the large packing firms but it is not "perfect'' competition, such as prevails in the primary livestock industry or in the retail industry. Farmers and retailers are able to exert little or no influence upon the price which they receive for their products in open markets.
What the farm organizations across the country want is for the producer to produce the kind of meat that is required at reasonable prices, and at the same time receive a proper price for what he produces. Farm organizations today are endeavouring to set up a marketing program which would be acceptable to all. As a socialist I believe an investigation is necessary to determine what is wrong; yet I feel we are not going to have stability in selling, processing and retailing meat in this country until we have it under control. I realize this would necessitate the expenditure of a great deal of money, but if we are going to guarantee both the producer and the consumer fair prices then I believe we will have to have public ownership of the packing plants in this country.
As I have already indicated, we have already had commissions which have conducted investigations into this problem, but it seems to me that three or four large firms in Canada practically dominate the packing industry. Having established what could almost be described as a monopoly they are able to set the prices to the retail people and consequently to the producers. I do not see how we can achieve justice in this matter unless the government is prepared to enter this field and pay the producer a price which will guarantee him the cost of the production for the various types and qualities of livestock he produces, and then process the meat so it can be retailed to the consumer at fair prices.
It might be possible and advisable to have large co-operative processing plants in the packing industry. It might be that this would be as satisfactory as public ownership. As I have indicated, when the price controls came
1866	HOUSE OF
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading off the packing industry took advantage of the situation and made large profits within a short period of four months. When the foot-and-mouth disease was rampant in 1952 the packing industry again reaped handsome profits to the detriment of the consumers. I think the farmer wants to produce the kind of beef the people want, and certainly consumers would like to buy beef at reasonable prices.
As the hon. member for Selkirk indicated, we have at the present time a large number of hog classifications and grades, and there seems to be no reason for it, particularly in relation to the lower grades. As far as beef grades are concerned, there is no reason to believe the consumer is going to get beef which has not been upgraded. I think the reports of the commission verify this fact as revealed by their investigations.
I believe the resolution is timely. It asks for three things-


Mr. Mang:: May I ask the hon. member a question at this point, Mr. Speaker? Am I to understand he is advocating the nationalization of the packing industry?


Edward George McCullough: That is right, sir. I believe that if we are going to approach this long-standing problem we should do something more than conduct an investigation to find out what is wrong with the packing industry. Commissions have conducted investigations before, and we have their findings. In my opinion the consumer is often fleeced in buying beef cuts at exorbitant prices. On the other hand, unless we can set up a scheme under which the producer will receive a parity price for the type of hogs and cattle he delivers to the stockyards, then he too is in the position of not receiving a fair return for his produce. Along with the resolution before us I think it will be necessary to set up a nationalized stock board with adequate producer representation. Under this scheme the producer would have a voice on the board and would be enabled to govern and control some of the marketing policies in relation to his produce.
In closing I would say that if any good could come out of this resolution the house should pass it, and the government should undertake to make an early investigation. I feel this would be to the advantage of both the producer and the consumer. In western Canada the farmers are up in arms over the conditions which have prevailed there since 1951. Their costs have increased and the returns on their produce have decreased. They are in a price squeeze, and I believe they are entitled to some answer to the problem which exists in relation to the marketing of their livestock.


Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: Before we proceed to another item I would like to say a few words in support of the resolution which is before the house at this time. There appears to be a most glaring instance of unjust price spreads in the meat situation in Canada. This indicates that both the producer and the consumer are being fleeced in many instances.
The situation can probably be best illustrated by the experience of western farmers in 1951. They brought their cattle before the packing house buyers. The buyers sat before them while the auctioneer named the types of cattle as they were brought forward and called for bids. The farmers tried to follow exactly what the auctioneer said, but this required a great deal of guessing. The farmers supposed that their animals went at whatever prices the bidders offered. Usually one packing company buys all the animals of a certain type offered on one occasion. On one particular day probably most of the feed calves are purchased by one packing company. Top grade steers are purchased by another packing company on the same day, and a third packing company might concentrate on purchasing cutters and canners. The next day their selection might alternate. If the farmer does not want to accept the prices which are offered that day he has no recourse but to take his cattle home again.
In 1951 farmers were getting anywhere from $250 to $280 for good quality steers, and they were usually well satisfied. When they entered the butcher shop they paid a reasonable price for the meat they purchased. Everything was up to scratch. Butchers retailed their meat to the consumers at ordinary market prices. In 1953, however, the farmers discovered that prices had dropped suddenly and severely, and they received in the neighbourhood of $120 for their best animals. The price to the farmers or producers had dropped by over 50 per cent.
The farmers are unhappy about this. I have accompanied farmers on their visits to the stockyards when they were selling their animals, and I have seen the returns which they received. That was something they felt badly about. But the thing that disturbed the farmer most was that when he went into the butcher shop to buy his meat there was certainly no 50 per cent drop in the price there. The drop may have been 10 per cent or 15 per cent. The price of the cuts of beef sold to the consumer did not bear a proper relationship to the cost of the animal. That is where the complaint lies, and that is the complaint in this resolution.
The farmer saw the price of his hogs go down very quickly. In January, 1954, the

price of hogs was 30 cents a pound, dressed. That price went down as low as 22 and 23 cents. He took, in the price and grades that were given, a 30 per cent drop. But there was no 30 per cent drop in the price of pork in the butcher shop.
The other thing that bothered him was this. You could hardly distinguish as between A hogs, B hogs or C hogs; the difference in weight or the difference in fat would be little. He received a certain price for A hogs, a certain price for B hogs and a certain price for C hogs. But when he went into the butcher shop and wanted a leaner cut of pork and said, "I would like a roast off a B hog or a C hog" he would find that the butcher never heard of any such thing. He would say, "It is all pork; 55 cents a pound, thank you. I do not know anything about these grades."
What they want in this case is a system that will establish certain grades to the producer and see that those grades are carried on to the consumer. They want some orderly marketing of these animals, and orderly grading which will be carried on so the price the consumer pays is relatively carried back to the producer; and if the producer is going to take a reduction, surely the consumer should get the product at a cheaper price. The point is that people realize there is something wrong with the way in which meat is handled. Experience in the past has not been such as to convince them that all is right.
If we go back to some of the investigations that were held, what do we find? This resolution calls for the setting up of a committee to look into the spreads and-
-the reasons why the spread between prices paid to the producer for top grade beef and those paid for lower grades is not accompanied by a corresponding choice of prices required to be paid by consumers, and into the question of whether there is an abuse under the present system of grading, and into the methods whereby such abuse can be eliminated.
We want to find out what the trouble is. It was interesting this afternoon to hear a packer say that the packing industry in Canada is highly competitive. One of the small processors in Canada who appeared before the House of Commons special committee on price spreads and mass buying in 1934 had this to say:
"We are sure that powerful interests are and have for many years manipulated the live hog prices . . . We also know that large competitor companies would undersell us at every turn . . . There has been no fair competition in years-just cutthroat and nothing else."
In 1948 the royal commission on prices brought out the fact that the three big packing companies in Canada more than quadrupled their profits in the four months
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading after the removal of price controls in 1947. The late J. S. McLeah at that time, in the case of Canada Packers, said that for the year ended March, 1948, the rate of profit for his company was 23.4 per cent of the shareholders' investment. According to the Department of National Revenue taxation statistics for 1953, their report shows that the entire meat packing industry, after taxation, had profits of $7 J million, equivalent to about 30 per cent of their share capital.
I think that is basically what is behind the demand of the people of Canada, from consumer organizations and from farm organizations. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in presenting their brief just last month, mentioned something along the same line. With regard to beef grading they stated:
Whereas at the present time only grade A and grade B beef are ribbon branded: and
Whereas C beef is a high quality meat used in consumer trade, and
Whereas the Canada Department of Agriculture has a grade for C and a ribbon brand,
Resolved that the C grade for beef be put into use and advertised through the consumer division of the Department of Agriculture.
Further resolved that all possible means be used to make the consumer acquainted with C grade beef.
That is what we want. We want to know that the consumer knows what he is getting. We say the packing company should not be permitted to set its own grades, or to have its own grades with regard to purchasing and set its own grades with regard to selling. If that situation can be eliminated a great deal will have been done to eliminate the abuse. That is the basis of the demand.
On those grounds I think this house should support the resolution. It has support from both sides of the house. As has been said before, if their skirts are clean the companies should be welcoming this suggestion. Then we can have the matter straightened out. In the minds of producers in western Canada the situation is similar to that which used to exist in the grain trade, when the farmer had to sell his grain to the market and they set the price. Private companies took the grain, set the cost of handling it, turned around and sold it in the world market, and pocketed the difference. As far as justice was concerned, the consumer and the producer had no voice.
In the final analysis, what the producer wants is this. When his commodity is sold, at whatever price, he wants the return from the sale of his product to go to the producer, less the proper cost of handling. When that is done, when we have orderly marketing and when we have these abuses done away

Beef-Price Spreads and Grading with, the consumer will get a square deal and the producer will get a square deal. That is all the Canadian people are asking.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion thus far this afternoon has been extremely interesting. I should like to commend my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops for having brought to the attention of the house this matter of the pricing and grading of beef. The field has been fairly well covered, but I believe there are a few things that have not yet been mentioned.
I cannot conscientiously stand up and say that nothing has been done by the government in this regard. Back in 1929 I believe the dominion government started working on the grading of beef going from the packing plants to the consumers. I might say that the matter also has a great deal to do with provincial rights. The dominion government cannot control the grading of beef within a province. They can do so for export and for interprovincial movement. They have various grades of beef now, but they are not all marked. As I understand it, only two grades are marked, as was mentioned by the hon. member who has just spoken, namely grades A and B.
In British Columbia, however, there is provincial legislation that follows pretty well the national grades as established by the dominion Department of Agriculture, and it is very interesting to note that the quality of beef sold in British Columbia has improved considerably since their grading regulations have been in effect. The percentage of A grade in British Columbia in 1947, for example, was 25, whereas by 1954 it had increased to 39-5. The percentage of B grade in 1947 was 33-1 and in 1954 it had dropped to 17-4. This leads me to believe that where there are such regulations the consumer has the opportunity to get a better grade of beef. I presume that a lot of the lower grades of beef that have to be sold in the domestic market of British Columbia undoubtedly go into the meat loaf business, bologna or hamburger, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Waterloo North this afternoon.
The strange thing about it all is that there is an act on the statute books at the present time under which all the things we are asking for-and I say "all" advisedly-could be done if there were provincial legislation to back up this statute. I refer to an act respecting stockyards, livestock and livestock products and poultry which was passed in 1939. Section 32 of that act reads as follows:
The governor in council may, with respect to any livestock or livestock product produced within or imported into Canada, make regulations,
(a)	prescribing standards of quality and grades;
[Mr. Castleden.l

(b)	respecting inspection, grading, packing, labelling, branding and marking and the maimer
thereof;
(c)	prescribing types, sizes and specifications of packages, packing material and methods of packing;
(d)	respecting the shipping and transporting of any livestock or livestock product;
(e)	prescribing from time to time the quantity, quality, grade or class that may be exported;
(f)	providing for the establishment of a service for the marketing of livestock on a basis of carcass grades;
(g)	prescribing from time to time the quality, grade or class that may be imported . . .
There are several other sections, but I do not think it is necessary to read all of them. I merely want to bring out the point that there is existing legislation if it could be standardized as between one province and another. However, as things are now British Columbia has its own regulations, and the minute beef goes from British Columbia to Alberta or vice versa the act does not have any effect. When meat from Alberta arrives in British Columbia it is sold there under British Columbia grades. When it goes across the border from Alberta into British Columbia it does so under dominion regulations, but the minute it arrives in British Columbia it comes wholly under provincial regulations.
As far as prices are concerned there is justification for a great deal of complaint from producers and consumers, because there is a terrific spread. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Kamloops, generally speaking the spread is greater in the lower grades of beef than in the top grades. I have some very interesting figures here from the Department of Agriculture showing the differences in the years 1949 to 1954 with respect to retail price, gross stockyard value, net stockyard value, marketing margin and the adjusted farm share of the retail price. It is interesting to note that in 1949 the average retail price for the year was 60-9. In 1950 it was 74-1, in 1951 89-3, in 1952 77-8 in 1953 62-4, and in 1954 exactly 61.
You will note that the difference between 1949 and 1954 is only one-tenth of a cent. The strange part is that gross stockyard value for the same years dropped from 44-3 to 41-6, whereas in retail value there was only a difference of one-tenth of a cent. The strange thing and what I cannot understand- probably the hon. member for Waterloo North could explain it-is that the by-product value dropped from 5-9 to 4-1 and, also strangely enough, the difference there is just about the same as the difference between what the producer gets now for his beef and what he got in 1949.


Norman C. Schneider: I could tell the hon. member that the difference so far as by-products are concerned is probably represented by the drop

in price of inedible fats which go into soap. They have dropped to less than half what they were before that period.


John Alpheus Charlton: I realize that, but I do not think the percentage of non-edible fat would account entirely for the difference. There is a difference of 1-8 between 1949 and 1954. The net stockyard value plus the marketing margin gives the retail price. The marketing margin has increased from 22-5 to 23-5. That is 1 cent that is lost by the producer and not paid by the consumer, because the retail price is within one-tenth of a cent of what it was in 1949. The average marketing margin for 1954 is 1 cent higher than the figure for 1949. The adjusted farm share dropped from 1951 to 1954 from 61-7 to 59-7, a matter of 2 cents.
The strange thing is that this figure is almost 4 cents less than the United States figure, taken from leaflet No. 123 of the United States department of agriculture, revised as of October, 1954. On the inside front cover of the booklet it shows that the farmer gets 63 cents of the consumer's dollar spent for meat products, and in Canada the figure is 59-7 cents.
There is another very interesting group of figures showing the difference between the stockyard price, the wholesale price and the retail price from 1940 to 1954. Taking as 100 per cent the stockyard price in 1940 of 7-83, in 1951, the highest year, it was 33-49 and in 1954, 19-34. Now, giving in percentages the increases over 1940, the stockyard price in 1951 was 427-7 per cent; in 1954, 247 per cent. The wholesale price in 1940 was 14-1, representing 100 per cent; in 1951 it had gone up to 56-2 or 398-6 per cent; in 1954 it dropped down to 34 or 241 per cent. The retail price in 1940 was 26 or 100 per cent; in 1951, it was 90-6 or 348-5 per cent; in 1954 it was 70-4 or 270-7 per cent.
The situation according to those figures, Mr. Speaker, is quite obvious. Actually the wholesale price was lower in percentage in 1954 than the stockyard price, but the retail price was considerably higher. The stockyard price was 247 per cent, the wholesale price was 241 per cent and the retail price was 270-7 per cent. It may be that all the fault does not lie with the packer or the wholesaler. Those figures certainly would not show it.
It is strange, however, that we find, according to the answer to a question on the order paper of February 4, that we imported into this country in 1954 a total of 3,034,181 pounds of beef. Of that quantity there were 1,889,727 pounds imported from New Zealand with a total value of $299,002. This worked out at 15-8 cents per pound. I realize that
9,	1955	1869
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading is the average price, and I assume there would have been several different grades. I would presume this would be carcasses of beef but it might have been boned and frozen. I do not know, because that information is not given. In any case, 15-8 cents per pound is pretty cheap beef according to the wholesale price here. The question arises, where did this beef go and what -did the consumer in Canada pay for it? That is the big question the consumer is asking, and that is the question the hon. member for Kamloops wants answered by the government.
Another thing I should like to bring to the attention of the house at this time is the tremendous amount of pork canned after the foot-and-mouth episode in 1952. The floor price on pork was 26 cents. Grade A hogs were supposed to bring 26 cents, but a number of grade B, lights, heavies, light sows and sows probably found their way into the canned pork which sold for 62 to 64 cents per pound. At that time the Minister of Agriculture argued that the hog was 50 per cent bone and fat, but of course that is not true. The hog averages out around 38 per cent bone and fat.
These are things that bring questions to the minds of consumers and producers. Where is the difference between the price the producer gets for his lower grade meats, pork or beef, and the price the consumer pays? I know this resolution only deals with beef, but there are these same considerations in connection with pork. When this meat gets to the butcher store, the consumer pays practically the same price for some of these lower grades as he does for the top grade.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before you leave that, may I ask what year was it that the beef came from New Zealand to which you referred?


John Alpheus Charlton: In 1954, according to this answer to the question of February 4. The figures refer to January 1 to November 30, 1954.


Mr. Rowe:: Was that after we sold our pork?


John Alpheus Charlton: It was while the producers were trying to get a better price for beef in this country.
In the case of some of the cooked meats, meat loaf and so on, we have no idea of the grade of meat that goes into these cooked meat loaves, partially cooked meats or smoked meats. Here I have the prices as of last Saturday in some of the chain stores. "Hygrade" brand wieners were 35 cents per pound. I presume there is a lot of lower priced meat, scraps and that sort of thing in these wieners. We go back to the wholesale

Beef-Price Spreads and Grading price of meat and find that it is 41-6, and that is for the whole carcass. If the whole carcass is only worth 41-6, and you can get 35 cents a pound for wieners, then someone is getting a pretty fair price for the lower grade meats. Bologna chubs-I do not know what they mean by "chubs" but I presume it is the ends after the slicer has cut off as much as possible-were 49 cents per pound. In another chain store lean minced beef was 29 cents per pound, prime rib roast was 49 cents per pound-and a blade roast was 39 cents per pound.
Now, it is not the price of the better cuts about which I have the argument. It is about some of these specialized meats, meat loaves, and so on that I am concerned. The tendency today apparently is for the housewife to be in such a rush she has not the time to cook meat for lunch. Many consumers are interested in prepared meats so they can simply open a package and put the meat on the table. We cannot protect the consumers against themselves. There was one case, I shall not mention the company, where a precooked sausage was put on the market. This precooked sausage sold for 94 cents per pound at the retail stores. As I said, we cannot protect the consumers against themselves. If they feel it is to their advantage to spend that much more money to get a precooked sausage that takes only five minutes to prepare and put on the table, there is not much we can do about it. But certainly it sounds absurd to me that precooked sausage should sell at 94 cents a pound.
Then there is another product to which I would draw attention, and I am referring to spiced beef. I have not the slightest idea where this product is put up, but it sells at $1.95 a pound. Apparently it is partially smoked, or pickled, or treated in some such fashion. Well, if people want to pay that price, if they like it well enough to pay that for it, there is not very much can be done about it.
With respect to the prices of various cuts of meat, I recall one occasion a couple of years ago when pork loin was advertised in Ottawa papers at the same price as small sausage. That would be a case where a person buying a low-priced cut of meat- perhaps I should not have said "low-priced" -buying a low quality cut would have the result, actually, of subsidizing the person buying the better meat; because of course if loins of pork were too high in price and could not be sold, the packer could cut them up into sausage, or sell them at a lower price to get rid of them. Where loin of pork is available at the same price as small sausage the housewife who knows something about cuts 

of meat, and knows something about the prices of various cuts, would likely buy the pork loin; because my understanding is that sausage has a considerable content of cereal, probably, or sometimes biscuit crumbs are mixed with the meat.
Another point entering the picture is that of packaging. Apparently the consumer of today wants a fancy package and is willing to pay for that package. As I said a moment ago, if the consumer will pay 94 cents a pound for partially cooked sausage, then he or she must be influenced by the packaging or by some other factor such as convenience. Certainly it is not the value. So if the consuming public demands attractive packaging, as was brought out in a discussion in the house a short time ago when there was a debate on the subject of putting striped wrappings on bacon, then perhaps it will pay those high prices.
As was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterloo North, a butcher store cannot sell low quality beef for very long and get away with it. Obviously if you are sold a bad cut or a tough piece of beef at your butcher store you are going to ask questions, or you are not going to buy beef there again. It is quite possible, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Kamloops, that the lower quality steer or, as he suggested, heifer, could have just as good quality, so far as taste and eating are concerned, and there is an average difference of anywhere from 2 to 3 cents a pound between choice steers and choice heifers, and good steers and good heifers.
Yesterday's prices are set out in today's Globe and Mail as follows:	Choice steers,
$19.50 to $20.50; good steers, $18 to $19; good heifers, $17 to $17.50. In other words there is a difference of from $1 to $1.50. But as the hon. member for Kamloops pointed out, when that good heifer carcass reaches the butcher store there is no difference between the price for the heifer and that for the steer. So whether it is the wholesaler or the retailer who gets the advantage, certainly the consumer is paying more in proportion than the producer is getting for that beef.
Then bologna bulls are offered at $13 to $13.50. I am told-and I must say I do not know this to be a fact-that the reason the packers pay so much for bologna bulls of good lean quality is that after killing they will take up almost their own weight in water.


Norman C. Schneider: I don't think the hon. member should make a statement like that. It is very unfair. There are laws that govern the amount of moisture that can be sold in meat, whether it is bologna or anything else.

There are laws which are very strictly enforced in this country, stating how much the total moisture content shall be. Meats are tested all the time for moisture content.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: You don't want the facts, eh?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. The hon. member for Brant-Haldi-mand (Mr. Charlton) took his seat, indicating that he was permitting the interruption. I would point out, however, that the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) can interrupt only if the person who has the floor gives his consent.


John Alpheus Charlton: Naturally I expected the hon. member for South Waterloo-


Norman C. Schneider: Waterloo North.


John Alpheus Charlton: -would try to say that was not true. And I did not say it was true; I said I had understood it to be true.


Norman C. Schneider: Why did you say it, then?


John Alpheus Charlton: I was not suggesting it was true, but I said-


Norman C. Schneider: You should not say it, then.


John Alpheus Charlton: But I do know they will take in a considerable amount of moisture.


Norman C. Schneider: If you don't know the subject, keep to the facts you do know.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think anyone in the house can accuse me of straying from the facts.


Norman C. Schneider: You are far from them today.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am taking the word of one butcher against that of another. One may tell me it is a fact, and the other that it is not. I am not going to judge between them.


Norman C. Schneider: What do you know about it, then?


John Alpheus Charlton: To come back to the matter of price variations in respect of cuts on the market; these variations are terrific. The difference between choice steers at $19.50 to $20.50 and heifers at $12 to $14 and canners and cutters at $7, is remarkable. I understand there is nothing to prevent a packer or wholesaler from putting a good medium carcass in a butcher shop and, if the customer does not ask to see the blue or red ribbon stamp on the carcass, there is nothing to prevent the butcher receiving the top price for the medium steer. Yet it was bought at from $2.50 to $3 per hundredweight less than the choice steer.
I admitted that the government had done some work on this problem. I commend the
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading department for what it has done. But I want to tell the hon. member for Waterloo North that there is not as much restriction on the grading of beef or any other meat from his or any other plant as he would have us believe. Most of that restriction is for the health of the nation, and there is a big difference between inspection to detect disease and inspection for grading purposes.
I commend the department for the work that has been done, and I hope it will continue. I would hope this work would be extended by way of research with a view to helping the consumer who is buying the meat so he will pay a reasonable price, in comparison with the price paid to the producer for that meat.


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish to thank the hon. member for Kamloops for this discussion of prices paid to producers in relation to the prices consumers must pay. My feeling is that at all times this government has endeavoured to see that the producer got a fair return for his product, and that the consumer should not pay more than a proper amount for the product he bought. After all, that is the way we want it to be.
As I listened to the discussion this afternoon, and heard the criticism of the packing industry, it occurred to me that there are three different phases in the operation. There is the price the packer pays; then there is the price the packer receives in the wholesale trade, and there is the retail price the consumer must pay for the product we are now discussing.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton) for the kindly remarks at the end of his speech, in which he commended our department on what they are doing. He said he hoped they would continue to do that type of work in the future with respect to grading and so on. That is what we are endeavouring to do. We are trying in every way we can to protect the producer and also the consumer.
I know it is very popular in this country, both east and west, for someone to get up on a public platform, or even on the floor of this house, and condemn the packing industry of Canada. I may have been guilty of that myself. I may have done it in past years, and I may do it in the years that lie ahead. Nevertheless, the packing industry is necessary in the processing and marketing of beef in Canada. Until we have a better medium to take care of beef, pork and all the other livestock products; until we as farmers and producers in this country set up packing houses of our own to take care of those
1872;	HOUSE OF
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading products and their processing, of course we must do business with the packing houses.
Sometimes we criticize them, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, but we should look at the facts at all times. They have their difficulties, just as the producers have their difficulties. After all is said and done, they must sell to the trade; and the trade today, the housewife today, is demanding a certain type of product. She wishes it, and she is a shrewd buyer. In spite of what may have been said by former speakers, the housewives of Canada are shrewd buyers. When they go into the stores they know what they want and they shop around until they get it. They want a good product, and they are entitled to have it. In most instances they are receiving a good product.
What is bothering the people of Canada, and what is bothering the hon. member for Kamloops and some of those who spoke after him, is the wide spread between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays. They wish that to be investigated. I can speak only with respect to the province of Ontario, which I know something about. I can say to the house this afternoon that the Department of Agriculture used four different months of last year as a gauge to conduct an investigation into this very thing in Toronto. Contact was made with the three main chain stores and also 38 independent stores, as well as the packing houses in Toronto, to find out the average price paid to the farmers and the producers and also the price charged to the trade and the price charged by the trade to the consumer for the product.
In this country, of course-and I am glad to be able to say this today-the production of high grade beef is increasing year by year.
I know that one is not very popular when he quotes figures in any speech, whether in the house or outside the house. Nevertheless I feel that at this time I must quote certain figures to prove what I am endeavouring to say. The number of cattle that went through inspected slaughter houses of Canada in 1954 was as follows: In the first grade, red brand -that is, choice steers and heifers-there were 249,000 odd, or 15-3 per cent of the kill, taking 100 as the total kill. In blue grade, the second grade, the number was 283,972, or 17-4 per cent. Something in the neighbourhood of 33 per cent of the kill last year was in the two top grades. In commercial, that is the medium steers and heifers and also the young beef cows, 404,395 head were butchered and went into the trade, or 24-7 per cent. Therefore between 55 and 60 per cent of the kill in 1954 was in the three top grades. Those grades, as hon. members know, are marked. The rest were aged cows, medium


cows, canners and cutters, stags and bulls, and so on. The majority of those went into the types of meat that have been mentioned by previous speakers, namely bologna, sausage, and so on. All that type of meat comes from the lower grades.
Hon. members may say, "We understand that. We are happy to see that the production in Canada is getting better and better and that last year we had more of the three top grades than we had in previous years. We would like to know what price is paid for those grades in relation to what the packers are charging the trade for them."
I wish to quote the results of a survey that we conducted, but I want to go farther than that. I am again using Ontario as an example. In Ontario we have a very live beef producers' association. They conducted a survey in relation to those prices. I commend them for it, but I have not the results of that survey in front of me today. However, I have the one which our department conducted. We took the four months of January, April, July and October of 1954, which is a fair average for the whole year. The average price of good steers in January, 1954, was $18.31 a hundredweight. The wholesale carcass price, that is the price the packer charged the butcher for his meat, was 36 cents for top grade. The retailer charged 73 cents for the higher priced cuts and 47 cents for the lower priced cuts.
In April, 1954, the average price of good steers was $18.50. The wholesale carcass price dropped to 34 cents per pound and the retailer charged 42 cents for the lower priced cuts and 69 cents for the higher priced cuts. In July the price rose to $20.50. The wholesale carcass price was 40 cents; for the lower priced cuts the retailer charged 46 cents, and for the higher priced cuts, 76 cents. In October-as hon. members will recall, the price continued to rise during the latter part of the year-the price was $21 per head; the wholesale carcass price was 41 cents, the lower priced cuts were 45 cents and the higher priced cuts were 77 cents at retail.
Hon. members will see that in the survey our department made the price the retailer was charging was not out of line with what he should charge, and when the price rose in the neighbourhood of 3 cents a pound live weight the retail price of the higher cuts rose only 4 cents a pound, and the lower grade cuts were reduced 2 cents a pound in the fall of the year.
I am not going to quote all these figures, but I am going to ask permission to have them placed on Hansard. I do not wish to labour this or quote too many figures, but I am going to quote one other group. Mention

has been made of good cows. I am going to quote figures in relation to them. The average price for good cows in Toronto in January of last year was $11.50. The wholesale price was 24 cents. The price of the lower grades was 37 cents and the higher grades 58 cents. In April the price was $12.50. The wholesale price was $27.50. The lower priced cuts were 35 cents and the higher priced cuts 56 cents.
In July the live cattle price in Toronto was $13.22 per hundredweight, the wholesale price was 28 5 cents per pound, the lower cuts sold for 35 cents per pound and the higher priced cuts sold for 50 cents a pound. In October the price of cows dropped. This always happens, and if any criticism should be made it should be made here. The live cattle price in October was $10.50 per hundredweight for good cows at the Toronto yards. The wholesale carcass price was 25 cents per pound, the lower priced cuts sold for 36 cents per pound and the higher priced cuts sold for 60 cents a pound. I have a table which gives these prices, but I do not intend to quote all of them.
In the survey we made we found that these prices were prevailing. As has been said by the hon. member for Kamloops, the price we will receive in the coming year will be depressed.


Edward George McCullough: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. Would he agree that the relationship of the prices which he has just quoted does not necessarily guarantee a fair price to the producer and to the consumer?


Robert McCubbin: That may be a matter of argument. If prices all across Canada prevail in the same relationship I feel it is perfectly all right. The farmers in western Canada received the highest prices for their produce of any producers anywhere in Canada. I know this from my personal experience in the cattle business. Whether it is the climate or the hospitality of western Canadians or the competition of the packers, we pay more money than we should for feeders we buy from western farmers, as is well known by anyone in Ontario who has come in contact with western farmers and ranchers. It is the producers in western Canada and not the feeders in eastern Ontario who benefit by this situation. I cannot find any fault with this because it assists the producers, and that is what I want to do. It might very well be helpful if we were to have an investigation at Winnipeg, Calgary or other places in Canada with respect to the beef cattle industry. I know we are not getting a fair break and that we do not receive the price we would like to receive in relation to
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading what we have had to pay for our feeders, and the reason is that which I have just mentioned.
We sometimes think there is not sufficient competition amongst the packers, but there is other competition. There is no restriction which would prevent our continuing to sell our good cattle in the United States. If we endeavour to feed our cattle as they should be fed we will receive a good price for them in the United States. Our sales of cattle to the United States was not great last year, but I feel our sales will increase before many months have elapsed.
One hon. member quoted the market price from the Toronto Globe and Mail of this date. If he had quoted the prices which are being received in Chicago he would have found them higher than the Canadian prices. Before too long I think we will have increased sales in the United States. There is a good market for cattle there, and the price will probably increase.
I think there are 40 packing houses in Canada which buy from the producers and are inspected by the Department of Agriculture. The competition offered by the United States market will have beneficial results. In Ontario 70 per cent of our farm income is derived from livestock and livestock products. This may not be true of other provinces, but I feel that in the years which lie ahead we will receive good prices for our cattle, and we do not need this investigation.
Perhaps we should have a survey made in some of the other provinces. Perhaps the other provinces should make a survey such as Ontario did. Perhaps the Department of Agriculture should conduct an investigation in other provinces as they did in Ontario. I do not see anything wrong with that procedure, and I will go along with it. However, I do not think anyone should rise in this house and paint a gloomy and pessimistic picture in respect to the livestock industry. I think it is the backbone of our farming population.


Henry Philip Mang: The constituency which I represent is reputed to have the highest cattle population per section of land in the province of Saskatchewan. That being the case, perhaps I could be expected to say a word or two concerning this resolution.
I think it is an interesting resolution, because it asks that someone find an answer to the question of the price spread in the beef cattle industry. I think if you were to go into almost any home in Canada and engage in a discussion you would find the housewife or someone in that home would ask that very
1874	HOUSE OF
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading question. For this reason I am glad to see this motion on the order paper. I would welcome such an investigation, because it will focus the responsibility, if there is any responsibility to be focused, upon the fly in the ointment, if I may use that common term.
I am sorry the motion does not specify who should conduct the investigation. It might be that it should be conducted by the agriculture committee of this house, by a royal commission or by some other investigating committee. In any event, if such an investigation were made it might discover an answer to the question of what causes the price spread.
This afternoon we have heard from everyone who is interested in the question of meat products. We have heard from the packers and from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin), who once confided to me that he often purchases hundreds of head of cattle and feeds them here for resale at a small margin of profit. We have also heard from farmers who produce stock, and we heard from a retailer who has been engaged in that business for 44 years.
As I said, I come from an area that produces high quality stock which year after year wins prizes at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair at Toronto. In answer to my question this afternoon my neighbour just to my immediate south in Saskatchewan was kind enough to offer a solution, namely the nationalization of the packing industry. I was glad to have that definite solution in answer to my question. Then of course we from Saskatchewan know that we have another ready solution to take care of the alleged exorbitant profits and the alleged exploitation of the producer, in that we have an administration there which believes thoroughly in crown corporations to take care of profits. Whether it is in insurance, the making of boxes, or the marketing of furs, we have all these different corporations which can take care of exorbitant profits and, if such profits are made, put them into the public treasury and make use of them to the advantage of the people of Saskatchewan.
In view of all the discussion there has been with regard to the high profits of the packers and the injustices that they are reported to be working on the producers, I have often wondered why in Saskatchewan we have not had a crown corporation to form a packing industry there. However, that may be for the future. I am not saying there will not be one. Then of course we have our co-operatives which are so prevalent in Saskatchewan, and which are doing such a wonderful work. Perhaps we could have a co-operative packing plant as such,


organized by the producers of Saskatchewan in order to help solve this disparity of prices.
These two solutions not being available at the moment, it is perhaps advisable-and I think it would be a good thing-to have an investigation by someone in order to just pin down where this price disparity arises and who is responsible for it. Through such an investigation we may find that labour plays a great part in it. If anyone has gone through a packing house he will have seen that there a great many labourers are employed. They have a certain specified hourly wage. In there, between the time the product comes from the producer and the time it gets on the consumer's table, we will perhaps find the answer to the question that is puzzling us so greatly this afternoon, and is puzzling every housewife in the country.
I therefore say it is an interesting motion, and a good one. I hope that some time we can find the proper body to which to delegate the responsibility of finding an answer to this question. If we find an answer in this instance I think we shall find the answer to similar questions with regard to our whole economy in general. I think it would be a fine thing to have such an investigation instituted through some properly constituted body which could give us an answer to this question.
If it is the retailer who is to blame, then of course we will enact laws to see that he always does the right thing every time a housewife goes into the store to buy her meat supply. If the packers are found to be carrying on a wholesale exploitation of the consumer, or if they are dealing unfairly with the producer or robbing the producer-that is a harsh word and perhaps I should not use it-then in this country we certainly have laws that will take care of them. The producer may even find that it is necessary for him to produce a high quality product.
The hon. member for Selkirk asked why, in grading cattle, the lower grades could not be eliminated or lumped together. In the grading of cattle I think having several grades is a good thing. The man who produces a low grade product will have to improve his production to a level where he can command a ready market at a higher price. It is all to the benefit of the industry.
In my particular part of Saskatchewan that is what is actually being done. We do not have large ranches or large herds of cattle such as those which are to be found in Swift Current-Maple Creek constituency, where they run cattle by the hundreds. We have smaller units of 20, 40 or 50 head of cattle in a herd, as the hon. member for Moose Mountain knows. We are concentrating on a high quality animal to put onto the

market. As the result of such an investigation as that requested, the producer may find that he has certain responsibilities with regard to obtaining a higher price by producing better quality. He will perhaps learn a good deal about the advantages of our private enterprise system.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two matters that should be dealt with, but before going on to deal with them I want to verify what has already been said by my parliamentary assistant, to the effect that a constant investigation is going on of the kind that is referred to in the resolution. There are in Canada approximately 40 packing plants, located in nearly all the provinces, in which we have inspectors, as was indicated by the hon. member for Waterloo North. He stated that we had three or four of them in his plant or in the plant of whose board he is a member. We have them in plants right across Canada. We have inspectors in all packing plants that wish to export meat products. These inspectors conduct a daily investigation.
But a considerable number of packing plants in this country do not desire to export meat products. The best example I can think of at the moment is that of Mr. Proctor in Brantford. The Proctor plant is one of the outstanding packing plants in the province of Ontario; but unless there has been a recent change we have not had an inspector in that plant because it is not one of the plants that wish to export meat products. Therefore they go on doing business in their own way.
What I want to point out is that in connection with plants like that, the federal government has no responsibility whatsoever. The responsibility is provincial. Any regulations there are relating to that particular plant have come from Toronto, not from Ottawa.
Then again, if one looks at the figures one finds that less than 10 per cent of our beef, plus live cattle, is exported from this country, and less than 10 per cent of our hogs. That was the situation in 1954, the year gone by. The amount has been a little more in some years and somewhat less in others. In other words, 90 per cent of the beef and pork produced in this country does not go into export at all. Therefore in the matter of marketing beef and pork we have not as much control as has been indicated by some of those who have been speaking this afternoon.
If there is any doubt about the point I should like to read into the record the cases which determine the matter, not only for the
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading members of the house and for the provinces but for the dominion Department of Agriculture.
It has been established that federal jurisdiction extends only to those products being shipped from province to province or on export. The federal Department of Agriculture has established national grades and maintains grading services for a considerable number of products, including meat carcasses. The grading and branding of meat carcasses-
This is a very important matter from the point of view of everyone who has spoken this afternoon, and all those who are represented by them.
-and the purchase or sale according to grade are at the option of the buyer and seller except when provincial legislation makes this compulsory.
I read that in order to point out that much of what has been talked about this afternoon does not relate to anything the federal government can do in the way of enforcing any kind of regulation or law. We can establish grades. We can state what we think the grades ought to be. We only do that after producers' organizations-and they have organizations in every province in Canada- meet with the packers' organizations and agree on what the grades should be. They make recommendations to the Department of Agriculture here and we establish the grades that apply on meat that is going to be exported or moved from province to province.
Having done that, we are in no position to effect enforcement in any way whatsoever unless the product does cross a boundary line. We are in no position to enforce the matter in any way whatsoever unless, as was suggested a moment ago by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, the provincial government takes some action and puts legislation on their statute books making it possible for somebody to prosecute in case these things are not done.
We have no authority to prosecute in these cases when the transaction is simply between a farmer and a packing plant and then between the packing plant and the retailer, the transaction all being carried on within the province. These are transactions that only provincial legislation can deal with. That has been the case through all the years except during the comparatively short times that we have been at war. During periods when we are at war we have authority that we do not have at any other time, and during such periods we exercise that authority. After you have practised that kind of thing for some years it is only natural that people get the idea you can go right on doing it. Since the time three or four years after the end of the last war when these regulations
1876	HOUSE OF
Beef-Price Spreads and Grading were removed we have not had the authority to do it, and the provinces have.
That brings me to a point raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert. He called attention to the fact that the Saskatchewan farmers' union have made certain representations. In the first place their representations were that we should have a body similar to the wheat board to handle all livestock in Canada. Their representatives came to Ottawa and sat in my office, and we discussed the whole matter. Whether or not hon. members come to the conclusion that I am right in what I am stating, when we pointed out to them that these were matters that could be dealt with provincially and not federally they went back to Saskatchewan; and the campaign they are carrying on now, referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Prince Albert, is a campaign to get a provincial board to handle the marketing of livestock.
They are not holding meetings in the province of Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia; they are holding meetings in the province of Saskatchewan, and I believe that my old friend who used to sit over there and who ran against me in the last election is one of the chief members of the committee that is going around investigating this matter in Saskatchewan. But they are doing so because they realize that if an effective board is to be set up it must have provincial legislation behind it, so that kind of investigation is going on there.
To suggest that this government should interfere with that kind of investigation and hold sittings in the province of Saskatchewan, or in Ontario where they have a livestock producers' organization that carried on an investigation only last year-to suggest that we should hold an investigation that would interfere with whatever any provincial government might wish to do in order to enforce certain regulations and ideas with regard to marketing livestock, would be entirely wrong to my way of thinking.
It is one thing for members of the house to get up and say it would be a very good thing to have an investigation of that kind. It would be quite a different thing if all the provinces came here and said they wanted to join with us in making an investigation of that kind. What the provinces are actually doing is attacking dealing with the problems that confront them right in their own provinces. For example, the hon. member for Kamloops comes from an area in which most of the livestock of British Columbia is produced, particularly most of the cattle. The biggest ranches in British Columbia are north of Kamloops along the old Cariboo trail.


These people are among those who advocated that their provincial government should do something different from what had been done anywhere else in Canada. It is the only province, I believe, where they had rail grading of beef before the war, and they have had it for a considerable length of time.
So far as the federal government is concerned, we introduced rail grading of hogs during wartime, but that was not the first time there had been rail grading of hogs. There was rail grading of hogs in the maritime provinces, and I think also in British Columbia, long before the war started. So far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned, they did not put it into effect, but the packers in the province of Ontario said they would not take hogs graded in any other way than rail grading. They said if hogs came into their plants they had to be rail graded.
I called the packers' representatives into my office and asked them why they had not come and discussed this matter with me. They said, "Well, I suppose you know it is none of your business." I said, "Yes, I understand that quite fully; but you discuss a lot of things with me that are not my business. I do not like to sit in my office and have people come and ask me why the packers of Ontario put rail grading into effect, and not be able to tell them why". I said I would have liked them to come and discuss the matter and tell me why they were putting it into effect.
I only recite that in order to show that, in spite of anything we could do, they had a perfect right to put rail grading of hogs into operation in the province of Ontario without asking us at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: But when we put it into effect when the war came we were immediately told by the producers of Manitoba that we should not have done so, that we had no right to do so. I wonder sometimes why some of these provinces do not take off the regulations we put on and to which their people objected now that they have the right to take them off.
All I am suggesting is that if there is to be any investigation of this matter it should be carried on provincially in the different provinces, and then they might do anything they found should be done. They might find, as suggested a few moments ago by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, that plants should be set up in provinces that believe in government ownership in order to undo the damage they say is being done by the privately owned packing houses.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONTINUATION OF SUBVENTION POLICY

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to revert to motions at this time in order to make an announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister unanimous consent to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, as the orders in council providing for freight subventions on movements of Canadian coal to market expire at the end of the fiscal year, I should like at this time to make an announcement about the policy for the coming year. The Canadian coal producing industry has been faced with increasing pressure from competitive imported coal as well as from other fuels. The problems of the industry have been studied, and it has been decided that the situation warrants the continuation through the coming year of the financial support extended in the past under the coal subvention policy.
In eastern Canada the industry is having difficulty in realizing improvement in efficiency through mechanization. This is largely due to physical and mechanical difficulties, but it is expected that the continued application of technical thinking and of labour co-operation will produce results in the coming year. In order to assist this development the present assistance on the movement of coal from mines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to markets in Quebec and Ontario will be continued, while aid on the movement to Newfoundland will be dropped. This assistance will be at the same level as last year, and the new regulations will contain the same provisions.
In western Canada the present assistance on the movement of Saskatchewan coal to Ontario will be continued. The industry in Alberta and Crowsnest area of British Columbia has been hardest hit through loss of the railway market for steam coal and increasing competition from oil and gas. Assistance on the movement of coal from these areas to
Coal- Subvention Policy Ontario is being increased by 50 cents per ton, which should be of help in retaining markets in northern Ontario for steam coal while also providing some further aid for domestic coal in the Ontario market. The assistance on railway coal is to remain the same as it is at present. Assistance up to $1 per ton is also being once more provided on the movement of these coals to Manitoba for industrial purposes in view of a developing market in that area.
The present assistance on coal from both Alberta and British Columbia moving to export or to bunker use is being continued unchanged. The government is also giving instructions that in all purchases of coal for use in federal government buildings, a preference of 10 per cent in favour of Canadian as against imported coal will be allowed. It is expected that these provisions will be of substantial assistance to the industry. Provision for funds to meet these expenditures is being made in the estimates, and this house will be invited to confirm this provision.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow and Friday we shall take up the following matters in the order in which I indicate: first, third readings of the bills with respect to the tax agreements with Ireland; then continuation of the debate on the motion to set up the radio committee; then the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister with respect to the Defence Production Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the Canada Grain Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Fisheries with respect to the convention on great lakes fisheries; the resolution in the name of the Minister of National Defence with respect to the National Defence Act; the resumption of the adjourned debate with respect to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; second reading of Bill No. 180; second reading of Bill No. 179; second reading of Bill No. 183; second reading of Bill No. 184; second reading of Bill No. 188; second reading of Bill No. 189.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
b
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 10, 1955