Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	Was Dr. A. R. Monroe veterinarian inspector in the Drumheller district during the month of April, 1938?
2.	If not, who was the inspector at that time?
3.	What were bis daily travelling expenses in detail during the said month?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Daily travelling expenses, April, 1938, Dr. A. R. Monroe: April 1, taxi, 33 miles, 85.70; 2nd, taxi, 19 miles, S2.85; 4th, taxi, 19 miles, S3.35; 5th, taxi, 33 miles, $5.20;

Questions
6th, taxi, 19 miles, $2.85; Calgary-Drumheller return (railroad), $4.15; meal, Drumheller, 60c; 7th, taxi, 44 miles, $6.60; hotel, $2; breakfast 55e, lunch 60c, dinner 60c, Drumheller, $1.75; phone, R. A. Lavers, Munson, 10c; phone, W. G. Finlayson, Munson, 10c; phone, A. E. Black, 10c; fare, Drumheller-Cereal return, $5.75; 8th, taxi, 15 miles, $2.25; breakfast 50c, lunch 50c, dinner 50c, Cereal, $1.50; 9th, hotel, $3; Cereal to Drumheller, taxi, 20 miles, $3; breakfast 55c, lunch 55c, dinner 60c, Drumheller, $1.70; 10th, breakfast 55c, lunch 60c, dinner 60c, Drumheller, $1.75; 11th, taxi, 39 miles, $5.85; breakfast 55c, lunch 60c, dinner 60c, Drumheller, $1.75; hotel, $4; Drumheller-Cereal return, $5.75; 12th, taxi, 15 miles, S2.25; breakfast 50c, lunch 50c, dinner 50c, Cereal, $1.50; 13th, Cereal-Drum-heller, Hotel Cereal, 2 nights, $3; taxi, 5 miles, 75c; breakfast 55c, lunch 60c, dinner 60c, Drumheller, $1.75; phone P. J. Hampton, Rowley, 20c; phone, F. Sadler, Rowley, 20c; phone, H. Swallow, Rowley, 20c; 14th, taxi, 79 miles, $12.85; breakfast 55c (Drumheller), lunch 60c (Morrin), dinner 50c (Rowley), S1.65; 15th, breakfast 55c (Drumheller), hotel, $4, Drumheller-Calgary; 17th, Calgary to Drumheller return fare, $4.15; dinner, Drumheller, 65c; 18th, taxi, 80 miles, $12; breakfast 55c, lunch 60c, dinner 60c, Drumheller, $1.75; 19th, taxi, 25 miles, $3.75; breakfast 55c, lunch 60c,' dinner 60c, Drumheller, $1.75; 20th, taxi, 60 miles, $10; breakfast 55c (Drumheller), lunch 50c (Rowley), dinner 60c (Drumheller), $1.65; hotel, $6, Drumheller to Calgary; 21st, Calgary to Elnora return fare, $5.05; taxi to station, 50c; 22nd, taxi, 32 miles, $5.80; 23rd, taxi, 35 miles, $6.25; 25th, taxi, 51 miles, $8.65; 26th, taxi, 32 miles, $4.80; 27th, taxi, 42 miles, $6.30; 28th, taxi, 31 miles, $5.65; 29th, taxi, 46 miles, $7.40; 30th, taxi, 32 miles, $5.55; hotel, eight nights, 26 meals, $25; lunch, Three Hills, 50c; stamps, $2; total, $225.70.



PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any requests been received by the government from either municipal or provincial authority towards federal assistance with a view of giving aid, assistance and cooperation with any future outbreak of poliomyelitis, and what action has been taken?
2.	Has the attention of the minister been called to the fear of such an outbreak this summer and fall, as expressed at the meeting of the Ontario Medical Association this week, and other bodies of public health?
3.	Has any request been received by the government from any of the medical associations of the provinces asking for a national scientific investigation committee to be established by the national council of research to improve and
look into alleged cures for cancer, in cooperation with the provinces or provincial medical associations?
4.	Will the government consider the advisability of appointing a select committee of the house next session on national public health matters as an aid to securing a national policy on public health for Canada and in order to extend and coordinate the present functioning of the department with provincial and municipal authorities and expanding the scope, usefulness and work of the department as an urgent, social and national necessity?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No requests received by Department of Pensions and National Health.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.



H. S. ABKELL

Mr. SENN:: 1.	Is Mr. H. S. Arkell employed by the federal government at the present time?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and at what salary?
3.	Has he been employed by the government at any time during the last four years?
4.	If so, in what capacity, for how long, what remuneration did he receive, and what expenses were paid to him?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Investigating overseas markets for Canadian farm products, salary $500 per month.
3.	Yes.
4.	Investigating markets for Canadian farm products and the marketing of such products. Employed November 12 to December 24, 1936, April 21, 1937, to date. Total salary received to date $6,870.42. Total expenses paid to date $5,627.73.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BBPORTED STATEMENTS OF PROFESSOR ANGUS OF ROWELL COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ORIENTAL SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIberni):: I would like to ask the right hon, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) two questions. The first is, has his attention been called to the fact that Professor Angus, British Columbia's representative on the Rowell commission, has been making partisan speeches concerning a matter on which as one of the commission he will presently have to pass judgment and which formed part of the representations made by the province to the commission, namely the oriental situation? Secondly, if investigation proves this to be correct, will he consider the advisability of removing Professor Angus from



Canada-New Zealand Air Service
the commission in order that the confidence of the people of British Columbia in the fairness of any judgment which the commission may render, may be restored?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I have received a complaint about a speech which was made by Professor Angus before the Ontario Medical Association in Toronto, which I assume is the speech to which my hon. friend has made reference.


Alan Webster Neill: It is one of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the only one to which I have had my attention drawn. Upon receipt of the complaint I immediately had it brought to the attention of Professor Angus. I presume I may say that in speaking, Professor Angus was speaking as a private individual, not as a member of the commission nor were the remarks complained of made in the course of the proceedings of the commission, nor, as I understand it, with respect to any subject which comes within the scope of the commission itself. The commission has not been empowered to deal with any question of franchise. That, I believe, is the subject to which my hon. friend refers.


Alan Webster Neill: That speech was only one of them, and this matter is sub judice, because the premier of British Columbia made representations.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: I am in order.



CANADA-NEW ZEALAND AIR SERVICE REPORTED NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS AND THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with regard to an associated Press dispatch which appeared the day before yesterday in the Brantford Expositor. The dispatch refers to an announcement made in the British House of Commons by Lieutenant-Colonel A. J. Muirhead, Under-Secretary of State for Air, to the effect that negotiations were under way with the dominions and the United States concerning a proposed air service across the Pacific ocean from Canada to New Zealand.
My question, therefore, is this: Has the Dominion of Canada, as one of the most important dominions concerned in such a proposal, been consulted in regard to this matter, and, if so, does the Prime Minister deem it to

be in the public interest to inform the members of this house as to the present position of the negotiations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member drew
my attention just before the house assembled to the question he intended to ask; I give him and the house the following information in reply.
The question of an air service across the Pacific ocean between Canada and New Zealand has received informal and preliminary consideration on various occasions. No definite suggestions as to such a service have been put forward, however, and no negotiations are being carried on on the subject at present between the Canadian government and the governments of any other members of the commonwealth.
The statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Air in the House of Commons at Westminster on May 10 referred not to negotiations on the general subject of the establishment of an air service but to discussions on the preliminary question of the ownership of certain Pacific islands along the proposed route. It is understood that the conversations in question, which are being carried on between the governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand and the government of the United States, are concerned with the ownership of certain islands in the Phoenix group and other islands lying between Honolulu and Australasia.



ALBERTA DEBT LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: I
should like to ask two questions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). First, is the government aware that the three recent enactments of the province of Alberta, namely, The Securities Act, 1938, The Home owners Security Act, and The Limitations of Actions Amendment Act, 1938, have the effect of preventing the payment of all secured debts in Alberta? Secondly, in view of the fact that individual and corporate creditors in all parts of Canada have their securities destroyed, and that similar legislation on the part of other provinces would entirely destroy the credit of Canada, does the government contemplate any action to deal with the situation?


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Official certified copies of
the acts to which my hon. friend refers were

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
received by the Secretary of State and transferred to the Department of Justice on April 30. As to the effect of these acts, they are at present being considered by the department. I have received many letters and telegrams and have been advised that on Monday formal petitions will be filed for their disallowance, such petitions coming from various organizations including the insurance companies' association, the loan companies' association and others. As to what the decision will be, of course I cannot give any answer.

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



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Marketing services administration, $50,000.
Mr. THOMPSON:: When the committee adjourned last Friday evening I was calling attention to the cooperation that had existed during the last three years, between the Department of Agriculture of Ontario and the federal department, and I was endeavouring to show that it was not in the best interests of the dairy business, particularly from the standpoint of the marketing of our cheese. I had pointed out that an association known as the Eastern Ontario Dairymen's Association had been in existence for sixty years and had built up the great dairy business of eastern Ontario, from which section the best cheese made in Canada comes, and that their grant of $1,500 had been withdrawn. That grant had been expended entirely on the production end of the business. We knew that if we wished to retain our premium for cheese in the British market we must continue to manufacture a superior quality product, just as I have read in the report which has been submitted that Canada's success in marketing cheese in the United Kingdom depends upon the quality.
I pointed out further that there were two features that marked the success of cheese in Canada; the first was quality and the second, quantity. It was in this direction that the efforts of this association were made. Their grant was withdrawn, however, and the Ontario government permitted an organization known as the Cheese Producers' Association to collect five cents per hundred pounds on all cheese sold in the province. As I said, in 1936 the cheese producers' association collected $22,000, and in 1937 over $38,000, which was supplemented by a grant of $5,000 from the federal department. My contention was that this money was not spent in the best interests of the dairy business. I am not at all opposed to money being spent in the interests of agriculture, but money which, in 51952-1771
my opinion, has been uselessly spent I object to. I have here a copy of the auditor's report of the Cheese Producers' Association of Ontario. New Zealand sent her cheese to Great Britain in consignment. And the cheese was sold in the old country by agents on commission. The Canadian cheese was all sold in Cahada before it left our shores.
This cheese producers' association endeavoured to break up the selling organization, which had been built up in the last seventy-five years, an organization that we were proud of; and I may add that in New Zealand, the leading men there will tell you, they are sorry they ever opened warehouses in Britain and sold cheese as they are doing to-day.
This association of which I am speaking went into the business, borrowing from the banks $204,887.52, with which they purchased cheese. There was appointed in Belleville a man known as a secretary, at a salary of $3,000 and expenses, and he bought the cheese, and another man was sent to London at a salary of $5,000' and expenses and he sold it there. Their auditor's report shows that on their operations they lost $800.82, and the loss would have been considerably more had it not been for the fact that the federal Department of Agriculture came to their assistance and purchased' a large quantity of cheese for shipment to the dried-out area in Saskatchewan for relief purposes. That was the only sale of cheese on which the association made a profit last year.
Let us consider for a moment their other activities-their convention and their office expenses. The auditor's report shows that their receipts come from three sources. The five cents per hundred pounds which the Ontario government allowed them to take-from the farmers on their cheese amounted; to $38,671. Then they received from the county organizations $2,925, and a grant from the federal Department of Agriculture of $5,000, making total receipts of $46,596. Their expenditures included: office and general expenses, $4,308; secretary's salary and expenses,. $4,014. There is a board of five directors who were paid fees amounting to $2,986. A man was sent to England to sell this cheese, and his salary and expenses came to $6,346. Auditing and accounting fees were $625".. Everybody was liberally paid; apparently they," spent all the money they could spend, anct wound up the year with a surplus of $18,935, which they did not know what to do with. Yet they had taken from the farmers who- sent milk to the cheese factories $38,671 and had received a grant from this government of $5,000. I know that their secretary has gone back to London. A friend of mine told me

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
he met him on the street there a couple of weeks ago and asked him what he was doing there, and he said, " I came here in the interest of the Ontario Cheese Producers' Association." Some of this nearly $19,000 that they had left is being spent in that way. My contention is that not one dollar of that money was of any benefit to the dairymen. Every report of the dairy business with the old country has shown, and those of us who have spent our lifetime in this business know, that the success of our cheese in the old country depends first on quality and then on the quantity that we can supply. Our money should be spent on the production end, and not foolishly wasted in the selling end.


Mr. GARDINER:: What year is that report for?


Thomas Alfred Thompson: The auditor's report for 'the year ended December 31, 1937. During the three years that this cooperation has been going on and that attention has been diverted from the production end and directed towards the selling end, what has happened to our cheese? I receive every week during the production season a statement from the dairy and cold storage branch of the Department of Agriculture giving the prices of New Zealand cheese in England and the cable prices in Canada. It had been always known that Canadian cheese sold at a premium over New Zealand cheese. I have here some figures taken from the returns given to me by the Department of Agriculture. I find that in 1934 there was a premium of 3 to 4 shillings per hundredweight of 112 pounds for Canadian cheese over New Zealand. But in 1937 we find this reversed: in July and August of that year there was a premium of 3 to 5 shillings per hundredweight in favour of New Zealand.
I know that figures have been produced and statements made at some of our public meetings by officials of the department to show that Canadian cheese was at a premium over New Zealand cheese. But how did they arrive at it? New cheese is selling in Canada to-day for about 15 cents a pound wholesale, but go into any grocery store and ask for old matured cheese and you will have to pay 30 to 35 cents. Would it be fair for me to come to this committee and say that that is the price of cheese? Not at all. Yet the grocers' price has been taken in London to show that we still have a premium, and that price included the old cheese. It is a well known fact that New Zealand manufactures a very moist cheese, which is palatable when it is fresh but has no keeping quality. Invariably the British merchant buys Canadian cheese when he wants to have old cheese.

I have looked over the new report which came to my hand to-day. It says:
Canada has two important advantages over competing countries in having almost to the complete exclusion of competing countries, the trade in mature cheese for the retail trade and for the manufacture of pasteurized processed cheese. There is little doubt that with continued attention to quality Canadian producers can retain these advantages.
We have to the almost entire exclusion of other countries the market for old matured cheese, and it can be retained if we keep up the quality of our product. A report which I got from the department showed that for the last three years the premium upon cheese had dropped. In 1935 it was cents; in 1936, it was cents and in 1937, one cent. But that included the old matured cheese. The figures I have given are taken from the report of the department, giving the wholesale prices. My contention is that this money has been spent on the selling end where nothing could be accomplished, and that the production end, where everything can be accomplished in regard to both quality and quantity, has been neglected. I want to read a statement from the report of the chief grader. He said:
The total cheese placed below first grade last season was 94,546 boxes, an increase of 39,792 boxes over the previous year. The total loss on these cheese was approximately $90,000 and the extra loss owing to an increased percentage of under-grade cheese was about $38,000. This is a tremendous loss to the cheese industry, but I do not imagine that the larger quantity of under-grade cheese would affect the reputation of Canadian cheese on the markets of the United Kingdom if our first grade cheese was equal to the standard of quality for previous years.
Even our first quality cheese was not up to the standard.
I have no definite information on this point which would apply to the season's make. However some reports have come back that July and August cheese were not quite up to former years, and we also know that there were many shipments of first grade cheese on which the total score was lower than 92 points owing to slight defects in workmanship.
Then let me read another clause from the report of the chief grader. Referring to a chart which is shown he says:
This chart shows the grading of Ontario cheese throughout each month of the season and this indicates that there was a decrease in first grade every month excepting May. Weather conditions should be very favourable during the latter part of September, also in October and November, but decreases in the percentage of first grade are shown during these months, and the inference, therefore, would be that even with good weather conditions either the milk producers or the cheese makers or perhaps both, were not doing their job as well as it should be done.

Supply-A griculture-M arketing
Here is the point: We have been allowing the quality and to some extent the quantity of our cheese, the only things over which we had any control, to be neglected. What did that mean to the farmers? Last year nearly 839,000 was forcibly taken from the pockets of the farmers by an assessment made on their cheese at the factories, and in addition, with the cuts that were made on low grade cheese, in the selling end they lost 8128,000. That is taken from the report of the chief grader. I am not at all opposed to money being spent if the dairy industry, or any other branch of agriculture, is getting the benefit of it, but in the last quarter century we have had only one minister of agriculture in this house who seemed to understand the dairy business and the intricacies of mixed farming in eastern Canada. That minister was the present hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). I have been connected with this business all my life, and during the term of office of the hon. gentleman I discussed these matters with him on many occasions. He was born and brought up in the county in which I live; his home was outside the town of Perth, and he lived there until he was twenty-one years of age. He was brought up on a dairy farm; he understood the requirements of our great dairy business.
I would simply ask the minister this, that in future he see to it that the money voted is spent where it will bring some benefit to the farmers engaged in the business. I am not asking him not to vote the money, but simply to see that some good results from it.
I do not think I need argue this matter further at this time. My whole intention has been to lay before the minister and the committee the necessity of seeing that the money is properly expended, for the purpose for which it is intended, and I claim that not one dollar of this money brought any benefit whatever to the dairy industry. It is utterly impossible for a few men to think they can buy a few cheeses, ship them over to . London and break up a selling organization that has existed in this country for the last seventy years, and of which we are justly proud. As a result of the efforts of these few gentlemen to whom I have referred they lost 8800 last year, without taking into consideration the salaries and expenses of the men who were doing the work. They lost on the actual buying and selling of the cheese, so I would ask the minister in future to maintain more strict supervision over the expenditure of these amounts.


Mr. WARREN:: I am rather at a disadvantage, Mr. Chairman; I came into the house
while the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) was speaking, and certainly I was unaware that there was to be a speech of this kind dealing with this question. I realize that the riding represented by the hon. member for Lanark is more interested in the question of cheese than the riding which I represent. We do a good deal of dairying in Renfrew county, but principally in connection with the manufacture of butter rather than cheese.
Because I was not aware that this question was coming up I have none of the figures before me, but I must take very strong exception to the view that has been expressed by the hon. member for Lanark. Particularly must I take exception to an hon. member of this house adopting the attitude that the farmers of Canada ought not to bother their heads about the marketing of their own products. If there is one thing the farmers of this dominion ought to learn it is to pay some attention to the marketing of their products. We have been given, not only by the Department of Agriculture but by the farmers' organizations themselves, a great deal of education with regard to the proper grading of our products. During the past few years we have learned to sell our eggs on a graded basis. We have learned to a certain extent the proper type of hog to produce for the British market. We are learning that we ought to have our cream in proper condition so that we may produce the proper quality of butter for our markets. All this sort of education has been of great benefit not only to the producers but also to the consumers throughout Canada. Now we have reached a stage in the cheese industry, as far as grade is concerned, where there is not very much opportunity for improvement. Something happened last year, of course, that caused our grade to go down to some extent, but two years ago, if I remember correctly, our cheese graded something like ninety-eight per cent No. 1.
Here we have an effort on the part of the farmers of Ontario to get together in an organization of their own, financed by themselves, receiving a small grant from the federal treasury, and to improve the marketing of this important product. We must remember that in regard to cheese we are almost entirely dependent upon the export market. Our home market is very limited; we do not appear to be a cheese eating people. The situation is very different in regard to butter; we consume practically our total production of butter, but we must sell our cheese in outside markets. Here we have farmers representing every county in which cheese is manu-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
factured. These men get together and form an organization, which is surely a democratic organization, with directors appointed for each county. These men get together to-study the whole question, and they make an -effort to improve matters in connection with the selling of this product, to my mind with very considerable success as a beginning. It is true that they had a man in England last year, and I believe that this feature of their work is not being carried on this year. Even at that they are experimenting and studying the whole question. Yet we have the spectacle of a member of this house who represents a dairying section of the country objecting to farmers getting together and doing something for themselves in connection with the sale of their own product.
I submit that the farmers are entirely within their rights when they get together and say, "We are going to impose the small tax of one-tenth of a cent per pound, or five cents per hundred pounds, in order to make our contribution towards the organization." We must remember that that organization is in its infancy. They are experimenting and trying to find out how they can improve the market for and the sale of their own product. Yet this hon. member who comes from a farming community objects, contending that the farmers ought to attend to the production end and leave the selling to somebody else. That "somebody else" would mean commission houses; certainly they will take care of their own profits. The farmers, I repeat, are entirely within their rights in making an effort along these lines in order to better the selling of their product. If the Department of Agriculture is willing to give assistance to the organization by way of a small grant I am sure such assistance would be appreciated by the farmers of the province.
I have discussed the work of the organization with the heads of the Department of Agriculture and I find they are in complete accord with what is being done. They believe the efforts of the organization will be of considerable value to the farmers. I am entirely in favour of farmers getting together at any time to improve the marketing of their own products, and certainly to my mind there should be no objection when they are willing to finance the scheme by imposing a small tax on themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the discussion proceeds further may I point out that we are *discussing item No. 8, but it is item No. 6 that is before the committee. If hon. members are prepared to pass item 6 and proceed
(Mr. Warren.J
to discuss No. 8, I shall be content. I do suggest however we should discuss the items as they come before the committee.


Mr. LEADER:: Under what item may we discuss matters in connection with beef cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: Item No. 11.


Mr. SENN:: When the item was before the committee the other evening there was some discussion about what is commonly known as the Shaw report. The minister stated frankly that the report had been somewhat changed.
I am pleased to state that to-day I received by mail a copy of the new edition

I do not know whether I should call it a report, because it is not so designated.
I believe the old report was concurred in by all the members of the committee who went overseas. I stated the other evening that some very good men were on that committee. Certainly the officials of the department who visited England are efficient and capable men.
I have no reason to believe that they would include in a report statements with which they are not fully in accord. In fact the initial report in its foreword, signed by the director of marketing services, Mr. Shaw, states that the findings and recommendations contained in the report are agreed to in principle by all members of the party. Yet we find that shortly after the report was printed and issued it was suppressed and distribution cancelled; meantime a new report has been drafted and is now presented to parliament. In many respects the new report is different from the old one. The other evening I asked the minister why the changes had occurred, and he replied they bad been made because of certain complaints and because of certain reports which had been issued; I cannot think however that those were all the reasons for the change. I feel that complaints have been made from certain quarters of which we have not been made aware.
I asked the minister if any of the industries or interests connected with the marketing of farm products had objected, and he said they had not. But there is undoubtedly some reason, and a very important one. for the change in and the redrafting of the report and for the incorporation in the new report of matters which were not in the old one.
It seems to me that to change a report drafted by a committee which spent a considerable sum of money in connection with the matter is an unusual procedure. The report has been garbled, certain of the findings have been left out, and some of the recommendations have been changed. I suggest the minister should make a more frank state-

Supply-A gricul ture-M arke ting
ment than he made the other evening as to what occurred, why the report was changed and from what points the complaints came. He should take the committee into his confidence, because I believe if he does so he may hasten the passage of this particular item.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: May I point out to the minister that I was discussing the marketing end of the matter, and would appear to have been in order.


James Garfield Gardiner: Item No. 8 is the item with respect to dairy products. Marketing services in connection with dairying products would come under item No. 8. We are discussing administration at this time.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I wanted an opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Renfrew North.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will come back to that subject, but at the present time I should like to have the discussion in proper order. If we are going to run up and down the list we will be in difficulty all the time.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: All right.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) has raised a matter which was discussed the other evening. I believe he has very effectively in his first few observations answered the question which is in his mind. He pointed out that the first pamphlet issued was the report of a committee. As I indicated the other night that was a committee composed of some officials of the department, and some officials of farmers' organizations and of one canning organization, all outside the department. Those men went to England and examined into the conditions surrounding the marketing of farm products in Great Britain, and in pursuance of their observations made a report. I believe it goes without saying that a committee of that kind writing a report would be likely to make some recommendations which any government in office would find it impossible to put into effect. They might even make some criticism of the activities of the government of the day. However, they would make their report on the basis of what they themselves considered to be fair in connection with the case.
A report of that kind was issued and, as was stated a few moments ago, it was published. Somewhere between five and six thousand copies in English and French were printed and in the neighbourhood of 5,000 copies were circulated throughout Canada. I believe every hon. member of this house received a copy, as well as the members of most of the legislatures of the different provinces; each daily
newspaper in Canada received a copy as well as all the agricultural papers. I believe that most of the farm organizations of one kind or another also received copies. In other words, there was a wide distribution of the publication.
The statement I made the other evening was that after the press summary had been handed out there was one statement which perhaps unduly called attention to certain findings of the committee and made it appear that those would likely be acted upon. As a result of criticisms that were made, the report was not circulated to the general public but it was left in the possession of the press. It was not suppressed; as a matter of fact it was placed in the hands of every publicity organization in this country. Most of the newspapers across Canada wrote editorials having to do with the report or commented upon it in one way or another. I venture to say that no report made by a committee to any department of government has had more publicity than the one we are now discussing.
The department decided, and I as minister take responsibility for that decision, that an outline of the policies adopted as a result of this report and certain information which the report contained, would be more beneficial to the general public, particularly to the farmers throughout Canada, as indicating the ways and means that were going to be adopted, than the report itself. I asked that the publication which would go out to the general public as a result of requests coming in should contain the actual policy of the department, decided upon after having had the report of the committee. What I read the other evening was the main part of the new pamphlet that was brought out and which sets forth the policy of the government decided upon as a result of having obtained the report of -this committee, presented to us I believe on December 8 last. In the first division of this new publication on- pages 8, 9 and 10, will be found set out the general policy, and the pages following will be found to contain the information gathered by the committee that it was considered would be of general interest to the people of Canada. These pages contain the information that they should have to arrive at conclusions as to what might be done, either by processing organizations or the producers themselves, to produce a product up to the standard and grade that is intended to be handled through the department.
I think these explanations cover everything that has happened up to date. If there are

Supply-A griculture-M arke ting
other questions that hon. gentlemen desire to ask, I shall be pleased to give the information.


Mr. PERLEY:: What does the minister call this new publication?


James Garfield Gardiner: In common with many other publications got out by the department, it contains information with regard to the policies of the government in connection with marketing. It contains information on marketing gathered by the committee.


George Halsey Perley: In the centre of the front page of the first one is the word "report." It is not on this one. What does that mean?


James Garfield Gardiner: The previous one was a report.


Mr. HARRIS:: I have seen a great number of reports in the last decade and a half during which I have been in this house. This states distinctly that it is a second edition of a report. I do not know just what it is if it is not a report. The minister says it is a new publication. Is it the second edition of the first report, is it a new publication, or is it another report?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a report in the sense that it reports on marketing conditions in the old country, but it does not contain the recommendations that were in the first part of the report as submitted by the committee.


Joseph Henry Harris: The words "second edition" should be deleted, because it is not really a second edition of the first report.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: This seems to me to be a strange procedure. I agree with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) when he says that there should be more explanation by the minister as to why this change was made. Five thousand copies of a report by a committee appointed to investigate marketing conditions overseas were circulated throughout the country. I have not a copy of the old report before me, but I have one of the new. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has pointed out that the word " report " does not appear on the front page, while the hon. gentleman who has just spoken points out that it states it is a second edition of the first report. It is published by the direction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), but the word " report " is missing from the second page. On the third page, where we would ordinarily expect to find a submission over the signature of Mr. Shaw, as chairman of the committee, to the effect that the report was being transmitted and was -based on the personal investigations of marketing conditions made by

members of the committee, no such statement appears on that page. The so-called foreword is placed on that page of this so-called second edition of a report, or whatever you wish to call it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the report of the committee.


William Earl Rowe: It does not say it is a report of the department; it does not say it is government propaganda, nor does it say that it is a political handbook taking the place of a report. It is the most nameless and peculiar document I have ever seen presented as a report to this house since I have been a member. Surely there is some reason for its being presented. I hope it is not because of conflict between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. There has been danger of that under other governments as well as under this one, and I believe it has not been eliminated entirely at the present time. As the old saying is, " the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life," and as we are all interested in marketing conditions overseas, the wording of this very important document may mean very little. I commend the government for any efforts they have made and for any they propose to make in the future in connection with investigating conditions overseas. For many years I have felt that our governments have been all too lax in making thorough investigations into the needs of the consumers in this and other countries. This information is essential to a country that depends upon export markets for the disposal of a considerable proportion of its agricultural products. It seems to be even more important to our domestic welfare in this country in view of the fact that we consume in our own markets the greater percentage of what we produce. Fortunately perhaps at times, but at many times unfortunately, a small surplus automatically sets the price at home. It is therefore most essential that our markets overseas should be carefully studied and every assistance given in order not only to standardize products but to classify our exports and regulate the supply so that a fair price may be maintained.
While I have not a copy of the report at hand-the real report-of the committee which was named by the department to investigate these conditions overseas, I have read it; I received a copy of it some time ago. It is strange that that report is not before us at the present time. Surely the department and the treasury of this dominion will pay the expenses of that report even though they were employees of the department.

Supply-Agriculture-M arke ting


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman-if I may be permitted-one of the reasons why all the copies printed were not sent out was that we might have a sufficient number here to supply hon. members any time they liked to ask for them, and they are available, if hon. members desire to get them.


William Earl Rowe: All I would say in that regard is that if there is a large supply-


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not a large
supply. There are enough to supply all the members.


William Earl Rowe: Then I
would suggest to the minister that he see that every hon. member is furnished with a copy of the report before this item passes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Every member has
already had one. If any hon. member desires another one, he can get one upon application to the department.


William Earl Rowe: I suggest
that they be provided with another one. True, every member had a copy last fall, but those copies may be some place in their libraries at home. I venture to say that there are not half a dozen available at the present time in members' rooms in the House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, yes.


William Earl Rowe: They went as ordinary literature. This is an important report, but I think the old report is much more important and much more necessary for the solution of this great problem of marketing than is this document we have before us.
I compliment the department and the government upon the selection of the men who made this investigation overseas. Besides Mr. Shaw, I see the names of Mr. J. F. Singleton, Mr. L. Pearsall, Mr. R. M. Scott, Mr. R. A. Wright, president of the Western Canada Live Stock Union; Mr. J. F. Lindner, Mr. C. L. Smart and Mr. H. King to advise on merchandising problems. I do not know all of these gentlemen, but I am acquainted with most of them and I believe that no finer committee could have been sent over to investigate these matters. Now these men, who are divorced from politics, who are not under the necessity of appealing to the popular sentiment of any district, who are public servants, having made a careful study, their report should have been submitted as it was.
I merely point out that instead of the submission signed by Mr. Shaw we have the following statement:
The agricultural marketing policy and the results of the investigations conducted in the United Kingdom are presented as a guide to those interested in the production and marketing of agricultural products.
A change entirely on all three of the first pages of this document, even though it is called a second edition of the report. When one turns to the table of contents one sees indications of more important changes which we can expect through the report. In the first place, the recommendations of this important committee are left out entirely, and the policy of the government is put in their place. I know every member of this committee will agree with me that for many years we have recognized the fact that countries overseas such as New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, and the Union of South Africa, in many respects, as regards marketing in foreign countries, have more careful plans, more systematic, more cooperative and I might say more scientific production and distribution of their agricultural products than we have. This committee made a careful study of the publicity used by those countries to advertise their products and the policies followed in order to regulate their supplies and standardize their grades; and, strange as it may seem, the table of contents shows that the publicity and policies of the exporting countries of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and even Canada are left out entirely.
Turning to the next page, we have really only the heading left so far as the original report is concerned. "The British market and the Canadian farmer," it is headed-"Introduction." It does not even say when the committee's investigation started, or when it was concluded. The summary of the first report is now made the introduction to the second -so-called-edition.
The next item on the same page is headed "Summary." The first paragraph of the original report, of which this is called the second edition, is left out entirely. In fact one of the most important paragraphs of the summary of this committee is deleted.
Then we find that the next three paragraphs, while they are differently numbered, are the same. In a paragraph headed "Knowledge of Canadian Products," we find the first sentence changed. The original report of this committee of investigation found that overseas, Canadian goods seldom stood out; in other words they were not marketed as they should be, they were not of a grade or quality

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
that enabled them to stand out. That sentence is entirely changed, and this second edition, this more or less political document, states that "very few retailers so display Canadian goods that they are easily recognized." Just imagine; we have a committee of investigation, any one of whose members I would say, in all fairness to the minister, has made a more careful study of marketing problems and of scientific agriculture than either he or I; they come back and report to the department that Canadian goods do not stand out, in other words are not advertised as they might be; and yet the second edition coming from the minister of the department says that "very few retailers so display Canadian goods that they are easily recognized," evidently turning the blame on to the distributor in the old land.
On the same page, preceding this, there was another paragraph which was headed, "Little apparent benefit by past advertisement." The committee found that there was little benefit to the producer by the advertising policies pursued in the past. I should like to ask the minister why that entire paragraph is deleted. These two paragraphs outline the very crux of the problem, but they are not particularly advertising the department and thus evidently left out.
Following that, one paragraph is left in, and the purport of it is that despite these weaknesses of the past there is no ill-will in the markets overseas among our consumers there.
I submit in all fairness to this committee that after having such an able committee going overseas and investigating and finding out that our present advertising methods have more or less failed, that our goods are not marketed as they should be, that they are not holding the place of prominence which they might-finding out these different weaknesses that many of us in this country have talked about for years and coming back and laying a report before the department. We should have that report. While the treasury paid $5,000 or more for a report, to-day we have not that report before us, but we have another document which more or less smothers, beclouds and deletes the most important features of the original report.


Harry Leader: Why should the hon.
member blame the minister? Every member of this house received a copy of the report. I have one upstairs. I cannot see the point he is making, because the report is available to everyone here, and everyone could have studied it if he so wished.
[Mr. W. E. Rowe.3


William Earl Rowe: I blame
the minister because he calls this the second edition of the report.


Harry Leader: And we have the first.


William Earl Rowe: "We" have. Has the hon. member?


Harry Leader: Yes, I have one upstairs.


William Earl Rowe: Let me
point out to the hon. member that these reports were submitted early last fall, and that there are many agricultural producers who are not in this house, who have been making an intensive study of this problem of systematic marketing.


James Garfield Gardiner: The other night I
gave the house information in regard to this matter. I pointed out that we publish over three hundred reports of different kinds each year. Why should I be expected to have a copy of this report on every desk to-day when there are no copies of the other reports and no one suggests that there should be?


William Earl Rowe: Did the
minister print a second edition of the other three hundred reports?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of the others
have run to a tenth edition.


William Earl Rowe: If every
edition of the other reports is changed as much as this edition, by the time the tenth edition is reached no one will recognize any similarity between the tenth and the original. That, however, is apart from the issue. This is an important matter, Mr. Chairman. Every member of this house recognizes the importance of studying world markets. Some years ago I proposed in this house that we should establish an export marketing board, and I also suggested that we should do what the minister himself evidently set out to do in connection with the investigation of conditions overseas. No one ever expected that there would be produced, at the expense of the country, a report so changed and garbled as this one is.
On the next page there are also many changes. Page 8 is the most important of all. It was the page which in the old report embodied the recommendations of this committee of trained and experienced men who had studied the problem-the recommendations that they were asked to submit to the department. Here we find this page of the first report entirely wiped out and replaced by a reprinted speech of the Minister of Agriculture made on January 24, 1938, and apparently copied from the recommendations of

Supply-Agriculture-M arke ting
the original report, because we find in several paragraphs almost the very same wording. Here, however, they are not set out as recommendations from this able and efficient committee that went overseas to investigate market conditions, but as a speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the city of Ottawa.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, in
the city of Ottawa. I remember it very well.
I thought it was a reasonably sound speech in many respects and I did not suppose for a moment, at that time, that it was merely a recital from the recommendations submitted by the committee whose original report the minister now fails to bring before us.


James Garfield Gardiner: Was the hon. gentleman at the meeting?


William Earl Rowe: No, I was not.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why he does not understand. I read it all and said that it was from the report.


William Earl Rowe: Well, here we have the spectacle of the minister reading this report at a public meeting-not all, but part of it-as his own speech, and now to-day we find that he refuses to give it to parliament except as a changed second edition.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman had better read the heading on page 8.


William Earl Rowe: The headings are about all that the minister has left of the original report. He has been very careful to have all the headings practically the same. Only this morning did I receive this report, and about fifteen minutes to three I had a chance to compare it with the original. I did not have a copy of the original report in my room and therefore borrowed one from another member. I compared the two, and I venture to say that throughout the balance of this edition there are proportionately as many changes as I have so far indicated.
I suggest that we should not pass this item until we have a fuller understanding of the original report which was submitted by the committee that investigated marketing problems overseas. And we should have that independent of politics. The heading on page 8 is "The Marketing Policy" and under that there is the following:
The Honourable James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, in an address delivered at the annual meeting of the Canadian Chamber of Agriculture, Ottawa, January 24, 1938, stated the policy which the department intended to follow as a result of receiving and adopting many of the recommendations of the report of its investigating committee.
It would be interesting, as the minister says, to read it all, and I hope that I shall have an opportunity in the future to do so, in order to ascertain whether he and his department have lived up to all these splendid policies which he said would be put into effect, but none of whioh have been carried out.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read page 10.


William Earl Rowe: The minister wants me to read that page. Why should he not? This is an entirely new page and it is more or less an advertisement of the government's virtues. The headline is "Proposals already made effective." I venture to say that the committee had nothing to do with that heading. This is written by the department; it is a new page. If this report were all like this page, of which the minister seems to be so proud, he could well use it as a political handbook and take it with him for the forthcoming election to Saskatchewan. This is nothing more or less than a political sheet. An hon. member asks me, don't I like it. Yes, and most of it was in effect before the present government came into power.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which parts?


William Earl Rowe: As a matter of fact, what part of it has not been considered before? What has this government done so far as agriculture is concerned? The hon. gentleman seems to smile in satisfaction at what this government has done. I can show various ways in which the government cannot take credit for what has been done. They cannot take credit for the things that were done prior to their assuming office.
I have not had time to go through the whole of this report and I am not going to read it all. I do not propose to have my friend tell me what I am to spend my time on when I am speaking, but I see before me paragraph 5 on page 10, which I would ask my friend to read. As he reads he will find that the real steps to expand the marketing of bacon overseas were taken long before his party came into power, and the increase in the exports of that commodity is a fair test of the effect of those measures. Many other similar items could be pointed out.
On page 29 of the new report another political paragraph is interjected. There is a long statement covering two or three pages dealing with the market for bacon products overseas, and on page 29 there is a curious paragraph. We sat in this house some years ago and heard members of the present government party for weeks and weeks condemning

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
the empire trade agreements, only one member of that party voting for them. Yet here we have interjected into the report a paragraph not a syllable of which I venture to say was mentioned by the committee of investigation which reported to the government. Just listen to this:
The trade agreement of 1937 assures Canada the right to supply up to a total of 280,000,000 pounds a year.
Do any of my hon. friends say that that right had not been secured before this government came into power? This right was secured in face of the opposition of every hon. member of the party now in power except one. To quote further:
Article 5 of the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom states the position as follows:
. "The government of Canada, recognizing that it is the present policy of the government of the United Kingdom to promote the orderly marketing of bacon and hams and of meat in the United Kingdom with due regard to the normal development of trade, declare their willingness so far as their power extends to continue to assist the government of the United Kingdom in carrying out this policy, and in particular, to furnish from time to time estimates of forthcoming shipments of bacon and hams and cattle and beef.
As regards bacon and hams, the government of the United Kingdom undertake:
(1) that any duty or levy which may be imposed on bacon and hams imported into the United Kingdom shall not apply to imports of Canadian bacon and hams when consigned from any part of the British Empire;"
Those are clauses of the 1932 agreement Which every hon. member on the government benches to-day opposed, and I venture to say that- the Minister of Agriculture campaigned against them in Saskatchewan.
"(2) that there will be no regulation by them of such imports unless the rate at which the trade from Canada progresses towards two and one-half million hundredweight per annum should become abnormal and such as to endanger the effective working of the system of supply regulation;
, (3) that no such regulation would be put into effect without prior consultation with the government of Canada."
I hope they will keep that third undertaking in mind when they are negotiating the trade agreement with the United States. So I point out this interjection so far as the original report is concerned; I venture to say that not one clause of it was written by the committee of investigation. Why it is there no one knows better than hon. members who recall the opposition given to the trade agreements of 1932, which the government now take credit for having endorsed in 1937.
IMr. W. E. Rowe.]


James Garfield Gardiner: ' Does my hon. friend intend to convey to the committee the impression that these terms which he has just read with regard to bacon were in the 1932 agreements?


William Earl Rowe: Again I say that "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." No one knows better than the minister that the principle was established by the government of that time against the opposition of his party.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not the wording of the 1932 agreements.


William Earl Rowe: Not the exact wording, perhaps. If the minister wishes to discuss exact wording I have some very interesting things from the few minutes' comparison I had time to make.
The chief features of the report of the investigation which was made have been more or less deleted, and what might be termed political touches substituted. Turning to page 44 of the old report-there is one here yet- you will see the difference between the investigating committee's report and the government's political handbook. Perhaps the end is taken to justify the means, but when the people of the country read the report of the committee and the political twist given it by the government of the day they will see a vast difference. In the latter there is very little information as to the way it is going to be put into effect, only pious hopes and advocacy of policies that they believe might attract the people, but nothing definite even in that. By a coincidence it is on the same page of this anomalous document-the minister says it is not a report; it is just a second edition of something. The original report said:
In view of the controlled market for these products in the United Kingdom we have no recommendations to make.
But it also says, under "Recommendations":
Nevertheless, a certain quantity of them is constantly being exported. This fact would seem to indicate that the quality of our product is satisfactory and, provided British control measures are modified, our export might assume considerably larger proportions.
The new report says:
In view of the effort to increase production of these commodities in the United Kingdom, of the very active domestic market in Canada and of the relatively higher prices for cheese than for butter, we have no recommendation to make.
That helps the committee out in the matter of wordage at least. Following that it goes on:
Nevertheless the quality of these products is satisfactory and considerable quantities particularly of unsweetened condensed milk and

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
milk powder are being exported. Exports of the former product will probably be considerably greater during 1937 than during 1936 or 1935, while exports of milk powder will probably be considerably less during 1937 than during 1936 or 1935. With a less active domestic demand and prices of butter more favourable with relation to prices of cheese, export of milk powder might assume considerably larger proportions.
They point out that in view of the buoyant tjines in Canada for the dairyman there was not so much milk powder exported, but that exports of condensed milk had increased considerably since this government assumed office. I do not think the committee were particularly interested in that. However, in chapter VI, at page 45, in connection with dressed poultry, where it might be understood that the empire agreements had helped the poultry producers of this country, after an exhaustive study of the matter and figures of imports for these years the original report of the investigating committee adds:
Consequently, Canada's share of the total imports (though still a small percentage), and that for chickens and turkeys, has gained during the past four years while the- import figures have been declining.
In other words, we have a greater proportion; we have been gaining steadily for four years while the imports into Great Britain during the same time have decreased. That section is left out entirely in the new report. Why? Why on page 45 is a clause particularly added that seems to reflect some credit upon the government of the day, while on page 46 a clause is left out that might give some credit to the policies that were pursued by the previous government? The whole edition of the report is a political defence of the government of the day, burying the real report of the investigating committee in its truer sense.
There are many other pages to which reference might be made and many other differences that might be pointed out. At page 74 we find practically the end of the new edition, but sis a matter of fact it was really only the beginning of the original report of the committee. From page 74 on it will be observed that there are tables with reference to imports and exports, and so forth. That is in the new edition. The last sentence of the old edition, the report proper, states:
The complaints need serious and immediate study.
That of course is left out of the new edition, and they end the report with tables of statistics with regard to imports and exports of practically all the countries of the world, especially concerning Canada in connection
with the articles we send overseas. In the old report there were three full pages dealing with the marketing and publicity policies of exporting countries, including Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada. I submit that this is in fact one of the most important parts of the report. I believe we need better marketing conditions overseas, and I further believe that only by careful study-of the requirements can we lay sound and reasonable plans for supplying those markets. I feel that we have made too little study of these problems in the past. For many years in this country we have failed to study the demands of the consumer; we have failed to do our grading as they desire, and even more dismally failed to export a regulated and carefully inspected supply. Any steps that may be taken in this house to remedy this condition will receive my heartiest support. For some ten years now I have proposed, both to this government and the previous government, that steps should be taken to fulfil the requirements of these markets overseas. I think at one time in this house I proposed-and I would not hesitate to propose it again-that we might make some effort to establish what might be termed a quid pro quo between those in the agricultural districts of Canada and those in the industrial sections. I think it is just as reasonable to put a bonus on export agricultural products as to put extremely high tariffs on industrial products.
I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that until we have a more prosperous agriculture in this country there will be no sound and lasting solution of the great problems which exist in Canada to-day. I am also convinced that this government has much more to do in the search for markets overseas than merely change a report like this to suit itself. It has an obligation to protect agriculture as well as the industries that give employment in the urban centres. With the situation that exists in Canada to-day, in regard to our imports of agricultural products, everyone engaged in agriculture is keenly disturbed. We speak about finding a market for our cattle. One year we send them to the old land, and the government fits boats at great expense; another year we send them to the United States. There is no regularity of supply. We have a market in the United States. When the quota there has been filled, or when the price drops, where shall we send our cattle? In the western part of this province we have farmers who on their feeding lots are feeding cattle brought from western Canada last fall. I believe the government should be commended

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
for the assistance given in that connection, in regard to freight rates and so on. But, Mr. Chairman, while they were assisting the farmers of the west, and indirectly the eastern farmers who are feeding these cattle, at the same time they were bringing into this country eighteen thousand head of cattle in cans; all the hides taken off and the bones taken out in another country, and the cans manufactured by other people while our industrial workers stood idle. Surely this old matter of fiscal policy is no longer going to be-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I would ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


William Earl Rowe: I certainly do not wish to deviate from the item under discussion, but I know that nothing relates more closely to the marketing of agricultural products than does the fiscal policy of this country.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Even my hon. friend from Huron North agrees with that, and I submit that when the hon. member and I agree you might very well reconsider your ruling.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Huron North would be out of order too.


William Earl Rowe: I do not propose to continue at any great length, Mr. Chairman, except to submit once more that the marketing of our agricultural products is seriously affected by the importation into this country of enormous quantities of the same products we are trying to sell. When we realize that enormous quantities of vegetable oils and vegetable fats which could be replaced with animal fat within our own borders are coming into this country; that we are now trying to find a market for over half of the lard produced in Canada, and that each year fifty train loads of vegetable oils come into Canada duty free, half of which consists of edible vegetable . oils and replaces animal fats and lard used for cooking purposes we must understand that if that procedure is not stopped it will soon destroy the live stock industry of Canada. I make that statement as a farmer.
In his responsible position as a member of the government I believe the Minister of Agriculture, even though he may have clung to other fiscal theories in the past in connection with the marketing of agricultural products, should talk the matter over with the Minister of Finance. I well recall that when the Minister of Finance entered the house he showed strong inclinations towards

that old and dusty doctrine of free trade. But the longer he sat in the house and the longer he has faced the problem the more he has realized that if we are going to develop Canadian resources we must bury the old differences between our fiscal policies and realize that in the marketing of the products of agriculture we are confronted with the competition of cheaply produced agricultural substitutes of other countries, and that those substitutes have been just as disastrous and have just as effectively hindered the farmers of Canada as have the longer working hours, lower wages and lower standards of living hindered the manufacturing industry.
I have always stated and repeat to-day that the farmers of Canada are entitled to the same fiscal policy as the industrialists. There must not be one policy for one class and another for another. I do not suggest for a moment that because we have millions of pounds of oil entering Canada and taking the place of our own product the government should make a political gesture and state that in lieu thereof it will take the duty off farm implements, or something of the kind. The farmers of Canada do not wish to destroy another man's opportunity for employment. But they are concerned with the fact, as is every other citizen, that there must be jobs for their boys, jobs for their neighbours' boys, and markets for their products not only overseas but at home. Ninety-five per cent of the live stock produced in Canada is marketed at home. The committee was well advised on that point when it considered the marketing and publicity policies of Australia and New Zealand. We find that these countries consume only about fourteen per cent of their agricultural products, and must find an export market. The export market is almost their only market. But in Canada we have a vastly different condition; the development has been the other way. Our great market for agricultural products is right here in Canada. We realize that more fully when we are told that twelve carloads of meat go to Kirkland Lake every week. The district surrounding Timmins, and other extensive mining sections, provide important markets which must be given careful consideration.
I agree with many of the recommendations which have been made, and I hope the government may see fit to put them into effect. I believe there should be a national market. I believe the committee said there should be an empire market; the second edition however does not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: That does not apply to the higher standards.

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing


William Earl Rowe: That might be well justified. I submit in all seriousness that the government should give consideration not particularly to licensing exporters, but that they may more carefully guard their products. To-day in Canada three-quarters of a million families are affected by the prosperity of agriculture. In view of the small amount of agricultural products exported from Canada I believe the government might be well advised to consider the advisability of a bonus policy in connection with the export of high class agricultural products.
All one needs to do is to drive along the roads of Canada and to see the buildings in need of repair in the rural districts to know that the standard of living in those districts is not comparable to that of even the humblest urban resident. Improvement along this line would involve an enormous amount of employment in Canada and an enormous amount of business.
I realize that while only a small portion of our agricultural production is exported, it is that small amount which sets the price in the home market. Someone may ask, "What about the consumers' league?" I would say, and I have no doubt the hon. member for Huron North would agree, that the consumers are not so much concerned about what they have to pay for their food, if they receive reasonable wages.


Robert John Deachman: What about the housewives in Toronto?


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member has mentioned the housewives in Toronto, and I would agree where unemployment has been increasing, and where they have had no more work, and where they have been humiliated by taking relief. Certainly they do not want higher prices for foodstuffs. But I would rather be employed at sixty cents, fifty cents or even thirty cents an hour and pay twenty cents for a loaf of bread, than be unemployed and be able to buy a loaf for a nickel-if I did not have that nickel.
We must improve the standard of living and increase purchasing power. The prosperity of the farmers must be restored and so far as it can the government should assist in that restoration. If we are going to have any improvement in general conditions I would submit-and I suggest this is the common belief-that in the marketing of agricultural products the minister must give careful consideration to the vast amount of products being imported which are replacing the agricultural products of Canada. In this connection I
mention particularly the importation of vegetable oils. Later I propose to deal more fully with the point. I know it is a matter which has been dealt with by others who have given it careful study.
I submit that any hon. member from an agricultural district in Canada who realizes the importance to our national welfare of the prosperity of agriculture will agree when I say that we cannot continue to import millions of pounds of edible vegetable oils and over
100,000,000 or 125,000,000 pounds of inedible vegetable oils. The inedible vegetable oils taking the place of the coarser animal fats, and the first group I mentioned, the edible oils, taking the place of the finer butter and animal fats produced in this country. It costs something to put fat on live stock; I know that. We will soon have a condition whereby the fatter we make our stock the cheaper they will be. Certainly that will be the result if the present policy is followed. I mention that in passing.
I submit the minister should see that every member considers the real report made by the committee of investigation, and should leave the most of this document for a political handbook at the next election.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I indicated a few moments ago, the report has been in the hands of all hon. members of the house since last December. I shall refer first to the sentence which my hon. friend states has been left out of the new publication. This sentence reads: "The complaints need serious and immediate study." The reason for leaving out such a sentence in the present publication is that the department considers that we have given serious and immediate study to the report of the committee. I am particularly pleased that the hon. member who has just spoken is so satisfied with the personnel of the committee and the report which they made. I am sure that can be looked upon as an endorsation of the action of the department and of the men who went overseas to make this report.


William Earl Rowe: I do not wish to convey the idea that I endorse the report one hundred per cent. I endorse fully the motives for sending this committee overseas. I say again that they were an able committee and I believe the most of their report is reasonably sound.
Mr. GtARDINER: I find the hon. gentleman more in agreement with me than I had expected. I do not agree with all of the. report either. The whole report has not been
2S04

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
adopted as a matter of policy. As I stated a few moments ago, this committee was made up only partly of officials of the department. When a government appoints a committee to report on anything it expects the members to use intelligence and to give expression to any views they may have as a result of their investigation. However, when the government considers the report and announces a policy to be based thereon, it is quite natural that that policy should not be in exactly the same terms as the report, unless the government is accepting all of the report. In this case, as in most oases, the department has not accepted the whole report, although I think I would be safe in saying that we have accepted at least ninety per cent of the suggestions made by the committee. As the government had given serious consideration and study to the report and had come to certain conclusions, I thought it was unnecessary to have that sentence included in the publication.
Coming back to the first item which was discussed at considerable length, and which reads:
This is the second edition, with certain changes and additions, of a report on the markets of the United Kingdom, including a statement of marketing policies by the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. James G. Gardiner, and a list of proposals which have been put into effect.
This report outlines the results of an investigation conducted during the summer of 1937 by a special committee named by the Minister of Agriculture.
The committee is then named.
-to advise on merchandising problems.
The agricultural marketing policy and the results of the investigations conducted in the United Kingdom are presented as a guide to those interested in the production and marketing of agricultural products.
I do not think that any further explanation is required in order to indicate what this volume contains or what the objects were for its publication. It has been stated that considerable changes were made in the introduction. Of course this is an introduction to a different publication. Exception is taken to the similarity between the recommendations of the committee and the policy adopted by the government, as outlined on page 8. I intimated that in announcing the policy I was only reading the recommendations of the committee. In view of the fact that my hon. friend agrees with most of the recommendations made by the committee, I shall not consider it a criticism of the department or of myself that the greater part of the recommendations were accepted. I would direct

his attention to the reasons given on page 9 for leaving out some of the previous paragraphs.
The dominion Department of Agriculture does not and never has conducted advertising campaigns in Great Britain. Any recommendation made with regard to the advertising of agricultural products would be considered by others, not by the Department of Agriculture. In studying our policy with regard to the matter we have not dealt with advertising. Something has been said to the effect that there were criticisms of past advertising policies, and my hon. friend agrees that some criticism was warranted in connection with the matter. "Advertising policies" was the term used in the report of the committee. I repeat what I have said in this house on two previous occasions. I did not wait for the report of this committee to say that, I made that statement as a result of my own investigations in Great Britain in the early part of 1936. For some time previous to that, I do not know for how long, there had been no advertising carried on in Great Britain similar to that carried on by some of the other dominions of the empire. In the interval between that time and now there has been a considerable speeding up in the advertising program in the old country, but that has not been done by the Department of Agriculture. Therefore, nothing is said about it in the announcement of the policy with regard to marketing activities.


William Earl Rowe: The minister said "for some time previous." Did we ever conduct an advertising campaign equivalent to that of Denmark?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not recall that
there has been one. So far as I know there never was an advertising campaign that would compare with that of New Zealand, Australia or some of the other dominions. The hon. member has pointed out that the announcement of policy on pages 8 and 9 are the recommendations of the committee word for word. The only changes that are made are in the terminology in connection with the appointment of the chief official who is to represent us in England.
It was said also that the proposals outlined on page 10 are merely a repetition of what had been carried on previously by the department. I want to say that there is not a single item in the ten outlined on page 10 that was carried on by the department previously, with the exception of item No. 5, referred to by the hon. member.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing


William Earl Rowe: What about the first one, which deals with the appointment of an agricultural commissioner?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was no agricultural commissioner in London when this report was made to the government.


William Earl Rowe: Steps had been taken with reference to the appointment of a commissioner.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those steps had not been completed when the report was made. This gentleman Jeft for England just last week.


George Halsey Perley: What about trial shipments of poultry?


James Garfield Gardiner: Proposal No. 6 reads:
Most of the recommendations made in regard to poultry are already embodied in new regulations. Several trial shipments of fresh eggs have been successfully made to the British market and it would appear from the results to date that there is a definite possibility of establishing a regular trade in fresh eggs.
That activity started only last fall. Let me go through the whole list, giving just enough in each case to identify the paragraph:
1.	An agricultural commissioner, to be stationed in London, England, has been appointed.
2.	A standardization trade mark has been adopted.
3.	Arrangements have been completed to have a definite quantity of fresh-killed beef forwarded weekly to the London market.
4.	The seed of a particularly promising new variety of tomato has been purchased.
5.	A comprehensive study of processing and handling of export bacon is under way.
6.	Most of the recommendations made in regard to poultry are already embodied in new regulations.
7.	Several of the recommendations made in regard to fruit and vegetables are also embodied in regulations already worked out and in operation.
8.	A satisfactory method of marking Canadian cheddar cheese has always been regarded as extremely difficult. This difficulty has recently been solved and it is now possible to use a mark which is not only permanent and distinctive but entirely practical.
9.	Transportation as it applies to the handling of perishable products at Canadian docks is under investigation.


William Earl Rowe: That is not new.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is entirely new.


William Earl Rowe: It certainly is not.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my hon. friend may know more about it than I do, but it certainly was not going on two years ago and is only now being put into effect as a result of
cooperation on the part of the Department of Agriculture with the Department of Transport, which was not in existence until two years ago.


William Earl Rowe: There were trial shipments made with reference to dressed beef.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was beef killed in Saskatoon-


William Earl Rowe: The ships made available by the former government are not made available by the present government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there was beef killed in Saskatoon some years ago, shipped under the same facilities as there are now. This has nothing to do with that. No. 9 continues:
The Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the national research council has the matter under consideration.
This is the question which was discussed in the house the other night.


William Earl Rowe: It is not new to have it under consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is new to have it under consideration by the research council, because it was just transferred there within the last few months. Previously it was under consideration by the Department of Agriculture. We came to the conclusion that this would have to fee transferred to the research council for further investigation, and we have asked the cooperation of the Department of Transport in putting into effect any results we get from the investigations that are being carried out. That is an entirely new thing, started, not altogether before this report was made, but, in so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, turned over to the national research council before the report was made.


William Earl Rowe: Every one of those was started before this government came into power, and not one is completed yet except the trade mark.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of the difficulties I have found as a result of following the old government.


William Earl Rowe: The minister has followed it pretty closely.


James Garfield Gardiner: A great many things
were started, but they had not got anywhere. We have undertaken during this last year to try to put some of these policies into effect, and page 10 gives ten of them which have been 'brought into effect since the report of the committee which is under discussion was made.


Mark Cecil Senn: They are mostly try-outs.



Supply-Agriculture-Marketing


James Garfield Gardiner: I agree with the hon. member when he compliments the government upon the selection it made of the committee and compliments the committee itself upon the report it made. The report is based upon observations made overseas; the recommendations which the committee made were based upon those observations, and the policy which the government has followed since receiving the report on December 8 last has been based upon the recommendations contained in that report. In the publication which I have in my hand are given the policies of the government based upon those recommendations and the information presented by the committee upon which those policies rest, and that is being forwarded to anyone who desires to have it, to 'be read as an assistance in coming to conclusions as to what ought to be done in the production of our products, in grading them, and, finally, in placing them 'before the customer, either in this country or in Great Britain.
I think that is all I need to say with regard to the report. I see no necessity for holding up this particular item because the old report is not at the moment available to each hon. member. The old report is available in the department to each hon. member if he desires to have it, and those who have 'brought their copies with them of course have them now available.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Would the minister allow me just a moment? In regard to this report, about two weeks ago I was looking up some figures here, and I telephoned from my office to Mr. Shaw and asked him if I could have the old report. A copy was sent to my home some time last fall, before the house opened, and I knew it was at home. I told him I wanted one because I wished to get some data from him. Mr. Shaw told me copies were not available and I could not get one. Afterwards I telephoned to an officer in the dairy and cold storage branch, asking if I could have a copy of the report, and when I was told that it was not available, I had the report forwarded to me from my home.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member might have got one from the Department of Trade and Commerce!


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I believe there were others who wrote to Mr. Shaw and received letters from him telling them copies of the report were not available; at least, hon. members have told me so.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said a few moments ago, when the printing of the report was discontinued I gave instructions that a

sufficient number of copies were to be retained to supply hon. members if they desired to have those reports, and that they were to be available when this publication which I hold in my hand was made available to hon. members. This publication was made available, I believe, yesterday, and as I have indicated, a sufficient number of them has been kept to supply all hon. members with copies, either French or English, of the original report. There will be no distribution other than to members of the house, but I thought it was only fair that there should be sufficient copies for the use of hon. members for purposes of discussion and so on.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Well, I could not get a copy. I was obliged to write to my home and have the one I had on my desk sent to me. There are other hon. members in a similar position.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was three or four days ago?


Thomas Alfred Thompson: No; this is two weeks ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I say they have been available since yesterday; as soon as this report was made available, the others were made available-


Thomas Alfred Thompson: That may be.


James Garfield Gardiner: -in order that they might be compared.


William Earl Rowe: The minister suggested we should not press for the report-


James Garfield Gardiner: Will the hon. member wait until I complete my statement? I have not finished it. There is no necessity for holding up this particular item. I think the report itself is sufficiently wide that it can be brought into the discussion of almost any item, and certainly any item under marketing; there are many other things in it which have to do with production and would probably come under production. I do not think there is any possibility of stopping the discussion on parts of this report or comments upon the report under any of the items that have to do with marketing. Therefore I would say, if there is nothing else to discuss on administration, we might pass this particular item and go on to some others.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister seems to have shifted his ground a little from the other evening, as to why this report was not distributed any further. He says now it was because he wanted enough copies saved to be passed around to members and others who desired them particularly.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing


James Garfield Gardiner: No, Mr. Chairman. I
think the hon. member does not wish to misrepresent me. I have not shifted my ground. The reason we stopped the further printing of the report is the reason I gave, but I did ask the department to keep sufficient copies of the report available to make distribution to hon. members for use when the matter was up for discussion in the house.


William Earl Rowe: The hon.
member for Lanark could not get one.


Mark Cecil Senn: In the minister's statement
the other night about the copies that were issued, I find the following as reported in Hansard:
At that time attention was called particularly to the press report which went out covering the report itself, and some exception was taken to statements in the press report summarizing the report itself. As a result of some of these complaints I suggested that the report as then published be not sent out to the general public.


James Garfield Gardiner: Exactly what I am
saying now.


Mark Cecil Senn: No; the minister said it was
because he wanted certain copies. However, I shall not press it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member will find, when he reads Hansard tomorrow, that I made exactly the same statement a few moments ago.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have in my hand a
copy of the original report. It says it is published by direction of the Hon. James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa, 1937. I am sure the minister would not authorize the printing and publication of this report unless he knew what it contained before it went out. It would not be reasonable to suppose that he would do so. But certainly some influence was brought to bear on him at a later date, so that he saw to it that this report was not distributed any further, and he said that it was because of certain complaints which were made. I asked the minister, when this discussion started this afternoon, where those complaints came from, and he has not yet told the committee. I imagine that the minister, when he changed the report, deleted from it any criticism of another department. Perhaps that was a courteous thing to do; but at the same time he did make deletions, and he is now presenting a new report which, I venture to say, nine out of ten people will not recognize as a second edition unless they happen to turn to the foreword, where they will find that certain additions have been made. The minister, in fairness to the committee, should 51952-178J
certainly give us the information, which it is reasonable to ask for, as to who made the complaints, why the change was made, and why the first report was not published to any greater extent.


Robert John Deachman: I desire to bring a
note of good cheer to take the place of the clouds of pessimism which we have had for a few moments this afternoon. I was particularly moved by the remarks of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe when he suggested that there was grave danger that the live stock industry of Canada might be ruined by the importation of canned meats. While he was talking, I checked up the figures and was impressed with this idea:	If we
were in danger, why did he not stop it when the danger threatened? He was in the house during 1933, or at least his party was here, and I find we were importing at that time 4,249,000 pounds of canned meat; the following year, 6,000,000 pounds; in 1935, 10,000,000 pounds; in 1936, while the tariff policies of the former government were still in force, our imports rose to what he would call the magnificent height of 12,000,000 pounds of canned meat, and yet no wave of trouble rolled across his peaceful breast.


William Earl Rowe: I suggest to the hon. member that all he has to do is to look back in Hansard, where he will see that I criticized the government of that day. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I criticized my own government.


Robert John Deachman: I readily grant the
contention that no other government which ever held power in the dominion was so fully deserving of criticism as the government of that day which the hon. gentleman supported.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are getting back into line.


Robert John Deachman: I will show the hon. gentleman that I have several lines, and the kind he likes, too. Taking the total imports of meat into Canada, the value in 1933 was $678,000, and that rose steadily to $964,164 in 1936.


William Earl Rowe: Give them for 1929-30.


Robert John Deachman: The hon. gentleman
wishes to go back too far. Let me give the exports-and, by the way, a Conservative is never cheered either by imports or by exports, because he believes in shutting the door both ways so that no one can get either in or out. Liberals, on the other hand,

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
though they do not always practise their faith as fully as I should like, believe, and I hope they will come to believe more fervently, in the development of export as well as import trade. Let me show what happened. Here are the exports of meat: In 1933, $6,000,000; in 1934, $15,000,000. Why do they not cheer now? They were in power when the exports of meat were increasing. In 1935 the figure was $24,000,000, a magnificent development, and the following year $24,000,000. And then the Liberals came in. In 1937 our exports were $36,114,000, or a greater gain between 1936 and 1937 than there had been in the previous period during which the Conservatives were in power.


William Earl Rowe: What was the change of policy?


Robert John Deachman: 
Mr. TUSTIN:: I was surprised to hear
the minister say that nearly 6,000 copies of this first report were printed and that some 4,800 had been given out. I wrote to the department asking for a copy of this report and received a letter from the director of marketing saying that there were no more copies available but that a second edition was being printed.
At each session since I have been in this house I have asked the Minister of Agriculture how much money was set aside' for advertising our agricultural products. It is true at the first	session there	was	nothingbeing spent, and	last	year he	promised togive the matter consideration. This first report is a very honest one; I believe the committee which	was	set up	went	to theUnited Kingdom	and	made a	good	job of
investigating the markets or prospective markets there, and in my opinion they made a fine report. They speak of "little apparent benefit from past advertising." There is no advertising of Canadian products in the United Kingdom. I see in the new report that the minister says that this government does not do any advertising.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Department of
Agriculture does not. I did not say that no other department does.


George James Tustin: It goes on:
Little apparent benefit from past advertising.
Canada has not benefited to any noticeable degree from advertising done in the past, whereas New Zealand, Australia and South Africa have achieved definitely favourable results. New Zealand is the best known supplier of foodstuffs among the dominions; Australia comes next, followed by South Africa and Canada.
I was surprised, when I made a little private investigation in the old land, to find how little the people knew of Canadian products. My surprise ceased after I had paid a visit to some of the shops. It is true, as the committee says, that Canadian cheese was being sold as American cheese. A goodly portion of our Canadian cheese was being sold as "empire product," and I admit some was being sold as Canadian cheese. I know the minister suggests that he is going to adopt a national mark for high grade agricultural products shipped to the United Kingdom. Let me suggest that there is only one mark which should go on high class products of this country, and that is the word "Canada." The minister will do a great service to this dominion if he has all the products graded very carefully before they go abroad.
Referring to "the marketing policy," clause C reads:
To advise, cooperate with and assist all government, producer and merchandising agencies in placing Canadian foodstuffs effectively before the British housewife.
I see no reason why the government of Canada should wait for some other agency to make an attempt to advertise the products of this country. The duty rests upon the government of Canada, not upon some provincial government or private individual. If we go about advertising our products in the right way, next session the minister will be able to report very much greater exports to the great market of the United Kingdom than at the present time. We could easily become the greatest factor in that market, but we must be careful to send only articles of first grade, and the very best quality.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairy products, including contribution of $581 to the international institute of refrigeration, $381,500.
William Earl Rowe: The minister assured us before that ipractically anything in this item could be discussed under other items.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, we have been discussing it all under the wrong item. No. 12 is the proper item under which to discuss this report. That is the item under-which the expenditure was made and under which any similar expenditure can be made this year.


William Earl Rowe: The minister said the report would be open for discussion again under item No. 12.
2810	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Dairy Products


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no doubt about that.


Robert John Deachman: Has item No. 7 been discussed?


Frederick George Sanderson: Item No. 7 stands.


Mr. STEWART:: Would the minister
indicate the reason for the substantial increase in this item? At the same time he might give a break-down of last year's expenditures.
Permanent employees, salaries	
Temporary employees	
W ages	
Living allowances	
Telephone, telegrams, cables and postage	
Equipment	 * [DOT]
Canada's annual contribution to International
Institute of Refrigeration	
Press clippings, laundry, membership dues,
electric current	
^Lawyers' and analysts' fees	
Rents	
^Printing, stationery, office supplies, etc	
Express, freight, cartage, refrigerator car
service	
Travelling expenses	
That makes an estimated total for 1938-39 of $381,500, while $342,272.50 was voted for 1937-38, showing an increase this year of $49,801.50, against which there is a decrease of $10,574, making a net increase of about $39200.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister has already spoken about what he calls a national mark which is to be placed on goods going from this country to Great Britain, and, I suppose, to other countries as well. A statement has been made also in regard to a distinctive mark that has been invented or devised so that Canadian products can be identified in any market. I should like to know just the nature of that mark. Will the mark placed on cheese be simply the word ''Canada," and will it be on all classes of cheese leaving the country or just on the high grades? I understand that most of the cheese exported from Canada is of good quality, but I should think the same policy should prevail in this instance, and that any distinctive mark should be placed only on the highest quality.


James Garfield Gardiner: The policy is, as I read it, the adoption of a national mark for Canada's high grade agricultural products shipped to the United Kingdom. That has been announced as a matter of policy, and on the next page of the pamphlet we state that we have adopted a mark.


William Earl Rowe: What is the mark?


James Garfield Gardiner: A few moments ago some reference was made to the word "Canada,"


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the hon. member desires a comparison between the expenditures last year and this, showing the increases this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, an explanation of the increase. Possibly a break-down will give it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are as
follows:
1938-9	1937-8	Increase$199,285 00 54,359 50 9,560 00 6,022 50 6,435 00 1,200 00	$169,355 50 62,723 00 6,750 00 4,380 00 5,930 00 3,350 50	$29,949 50 -8,363 50 2.810 00 1,042 50 505 00 -1,150 50581 00	580 80	20950 00 3,700 00 1,780 00 14,424 00	382 50 3,300 00 1,840 00 13,949 20	567 50 400 00 - 60 00 474 805,900 00 77,303 00	5,471 00 64,280 00	429 00 13,023 00
and it was suggested that the word "Canada" should appear on all our goods. As I understand it, the law of Great Britain compels that now; everything shipped there has to designate the country of origin. But the complaint has not' been in that regard; it is more directed to the fact that when the commodity is placed before the consumer for sale the customer often does not know that the product is Canadian at all. To overcome that, as has been indicated in another section, in so far as cheese is concerned, has been a matter of great difficulty. It has been hard to devise a means by which even the word "Canada" could be placed upon the cheese without interfering in any way with the product itself. A method of doing that has been developed, and that is being done. But so far as the distinctive mark is concerned, what we have in mind is that the mark also will have the word "Canada" on it; that is, a very prominent part of the mark will be the word "Canada." Underneath that will appear what you might call the trade mark, as trade marks are placed on different products by different concerns. Then there will be the words "quality guarded," and that mark will appear only on the highest grade products that go from Canada, whatever those products may be. As to the products to which it will apply, that has not yet been decided. It will be determined through discussions with the persons turning out those products and with the officials of the department.

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage


Mark Cecil Senn: I think I understand what
the minister has in mind in regard to a distinctive mark so that the product can be followed right to the breakfast table of the consumer, but would he give the committee some idea of how the grading of cheese for the export market is carried on? Is it done at the factory or at the port? Is it sample grading, or is each cheese graded as it is put on board? I think that is very important.


James Garfield Gardiner: The grading is done
at the warehouses, whether those be inland or at the ports. There is one cheese graded out of every vat. Those grades are established, and we hope to be able to maintain them right through to the customer in the old country or wherever they go.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $53,177.85.
James Garfield Gardiner: I might explain that
this item comes down every year pretty much in this form, but it is always necessary to give consideration to further amounts in the supplementaries. When these estimates were brought down we were not sufficiently familiar with the amounts required, and further amounts in connection with these, cold storage warehouses will be provided in supplementary estimates.


Mr. STIRLING:: This just takes care sf existing contracts?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. ROWE (Dufierin-Simcoe):: Has there been any change in the policy of the department in regard to these warehouses under the Cold Storage Act? Has there been any further encouragement given cold storage plants throughout the dominion, in order to assist in the marketing policies that have been suggested this afternoon? I think it very important that more encouragement should be given.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no change in policy. For some years past the policy has been to pay thirty per cent of the cost, provided the cold storage plant is available for public use, and that policy is still followed. There is an impression in some parts of Canada that we have gone quite a long way as a government in establishing cold storage plants. At the moment we are not considering any change at all, but some representations have been made to the effect that probably we have gone as far as we should in encouraging the establishment of cold storage warehouses.


William Earl Rowe: If the
minister has any doubt in the matter, may I say that in many parts of the country there is the feeling that perhaps governments have not gone far enough. On the other hand, I know there are some in the business who feel that governments have gone far enough. It is my view that the matter is so closely allied to efficient marketing of perishable products that encouragement should be given to cold storage plants.
I have in mind a condition partly in my own constituency and partly in the Holland marsh district, and I realize what a cold storage plant at that point would mean. The assistance the government could give in districts like that would be of great value. To my mind the subject is closely related to efficient marketing methods, and has particular bearing on perishable products requiring cold storage facilities. I believe that in its efforts to improve grades and to regulate the supply the government might give special consideration to this matter connected with the marketing of perishable products. I suggest that it should encourage the operation of cold storage plants in different parts of Canada.
Earlier to-day I mentioned a system of bonuses which might be paid in connection with agricultural products. May I point out that the term might be interpreted in different ways. We pay subsidies on iron and steel production, and we pay bonuses and subventions in connection with other activities. It is my view that through greater encouragement to the operation of cold storage plants assistance might be given in the marketing of agricultural products. Great assistance could be given to new developments throughout the country, and especially to developments such as that in the Holland marsh district. Many families at that point are finding it almost impossible to make a living in view of the fact that thousands of dollars worth of their vegetables must be wasted through decay from the lack of cold storage accommodation. We realize that under the Cold Storage Act the government does give subsidies, but I do not believe the amounts are sufficient in those districts in which the people are engaging in this most laborious type of production. These people are endeavouring in difficult times to make a success, and I believe the government could give them substantial assistance by offering greater cold storage facilities.
In these districts small pieces of ground give employment to many families. A patch of four or five acres means a great deal to such families. I would recommend that the

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
government give serious consideration to amending the Cold Storage Act so as to give greater assistance to a class of people who are toiling at what I believe to be about the most difficult, doubtful and questionable type of agricultural production, namely the production of fruit and vegetables. Unless some assistance is given by way of cold storage plants in the district I have mentioned, the development is going to meet with much greater difficulty in the future. Many families are now employed and earning a livelihood from their work, and I would urge upon the government the necessity of increasing the subsidies and amending the act so that increased assistance may be given them. Undoubtedly some would oppose a change of that kind, but I believe such a change would indirectly assist the purpose we all have in mind, namely the more efficient distribution of perishable products.


Mr. LENNARD:: How are the cold storage plants subsidized?


James Garfield Gardiner: The act lays down the conditions under which anyone providing cold storage facilities may receive a subsidy. If the concern meets with the conditions of the act, we pay 30 per cent. I understand 50 per cent is paid the first year, and the other 50 per cent is spread over four years.


George Halsey Perley: How many plants are subsidized in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are four.


George Halsey Perley: At what places, and who
operate them?


James Garfield Gardiner: One is at Moose Jaw,
and is operated by the Moose Jaw Cold Storage Company; then there are the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries at Regina, the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries at Saskatoon and the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries at Vonda, Weyburn and Yorkton.


Grote Stirling: Are they now receiving the subsidy?


James Garfield Gardiner: The last two are not
now operating; there are only four.


Grote Stirling: Are the other ones now receiving the subsidy?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the total number of those which have received subsidies.


George Halsey Perley: According to the details
at page 56 of the estimates, there is none receiving subsidies.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is none still
drawing subsidies in Saskatchewan. They have been in existence for over five years. Those to which reference is made in the details are still drawing subsidies.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Which ones in Alberta are receiving subsidies?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is none obtaining a subsidy at the present time. Any which were set up in Alberta have drawn their full subsidy.


George Halsey Perley: And there is none in
Manitoba?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; there is none in
Manitoba.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister has said
that the authority for the subsidies is to be found in the act. Looking over the subsidies paid during the last year, and comparing them with the estimates for the present year, I notice that in many instances the reduction is only 50 per cent. Did I not understand the minister to say that in the first year they received 50 per cent, and that in succeeding years, extending over a period of four years, they received a reduced amount? If that is so, how is it that this year there is a 50 per cent reduction of the amount paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first payment is
15 per cent of the total cost at the time, but it is 50 per cent of the total subsidy we pay. The payments in the other four years are in different percentages, namely 7 per cent, 4 per cent, 2 per cent and 2 per cent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then most of them must have been on the 4 per cent rate, and are now on the 2 per cent, because in most instances the reduction is 50 per cent. Where the reduction is not 50 per cent, I suppose they are on different rates for the different years. Is that so?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first year will be 15 per cent and the second year, 7 per cent, which is approximately half. The next year it is 4 per cent, which is again approximately half. Then it goes down to 2 per cent and 2 per cent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Which is absolutely half.


James Garfield Gardiner: For one year and the year following it is the same.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The reduction from $84,000 to $53,000 is quite substantial, especially in view of the fact that it covers the same number of cold storage warehouses. Does the minister
2S13

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
anticipate that there will he another batch, if I may use that term, in the supplementary estimates? Will there be a certain number of applications that will qualify for grants?


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave that answer before. The supplementaries will provide for those under consideration, while these estimates provide for our commitments.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The ones to be covered by the supplementaries will be new propositions?


James Garfield Gardiner: Largely.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will any of these be covered again in the supplementaries?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Mr. BROOKS:: Is there any cooperation between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries in connection with the construction and operation of cold storage warehouses?


James Garfield Gardiner: All grants for cold storage warehouses are provided for in the Department of Agriculture estimates. We pay the grants, but the warehouses may be used for any purpose.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is any contribution made by the Department of Fisheries?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; all provision is made under these estimates.


George Halsey Perley: Have any new plants in Saskatchewan applied for subsidies?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. As my hon. friend knows, most of the cold storage facilities in Saskatchewan are owned by the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creamery. A few years ago I know they had more storage space than they knew what to do with, but I could not say whether that condition exists to-day.


George Halsey Perley: What is the amount of dairy and creamery butter in storage in those plants?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bureau of statistics publishes that information regularly.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister stated that there were certain applications under consideration, and he also outlined how the financing was arranged. I should like to know what is necessary to be done in order to have the department accept a proposition. Is there any difference in the treatment meted out to a cooperative organization and to a private concern?


James Garfield Gardiner: Application is made
by the organization desiring to establish a cold storage warehouse. They are required to

submit plans and specifications which are gone over by the department. If the proposed warehouse will not provide more storage than is necessary for the proper carrying on of business in that district, in all probability the department will accept the application. After the plant has been constructed, an inspection is made to see that the specifications have been followed. If everything is in conformity with the regulations, a grant is made automatically under the law.


William Earl Rowe: How
many cooperative organizations and private concerns have been assisted under the present cold storage legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The name of the concern would be the only intimation as to whether it is cooperative or private. We could get that information and bring it down at a later stage. They are listed in the details.


William Earl Rowe: How
many are there altogether?


James Garfield Gardiner: Thirty-three, of which
more than half would appear to be cooperative, according to their names.


William Earl Rowe: Under
this item what assistance in the way of warehouse facilities?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no cold storage provided for tobacco. That would come under another item.


William Earl Rowe: Have drying warehouses been provided under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: No warehouses have
been provided, and certainly no cold storage.


Mark Cecil Senn: There has been some criticism of the whole scheme of government assistance for cold storage warehouses, which criticism I do not think is well founded, as these warehouses serve a very useful purpose. A certain number of warehouses receiving assistance from the department have gone into liquidation, and I should like to know how many have ceased operations. I should like to know also if a proper investigation of all the circumstances was made before grants were given.


James Garfield Gardiner: A few warehouses have closed up, but the number is small when compared with the total number. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Radio Broadcasting

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 52, respecting radio in Canada-Mr. Howe- Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 5,-Station licences.
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: When this bill was last discussed I was answering a suggestion by the hon, member for York South (Mr. Lawson) that there had been some deception in the explanatory notes of the bill; that the evidence of this was in clause 5, and that the real purpose of the clause was to take care of radios in automobiles. As a matter of fact, the old Radiotelegraph Act amply covered automobiles. It provided that a licence fee was collectable for a radiotelegraph station anywhere; and, of course, under the old act a radio receiving set is a radiotelegraph station. One statement my hon. friend made and strongly emphasized was that radios in automobiles were unknown in 1913. Just to dispose of that assertion, I have before me the year book of wireless telegraphy and telephony, 1913, and in it we have a photograph of a motor car wireless telegraph station which I should be glad to send across to my hon. friend simply to show him that wireless in automobiles was not unknown in 1913, as he so dogmatically stated. However, the purpose of the change in the article other than the change in the phraseology is to take care of the flaw in the previous legislation which was brought out in the Gignac case, in which the judge found that use of a radio must be proved by actual evidence of use; that is, the inspector must find, to prove use, the owner of the radio actually with the power turned on and turning the dial. In the Gignac case the defendant was convicted of installing a radio without a licence; but it was quite clear from the finding of the judge that had the installation taken place before the time limit-I think it is one year-in which complaint must be made, he could not have been- convicted on a charge of illegal installation. Section 5 in its present wording is inserted to close the opening left by the decision in the Gignac case, and the provision for exemption of visiting automobiles is simply put there to
provide for a situation which was not provided for in the old act. Under the old act a radio in a visiting car was taxable, and this makes it clear that there will be an exemption.


James Earl Lawson: I cannot help remarking that the minister had to go a long way to find this ancient vintage of an automobile which was apparently equipped with a radio.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend said it was unheard of in those days.


James Earl Lawson: I think the committee understood what I meant, that it was unheard of in any passenger vehicle used by people to run about the country. I observe, in the very fine photograph sent me by the minister, that attached to the rear of this so-called automobile are about eighteen telephone poles. I assume those were to carry the station, and I would draw to the minister's attention that if he had but read the article which goes with the picture he would have found that this was not an ordinary case of a radio being installed in a pleasure motor car, but one of a motor car being built purposely to have a radio station which, by reason of being moved about from place to place, changed the wave length and thereby preserved secrecy for signals which were then being transmitted by radio.


John Horne Blackmore: I am wondering if this section 5 makes it necessary for a person to pay an extra licence fee if he has in his possession an obsolete radio. If one is keeping as an heirloom a radio presented to him in years gone by, is it going to be necessary for him to pay a licence fee every year? I notice it says:
No person shall . . . have in his possession any radio apparatus.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right. It is necessary to have it.


Mr. COLD WELL:: What is the answer to
the question?


Mr. LANDERYOU:: If a man had two radios, would he have to pay two licence fees if the radios were in the same house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and if the radio apparatus is in the man's house the onus of proof is on the owner to show it is not in use. Under this legislation possession is presumption of use.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: There is a question which I wish to ask the minister and which, I believe, was asked in the committee, and Major Murray said he would get a ruling on it. A man lived in a town in which there were electrical facilities; his house was

Radio Broadcasting
wired, but he was not using the electricity for any purpose, and he had given to him a battery set. The question arose, Would he have to have a licence for a battery set or an electrical set, if he was in a town in which electrical facilities were provided but was not using them in any way in his house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We obtained a ruling on that point from the Department of Justice. The department ruled that if a house is not connected with the electric current the owner would pay a battery set licence fee.


Charles Edward Johnston: But whether it was wired or not, if he was not using the electricity for any purpose?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There, again, it would depend upon whether the owner could prove be was not using the electricity in the house. If the electric wiring was installed the onus of proof would be on the owner to show he was not using electricity in his house.


Charles Edward Johnston: The man who wrote to me stated that when he moved into the house he did not figure he could afford electricity, so he had the meter turned off. The house was wired, because the people who occupied the house before him had been using electric lights and electricity. When he came in he had the meter shut off and did not use electricity, and he had a battery set given to him. The question is whether he had to pay $2.50 or $2 for his licence. I maintain that as he was using a battery set and was not using electricity for any purpose he should not be required to pay $2.50 for that battery set. That is the question on which we wanted a ruling.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The case is, I should say, most unusual. I should say he was quite justified in taking out a battery set licence, but to make absolutely sure of the law it might ibe well to advise him to disconnect the wiring into his house.


Charles Edward Johnston: That would be entirely up to the man who owned the house, not to the renter.


James Earl Lawson: Would the minister point out where in this legislation one is exempt from committing an offence under it if he merely has in his possession a radio, and it is not in use. In answer to a question by one of my hon. friends to my left, the minister said the onus is on the accused to show that the set is not in use, and left the inference that if it were not in use then it was not an
offence under the legislation to have it. I am sorry, but that is not the way in which I read the bill. The section says:
No person shall establish any radio station or private receiving station, or install, operate or have in his possession any radio apparatus. . . .
Apparently merely having it in one's possession is an offence, unless the minister can show me where, somewhere else in the bill, the non-user exempts one from the offence prescribed by section 5.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can explain the point this way. Complaint comes to the department in various ways that there is an apparatus in a house. Before any prosecution takes place a permanent officer of the department visits the house. If it can be proven to him that this apparatus is not in use, no prosecution follows. Provision in the law in that connection brings up the old question involved in the Gignac case, that we must prove use. To prove use you must see the apparatus in use. Two witnesses must see it being used, the current turned on and the dials being manipulated. That is the ruling in the Gignac case. Having a radio apparatus in your possession is covered by the legislation, but in the operation of it our officer is instructed to make very sure that the apparatus is usable. To define that in the bill, however, would lead us into the same technical difficulties that were encountered under the old act.


James Earl Lawson: In other words, the question whether I am to be prosecuted or not for having in my possession a radio is one which is to be decided at the will of a civil servant of the Dominion of Canada, and frankly I object to being put into that position. I object not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of the people of Canada who may be subjected to prosecution. Furthermore, I think the minister is badly advised when he says that provision could not be made for the situation which I have mentioned without going right back to the position that prevented conviction in the case of Rex v. Gignac. By a clause of this bill the onus is put on the accused. The moment a person is accused of an offence, the onus is put on him of proving that he is not guilty, and that being so, the accused, once he is charged, must satisfy the court that he is not guilty. The reason that the crown lost in the Gignac case was that the onus was on the prosecution of establishing that the machine had been installed or had been operated, and the crown could do neither. That, however, will no longer prevail. Now, a man can be haled into court for mere
Radio Broadcasting

possession, and the onus is on him to establish non-user. Surely, under these circumstances, a clause could be inserted in the bill providing that where an accused satisfies the court that the radio apparatus was not in use in the licence year in which he was prosecuted, there should be no offence under section 5. That, it seems to me, can be set out without in any way weakening the legislation or embarrassing its enforcement.
If that cannot 'be done, we come back to the general objection that I made in connection with this bill. In my opinion, it is a great mistake in our legislatures, whether it be the House of Commons, or a provincial house, to give some particular body, whether civil servants or other individuals, any one you like, the power to determine whether or not I have committed an offence or whether I should be prosecuted. That power should be given only to those who are duly appointed and constituted judicial officers. In reading current reports in the press I find that I am not alone in that view. Before coming into the house to-night I noticed a statement in the press that the attorney general of Ontario, an attorney general, by the way, of a Liberal administration, agrees entirely with that view and says that he is unalterably opposed to this legislation.
I suggest to the minister that he confer with the Minister of Justice as to the wisdom of this legislation leaving discretionary power in the hands of any civil servant to determine who shall or shall not be prosecuted; for when he determines the question of prosecution he likewise determines the question of guilt or innocence, because under the section as it now stands the mere possession of a radio apparatus constitutes an offence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This section was drawn up by the officers of the Department of Justice in the light of the Gignac case, but I shall be glad to allow the section to stand and ask the Minister of Justice to review the situation having regard to what my hon. friend has said, and I must say that I have some sympathy with his point of view. We shall see if a workable clause can 'be drawn along the lines he suggests.


James Earl Lawson: Thank you.


Mr. BLACK MORE:: While the clause is being redrafted, some provision ought to be made to enable dealers to have radio sets in their possession without having to obtain licences. I cannot see how they can do that under this clause as it now stands, but perhaps I misinterpret it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The situation with regard
to dealers is taken care of in the regulations. No special legislation is required.


John Horne Blackmore: Perhaps I am saying what has already been said; but it seems to me that the principle of putting on the accused the onus of establishing his innocence is altogether contrary to fundamental principle of British procedure, whereby a man is considered innocent until he is proved guilty. I greatly object to having that principle violated just for the sake of S2.50. It is offensive to me to see a man put in the position where he might be declared a criminal and made a gaolbird in consequence of a law of this sort.
Section stands.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Radio operator a British subject.


John Horne Blackmore: What is involved in subsection 2 with regard to declaration of secrecy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That refers to the secrecy of messages transmitted from one point to another. An amateur radio operator can often pick up messages that are being transmitted over commercial wireless stations, and the legislation requires that if he does happen to intercept such a message he is bound to secrecy.


John Charles Landeryou: This deals with commercial messages?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Search warrant.
James Earl Lawson: Again I am going to ask the minister to consider seriously the wisdom of this section. I realize that with two exceptions it is not vastly different from the old section 11 which was in the act passed in 1913. Under the act of 1913 a search warrant could be issued only by a magistrate to a duly constituted police officer within his jurisdiction, whereas under this section it may be issued to one of many persons therein indicated. Furthermore, under the old section it could not be issued on the mere allegation of possession of a radio set. I would point out that the old Radiotelegraph Act was passed in 1913, and despite the picture in the book of an automobile which had a radio in it, it never was conceived that the act was directed against the ordinary citizen

Radio Broadcasting
who had a radio set in his home. In those days radio, as far as commercial use was concerned, was confined to ships at sea and to land stations that communicated from land to land or land to ship. In such circumstances it was necessary, where illegal stations were established, without licence, that a search warrant should be issued on the allegation that there was such an illegal station established, because the lives of passengers on ships at sea might be endangered by it, or international complications might arise from messages falsely transmitted by such illegal stations from one country or nation to another. In that situation and under those circumstances these drastic clauses were necessary. But let us bear in mind that all the business of radio stations in respect of ships, etc., has now been taken out of this legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just in respect of ships.
_ Mr. LAWSON: All right; all radio stations in ships have been taken out of this legislation and transferred to the shipping act. Surely it is not the minister's intention that these drastic powers should be given in respect of entering people's homes. I do not want to take the time to run over all the arguments that one reads in newspapers and that have been advanced as to the opportunities it would give for crooks to gain entry to people's homes and that sort of thing. Suffice it to say that under this bill a land station, that being, I assume, a commercial radio station is defined, and a private receiving station is also defined. Private receiving stations are in people's homes. If it is necessary to pass any legislation as drastic as that contained in section 9 and two others to which I shall refer later, confine it to your land stations; do not let us extend these arbitrary and unreasonable powers of entering people's homes in order to deal with some man who may have committed the very minor offence of having in operation a radio for which he has not paid S2.50 for a licence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assume it is the intention of the legislation to collect 82.50 from every user of a radio. There is no change in the intent of this section. If my hon. friend will look at the old act he will find it has exactly the same provision. Since 1932 it has been the custom to have warrants to enter homes in order to obtain evidence for prosecution. When I came into this office I tried to avoid that situation, naturally everyone who has had to do with this, even as a private citizen, knows the present system is very objectionable. We tried to find some alternative, but we found our collections of radio licences would
drop by half, were it not for the ability to obtain evidence to prosecute. It is only the fear of prosecution that holds the collection of radio licences up to where it is to-day, and it is far from 100 per cent to-day. If any other workable plan can be found I would be glad to adopt it. Collection of radio licence fees by present methods is most difficult. It causes more complaint and upset than anything else in the department. But after two years of diligent search we have found no other practical way of collecting this fee, without an expenditure out of proportion to the amount to be collected.


James Earl Lawson: There are thousands of things for which a licence fee is imposed, municipal, provincial and dominion; but no one in his senses would conceive of giving the right to enter a man's home and search, in order to collect it. Let me take a couple of examples that occur to me at the moment. In the municipality in which I live, and, I think, in every other municipality, you must have a licence to keep a dog. Would not any parliament be laughed to scorn that would pass legislation authorizing a warrant to search a man's home in order to ascertain whether he has a dog?


Mr. DUNNING:: A radio does not go out walking like a dog.


James Earl Lawson: Where I live you are not allowed to let a dog off your premises or be at large. Dogs can be kept in the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: But they may be taken out on a leash.


James Earl Lawson: That is true, but if the minister persists in this legislation I am afraid he may be taken out on a leash by the public before he is finished.
There are dozens of things for which one requires a licence, but parliaments do not give authority to issue search warrants to go into people's houses and search for such things. The minister says this is necessary if licence fees are to be collected. I do not think that is quite true. I admit that when it was necessary for the crown, in order to get a conviction for failure to have a licence, to prove that the person charged had either actually installed a radio or actually operated it, such powers might be required. But that is not going to be so in future. By this bill you are making it an offence for a man merely to be in possession of a radio. If he is in possession, the onus is on him to show that he was not operating it. All any police officer has to do is to peek through the window and he can see whether there is a radio on the floor
Radio Broadcasting


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that a legal act, to peek through a window?


James Earl Lawson: It is a legal act for a police officer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not a very dignified one.


James Earl Lawson: Unquestionably not. But, in fact, it is not an illegal act even for ordinary individuals, except under certain circumstances which I shall not at the moment describe. But in all seriousness, when you have made it an offence merely to have possession of a radio-


Clarence Decatur Howe: But my hon. friend insists we must not. We are not doing that at the moment, presumably.


James Earl Lawson: Oh, I presume you are. I never dreamed that you would think of changing. What I suggested was that you reconsider the clause so that if a man who is brought into court can satisfy the magistrate that he had not been operating the machine or that it had not been in use, then the magistrate should have power to say no offence had been committed. That is why I asked the minister to reconsider the section. After all, it is not a matter of life and death to this country if we fail to collect two or three per cent of all the radio licences.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Or fifty per cent?


James Earl Lawson: Fifty per cent is a very different matter, but with the amended legislation contained in this bill you have at your disposal the means of collecting ninety-five per cent of the radio licences without exercising the right to search a man's home. I want to say to the minister in all seriousness-


Mr. DUPUIS:: Does the hon. member object to citizens who own radios being obliged to obtain their licences.


James Earl Lawson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the intelligence of that question, having regard to the subject matter under discussion, deserves the intelligent answer of ignoring it.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, either the hon. gentleman wants the licence fees to be paid by people who own radios-


James Earl Lawson: I submit that the hon. member is out of order.


Vincent Dupuis: -or he does not.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member must remember that another hon. member has the floor, and he must not interrupt without permission.


James Earl Lawson: I just want to say to the minister that we should not lose sight of this

fact, and I am not making this allegation against this government in particular. There is a terrible tendency in legislatures and parliaments in general in this country to-day to go on curtailing and interfering with what we have always regarded as the inherent right of a British subject, namely that his home is his castle. I for one will not allow these fundamental principles of rights to be interfered with lightly, and though I realize-


Vincent Dupuis: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


James Earl Lawson: No. Though I realize that in the general interests of the public it is necessary to have powers of search given where it is alleged that serious offences have been committed, nevertheless I think we ought carefully to restrict such powers of searching a man's home, and curb the extension of any such powers. I suggest to the minister that he consider very seriously the power which is being given in connection with this matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may ask just one question, how could my hon. friend obtain legal evidence of the use of a radio or of the possession of a radio without going into the home?


James Earl Lawson: I think it could be obtained in many ways. For example, a radio inspector calls at my house. He asks if I have a radio licence, and I say no; then he asks me if I have a radio. Ninety-nine per cent of the people will answer yes or no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Earl Lawson: There are not many who are wise enough to say, "Mind your own business," and shut the door in his face.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A very large percentage say exactly that.


James Earl Lawson: All right, then; if a very large percentage say exactly that, nothing could be a clearer indication of the feeling of the people of this country in connection with this whole business of radio licences. I would ask the minister to bear in mind that neither this nor any other government on earth can maintain and enforce a law which has not behind it the great weight of public opinion, I do not care what your law may be.
To come back to the question, I suggest that your inspector or police officer, by looking in the window of a house, could see if there was a radio in that house. I suggest also that, for example, you get a record of every radio which is sold in Canada. I could

Radio Broadcasting
go down to the bureau of statistics to-morrow morning and find out how many radios had been sold in the month of February of this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You must still prove possession.


James Earl Lawson: I quite agree that you must prove possession. You know a radio has been sold to a certain man, and you know his address. I really do not think it would be exceedingly difficult to get sufficient evidence to show that there was a radio in existence in that man's house. Remember, no one can now acquire a radio without some department of government getting a report of it. I still say that though there may be instances in which you would not be able to prove that a man had possession, as the lesser of two evils I believe the government would be well advised to abandon this granting of the power to search a man's house in connection with a radio.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like to give my point of view, as I understand this legislation. Of course, to follow the argument of the hon. member who just spoke we must compare this with other legislation passed during other regimes. Just recall legislation passed in connection with customs and excise, for example. Much drastic legislation has been passed in that regard.


James Earl Lawson: Hear, hear.


Vincent Dupuis: As far as I am concerned I am opposed to drastic legislation. We love liberty, and if there are people in this country who love liberty more than others it is those represented on this side of the house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Liberty to break the law.


Vincent Dupuis: No, not liberty in that sense; liberty to do good.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is to judge?


Vincent Dupuis: The judge is our conscience.


An hon. MEMBER:: And if you have no
conscience?


Vincent Dupuis: As far as I am concerned I am ready to admit that I may have the least sensitive conscience on this side of the house, but still it might compare favourably with those of others. Let us come back to the point. This legislation seems a little drastic; I am ready to admit that, because of my love of liberty for the citizen.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the padlock law?


Vincent Dupuis: We shall talk about the
padlock law later on. The trend of thought and the policies of both parties since confederation have been based on experience. How could the Department of Transport deal with this matter of radio licences except by having regard to the experience of other departments, such as the Department of National Revenue, for instance. The hon. member who just spoke is an eminent lawyer from Toronto; I shall not call him ignorant, as he called me. I admire him for his ability, and he knows perfectly well that under the customs and excise legislation, for example, a person who has in his car smuggled goods or goods which are prohibited by law may have his car seized and confiscated as a result of having such goods in his possession. That is drastic law. That is a law which is repugnant to the spirit of liberty. Those are laws which have been passed by the party to which the hon. member belongs just as much as by the party now in power, and arise out of experience.
In the present instance I ask, as the Minister of Transport has done, how we can find out that a citizen has a radio set in his house, if we do not go into that house. How can the country collect the licence fee due it if the officer charged with the collection of fees cannot enter a house where he believes a fee is due? I am sure the hon. member who has just spoken is honest and wishes the citizens of Canada to pay their licence fees, but after listening to him our conclusion must be that he is trying to encourage the citizens of Canada to evade or to break the law. Otherwise the hon. member would agree with the minister, particularly in view of legislation adopted under other circumstances by this chamber. After all, I believe there is no citizen who is unwilling to pay a licence fee for his radio set in his house. If there are any such people, I believe we shall find them in the ranks of those who are encouraged by the observations of the hon. member, and who have a desire to evade the law. It may be that they would not be willing to permit the officer from the department to search their houses.
While I am on my feet may I say that I should have liked to see the licence fees for automobile radios reduced, because, so far as Quebec is concerned-and I believe all the provinces are in a somewhat similar situation-the people use their automobiles at most for only six months in the year. Consequently we would not avail ourselves of the use of our automobile radios to as great an extent, and I suggest it would be only fair to reduce the fee to one dollar a year. I made that submission before the committee which considered radio problems, and I believe it is my
Radio Broadcasting

duty to repeat it in this committee. I am sure the Minister of Transport has discussed this very important matter with the cabinet, the members of which represent Canada from east to west. I have enough faith in my superiors to abide by their decisions because, after all, it is not more pleasant for a member of the cabinet than for a private member to adopt unpopular legislation. My personal opinion is that a reduction to one dollar in the case of automobile licence fees would have been preferable, and I believe that view is shared by many other people. However, the position is that the cabinet has decided it is not possible to do that and, having a fair understanding of the difficulties experienced by the members of this or any other cabinet, I am content to abide by their decision.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The consideration of
section 9 involves a review of the other sections of the measure, because in order to understand and appreciate this section we must read it in the light of other provisions. With that in mind I would refer the committee to paragraph (e) of section 4:
(e) prescribing that no radio receiving set or radio apparatus for installation or use as, or in, a private receiving station may be sold or serviced by any person until a licence is first obtained for such station.
When we refer to the opposite page in the bill we find that this is a new paragraph. I do not know whether the minister is considering an amendment or change in the section, or whether it stands for consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For the moment it stands.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thought so. I would point out that in that paragraph we have a new provision which would appear to be a very complete check on radio sets. The official of the department charged with the collection of licence fees has in his hands or at his command a source of information in addition to that which he had under the former act. If the section is to remain whereby one who goes to a house to make a temporary repair, no matter how trivial it may be upon a radio, must see that a licence has been taken out for that radio, then I do not see how anyone can escape without rendering it necessary to make use of the drastic remedy of a search warrant. The minister may point out that this provision appeared in substantially the same form in the previous act. I see that it has been redrawn, reworded and recast in some respects. My point is, however, that the minister has provided additional drastic and effective checks upon the issue of radio licences, and that the agent charged with the collection of licence fees now has at

his disposal information he did not have before and information which, I submit, will enable him in a very large measure without a search warrant to find out whether or not licences have been taken out. I do not know what the minister proposes to do with respect to the section which stands, but I think it is fair at this stage to point out to the committee the situation which will exist if the section passes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hon. members opposite are endeavouring to point out that this is all new legislation, and that it has never been in effect before. In reply to that may I say that I have in my hand a regulation signed by Alfred Duranleau, Minister of Marine, and dated at Ottawa on June 16, 1932. While I refer to this regulation I would ask the hon. member to cast his eye along paragraph (e) of section 4 to which he has referred. The regulation I have before me is in these words:
6. (c) No person shall sell any radio receiving set to any person for installation or operation until the purchaser has produced for inspection of the vendor his private radio receiving licence.
(d) No person shall service a radio receiving set until the owner thereof produces to such person his licence to operate such set.
My hon. friends opposite had exactly the same legislation. We have not changed their legislation one iota. In 1932 hon. gentlemen opposite enforced the collection of radio licence fees by search warrants and the sending of police officers into people's homes. This practice has continued since then. The practice of the department has been built up. on what hon. gentlemen opposite started in 1932. We have not been able to find a substitute method which could be put into force without causing a considerable drop in revenue and tremendous injustice to those who pay willingly. There is a certain section of the population who will not pay unless there is some form of compulsion. I wish we could find some other system. Every year I bring the officers of the department charged with collecting these licence fees into conference to see if at the end of the year they have not found some variation to the existing system which will produce the same or better results. But we have not been able to find such a variation. We are not passing new legislation; we are continuing the legislation that was in force in 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935 when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. The practice was started by hon. gentlemen opposite; it was built up by them, and we have been unable to find a substitute.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: I cannot see anything particularly wrong with this section. The

Radio Broadcasting
2S21
hon. member for Yorfc South (Mr. Lawson) has told us that ninety-nine per cent of the radio owners would give voluntary information when an official came to their homes.


James Earl Lawson: I am sorry, but I did not make that statement.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: What percentage did the hon. member mention? I thought he said ninety-nine per cent.


James Earl Lawson: The hon. member is right as far as the percentage is concerned, but the rest of the statement is wrong.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I believe that ninety-nine per cent of the people would answer truthfully when an officer came to them and asked if they had a radio. This section was intended to deal with the one per cent of the population who would not answer truthfully. It would be only in a few instances that this section would be enforced. I agree with the hon. member that ninety-nine per oent of the people would disclose that they had radios and, if they had no licence, would be ready to give excuses. It may be contended that we would not be losing much revenue by not enforcing this section, but that is not the question. If a radio owner can escape paying his licence fee, the news soon spreads and his neighbours will say, "If he does not pay, then we will not." The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) has said that paragraph (e) of section 4 would provide a complete check, but it seems to me that there are instances where that paragraph would not work. Suppose I buy a radio; the dealer who sells it to me would hand in my name and address. But suppose I use it for a month or so and give it to my neighbour, my brother or my mother; I am not a seller and I do not have to report to the departs ment. Where would the check be?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would not your sister or your mother be a person?


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: But I would not be a seller.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It says, "By any person."


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: "May he sold." When I buy it they have a check on me, but in the instance I mentioned I would not be the seller. I am giving away the radio.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Section 9 provides that a justice of the peace may issue a search warrant when there is reasonable ground for believing that a private receiving station has been established without a licence. I contend that this section places too great a power
in the hands of a justice of the peace. In many municipalities the aldermen have the right to be appointed justices of the peace and from time to time these appointments are cancelled. Many people in this country look upon their home as a castle and they are going to resent these search warrants being issued. Some of them are likely to take exception to the search being made and we may have violence and other forms of trouble. We are granting the right to issue a search warrant for the collection of $2 or $2.50.
If it is thought necessary to have search warrants issued, then I submit the power to issue should be placed only in the hands of officials appointed by the federal Department of Justice. We should not have the promiscuous searching of homes when only $2.50 is to be collected. To my mind this provision is too wide. I have heard the discussion on both sides of the house in connection with this section, and according to hon. members opposite the principal reason for its being in this bill is the fact that in 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935 the members of one political party enacted similar legislation and therefore it must be all right. This legislation is before us for revision and these various matters should be looked into. The question of whether this section is right or wrong should not be governed by the fact that similar legislation was enacted previously. I ask the minister to look at this matter fairly and not make it so easy to obtain a search warrant.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I should like to make two suggestions to the minister. The first is whether it would not be better to change the phrase "justice of the peace" to "a police magistrate" or some person having some legal training, I am not familiar with the other provinces; but I know that in the province from which I come men are appointed as justices of the peace who have no legal training, who, in some instances, have little if any training of any sort, because in a small community some man must be found who can take oaths and that sort of thing, and a man is given the appointment. I know many such who-I say this with all deference are not in a position to pass judgment in a case like this as to whether a search warrant should or should not be issued. I appreciate the minister's difficulty; I recognize that you must prove possession, and to prove possession you must enter a person's home, but I believe it would lead to a lot of troublesome meddling if you gave that right to some men who have not any training and are perhaps not in a position to exercise fair judgment.

Radio Broadcasting

I also refer the minister to the clause, "he may grant a search warrant to any police officer or any officer appointed in that behalf by the minister." I can understand the latter phrase, "any officer appointed in that behalf by the minister," but as to "any police officer," I am not just clear why that should be permitted. I think it should read, "any police officer authorized by the minister or asked by those authorized to make collection of this licence fee"; any police officer at their request might act. But to allow any police officer authorized by any justice of the peace to do so might lead, it seems to me, to meddlesome trouble-making in small, minor districts where personalities and little local quarrels might intrude, and give the minister a great deal more trouble than he has, and I know he is anxious to avoid that. I therefore suggest that the phrase "justice of the peace" might be changed, unless there is some good reason why it should not, and that the other phrase should read, "any police officer appointed in that behalf by the minister," leaving out the first part of it, "any police officer".


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister stated a few moments ago that this system was started by the late government in 1932. It does not matter to me for one moment whether it was started in 1932 or not. I might suggest that two wrongs do not make a right, and if the late government made a mistake in instituting the present system that is no reason why this government should carry it on. Personally I am absolutely opposed to the fee of $2.50 for a radio. I believe it would be well, if a yearly fee is to be charged, to charge $1 a year for the first radio and $2 or $2.50 for any additional radio in any one household. That would make it easier for the small householder.
I have another suggestion to offer, that it might be well to charge the tax on radios at their source; that is, charge the manufacturer or the selling source. It would cease to be a nuisance tax; the person buying a radio would be prepared to pay a certain price for it, and when that price was paid that would be the last expenditure he would have to make for it. I am opposed to this annual tax. It is a nuisance tax. The government well know it and they are sorry they are mixed up in it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As we are wandering somewhat afield, I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
[Douglas, T. C.]

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $53,177.85.
George James Tustin: I notice an item of $2,808.75 for Kingston Cold Storage. Would the minister kindly explain that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The payment that is shown opposite Kingston is the first instalment of payment to the Kingston Cold Storage.


George James Tustin: That is the new cold storage plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George James Tustin: The same applies to the next item, Moncton?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; the same thing applies to Moncton.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agricultural economics, $120,260.
William Earl Rowe: What constitutes the increase in this branch?


Mr. SPENCE:: What is "agricultural economics?


James Garfield Gardiner: Salaries, permanent,
$54,360, submitted for 1938-39; for 1937-38, $31,106.25. There is an increase of $23,253.75 this year. Then there are temporary salaries, last year, $24,535; this year, $28,160; an increase of $3,625. Other items:
Telephones and tele
graphs	
Equipment..	..	.
Printing and station
ery	
Travelling expenses Miscellaneous....
1937-38	1938-39	Increase$ 500	$ 1,200	$ 7002,075	3,850	1,7756,278	13,140 17,750	6,8627,627	10,123785	1,800	1,015
The net increase is $47,353.75. The real explanation of the increase is an expansion of services.


Grote Stirling: Is this Mr. Booth's
branch?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is Doctor Booth's branch.


George James Tustin: Why should there be so large
an increase as $10,000 in travelling expenses?


James Garfield Gardiner: The increase in travelling expenses is largely accounted for by the fact that the staff is larger and that there are

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
more people moving about in connection with those inquiries. Much of the increased economic work is due to the expansion of marketing activities.


Mr. PELLETIER:: The minister provides for a chief of markets information service. I assume this is a new appointment. Does this not come into conflict with the Department of Trade and Commerce?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it does not.


Robert John Deachman: Will the minister be
good enough to give us an outline of the nature of the work performed by the economics branch of the department? There are two problems in which I am particularly interested. Speaking from the standpoint of Ontario, I believe that conditions are changing, and the old 100-acre farm seems destined to pass away. Has the economics branch considered what is the optimum size for an Ontario farm; that is, what size of farm is the most efficient unit of operation? Is it 100, 300 or 500 acres? Has any study been made along that line, and is any information available?
The agricultural implement companies are steadily tending towards the production of larger sized implements, looking in the direction of power farming, and this is leading to the larger sized unit of farm. If the department could work out an analysis of this question which would help to determine the size of farm that would be most profitable, I think it would be a sound contribution to Canadian agriculture.
There is one more problem to which the department might possibly give some attention. It is extremely difficult to secure any details in regard to the earnings of Canadian farmers. We have a record of the earnings of civil servants; we have a record of the wages of the men who work in industry; but because the farm situation is much more complex, and the farmer gets his living on the farm, it is extremely difficult to secure adequate information. It could be done only by a close and detailed analysis over a sufficient number of farms so that we might have some actual insight into the real situation. This would be valuable to agriculture in more ways than one, because it would give some idea of what the farmer actually earns, and it would be valuable information to some of the people engaged in other industries. Moreover, from the standpoint of the farmer himself, it would give him certain necessary information which would be helpful to him. Jim Hill once said that if you are in business and cannot find out what profit you are
making, it would be better for you to go out of that business. If some of the farmers knew the real situation as it is to-day, they would be more keen in the pursuit of their own interests and find means of improving the conditions on their farms, and if other classes knew what the farmer was earning, then perhaps there might be a broader measure of sympathy in considering the problems of agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: The activities of the
economics branch are to some extent along the line advocated by the hon. member. Most of the work undertaken is done on the invitation of, and in cooperation with the provincial departments. The reason for this is obvious. Much of the inquiry has to be made on lands that are privately owned, most of which are under the control of the provinces, and even where it is crown lands that are being examined they are under provincial control.
A few years ago there was in Ontario an investigation of the sort suggested by the hon. gentleman. It was carried out under the direction of the college of agriculture at Guelph, and as a result there is some information which has been regarded as standard up to the present time. It is possible that there is need for another inquiry into the size of farm that can be operated most successfully by the average farmer in Ontario, but any request for such an investigation would naturally come from the province. We set up the machinery for making inquiries of this kind largely because of the impossibility of nine different organizations in Canada conducting such work, and also because of the expense. There would be no way of getting proper comparisons between the activities carried on in one section and those carried on in another if the work were done under a number of different authorities. The department here has therefore attempted to build up an organization which can cooperate with the different provinces.
Some of the work being carried on at the present time is done in western Canada in connection with the land utilization plans, and inquiries are being conducted in cooperation with the governments of the different provinces. Economics research work covers a fairly wide field including research and general marketing problems; the study of costs of distributing fruits and vegetables; making an annual analysis of the farmers' cooperative marketing enterprises; cooperative purchase of farm supplies. Another phase of research in marketing is that of analysing marketing problems in Toronto and Ottawa, and studies

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
are being conducted into the consumption of milk, cheese, cream and meats. The purpose is to appraise the facts affecting consumption of farm products. This division also directs research in land utilization in the west. These studies are confined to the drought area and are concerned with the economic utilization of land in Saskatchewan and Alberta. In addition to this, the division makes studies with regard to the cost of milk production in Ontario and factors affecting the price of Nova Scotia apples. They also get out a number of publications dealing with different subjects that have been investigated.


George James Tustin: What relationship has the chief of transportation to the economics branch?


James Garfield Gardiner: Transportation is naturally a very important part of marketing. The product is drawn usually from a considerable distance; that is, the surplus that has to be sold and shipped is produced at a considerable distance from the place where it is consumed. There are very many problems affecting the farmers from one end of the country to the other, problems having to do with cost of shipment, particularly local freight costs, where, because of some new development, the freight is travelling in different directions from the route it usually follows. When these conditions arise we have someone available to make inquiries and, on behalf of the farming communities, to present the case properly to the different transportation organizations.


George Halsey Perley: Is there any discrimination in the rates on fruits going from British Columbia into the prairie provinces as compared with the rates on fruit going from Nova Scotia, particularly in carload lots? I understand that in order to get the cheaper rate from British Columbia, the quantity must be something like 60,000 pounds, while for a similar rate from Nova Scotia, it is only about 30,000 pounds. Has there been any investigation in that respect?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure of the facts with regard to the regular rates as between the maritime provinces and the prairie country as compared with the rates from British Columbia to the prairies. Last fall we got a special rate on apples shipped from Nova Scotia to the prairies. By getting the special rate from Nova Scotia we were able to lay apples down in the prairies at a slightly lower cost than the apples from British Columbia cost.


Mark Cecil Senn: I listened with interest to
what the hon. member for Huron North

(Mr. Deachman) said concerning the condition of agriculture and the state of the farmers generally, and particularly in eastern Canada. It has been truly said that if the farmer were to keep books and charge up the same labour and other costs that manufacturing industries do, he would never put a plough in the ground, because, he could never show a profit. But although he cannot show profits from a bookkeeping standpoint, he seems to get along, although I fully agree with what the hon. member said about his position at the present time.
How far does the federal administration deal with domestic marketing? I understand that, under the constitution, trade within the country is purely a provincial matter; yet it seeims that our federal department does make investigations into domestic' marketing. I should also like to know what attention is being paid by the department to cooperative efforts in agriculture. It seems to me a very important branch of marketing, and every effort by farmers towards cooperative marketing of their products should be fostered and assisted as far as possible by the federal department. What assistance is being given to farmers' cooperative organizations throughout the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is some difficulty in regulating the marketing of farm products from a federal centre. This was realized when the Natural Products Marketing Act was referred to the supreme court. However, it is recognized by the provincial governments that a large part of the work, particularly that having to do with the regulations covering standardization of products, can be done better by a central organization than by nine different authorities. The result is that even where the constitution does not permit of our taking action to enforce certain regulations, the provinces cooperate with us by naming our officials to be their officials in many instances to do that work. While we pay these men who conduct the work, they are acting in some circumstances as appointees of the provinces as well. There has been no difficulty in preventing overlapping in connection with work of that kind. It is fully realized by the provincial authorities that if a product is produced in one province and sold in another there must be a good deal of cooperation.
As far as farmers' cooperatives are concerned there is no other work I can speak of at the moment than that of issuing information through this economics branch as to what has been done elsewhere in connection with the development of farmers'

2S25
Supply-Agriculture-Economics
cooperatives. The work is being promoted in that manner in all parts of Canada where information is required through this branch.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I wish to make a plea for the potato growers of Prince Edward Island. For the last few years they have been largely dependent upon the growing of potatoes for which they have to find a market outside. Under a previous vote we found that there is quite a staff in Great Britain looking after the marketing of our produce. Last year I was over there, and it is a fact that We have to fight our way into that market, because the British farmer is looking out for himself and does not wish to allow any more of our products to come in than can be avoided. But they want to buy certain products, which we have in abundance. I refer to all kinds of grain. The British farmer does not want to use his land for growing grain because he can get better returns from live stock. He is willing to let us grow the grain here and ship it to him. But our potatoes have always been shut out of the British market; there has been a total embargo. I do not understand why we could not overcome that in some way. The reason the British Department of Agriculture gave is that we have the potato beetle in Canada, and it might be carried over there and the country become infested with it. I have pleaded before this that the department have a real investigation made into this question. I do not believe that the potato beetle could be introduced into Great Britain in that way. They receive potatoes shipped from different European countries where the beetle has been for years, and where, in fact, it is said to have originated. If the potato beetle could thrive in Great Britain, it would have been established there long ago, because these insects are great travellers.
In all fairness, in view of the amount of goods we purchase from Great Britain, the Department of Agriculture should again take up the question of the lifting of this embargo. A few years ago we made a determined effort to prove that it would be impossible for the potato beetle to be carried over there in potato sacks. In New Brunswick they even went so far as to put in brushing machines, the potatoes are carefully graded and brushed, every potato inspected, and the bags carefully inspected and sealed. Notwithstanding that, we were unable to get our potatoes admitted to the market. There must be some other reason than the potato beetle. I made extensive inquiries while I was over there, and the tremendous amount of potatoes imported into Great Britain was a surprise to me. In
all fairness, Canadians are entitled to a share of that business. I believe if the matter were taken up by the minister, he might be able to obtain something in the way of a satisfactory agreement with them so that our potatoes might get into that market. We are endeavouring to process potatoes, putting them up in cans, and I understand that venture is meeting with a great deal of success, but still the same problem confronts the farmer. This year he had practically to give away his potatoes, to sell them below cost of production.


James Houston Spence: You grew too many; that was all.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We grow potatoes because in the past they have been a good cash crop. I agree that perhaps we should get back more to the mixed farming that was carried on years ago, and the department of agriculture of Prince Edward Island has been urging the farmers to do so. But there were good years when the farmers made a good deal of money out. of potatoes; they have started off on this line of farming, and they seem anxious to stick to it. There is another market that we are always hoping to regain; that is the Cuban market. I know it is not the function of the Minister of Agriculture to negotiate treaties with foreign countries, but it is a very important part of the work of the Department of Agriculture to endeavour to find markets for the products of the farmers of this country. I wish the minister would take up with his colleagues the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Revenue the possibility of something being done to bring about a trade agreement with Cuba and some of those other countries in South America and the West Indies. I should like to hear from the minister what hopes he has of getting into the British market.


James Garfield Gardiner: About a year and a half ago, the government of the province of New Brunswick sent a man to the South American countries in order to explore market possibilities there. At that time we did not have either the facilities or the funds to assist in that work, but last year we appointed a representative to go to the South American countries and explore the possibilities of creating a market for potatoes throughout all the countries in which it is possible for our seed potatoes to be sold. As a result of the activities of the provincial man or men, of our trade commissioners in the different countries and of the representative of our own department, who was able to discuss with these

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
people not so much the marketing but the different varieties that we produce, the proper way to plant and care for them and how to fight the diseases that are associated with our potato crop, the sale of our seed potatoes in South America has been greatly promoted. Speaking from memory, I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven hundred thousand cases of potatoes were sold in South America following those activities. This year we have sent the same man to Europe, and more particularly to Great Britain, to carry on activities similar to those he carried on last year in South America and the West Indies.


Mark Cecil Senn: Who was that man?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Arkell, who was
previously in the department. I may say that I have had quite a number of communications from different countries in South America commenting very favourably upon the experience they had with our official while he was there, not from the point of view of promoting trade but because he was able to discuss with them general agricultural problems, and to give them the benefit of the experiences of the department here in different lines of agriculture, more particularly in connection with the growing of potatoes. As I said, within the last two weeks he left for Great Britain, and our agricultural commissioner left this week for the same country. These two gentlemen will immediately take up such problems as those just referred to by the hon. member for Prince, and I am sure that some beneficial results will come from the activities now being carried on.


Mark Cecil Senn: I was greatly interested in
the statement just made by the minister, to the effect that other gentlemen, in addition to those who were over there last summer to investigate marketing conditions in Great Britain and other parts of the empire, have been sent-on a fairly good salary, I believe -to investigate certain matters. I just asked the minister the name of one of these gentlemen, and I find that I know him of old. He is an estimable gentleman who at one time occupied a very high position in the Department of Agriculture. But I wonder if it was necessary to undertake this extra expense at this time in connection with these activities. Not only have we had a commission investigating marketing in Great Britain; we have our trade commissioners there and in other parts of the world, whose duty it is to undertake just the sort of work that Mr. Arkell has been called upon to do. It seems to me that the work is more or less overlapping, and it would appear hardly TMr. Gardiner.]
necessary to make such extra expenditure for this purpose. However, I suppose it is impossible at the moment to have anything done about the matter.
Before I sit down I should like to ask the minister one other question. I understand that the set-up of the marketing division has already been discussed to a certain extent; but in the estimates I notice provision for an assistant director of marketing services, at a fairly good salary, under this branch of agricultural economics. In addition, I was going to ask the minister, when the administration vote was up, about the provision for a special poultry commissioner, also at a very fair salary. In the old days we had gentlemen at the heads of the different branches of agriculture. We had a dairy commissioner, a live stock commissioner, a head of the sheep and swine division, and so on. I do not see those names mentioned in the present set-up. I am wondering if these gentlemen have been demoted or, if not, just what their position is to-day. They were perhaps the best available men within the department at the time, and it may be that their positions are differently described to-day; but in any event I think the minister might at this time give us some idea of the standing of these gentlemen, whether they are still heads of the different departments, or whether they have been absorbed in the general rearrangement and have no official standing at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to the first part of my hon. friend's remarks, the part of the work which cannot be done properly by officials located at particular points, whether agricultural or trade commissioners, is the matter of checking on efforts that are being put forth by those selling similar commodities in other parts of the world. For example, Mr. Arkell has just been in South America, where he found that most of the seed potatoes which do not come from Canada or the United States come from Holland, Germany or some other European country. We have found that there are certain advantages-at least he and the others who have gone to South America have so found-in the Canadian seed. It has been found also that some excellent varieties are produced in some of the other countries and shipped to South America for seed. Part of the work we intend to do in Europe is to have these men, particularly those working under Mr. Allen, who has been sent over there recently and who is an expert in many of these lines, examine into the activities carried on in these countries and, if any varieties or methods can be found that might

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
be used to advantage in Canada, to have them tried out on our. experimental farms here and, if possible, to develop those lines in Canada. Mr. Arkell, having examined into the activities in the South American countries will, in turn, examine into the activities in the countries in which those varieties of seed originated, and will be in a much better position to give advice to the department as to what we ought to do by way of experimentation than would any individual who may be established permanently in any one place. It is work of that kind which is being done by Mr. Arkell, and any others who may be sent. It is not a matter of inquiring into marketing possibilities, in the sense that we sent a committee last year to England for the purpose of making inquiries; rather it is an inquiry into the agricultural possibilities, generally, a matter of working in cooperation with our commissioners and bringing back information which can be made available to organizations in this country.
As I said at the beginning of the discussion on the estimates we have set up four different divisions. There is the marketing division, the production division, the experimental division and the research division, and there is a director for each of them. In so far as any of the original branches of the department can be associated with one or another of these divisions, this is done. A section of a branch which is not properly allied with the work being done in connection with marketing, for example, but more closely allied with production, is placed in the production division. But, so far as economics is concerned, may I say in reply to an inquiry which was made that the assistant director is Doctor Booth, who was previously in charge of the economics branch of the department. His classification in the department, so far as salary and general position are concerned, is exactly the same now as it was before.


William Earl Rowe: What
classification has Mr. Arkell?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is just engaged temporarily from time to time, at a certain wage, and is given expenses in addition to his salary.


Mark Cecil Senn: I do not wish to take up too much time, nor do I wish to criticize the setup of the department or the work that is being done. In fact, I believe most of the work is being carried on in an excellent manner and,, further, I believe that a good deal of the work is necessary. But I still cannot understand why it is necessary to send
special representatives to these foreign countries and to the British market when we already have estimable gentlemen there representing the Department of Trade and Commerce whose specific duty it is to look into the very matters that Mr. Arkell and the other special representatives who are sent over there look into. It seems to me there must be a certain amount of overlapping, and if there is any overlapping it may be that any misunderstanding which may have existed between the departments will continue to exist. When the minister was speaking about Mr. Arkell he used the expression, "or any others who may be sent." Does the minister anticipate that any other men, whether they have special qualifications or not, are likely to be sent within the near future to assist the organization already in existence in Great Britain and other countries? Will they be undertaking special missions of the kind Mr. Arkell pursued, in days gone by and is pursuing at the present time? If anything of that sort is anticipated, I think the minister should frankly tell the committee about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not have anything in mind at this time in addition to what is now being carried on in that direction. But, as a result of information we get back from people there, it may be necessary to send experts in certain lines.


Frank Exton Lennard: At page 104 of the report it is indicated that there was a study of the cost of milk production in Ontario in 1937. What are the results of that study?


James Garfield Gardiner: The investigation in
connection with milk in Ontario is still continuing, and the results are not yet available for publication.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have listened to the
minister's observations respecting the reorganization of his department. To what extent have the activities of that department been expanded? Am I correct in assuming the work that is now being done was, in some measure at least, performed in the past, but through different agencies, and that he has just rearranged and realigned duties which were formerly assigned to other employees or officials? To what extent is he embarking on any new or untried policy which was not, at least to some extent, being carried on before he undertook to reorganize? We have heard u great deal about reorganization, reclassification and rearrangement. As I understand the situation, practically all of the work now being done was done before. Possibly it was done by other officials, but what I do want to have is a concise and clear explanation of

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
the expansion of or any new development in the work of his department which has followed or will follow as a result of the reorganization.


Percy John Rowe: It is reconsideration, not reorganization.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it will be
remembered by hon. members that on the first evening we discussed the estimates of the Department of Agriculture I explained that the reorganization was for the convenience of the administration in operating the department. The Department of Agriculture, like other departments of government in Canada, has grown up since confederation-


James Houston Spence: And is still getting bigger.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, bigger and better. I believe other ministers in the department have had in mind the thought that there should be some reorganization. When I took over the department I was satisfied that was so, and the reorganization was done in as direct a manner as was possible. We took longer in bringing it about than I had hoped would be necessary, but I believe that was to be expected in dealing with an organization as widespread as the dominion Department of Agriculture. The main expansion has been in connection with marketing activities. Other branches have been made to relate themselves to our greater efforts in connection with marketing. As I said the other evening, in the first place we did research work to discover other organizations, whether in Canada or out of it, with which we might associate ourselves in order to bring to bear upon agriculture in this country all the scientific and other discoveries it was possible to find in connection with agriculture.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is that new?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; that is not a new undertaking, but we did that in the first instance. We earned our activities to the experimental farms, as has always been done. We are still carrying on our activities in connection with production, as has always been done, but we are going one step farther and are emphasizing the necessity for greater care in connection with marketing.
I agree with the statement made the other evening by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) that the most important efforts along that lane will have to be made in Canada itself. The greater part of our farm products is sold and marketed in this country. Only cheese, wheat and possibly apples and bacon are sold in considerable volume, as

compared with entire production, outside Canada. For that reason our activities will be continued in Canada in connection with promoting the sale of these products and increasing consumption by producing better standards. I may say that I know of no activity, either within or without Canada, that has to do with the selling of products. We have no sales organization. In so far as agriculture is concerned, our activities outside Canada have been expended in another direction. We have sent overseas a man who is recognized throughout Canada as an agricultural expert. He has the ability to go into any agricultural educational institution on the other side, acquaint himself with their activities and make known to our agricultural colleges and other institutions the possibilities of growing certain products now being produced on the European continent and in Great Britain. This gentleman speaks two or three of the languages of the people in those countries. I believe having a man in touch with activities on the other side is a new idea.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I believe the minister appreciates and sympathizes with the objectives of the Natural Products Marketing Act. That act had as an objective the improvement of the quality of our products at home and the providing of better marketing facilities abroad. Have the objectives of that act been kept in mind and has a way been found to carry them into effect? That legislation had a rather unfortunate fate before the courts, but I believe the minister will agree that its Objectives were sound and in the interests of agriculture. Perhaps the minister has studied other methods by which the same objectives could be reached. Has that been the policy of the department or have the objectives of that act been scrapped altogether? Are we proceeding along new lines to attain the desirable results which were in view when that legislation was enacted?


James Garfield Gardiner: Earlier in the afternoon we listened to a discussion on dairying matters as they were related to the Natural Products Marketing Act. For example, the province of Ontario carried on certain activities in the latter part of 1935 and in 1936 in connection with the cheese producers' organization. These activities were carried on under the Natural Products Marketing Act. This organization was empowered to charge five cents per 100 pounds.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was provincial,
absolutely.


James Garfield Gardiner: Originally it was federal. When the Natural Products Marketing Act

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
was declared ultra vires, the cheese producers' organization made application to this government for a grant of $8,000 in order to continue the activities started under the act but for which collections could not be made. We had to accept some responsibility as a federal government for what had been set up under the Natural Products Marketing Act, and we made a grant of $5,000, which was used by the organization to assist in paying an official whom they had sent over to Great Britain. We did not give a grant in 1937 as we did not assume any responsibility for that year. After our act was declared ultra vires, the provincial government passed an act empowering producers' organizations in Ontario to collect fees similar to those which had been collected under the Natural Products Marketing Act. I am not sure whether we have had applications for assistance since then, but I know none has been given. The report which was read to the committee this afternoon indicated that the $5,000 was paid in 1937, but it was paid in our financial year 1936-37. It just happened to go into their treasury after December 31, 1936.
I think this illustrates what has been done as a result of the finding in connection with the Natural Products Marketing Act. The province of Ontario has taken action in connection with cheese and, I believe, some other commodities. New Brunswick and British Columbia have both taken action in connection with certain products. These three provinces have taken action which makes it possible for certain products to be marketed under schemes similar to those set up under the Natural Products Marketing Act. So far as the federal department is concerned, we realize that we have certain obligations, particularly in connection with the marketing of products in other countries and interpro-vincially.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And in grading.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have a perfect right to do that under the constitution. We have endeavoured to create the best possible sentiment among our customers by seeing to it that they get a superior commodity; that is, we are trying to standardize and raise the quality of our products. We are trying to place in the hands of the consumer a product with which he will be satisfied, no matter what may be the marketing facilities which place that product at his disposal. I believe we are getting fairly good results from these activities.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was interested in the
remarks of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) in connection with the efforts being
made to sell potatoes in South America and Cuba. The hon. member asked the minister what possibilities there were of selling potatoes in Cuba, but I do not believe the minister gave an answer. The potato growers of the maritime provinces are very much interested in the possibilities of selling potatoes in Cuba. During the last few years a certain portion of the press in the maritime provinces has been stating that a great market for our potatoes exists in Cuba. Then we hear that the farmers in Cuba can raise enough potatoes to supply that market. We hear also that the reason why we are not selling potatoes to Cuba is that a dumping duty has been placed against Cuban sugar. I think it would be a splendid thing if the minister would tell the committee, and through the committee the people of these provinces, whether there is a market in Cuba for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island potatoes. I should also like to know if Mr. Arkell, who was investigating conditions in South America, Cuba and the West Indies, has made a report as to the prospect of future sales of seed and table potatoes in those countries. It is all very well for the agent to go down and investigate; but unless the people are informed as to the result of this investigation and unless he finds some market for their product, I would not consider that his activities had been of very much use. I know we have been selling a great many seed potatoes in South America recently; but in the maritime provinces there are not so many producers of seed potatoes as there are producers of the table potato, and what agitates the minds of most of the farmers in connection with the sale of the potato is not only the seed, potato but also the table potato, of which, as everyone knows, we in the maritime provinces can raise the best in Canada, possibly in the world. If the minister would kindly answer these questions, I think it would satisfy many of the farmers in my own province of New Brunswick and in the neighbouring province of Prince Edward Island.
I should also like to know whether the department at Ottawa is cooperating with the departments in the various provinces. New Brunswick, for instance, sends agents down south nearly every year, and we hear of the federal department sending their agents there also. It seems to me that if there were cooperation it would not be necessary for so many of these men to be travelling all over the world at the expense of the federal and provincial governments. Fewer men and better

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
results would be better for the governments, for the country and for the farmers who are more interested in selling their products than in reports.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Arkell, who was down there last year and made inquiries with regard to the possibilities of markets for both table potaoes and seed potatoes in the South American and West Indian countries, reported back to the government here first what he found in those countries. Then he went from here to the different capitals of the provinces where potatoes are grown in great volume, but particularly to the capitals of the maritime provinces, made separate reports to their governments, and met the representatives of different organizations that are interested in the marketing of potatoes in those countries.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was this report published?


James Garfield Gardiner: His report has not been published, but any of his findings are available to the authorities in the provinces. In addition to that, he made reports to us somewhat along the lines of the discussion which has now started, that is reports as to whether it would be advisable in years to come to promote the sale of seed potatoes in certain countries as against promoting the sale of table potatoes. There are certain parts of South America where, we understand from the reports made to us, seed' potatoes can be grown to advantage. When those countries develop the growing of seed potatoes we, of course, being further away from those countries, shall probably find -that we shall lose a market rather than gain one by promoting, for the time being, the sale of seed potatoes there. We are benefiting as much as we can by information of that kind in directing others who may be intending to develop markets in any particular countries in South America.
In addition to that, the men who have been sent down by the different provinces, particularly by New Brunswick, have been sent to promote the sale of the potatoes of their particular province in South American countries. When our potatoes have gone down there, there have developed, in connection with certain varieties, certain diseases. The provincial authority has then made application to* the federal authority, as the latter is the only authority which has experts who can go down to deal with a problem of that kind, and we have now a man in South America dealing with a disease which developed there in connection with potatoes shipped from

the maritimes, a disease which, I understand, did not prevail in this country before the potatoes went to South America, but has developed within the potatoes there with new conditions existing. We have found, from the first report received from our representative, that he has proven to the satisfaction of the South American people that this disease did not have its origin in Canada, because the same disease is prevalent among potatoes the seed of which was obtained from European countries.
It is that kind of work which is being done. If we did not have representatives down there to deal with the matter on the spot, at the moment the disease develops, it would be very simple for other countries to convince people there that this disease was introduced through the introduction of a new variety of potatoes from Canada, and if that were the case we should immediately find ourselves in exactly the same position in those countries as we are in Great Britain, by reason of their objection to our potatoes because we have potato bugs in this country. We do not want a situation of that kind to develop, so we think it is good business from the agricultural point of view to send men down, when the provinces ask that they be sent, in order to check up on any diseases which develop in connection with any province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, now, will the minister kindly answer the question with reference to the possibility of markets in the island of Cuba? In the maritime provinces, because we used to sell great quantities of potatoes to Cuba, there prevails an impression that that market, were it not for certain duties, would be open for our potatoes and could take very large quantities.
Mi'. GARDINER:	I think I said some
little time ago that there was really no overlapping between our department and the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I do not want to get into a discussion with regard to trade agreements. In so far as trade agreements and tariffs on different items affecting agricultural products are concerned, I do not intend, under these estimates, to get into a discussion of that question. I can only say that, as I understand it, there is a question in the minds of potato growers in the maritime provinces as to which line of development would be most beneficial to them, whether to promote largely the sale of seed or to promote mainly the sale of table potatoes. With that discussion the people of the maritimes are much more familiar than

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
I am. There is a question in the minds of all those who go down there as to whether the people in Cuba can maintain the production of potatoes at the present level as a result of having imported into that country seed potatoes from Canada and other northern countries. I am not at the moment in a position to answer the question as to which would pay the maritime people best. At the present time there is a market for both kinds of potatoes.


Mr. HAYHURST:: I commend the Minister of Agriculture for the addition to the program this year, because it seems to me that this is the psychological time to develop Our marketing facilities, especially in Great Britain and the countries of northwestern Europe. As the committee knows, those countries are suffering to-day from drought and will need this year a great many more of our products than formerly; and no doubt next year, when we look over the departmental reports, we shall find that the Department of Agriculture will have a glowing statement showing the tremendous increases of exports, especially to Britain and Germany, if they develop those markets, because the demand exists, the people need the goods, and anybody can sell them to them. This is the psychological moment to press this sales agency idea, because we are getting away from that conception of the past when holding policies of various organizations in Canada more or less restricted the purchasing power of those other countries. Because of the antipathy towards us, these people tightened their belts and used black instead of white bread. To-day we have an entirely different picture facing us. It seems to me that these agencies have been organized at the right time, and now we want results.
The minister has mentioned four services; Marketing, production, experimentation and research work. As far as possible we should avoid overlapping between any of these services such as experimentation and research. The provinces are at present spending a tremendous sum on these services, but naturally the federal department could spend money profitably on marketing. We know this is likely to be our banner year, especially in western Canada, and we shall have potatoes, wheat, oats and other commodities in abundance. We want a market for these products, and this is the psychological moment for these efforts to be made. I suggest that a genuine effort be made to promote good will in obtaining these markets. The government should expand its services at this time. I also recommend to the minister a proper coordination of these various
services so that we may obtain from time to time the knowledge we require of what is going on. We trust that next year, through the increase in the grant, some good will result. The government has a glorious opportunity now, and I am sure that all hon. members, no matter to what party they belong, wish Canada prosperity. This is probably our year for obtaining it. As I say, the government has an excellent opportunity, and we hope that the best possible use will be made of the grant. We know that we can produce enough, but marketing is the end to which attention must be paid. That is the be all and end all of the industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if the committee would pass item 7? We have been discussing item 10 for the last hour.


Frank Exton Lennard: With regard to the production of milk in Ontario, can the minister tell us when that investigation started, how long it will last, and who is carrying it on?


James Garfield Gardiner: Investigations with
regard to milk in Ontario have been going on for two years. They are carried on under a cooperative arrangement involving the government of Ontario, the agricultural college at Guelph and the Department of Agriculture here, through the economics branch. It is being directed by our official here, and a similar official in Toronto, and will continue for a number of years. The investigation is one that requires records over a term of years if it is to be beneficial. I am not in a position to say how many years it will take to get sufficient records to be really valuable.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is it being carried out on different farms throughout the country or merely at experimental stations?


James Garfield Gardiner: On different farms
throughout the province in cooperation with the farmers and with their consent.


Frank Exton Lennard: Just a stated number of farms in different localities?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a considerable number. It is not a matter of dividing it up among municipalities and saying that each municipality shall have so many. It is a matter of groups of farmers.


Frank Exton Lennard: Different breeds?


James Garfield Gardiner: The breed does not enter into the checking, but certain herds are checked.


Mr. MARSH:: Item No. 7 calls for $120,260 for the pursuit of agricultural economics. I take it that this is a necessary item, or this

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
and other governments would not vote money for it year after year. The number of employees has been increased from twelve to twenty and the amount of money by $47,000. I was not altogether satisfied with the minister's reply to an hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago as to the extent to which this will be a new service to the farmer and the extent to which it is an elaboration of an already existing service. Will the farmer on the back road feel the impact of any part of this $47,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is 'based on activities begun in 1922. I believe the branch was set up about that time. Of course, it has been developing from then until the present day. The increase in staff this year is due to the demands that are being made on the branch from different parts of Canada, and the increase from $72,000 to $120,000 represents as nearly as possible the increase in activities along the lines we followed previously. We have -been increasing activities in different parts of the country.


Frank Exton Lennard: Has there been any progress in connection with the new terminal market in Toronto?


James Garfield Gardiner: As my hon. friend knows, an investigation was carried out and a report made to those interested in the market.


Mark Cecil Senn: Have they asked for any assistance from the federal department in connection with the new terminal market in that city, and is there any intention on the part of the department to give that assistance?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have no request for assistance of the kind indicated. We have requests for service, and we give whatever service we can, such as investigations and reports.


George Halsey Perley: As the minister knows, we are faced with many economic problems in Saskatchewan, and I would say that some of the policies adopted by the present government will add to those problems. Under this item, what sort of work is being carried on in the western provinces? We have been discussing the marketing of our products and the question of advertising in other countries. Last fall at about the time that Professor Shaw was overseas on this work under the new branch-


James Garfield Gardiner: Would my hon. friend
mind leaving that until we are on that item? It is item 12.


George Halsey Perley: Under the item at present before the committee we have discussed nearly

everything in the line of marketing. The discussion has been along the lines of advertising our agricultural products.	At that
time the wheat board initiated a very extensive campaign in Great Britain advertising Canadian wheat. I understand Professor Shaw is a member of the wheat board as well. I am not suggesting that he is drawing two salaries, but the minister might explain his position. Did Professor Shaw, during his time over there last fall, take any part in this advertising scheme initiated under the wheat board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Dean Shaw, as he was at the time of his appointment, was appointed to the wheat board in 1935, and has continued as a member of that board. At present, while he is a member of the board, he is drawing only his salary as director of marketing in the Department of Agriculture. While he was in England last year he was, of course, a member of the board. The board set up an advertising program which was being carried on in connection with wheat prior to the time Dean Shaw went to England. These activities were going on when he was there, but not under his direction as director of marketing in the Department of Agriculture. The wheat board is operating under the special act which sets it up. It is operating through the Department of Trade and Commerce, both in Canada and outside.
In regard to the activities of the economics branch in Saskatchewan, I can only say that its main activities there at the present time have to do with the land utilization investigations being made throughout the drought area of Saskatchewan.


George James Tustin: Why should there be such
a large item for temporary assistance? I notice that the salaries have increased from $32,625 to $54,360, and temporary assistance has increased by about $4,000. Why should such a large item be carried as temporary assistance?


James Garfield Gardiner: In this branch, the
same as any other, all employees who are taken on are temporary at first. The fact that we are taking on a number of new employees naturally makes the temporary list rather large.


James Houston Spence: Are these temporary employees marketing experts?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not necessarily, in connection with this work. These men are taken on, and even if they are going to be permanent eventually they have to be temporary when appointed. All who are taken on for a short period are temporary.

Supply-Agriculture-Economics


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Are the appointments
made by the civil service commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: All these appointments are made by the civil service commission.


Mr. BARBER:: The minister has referred
to officials travelling to different parts of the globe. Owing to the increase in travelling expenses in connection with this department we might almost say it is becoming a roving department. I believe I am right in saying-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that the estimate for travelling expenses alone for the Department of Agriculture amounts to about $965,000, or an increase of $93,000 over last year. That is over ten per cent of the total estimates. Is it the policy of this government that this shall continue to increase each year? Can we expect an estimate of a million dollars next year for travelling expenses in the one department?


James Garfield Gardiner: If I remember the
figures correctly, the Department of Agriculture was spending about $11,000,000 back in 1928 or 1929. It is one department that was cut very heavily by the former government, probably more than any other department. Apparently the late government did not consider agriculture of as great importance as the present government does. We have been gradually building the department up; it is not yet back where it was when we left it in 1930.


Harry James Barber: Building it up by increasing travelling expenses. I notice there appears to be a decrease from the estimates of last year. We must bear in mind that the supple-mentaries are yet to come down, which will no doubt increase this item, which now reaches $965,000 for travelling expenses alone.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I was somewhat surprised to hear the minister make the rather facetious reference he did-I am sure it must have been by way of humour-when he mentioned that the previous administration had not quite as high a regard for agriculture as this administration has. He must have been listening to the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman).


James Garfield Gardiner: He expressed a general opinion.


Gordon Graydon: I would point out that
there is among farmers in eastern Canada a growing feeling that much more attention should be paid to them and their problems than is paid by this House of Commons. Although we spend in the neighbourhood of half a billion dollars here, only one-fiftieth
of the entire expenditure goes to agriculture. It is not much wonder that the farmers of eastern Canada are asking members of parliament what is being done for eastern Canadian agriculture. Something must be done soon to help many of these specialty lines of agriculture in which eastern Canada is so much interested. I am sure there is not one hon. member from an agricultural constituency in eastern Canada who begrudges the amounts given from time to time to agricultural pursuits in other parts of Canada. And while I have never advocated a rising tide of expenditure, but rather the opposite, I think there are many departments of government which might give way and have their estimates reduced and thereby allow more to be spent upon the development of eastern Canadian agriculture. One particular problem in many ridings similar to my own is in connection with vegetables. Vegetables may not seem so very important to the minister, but I point out to him this cogent fact, that the problem of the vegetable grower in Ontario and elsewhere is one which ultimately must be met.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but fruit and vegetables come under the next item, No. 10.


Gordon Graydon: The Minister of Agriculture looks very much interested, and perhaps the committee will allow me to finish my remarks in regard to agricultural economics. I am speaking more particularly on the subject of research. In any event I may point out to the minister that so far as the vegetable growing industry in eastern Canada is concerned there is a feeling that these growers do not always get a square deal. I think some of this money which is voted from time to time for research might well be applied to the vegetable industry in the province of Ontario and elsewhere. Among their other grievances 'the vegetable growers feel that the statistics with regard to their industry, for instance, do not indicate the real importance of that industry to Canada as a whole, and I would suggest to the minister that this is one way in which a substantial portion of the money voted for agricultural economics might very well be spent. I draw that to the attention of the minister in all fairness, and I hope when he has further remarks to make with regard to the contrast as compared with the administration of previous years, he will consider that, after all, in those years conditions generally were somewhat different from the conditions that exist to-day.


Mr. GOLDING:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Agriculture-Economics


Gordon Graydon: We did not have the expanding revenues of the present day; nor did we have the expanding expenditures, I would point out to the hon. member for Huron-Perth. Having regard to our expenditures throughout Canada as a whole, it seems to me that under this administration the Department of Agriculture has not received a fair proportion of that increased expenditure.


Mr. MASSEY:: On March 16 'the hon.
member for Essex East introduced a resolution in this house, the latter part of which I should like to read. I shall noit read the preamble, which is a tome in itself, but the latter part states:
Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion of this house, the government
(a)	should consider the necessity for improved marketing facilities;
(b)	should consider the need for providing adequate storage, drying, government grading and inspection facilities in order that the quality of the corn be improved and its production increased.
That motion was agreed to, and I think it would be of interest to the committee if the minister would state what has since been done in this connection.


Mr. MARTIN:: Before the minister replies, perhaps I, as the mover of that resolution, might be given an opportunity to say a word. When the resolution was brought forward, the Minister of Agriculture was not in his place, and it will be remembered that the Minister of Trade and Commerce accepted the resolution in so far as it dealt with the grading, inspection and weighing of com.
Before the Minister of Agriculture replies,
I may say also that the board of grain commissioners have made arrangements pursuant to the observations of the Minister of Trade and 'Commerce, and will this month, I am advised, visit Canada's outstanding riding, Essex East, which is the greatest county in Canada, to consider and to implement the observations made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I thank the hon. member for Greenwood, who represents a city riding and who has not the opportunity that is afforded me and many other hon, members, to represent so many farmers in this country, for making the .observations he did make, because it will give the Minister of Agriculture a chance to tell the committee first of all that he had the opportunity of reading my speech, and, second, of telling the committee briefly what his department considers to be the importance to this country of the great com growing industry of western Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: One of the few speeches I have read this session was the speech of the hon. member for Essex East in regard to corn. Ever since I came to this house the hon. member has been extremely persistent in placing before the government the requirements of Essex East in relation to corn. We had two different inquiries made in that section before the resolution was moved in the house, and as a result of those inquiries we have improved our methods of assistance in regard to the production of better seed in that area, and the improvement of the seed generally that is being used by farmers in that section of Ontario. In addition, we have adopted a certain policy in connection with the encouragement of the establishment of driers, somewhat on the basis of our policy in connection with cold storage warehouses, which was discussed earlier in the day. As yet no desire has been expressed to have that policy developed in that section, but we hope something along that line may be done during this summer. So far as this department is able to cooperate with the Department of Trade and Commerce in promoting the marketing of corn in those counties, we shall be pleased to do so.
In reply .to the hon. member for Peel, I would say that last summer I had the privilege of driving through Essex East, Kent and other sections where vegetable growing is a very important branch of agriculture. I quite agree with him that very few people outside that section of Canada realize the importance of the vegetable growing industry both to that section and to Canada as a whole. I am sure that when we come to item No. 10, which has to do with fruit and vegetables, the hon. member will be desirous of obtaining further information.


Gordon Graydon: When the Minister of Agriculture says that after going through the county of Essex and adjacent parts of Ontario, his understanding of the great vegetable growing industry was very largely increased, he greatly encourages me. May I suggest that to conclude his investigation, and as the crowning point in the formation of his opinion, he should drop into the county of Peel some time and look it over. Then he will become convinced beyond all shadow of doubt that the vegetable growing industry really amounts to something in this country.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister has been very agreeable to-night, and I think the chairman has been quite lenient in allowing such a wide range of discussion. I did want to have something to say about what the minister said

Supply-Agriculture-Economics
with regard to the cheese producers' association, and I should have liked to ask further questions about the reorganization. The minister gave us a good deal of information about this reorganization, but if he would prefer that I wait and ask the questions on another item, perhaps when the last item of his department comes up, I am perfectly willing to do so.


William Earl Rowe: I do not want to hold up the item for any length of time, but it seems to me the government might give us some intimation as to what steps have been taken towards greater coordination as between the federal and provincial departments of agriculture. I think this might well come under the agricultural economics branch, since in the last half hour we have discussed so many matters that it would seem that almost anything might come under this branch. I believe some time ago in Ontario it was even suggested by the premier of the province that the provincial departments of agriculture, labour and health might be taken over by the government at Ottawa.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who made that suggestion?


William Earl Rowe: The
premier of Ontario. Whether or not after that time he lost confidence in this government I do not know, so I cannot say whether that, is still under consideration by the government at Queen's Park. It at least gives rise to concern as to what might be done by way of coordination of effort. I believe it was the intention of those who drew up the British North America Act that the provinces would have to do with the production and the dominion would have to do with the distribution of agricultural products. It was understood, I believe, that the different provinces would establish the departments for that purpose. One can readily see from the reports given to the house that the dominion department has gone far afield from what was considered the original intent under the British North America Act. In these days almost as much consideration is given to production by the dominion department. I am not suggesting for one moment that consideration of production should be confined entirely to the provinces, but I feel that in order to standardize our grades it is necessary that there should be coordination of the efforts of the provinces. The minister has not given us any indication as to what steps, if any, have been taken, or what consideration has been given to a closer coordination of efforts of the different departments. While
travelling expenses have been paid for efficient officers who have travelled far afield to study agricultural economics in other countries, it is my belief that more attention should be given to certain conditions in connection with research which could be carried on in Canada.
According to the minister's report I realize that many matters were considered by this branch. Among other things he has mentioned the utilization of lands in Saskatchewan and Alberta, the consumption of agricultural products in representative cities, a study of the terminal market facilities for fruits and vegetables in the city of Toronto, and an analysis of farm loan experience in Saskatchewan. It would appear that the economics branch deals with the broader interests of Canadian agriculture rather than simply the matter of overseas marketing. I believe the minister would do well to tell us what was done in connection with cooperation with the provinces with respect to local production and distribution, especially in view of the fact that such a high percentage of our market is in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: This whole matter
was discussed under item No. 3, the vote dealing with the advisory committee on agricultural services. That committee is set up, meets at least twice a year and it is discussing these questions continuously. I do not wish to discuss a matter which has been discussed before under the proper item.


William Earl Rowe: The report of last year makes specific reference to the economics branch. Surely the minister would not imply that all these matters are considered under item No. 3 in the estimates where an expenditure of only $5,000 is involved? The matter I have in mind involves an expenditure of $120,000. Surely the item of agricultural economics was not fully discussed under item No. 3?


James Garfield Gardiner: The economics branch
is concerned only in so far as it may prevent overlapping with economics investigations that are carried on. Those are carried on in cooperation with the provincial governments. It is only on the request and in cooperation with them that these investigations are carried on.


Gordon Graydon: I notice in the details
at page 55 of the estimates with respect to agricultural economics that there is an increase in staff from twelve to twenty, and an additional salary vote from $55,641.25 to $82,520. Would the minister give some information with respect to the extension of services involved?
Supply-A g ric ullu re-E conomica


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a salaries increase of $26,878.75. Then, under the heading of "permanent," there is provision for eight positions authorized for additional activities in connection with the organization of agricultural marketing services; the promotion and upward revision and classification of rates authorized by the civil service commission, amounting to $1,740. Then, there is provision for statutory increases to the extent of $1,425; return of salary deductions amounting to $1,518.75, and the temporary amount required to pay salary for a full year to the personnel taken on during 1937 and 1938, $2,272. Then, for one stenographer, grade 1, authorized September 16, 1937, there is an amount of $720, and the statutory increase for the office boy, amounting to $240. There is the return of salary reductions amounting to $513, giving a total of $3,745.
Then, for four positions abolished there is the amount of $6,120, and the amount required for additional temporary staff is $6,000. In connection with travelling expenses the increase amounts to $10,123, the break-up showing the expenses of the staff of the markets information division organized in 1937 as amounting to $2,000. There is provision for travelling expenses in connection with the study of the demand for Canadian farm products in the United Kingdom, amounting to $2,250, and a further provision for travelling expenses in Canada in connection with following new projects, the analysis of prices and grades of apples, the study and cost of farm living, the survey of credit in Ontario, the Agricultural Outlook, and special investigations, totalling $5,873. The miscellaneous item amounts to $1,015.


Gordon Graydon: I thank the minister for that information, although I had not expected he would give it in such detail. As I understand the situation, the increase is largely brought about by virtue of increased marketing service activities.
I believe the Agricultural Situation and Outlook, which is published every year, comes under this vote. In vieiw of the avalanche of criticism one hears in connection with votes of this kind, I think we ought, on the other hand to give credit where credit is due. My own personal experience, and I believe that of a great many farmers, has been that the editions of the Agricultural Situation and Outlook have been most useful in connection with agricultural problems. Most of us who came from farms have seen great numbers of agricultural publications of a useless type come through the mail, and we are pleased to 
welcome something as practical as the Agricultural Situation and Outlook has proved to be. I do not think we should let this opportunity pass without expressing our appreciation of the efforts made by those who edit this publication to provide a first class service for the farmers of our country. The farmers in my constituency seem to be more than satisfied with the type of service given by this publication. I do not think there is any other publication issued by the department that is more acceptable to practical farmers.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have in my hand the report of the Minister of Agriculture for 1937. In that part of it having to do with the economics branch, it states that the research activities of this branch were continued during the year. One of the chief items of research was the consumption of agricultural products in representative cities throughout the dominion. I do not know just how far that investigation has proceeded, but it seems to me that it brings up a live question in connection with the importation of vegetable oils and its effect upon the consumption of lard and butter in our cities. Have the officials who are conducting this investigation made any report to the department? How far has the investigation been continued? I think this is a matter that affects agriculture not only in Ontario but throughout the dominion. Sooner or later we shall have to make a complete study of the effect that these importations have upon the agricultural life of our country, particularly our live stock industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: Investigations have been carried on in Vancouver, Calgary, Oshawa and Quebec, and the reports thereon are now available to any one who desires to get them. There has been no special investigation into the relationship of vegetable oil importations and the consumption of dairy products. It is well known that last year there was an increase in the production of dairy products as well as in the consumption. Whether there would have been a greater consumption had there not been so much vegetable oil coming in, is something I am not at the moment prepared to say. That is a question upon which there has been considerable discussion.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is a vague answer. I believe the minister, like some of the rest of us, has a decided idea as to what effect the use of vegetable oils for shortening and spreading purposes has upon our live stock industry, our dairy industry and our fish industry. Is it contemplated that any such investigation shall be held? It seems to me that is one line along which research could

Immigration Act
be made. It would prove of great advantage to agriculture generally. The minister named the four cities in which an investigation has been conducted, and without wanting to say anything against any of these cities I think it will be admitted that Oshawa and Quebec are not our larger centres of population. Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg are our largest cities, and it seems to me it would have been more to the point to conduct investigations at those points. I do not know who was responsible for choosing these cities, but surely some investigation should be undertaken along the line I have indicated.


James Garfield Gardiner: The cities chosen for
the first investigation were typical cities. Provision is being made in this item for a survey of the Ottawa market. I think I stated earlier in the evening that provision is also being made in connection with Toronto. The investigations have been completed in the four cities I have named, but the work is continuing from one end of Canada to the other.


Denton Massey: How are the investigations being conducted?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under Doctor Booth in cooperation with the provincial authorities.


Denton Massey: What is the procedure?


James Garfield Gardiner: A house to house canvass as to consumption.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Will there be an extensive study made of the effect of the importation of vegetable oils upon our dairy industry?


James Garfield Gardiner: I stated a moment ago that this is not being done.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Will it be included in
the investigations being made?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not under the present
study.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: This is a live question
among householders who are beginning to realize that much of their shortening is made of vegetable oil.


William Earl Rowe: I think
this is very important because of that one factor.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not proper for us to discuss it; that is the only thing.


William Earl Rowe: Whenever
the minister is asked a question which he finds it difficult to answer, he says it should be brought up under another item. I suggest that he has a lot more to answer than that question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Since the hon. gentleman has taken that attitude, I should like to tell him that the item under which this should have been discussed has been passed already. We have passed the item dealing with dairy products, and that was the one under which this matter should have been discussed. If it is simply a case of carrying over this item to another day because the hon. member did not avail himself of the opportunity of asking his question under that item, then I should like to say that we shall have to stay closer to the rules in future discussions.


William Earl Rowe: I do not
want the minister to assume now that I am taking any particular attitude.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 13, 1938