Mr. LUDGER DIONNE (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. At the outset may I crave the indulgence of this house, on whose generosity I hope I can count, to make a statement with reference to the extensively publicized question of the one hundred Polish girls whom I have brought to Canada. I consider it my duty to inform the house and the people as to the exact facts pertaining to this matter. If my colleagues r.nd Your Honour will kindly permit me to do so, I shall immediately proceed with my statement. It will take me about thirty minutes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Has the hon. gentleman unanimous consent to make the statement?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman may proceed.


Ludger Dionne: It has been said in this house that I am short of female help. That is true, since my mill was built in 1941. It is also true that there was a turnover of 550 girls in my mill in 1945. The reason for the turnover is mainly the shortage of houses in St. Georges. We had to hire some farmer girls from the neighbouring communities. These girls have no board to pay at the parents' homes, and they are not obliged to work. If they do so it is mostly because they wish to make a few dollars for their personal expenditures. Furthermore they have to go home in the spring to help make maple syrup and sow and gather the crops, so we cannot rely on these girls as steady employees. In a few words, these girls are not industrially minded, and are not looking to make a career out of their jobs. In the meantime my mill is operating under adverse conditions. Other mills all over Canada whom I supply with varn consequently are in the same situation, because they cannot rely on steady weekly deliveries from my plant to keep in full operation.
In order to illustrate the dislocation that an irregular supply of yarn produces in a weaving mill, let me tell you that looms in such mills consume a definite quantity of yarn daily. When this plant runs out of yarn the looms have to be stopped and help discharged. When production resumes or increases,

Privilege-Mr. L. Dionne

employees have gone away on other jobs and cannot be replaced except by inexperienced help. The same conditions apply to the knitting industry and dress-making establishments. The owners of knitting and weaving plants could not stand such adverse conditions. So they went to the United States and bought yarns to keep their looms in operation. As the price of yarn is much higher in the United States than in Canada, the Canadian government has to give a subsidy on United States yarns to these manufacturers, in order to keep the selling price of their fabrics in line with the ceilings imposed by the wartime prices and trade board.
Who will have to pay for this? The Canadian people. Who is penalized by lack of employment? The labouring class in this country. During the war I bought buses to bring help to the mill from neighbouring communities. Unfortunately this method was too expensive to be carried on after the war. I advertised in rural newspapers all over the province for months asking for female help. I wrote to the parish priests and mayors of municipalities from Beaumont to Gaspe, including the Magdalen islands, without success.
When the dominion arsenals were closed in Quebec city I got in touch with the employees social welfare officers of those plants to get some female help, but with no more success. I also got in touch with the unemployment office.
In 1945 I built ten apartment houses to shelter large families who would be willing to come to St. Georges. I had authority from the wartime prices and trade board to charge S40 a month rent for those houses. I offered them to my employees for S20 a month, which is the price they are still paying me.
All this was not enough. I was still short of female help. I cannot understand why I should be blamed for trying to improve the conditions in my mill, and at the same time to improve the conditions in other mills in Canada.
It has been said that the wage paid in my plant to female help was 25 cents an hour. This is exact for the first month. But the second month the rate is 30 cents. I would like the house to know that these salaries are above the minimum imposed by the province of Quebec. When girls become more acquainted with their respective duties they are paid on piecework. When a girl has gained enough experience she can make a salary of from S16 to $25 a week, according to her ability and her ambition. The price the girls have to pay for their room and board at St. Georges is between $5.50 and $6 a week. This is due to the offices

of the good nuns who make it possible, by their devotion to duty and humanity. I think these salaries are not so bad when compared with those paid in Ontario, where the cost of living is much higher.
I have received many letters from people all over the country since this matter has been debated in the house. I will read only one, to show you that facts are much different from words. This letter is from Toronto, under date of June 2, and states:
For the last few days since the arrival of the two groups of Polish girls to work at the Dionne spinning mills we have heard blasphemy over the radio and newspapers about you and your good heart. I, as a Polish-French girl, wish to tell you that, as I see this case, I am proud to say I see nothing wrong. What you are doing to my Polish sisters is a great magnificent deed.
I cannot express myself exactly what I think, but I am very proud of your work.
I would like to tell you that these people who spread blasphemies about your work are people who do not look into their own front garden to see whether it is as perfect as the neighbour's garden, before criticizing others. These people say that you pay very little, whereas here in Toronto people receive the same amount and no one mentions about it. I will give you an example as to myself and many other girls similar to myself. In November, 1946, I worked as an experienced hand at $12.50 a week. That was after finishing high school and graduating a year later from designing school, which cost my parents $150. The reason I could hold out on a pay as this was because of my good parents that gave me room and board free. But my money was spent for carfare and lunch. The remaining money went for other expenses, which was not much.
The rest of the letter is to the same effect. Some people have declared that if I was short of labour the reason was that I did not pay salaries high enough to attract labour. Well, any textile man will tell you that it costs $100 to	his	employees	rather	than	lose	it	inthat when there is a turnover of 550 girls in a plant in a year it costs the employer $55,000. Do you not think that an employer who knows his business would prefer to give this $55,000 to	his	employees	rather	than	lose	it	in
inefficiency and be always operating with learners?
I have enough experience to tell you that when a girl has decided to quit her job, either to get married or to enjoy the beautiful summer sun at her home, there is no money to keep her working in a plant.
Some union members have declared there were 2,000 women out of jobs in Quebec city. I knew that. I endeavoured to take advantage of this reservoir of female help. But Quebec girls do not want to come to work in the country.
The responsibility of an employer is to keep his plant in full operation at all timees in order

Privilege-Mr. L. Dionne
to improve the conditions of his employees. When a plant is working at part capacity it costs the same price for fuel, electricity, water, insurance, interest on money, overhead and the like. The elementary duty of an employer who is short of labour is to try to hire some and keep his mill in full production. In a spinning plant there must be a certain percentage of female help and male workers. The more female help I can get, the more male employees I can give work to. This improved situation will reflect itself in weaving and knitting mills, as well as in dress shops throughout Canada.
Someone has said that the textile industry is the worst industry in Canada in the matter of wages. In view of the information I have placed before the house, I hope hon. members will admit that the textile industry is not so bad, after all, so far as wages and working conditions are concerned.
The same person has said-and I quote this from page 2480 of Hansard.
It is therefore unfortunate that we should bring these women in and put them in the worst industry in the worst province.
I am not ready to admit this. I have a duty on behalf of my constituents to protest against this declaration as being inexact. People living in my constituency, and more particularly in St. Georges, are happy, and would not change their way of living with that of the constituents of any other province.
We all know that the province of Quebec is the rampart against agitators and advocates of socialism, communism and atheism. These trouble makers db not make much headway because our people have the knowledge of sound principles of life, such as the dignity of man, that the state exists for man and his needs and not vice versa, and a firm belief in the unit of civilization which is the family. We also believe that the province of Quebec is a good place to bring up our families in the love of God, of our country, of our province and of our fellow man. With these principles we cannot help but be good citizens.
When I arrived in London I was directed by the intergovernmental committee on refugees to General Wood in Frankfurt. When I reached Frankfurt, Germany, I was received by General Wood and Mr. Elliott Shirk, United States director of intergovernmental committee on refugees in Germany. These people were very helpful and courteous. There are two organizations looking after the refugees: the UNRRA, who have charge of camps, and the I.G.C.R.-that is the abbreviation for the intergovernmental committee on 83166-264*
refugees-who have the exclusive authority to analyse each request for refugees, accept or reject them. The girls were actually selected by the international Catholic welfare association and were examined by Canadian doctors. The reason why they were selected by the international Catholic welfare association was that the I.G.C.R. had no time to look after my request, being busy with 15,000 miners they had to send to Belgium, 5,000 families for Brazil and 1,500 for Venezuela. They authorized the international Catholic welfare association to look after my request.
It took me four weeks before I could have access to some camps. It would be silly to report all the details of the different conferences that were held on the matter between the UNRRA and I.G.C.R. authorities. Some officers made the same accusations against me at these conferences as those that were made in the House of Commons not long ago, namely, "sold into slavery; sold down the river," "brought here to be exploited1"; "contract labour"; "cannot marry for two years"; "they are slaves until they pay back their transportation." There is only one accusation that was made by them which was not repeated here. Here it is: I was accused of bringing these women into Canada for prostitution purposes. I imagine this accusation was not made against me in this country because nobody would have believed it. It only goes to show the extent to which some people will go to accomplish their ends, to create discord and confusion amongst free nations while they proceed to grab the poor unfortunates now in displaced persons camps.
The result of these conferences brought orders from the I.G.C.R. to open the doors of the camps and let me in with the officers of the international Catholic welfare association. Just a week or two after this was finally decided upon, some members of this house and the press began to criticize me. It is possible some people in this country were unknowingly spreading communistic propaganda. After all, how can you explain the turmoil which has been created in this matter and which spread so rapidly, not only in Canada but in the United States and England? What do 100 girls amount to if you compare them to 850,000 who are in the German camps? A drop in the bucket. To support my suspicion, I will read an article which appeared in a Frankfurt newspaper on the 22nd of May. I quote:
Frankfurt, Germany:	Elliott M. Shirk, U.S.
Zone, Director of the intergovernmental committee on refugees now in displaced persons camps, charged today that Russia has actively opposed and obstructed resettlement of displaced
Privilege-Mr. L. Dionne

persons, and their tactics have created fear and despair in their minds, and is a planned campaign to libel the motives and actions of displaced persons who refuse to return to eastern European countries. Mr. Shirk also said that Russian demands for forcible repatriation was coupled with Soviet liaison officers attempts in Germany and Austria to accomplish the same *thing.
After all, Canada is a small country which we do not hear much about in European newspapers. All at once the press of the whole world practically is talking about 100 poor helpless girls who have come to Canada. If Canadian planes had dropped bombs on the Kremlin, there would not have been more publicity. Is there any sensible man to imagine that people are simple enough to believe that I deserve all the sharp criticism and false accusations made by some members in this house, as well as in the press? Is it possible that some underground concerted action might be behind this propaganda? I do not think I deserve any praise, because the motive that animated me was business, but when I witnessed this great human distress it finally ended in a humanitarian action.
I have assumed the guardianship of these war-torn refugees, many of whom have seen their fathers and mothers killed' and do not know where or if they have any relatives still living. Many of these girls are from sixteen to twenty years of age. I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute my feeble efforts to help them. I publicly7 state that I will carry out my part of the agreement to the best of my ability. I would like all of us Canadians, regardless of political ties and beliefs, to unite in a common effort to alleviate this tblot on humanity. Let us get more refugees from under the shadow of hunger, despair and violence and from under communist dictatorship and regimentation. Let us give them hope and individual dignity and make them free. I am certain that when we all die our Creator will not ask us what is our nationality, or what language we speak, or from what province we come, but rather: How did you love your neighbour? I hope that my 100 little Polish girls will help me answer that question.
Some members did not like the idea of bringing these girls to Canada by plane. There was no room available on ships, therefore there was no other means of transportation. I had to take immediate steps to bring these girls to Canada and I personally arranged and paid1 for their air transportation. I could not expect them to swim across.
Some trade union leaders have declared that these girls have left one concentration

camp in Germany to find another in Quebec. These leaders have not seen the building in which these girls are sheltered, because they would be ashamed to make such a false declaration. The foyer in St. Georges where these girls are living is a brand new building with terrazzo flooring all over, covered with pale grey battleship linoleum. The kitchen, dining room, lobbies and rooms are just as nice and clean as any up-to-date hotel in Ottawa. If you can call such a building a camp, my only wish is that everybody in Canada had such kind of camp to live in. We would not hear so much in this house about slums. The girls noted it as soon as they arrived, and seem to be very happy to have something to eat when they are hungry and enjoy freedom. Would it have been better if they had! been allowed to come to Canada under open immigration and landed in Canadian cities without any funds? Could they have counted on any support from labour leaders who made this charge? I have a letter here from a man who came to Canada from England on the Aquitania on the 15th of April asking me for a job. I will not read it, because it is marked "personal", but it shows clearly that people coming here without a job and without funds may be in a desperate situation.
Someone has talked about English immigration. How can you expect to get many immigrants from England when the Britishers themselves are canvassing the British zone in Germany to bring 100,000 refugees into their country?
Someone has said I should not have been allowed to make a contract with these Polish girls. Why not? What harm have I done to the country, to the girls and to any member of parliament in so doing? Would you have preferred that the government let these girls come into Canada and then have them look for a job themselves? I can visualize the criticism that would have been unloaded on the government right here in this house had that been done. After all, I am not responsible for this contract. It was drawn up and three hundred copies mimeographed by the authorities of the I.G.C.R. in London. One copy will be given to each girl and the others will be kept at the I.G.C.R. office in Ottawa. It is the same organization that has inserted, with my consent, in the contract the clause by which I am not allowed to deduct one cent from the salaries of the girls to refund me for their transportation. I have a copy of the contract right here and I will read the clause referring to transportation. Clause (d) reads:

Privilege-Mr. L. Dionne
No deduction from the wages will be made by the company for the cost of transportation of the worker from Germany to destination in Canada.
Someone has said in this house that the girls cannot freely think, act, associate or marry for two years. This is too ridiculous to answer. Someone has talked about government supervision in the selection of immigrants. I would like to emphasize that refugees are dying daily in these camps. Of the number of girls examined, there were many who were rejected by the Canadian officers in Germany. I will not give the percentage, or the percentage of those dying in camps, for fear my speech would reach their camps and add to their sufferings. If you had witnessed the tears and despair of some of these girls who were rejected by the Canadian officers, you would be deeply moved. Who will cure the victims of T.B.? Who will prevent the spreading of the disease in camps where there are some 14,000 people? In some cases a room 10 x 12 is the only space available for two and three families. How can you expect these people to live long enough under these conditions to wait for government formalities?
When one has to deal with such pressing conditions, words and speeches do not make much headway or bring much relief. It is action which is needed, and quick action. There are hundreds of thousands of girls in camps who would make good maids for private homes. How' many thousands can we absorb? No matter where you go in this country, in villages, towns and cities, you will hear people by thousands asking for maids. Having seen the suffering and the desperate situation of these refugees, I think those who need a maid cannot do any greater charity than to get one of these girls. I will go so far as to say that if the government is willing to grant the permits, the intergovernmental committee on refugees will handle the applications. The office of Mr. Colley, the representative of the I.G.C.R. in Canada, is located in the Royal Bank Building in Ottawa. I am sure any application sent to this gentleman will be given the attention and the cooperation it deserves.
The intergovernmental committee on refugees pays the fares of these refugees up to destination when they are brought over by boat and rail, so that nobody has to look after transportation. It may take some time to get the refugees here on account of the shortage of space on boats. However, when I was in Germany I met some people who told me they could put a boat at the disposition of the refugees provided that we could reserve space for 2,250 each voyage, in order to fill the
boat. I am convinced that it would be an easy matter to collect 2,250 applications from the people who need maids in this country.
In conclusion, I do not wish any of my remarks to be construed as an apology for my activities. I am proud of what I have done and would gladly repeat it if necessary.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into debate on this matter, but may I ask the hon .gentleman, since he has mentioned the contract and read a clause from it, that the entire contract be tabled? I would also like him to table if possible a copy of the correspondence with the government of Canada and with the international refugee organization. Is the hon. gentleman going to table a copy of what I asked for? The answer is no?


Mr. HOWE:: The contract has been tabled. I tabled it a week ago.


Ludger Dionne: I deposited the contract with the I.G.C.R. The originals are there. I have only a copy here.


Major James William Coldwell: May we have the copy laid on the table?


Ludger Dionne: Yes.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: A copy of it was tabled last week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of the standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) moved that the fifth report of the standing committee on standing orders presented on Tuesday, June 10, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May
I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Resources? In view of the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) which, as I jotted it down, seemed to indicate that there was shipping space available on boats if a contract for 2,250 passages were entered
Inquiries of the Ministry

into coming and going, will the minister comment upon it so that the house will be clear as to what the hon. member meant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department
of Mines and Resources has been actively engaged in attempting to find space for immigrants. It may well be that there is a source which has not been discovered. If ao I shall obtain further information and certainly explore the possibility.


Gordon Graydon: Was I right in my
assumption that the hon. member for Beauce did say that there was contract space available for 2,250 persons?



GIMLI BREAKWATER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, arising out of a telegram I have received from the mayor of Gimli regarding the destruction of part of the breakwater by the last storm which is causing buildings to fall into lake Winnipeg. Will the minister give me some assurance that the repairs will be made at once?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I received notice of this
question before coming into the house. I called up my officers and they told me that as yet they have received no report of these damages. I instructed the engineer in Winnipeg to make a survey, investigate and report. The moment I receive that report I shall communicate it to the hon. gentleman.



PEACE TREATIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of External Affairs. In view of the grave uncertainties and disturbing possibilities in certain sections of Europe, does the government intend at this session to press for approval of the treaties of peace involved in the resolution now on the order paper and dated May 28 last?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I think it will be proper at this session to ask the houses of parliament to approve the treaties of peace, as has been done in the United Kingdom and in the United States. The resolution on the order paper calls for such approval by the houses of parliament, and that is necessary
fMr. Gray don.]
before instruments of ratification can be deposited. When the motion was drafted in this form consideration was given to the question of how soon after it passes parliament it might be proper to deposit the instruments of ratification, which, as the hon. member knows, have to be signed by His Majesty the King. It was felt that we should endeavour to secure the approval of parliament now, and decide, in the light of the circumstances as they may exist at the time when His Majesty's instruments of ratification should be actually deposited.



FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bridges for the second reading of Bill No. 264, to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): When the house took recess at six o'clock yesterday I adjourned the debate. At that time I had almost come to the conclusion of my remarks, but I have a few more words to say with reference to some of the conditions in the fishing industry. I had dealt briefly with fishing, curing and part of the distribution. I now wish to place on record the plight the fishermen find themselves in at the present time.
Today fishermen and the industry are faced with lower prices for their produce and soaring high prices for all commodities and all supplies that they need to engage in their calling. As I said, the price of their commodity has dropped. The price of everything they purchase has advanced to a very high degree. I should just like to give a few of these prices in percentages. Take twine. The advance in twine of different kinds, makes and meshes has amounted to about 150 per cent during the last four years. Rope has advanced fully 150 per cent. These two articles are largely used in the fishing industry. Shooks which go into the making of boxes are in the same position. Shooks for boxes which contain up to 200 pounds have advanced, in price about 130 per cent. Shooks for medium-sized boxes have advanced 150 per cent. The smaller sized boxes which contain five, ten and twenty pounds and in which the great bulk of the fish is shipped have increased 290 per cent.
When we come to gear we find this situation. Let us look at the advance that has taken place in boats, for instance and repairs to boats, dories and all kinds of fishing smacks. These have increased in price from 60 per cent to 75 per cent. Wages have also increased. On the whole the fisherman is faced with highest prices

Fisheries Research Board
on everything he has to buy to continue his fishing. The prices of all his commodities, averaged together, show a percentage of 140, he has to pay this on all the gear which he must purchase for his fishing activities. These are the conditions which face the fishermen, the canners and the packers. This is one matter in respect to which the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) will, as soon as possible, endeavour to assist the fisherman so that he may continue his industry.
For a moment I wish to refer to the consumption of fish, as previous speakers did yesterday. Fish does not seem to be in the class of an essential food. Housewives do not look upon it as necessary, and I think that is the reason why it is not consumed in the same proportions as other stable foods. It was recorded here yesterday that the consumption per capita per annum of fish was 8i pounds, while the consumption of meat was 137 pounds, of eggs 38 pounds, and so on through the stable foods.
If the fisheries department could place before the housewives and the people of the country an educational programme to show the nutritional value of fish, I believe it would be a great help in the pressing time that the fishermen are having.
I wish to put on record a little item from the fisheries council bulletin with regard to the nutritional value of fish.
Nutritionally, no foods are better and a few are equal to fish. Proteins, fat, minerals are abundant. Protein is the most important food substance found in fish, an average serving supplying sufficient to satisfy the daily requirements of the body. The iron in seafoods helps to prevent anaemia. Iron prevents goitre. The important body functions are regulated by calcium. phosphorus, copper and magnesium, all of which are found abundantly in fish.
I think that if we had proper advertising of fish, with instructions in the preparation, of it for food, it would do a great deal to help the industry.
We have now before us Bill No. 264 to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act. The amendment to section 8 is intended, in my opinion, to take the control away from the Minister of Fisheries. Personally I do not agree with that. I believe that if more control were given the minister, so that he would not have to go to some other body when he had an idea of what was best for the industry, it would be better. I would rather see this clause remain as it is. However, we will deal with it when we come to it. I should like to see the minister retain control so that he oould urge on his own government that they give him adequate allowances for the further development of our great fishing industries.
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I will not keep the house long inasmuch as the members for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) covered the ground in outstanding fashion. However, I want to bring out one point I heard in the discussion, which interested me, namely that the solution of many of our fishing ills lies in the consumption of more fish. The point, as I am coming to see it, is that it is not going to be a solution at all because it looks as if we are depleting our banks to such an extent that it will be difficult to get any fish.
According to the December 7 issue of Collier's magazine, which contains an excellent article on the fishing industry, I gather that what is true on the Pacific coast is also true on the east coast. The grounds are being depleted to a large extent. Out of 100 fish caught in a drag, from 40 to 90 fish were not saleable and died. That was the result of a dragging experiment carried out by the halibut commission.
As far as sable-fish are concerned, in 1943 and 1944 statistical returns showed that out of 111 million pounds of sable-fish landed by line fishermen, draggers landed 2 million pounds, and it is recorded that there were more fish in the 2 million pounds than in the other proportion. So that with modern fishing the beds are being destroyed in both halibut and sable fishing. Granted that they are under the control of the international halibut commission, and to a large extent the problem of a continuous crop is solved there, but, the fact is that the season is now getting shorter and shorter. The season in No. 2 area lasted only thirty-nine days. Therefore it is not altogether price that is affecting the fishermen. The season is becoming shorter, and other means will have to be found to use their boats and equipment in order that they may carry on as an independent fleet.
On the east coast they have some form of credit legislation put through by the provincial authorities, but on the west coast we are not blessed with an advanced government that puts through that form of legislation. If we could get the federal authorities to assist the fishermen on the west coast with credit legislation, I have no doubt an independent fleet could be maintained.
I thought I would bring up these points, because it has been pointed out that a crisis is building up in the fishing industry. I do not know exactly how it can be solved under the present methods but I do hope that more
Fisheries Research Board

money will be allocated for educational purposes among the fishermen so that they will understand the problem they are facing.
While on the coast last winter I received complaints that there is not enough money allocated to the university of British Columbia extension department. There is a far greater amount allocated to the east coast, and yet 50 per cent of the fish are caught on the west coast. The fisherman appreciate this service and would like to see a greater amount allocated to this department. With the number of boats engaged in fishing constantly on the increase, a crisis is developing.
I fully believe that in the final analysis, if it is not going to end in a cut-throat affair, the fishing grounds will have to be far more rigidly controlled than at the present time, and to a large extent fishing will have to be turned into one large cooperative unit where self-discipline and education will be scattered among the fishermen so that they themselves will protect their grounds. At the present time, with so many competing interests, the fishermen at times cannot afford to be honest, and there is too much bootlegging of fish, and raiding as well. The only thing I can see as a solution for the fishing problem, so far as the west coast is concerned, is to have a complete cooperatively owned system of canning and processing of fish so that the fishermen will work through their own organization to protect their own interests.


Mr. A. W. STUART (Charlotte):: I assure you. Mr. Speaker, that my remarks will be brief and to the point, as most of the hon. members who have preceded me have been brief.
First I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by those who have taken part in this debate. It would appear that in discussing fisheries members on all sides of the house are pretty much of the same opinion as to the ills of the industry and what might be a cure or at least some relief in a very difficult situation. As has been stated already, the fishing industry is the first to feel the effects of the post-war period. Today conditions are not good. The facts must be faced and the problems studied very carefully. In my own county, marketing conditions are responsible for an enormous drop in production, particularly in the sardine trade where over fifty per cent of our markets are lost. It is hoped there will be an improvement in the near future. At the present time the supply is very much greater than the demand. Undoubtedly this seems incredible [Mr. Archibald.)
to many hon. members who are aware of the fact that millions of people in the world today are without necessary food.
The matter of markets and distribution would still seem to be one of our major problems in the fishing industry. If the industry is to survive in the maritime provinces, home consumption of fish must be encouraged and markets must be found for surplus. On different occasions I have pointed out in this chamber the absolute necessity of United States markets for our fishermen, and have suggested the benefits that might follow an international gathering of fishermen and government officials. Another matter I have continually brought to the attention of the fisheries department and research board is the necessity of establishing lobster hatcheries on the Atlantic coast. I am aware that an investigation was made into the hatcheries in the state of Maine and an unfavourable report brought back, but this information does not coincide with the reports I have received personally from the operators of hatcheries in the state of Maine, or with articles published in their fishing magazines. I could read several of those reports, but shall refrain from doing so at the present time. The great problem the Maine fishermen have to face in this regard is the lack of funds to carry on this important work. Our problem is not lack of funds but lack of interest or action by the research board. The United States, with a population of 130,000,000, is spending less on fisheries research than is Canada, with less than one-tenth that population. The fishermen in Maine, however, are interested to the extent that they provide funds themselves to carry on this work. If a lobster fisherman in the state of Maine catches a spawn or berried lobster, it is taken to the hatchery, where he is paid the sum of $1 for it. In many instances lobsters have appeared at these hatcheries three and four times. Each time a lobster is received a puncture is put in its tail, so they are able to say that some lobsters have been caught, liberated and caught again by fishermen and returned to the hatchery. If that much interest is taken in the lobster industry in the state of Maine I think it is time the research board in our own country decided at least to give the hatcheries one more try. This would please many fishermen on the Atlantic coast; and until this is done the feeling will always be that the industry is being neglected.
At this point I wish to make my stand very clear in regard to research. I realize the value of scientific research to the fishing industry. The exception I take, however, is that too

fisheries Kesearch Hoard
much time and money is spent on inland or sport fishing, while our commercial fisheries are neglected. I also agree with the statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) that we have too few practical men associated with the research board, too few men who have had actual experience. My thought is that the scientist is not always right. In his estimation a bumble bee should not be able to fly; the body is too large and the wings too small, but very much to his disgust and amazement it does fly. I believe this same rule would apply in many instances in reference to the fishing industry. Knowledge obtained over a period of years in any industry should be helpful to the government department concerned, and in this case such information could be useful to the officials if they were willing to accept it. I regret, however, that little consideration is given ideas that do not originate within the department. In other words suggestions coming from those on the outside are not greatly appreciated.
I have no complaint whatever in regard to the minister. I believe he is earnestly striving to put his department in order and to assist every branch of the fishing industry in all parts of the country. At the same time I fully realize that he must be guided by the officials of his department. It would be very much out of order for him to do otherwise. Any suggestions coming from the outside must be very carefully studied and screened by the officials, after which a report is made; and the minister naturally is influenced by that report in coming to a decision. During the months of July hundreds of thousands of spawn or berried lobsters will be available in the maritime provinces. It is to be regretted that they are of little interest to the fisheries research board. Therefore I would again impress upon the officials of this department the importance of the lobster fishing industry to the maritime provinces, and at the same time point out to them the indifferent attitude they have taken to date.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the other day I was obliged to call to order an hon. member who was reading his speech. I think it only fair, therefore, to suggest to the hon. member who now has the floor that he is reading his speech and that he should not do so.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am reading a portion of it, but I can assure you I am not reading it completely.
In one portion of this bill mention is made of superannuation for the employees of the fisheries research board, and I think
this is a good idea. In my own town I know of employees of this board who have been working for the department for perhaps thirty years. Unless there is some change in the regulations, however, when it comes time for these men to retire they have no chance in the world of obtaining any benefits by way of superannuation. I believe an injustice is being done in this case, and that these men should receive exactly the same consideration as other people in the government service who come under the Civil Service Act. Two particular friends of mine have been with the department for many years. Their work has been very helpful to the research board and the biological board, and I feel that this department should take action at the present time to see that these people are placed in exactly the same position as other government employees. There are also younger men who have been with the department for perhaps only a year, two years or a little more. My understanding is that they have never had an opportunity of becoming members of the civil service. At one time I believe a vote was taken, but men who had been in the service for many years voted the measure down. Many of these employees are keenly interested in becoming civil servants. As to the older men, I believe it would be impossible for them now to pay into the fund sufficient to give them the amount of pension they rightly deserve and such instances some adjustment will be necessary. But I would urge upon the minister and the department that they give careful consideration to the providing of pensions for men who have given years and years of faithful service to the research board and the fisheries department.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, there is very little I wish to say in this connection, because, as other hon. members have said, the ground has been fairly well covered. But in my opinion the government-and by that I mean of course the Department of Fisheries-will have to give more attention to the conservation of our fish resources. I do not know that there is any natural resource which will respond more quickly to proper conservation methods than the fishing industry. On the other hand, the industry can be quickly depleted if orderly fishing and other conservation methods are not provided for. Of course orderly fishing in itself is a method of conservation.
From what I can hear and read my impression is that the fishing industry is getting into a bad way. Certain kinds and classes of fish have now' reached the point where the supply is greater than the demand
Fisheries Research Board

If that condition continues or develops to any considerable extent, the fishermen, who never were very prosperous, will again be in a bad way.
I hold in my hand the bulletin for April of the Fisheries Council of Canada. I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to one or two statements made by Dr. D. B. Finn, formerly deputy minister of fisheries, now director of the fisheries division of the food and agriculture organization. I gather from what Dr. Finn has said that he believes we shall have to enter into international marketing arrangements in connection with fish and in saying this I do not believe I am placing too wide an interpretation on what he said. Dr. Finn stated that the surplus of fresh and frozen fish already developing would probably lead to more fish under salt, and eventually produce a surplus in that commodity. He said that might lead to a fall in price. And to quote him-
If this occurs the danger is that fishermen's incomes will fail to support them at minimum standards of living. Price support subsidies and relief will follow.
Then he went on to point out that aggressive countries in need of markets are already recapturing some of the markets we had during the war. To quote further:
The resulting fight will mean ruin to all-the downward spiral, which we know so well, will have commenced. He offered as solutions the conviction and understanding that this problem is common to all countries-
-and that it should be studied cooperatively, in an effort to find an orderly method of marketing. Then, further in this regard he said:
I am sure that we all wonder what the result will be when, after recovery, Europe's normal production is added to that which we already have. The fish canning industry is well aware of such questions. Once again we shall have to face the problem of adjusting the power of the world to consume the goods if we are to avoid the consequences of expanded capacity to produce, the consequences which we felt in the depression of the inter-war period . . .
Surely, if there is a solution, it lies in the direction that has already been struck. It lies in a thorough examination of the nature of the problem, such as is taking place in Washington by the preparatory commission on world food proposals.
So that all I would care to add to what has already been said is that the fishing industry in this country is an exceedingly important one. It is important in the matter of the wealth produced, and in the production of fish as a healthful and staple food. Any serious setback to the fishing industry would be a serious setback to the economy of Canada. Every-

thing that possibly can be done by the Depart-of Fisheries to help the fishing industry should be done.


Mr. J. L. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to what has already been said. I shall be as brief as possible so that this measure may be passed, because there is a great deal of work before the house.
First I would compliment hon. members who have spoken in the debate, because I believe all have added something to the general knowledge on the subject. I believe all hon. members will agree that this is a pretty fair bill; it is a step in the right direction. I believe it is fairly well agreed in the house that what we need for. a solution of the basic problem confronting the fishing industry of Canada is a greater consumption of fish.
I believe, too, all hon. members agree that the Fisheries Prices Support Act should be implemented in due course. However there seems to be considerable disagreement among hon. members as to just how this legislation can be most effective.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maelnnis) has just read a statement which would indicate that probably subsidies will be necessary, unless some action is taken. In the House of Commons there are about twenty men representing fishing constituencies. All look like intelligent chaps-at least they talk like them-and it has occurred to me that members of parliament may depend too much on the minister and his officials in dealing with problems which we as members should be helping them to meet. We know a good deal about fish, and the marketing of fish. It is pretty well agreed that we would eat larger quantities of fish if it was presented in the proper way, if it was palatable, and if the purchaser could always be assured of its freshness. If between now and the time the estimates for the Department of Fisheries are before the committee hon. members were to give some study to the problem, I am sure they would be able to give the minister and his officials some good suggestions as to how we can increase our consumption of fish.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) said last year she was certain the women in the prairie provinces would be glad to eat more fish if it were made available to them at reasonable prices, and if they could be assured of its freshness. I happen to be associated with the fishing industry and I have seen products offered for sale to the consumers of Canada that I would not feed to my cat and to tell you the truth I do not care much for cats.

Fisheries Research Board
One of the areas in Canada turned down the opportunity to have the government inspect their canned products. I think that was one of the greatest mistakes that area ever made. They did not want to have the government grade their fish and guarantee to the consumer that it would be good fish when he got it. They just have not sold their product. Up in the restaurant you get excellent food, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has said, but the finnan haddie they serve does not taste like the finnan haddie I used to eat. I think the cause of this is that there is not enough smoke in it. Smoking dries out the fish, and it does not weigh so much, but that is the only way you can get flavour into finnan haddie. I think the fish packers in the mari-times could put out an excellent product, but they seem to have decided that there is more money in selling water than in selling smoke.
There are many ideas which the fish packers themselves could introduce in order to make their products more attractive. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) says that he would like to see this a government controlled enterprise, but I do not think anyone would be eating fish after a few years of that.


Mr. KNOWLES:: He said a cooperative.


John Lambert Gibson: I think there is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to assist the minister in solving this problem. It is a great problem in Canada. If all we have to do to cure the ills of the fishing industry in Canada is to have people eat five pounds more per year, I do not feel we should have any difficulty in solving the problem provided we use a little imagination.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members from the east and west coasts have made important contributions to the debate, but I would remind the house that there is a fishing industry in the central portion of Canada. WThile there are not many people depending upon the fishing industry for a livelihood in my constituency, it is an important industry in the far north. When the act was passed in 1937 apparently that fact was lost sight of, because section 4 reads:
The board shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the minister as follows: two from the department, two representing the fishery industry on the Atlantic coast, two representing the fishery industry on the Pacific coast, and nine scientists selected from a list including nominations which may be made by any Canadian university whose staff embraces scientists engaged in research work in any way bearing upon fishery problems . . .
I note that no proposal has been made to revise the act to make sure that there would be representatives from the prairies on the board.
I take exception also to the continued policy of the government that no member of the board shall receive payment or emolument for his services as such, but that each member shall receive such payments for his travelling and other expenses in connection with the work of the board as may be approved by the governor in council. As a matter of policy I do not think we should limit membership on important boards to those who are able to give all their time without compensation. If the members of the board are to do a worthwhile job the minister should not make any apology in coming to parliament and asking that they be paid for the time spent doing this important work.
When the minister was speaking in April to the council he said :
It is a commonplace to say that the prosperity of Canada depends mainly on the levels of export trade. But of all Canadian industries, there is hardly one more dependent on exports than is the fishing industry.
I want to support the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) who said that we have a market here in Canada which has never really been cultivated. W'hen we consider that our consumption is less than ten pounds per person per year as compared with over 100 pounds in Denmark and Japan, as he pointed out, I think we should be looking at our own market. Those of us who were at the luncheon at the chateau the other day will agree I think that if they had to select one item on the menu and none other they would have taken the Gaspe salmon. That is the kind of food that one remembers having eaten. It show's that Canadian fish can be served in Canadian restaurants and provide pleasure 1o those who eat it. I think more could be done to make sure that the scientific information we have with regard to the handling of fish is acted upon in order that our own citizens, and tourists and visitors, may be able to get good quality fish in all parts of the country more frequently than once a week.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just, a word about the amendments to the act proposed by this bill. It seems to me that they will add to the efficiency of the board. As the bill is to be referred to a committee I was surprised at the length of time this debate has taken. It seems to me it would have been more appropriate to discuss the matter of fisheries when
412S
Fisheries Research Board

(he estimates were before the house. However, that is perhaps a matter upon which I cannot speak with any authority.
I want to support the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) who has requested that further attention be given to establishing lobster hatcheries along the bay of Fundy on the Atlantic coast. Two years ago I proposed in the house that lobster hatcheries should be established and the matter was referred by the minister to the biological research board which made an adverse report.
This report, of which the minister kindly let me have a copy, says that the lobster fisheries aiong the New England coast have more than doubled in the last few years. I have not the figures before me, but. I know the lobster fisheries along the bay of Fundy have not increased in any such proportion. If the lobster fisheries along the New England coast have increased to such a great extent there must be reasons for it. It seems to me that one of the reasons is the fact that lobster hatcheries were established in the state of Maine. There may be others, but surely there must be some connection between the increase in the lobster fisheries along the New England coast and the establishment of the lobster hatcheries. I have been informed that the lobster fishermen on the island of Grand Manan attribute their increased catches to the Maine hatcheries.
If there is nothing in these hatcheries, if they are to be damned as the report submitted to the minister suggests, how is it that only last year the state of Massachusetts established one or more of them? New England people are long-headed; they do not throw their money away merely for the purpose of erecting hatcheries if they do not produce results. The fisheries people in Massachusetts must have investigated the matter pretty thoroughly before they went ahead and put up their hatcheries. I know it is difficult for the minister in view of the report he has received, but I would urge upon him that he give further consideration to the establishment of lobster factories along the shores of the bay of Fundy. Let him give the matter another try, in view of the experience of and the modern methods which have been adopted in the state of Maine and wall be adopted in the hatcheries in Massachusetts.
There was one thing said by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) in the course of his remarks-perhaps more than one-with which I did not agree. He said, if I understood him correctly, that too much time was taken up in the minister's department with inland fisheries and sport fisheries.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I said that the research board was taking up too much time with inland and sport fisheries.


Douglas King Hazen: With that statement I do not agree. I think the board has been carrying on important investigations in inland and sport fisheries, and I have no criticism to offer of what they have been doing. I hope heir work along these lines will be continued and their investigations if necessary extended, and that increased sums will be appropriated to carry on the work that should be done.
If I were the Minister of Fisheries or a member of the fisheries board my chief objective would be to make two fish grow where one growls now. That is the target to aim at. I am perturbed about the salmon fisheries in the bay of Fundy. I noticed recently that the minister was taking some interest in the dams in the Nashwaak river with a view to improving the salmon fisheries in those waters, and 1 think he is to be commended for what he has done. It seems to me that all the tributaries of the Saint John river and the rivers that enter in the bay of Fundy should be investigated, not only from the angling point of view, but also from the point of view that salmon will come up these rivers to spawn if they get the opportunity and are protected. The better the returns we have from these rivers, the better the commercial fishing in the bay of Fundy should be.


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister makes his statement in reply will he tell the house what his department is doing in regard to what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) mentioned as to the proper keeping and distribution of fish throughout the country. I brought up this question on the minister's estimates last year. I pointed out that by the time the fish reaches our cities in Ontario it was not fit for human consumption, and that proper check should be made of the freezing, preserving and distribution of the fish.


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make any extended remarks at this stage, but I feel that it is advisable I should place certain facts on the record in order that the house may be a little better informed concerning certain matters in view of what was said in one or two of the addresses which were made on the second reading of this bill.
In the first place, I do not believe that the house as a whole realizes that the board operates certain stations across Canada. There is, first of all, the biological station at

Fisheries Research Board
Nanaimo; the fisheries experimental station at Vancouver; the central fisheries research station at Winnipeg; the Gaspe fisheries experimental station at Grand River; the Atlantic biological station at St. Andrew's, New Brunswick; the Atlantic fisheries experimental station at Halifax; and the biological substation at Ellerslie, Prince Edward Island.
The present act which sets up the fisheries research board definitely sets out that:
The board shall have charge of all dominion fishery research stations in Canada, and snail have the conduct and control of investigations of practical and economic problems connected with marine and fresh water fisheries, flora and fauna, and such other work as may be assigned to it by the minister.
My reason for placing that on the record is so that the members of the house will have definitely in their minds just what are the functions of the fisheries research board and also the functions of the fisheries stations which are operated in Canada.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) when speaking yesterday made several statements which I regard as extravagant. I am sorry he is not in the house this afternoon to hear my reply, but I feel that I cannot let some of his statements go unanswered. I notice that at page 4086 of Hansard of yesterday he is reported as saying:
It would appear to me that a thorough reorganization of the fisheries research board is long overdue, not as the fault of the scientists, but as the fault of the government in neglecting to support the board.
Again, at page 4160 he made this statement:
Rather do I accuse the government of failure to support that board adequately in the past, and I hope that this new bill is a step in the right direction.
Then, again, he culminated his address by saying this:
Finally, I should like to commend all those who are connected with the board and who have made a definite contribution to the industry, and excellent attempts to overcome the almost insurmountable obstacles they have had to face, in spite of what I feel has been in the past a rather half-hearted government support.
Having listened to remarks such as that, I consider that I should give the house some information as to just what support this government has given to the work of the fisheries research board.
If we are to carry on fisheries research the first thing that is absolutely essential is an adequate amount of money to spend on research. I am frank to admit that I do not always get all the money I ask for and have asked for in the past, and I think any other member of the cabinet will have to be frank and admit the same thing.


Gordon Graydon: What stops it?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Quite often it is the opposition. In other cases it is the financial position of the country. I would point out that the hon. member for Nanaimo when he made that statement had evidently not made any study of the expenditures which have been made on research by this government. It might interest the house to know that in 1920-21, when the old biological board, as it was called at that time, was in being, only S30.6fi0.ll was spent on research, whereas in 1946-47 up to February 28-1 have not the final figures up to the end of the fiscal year 8626,341.19 was spent. In other words, in a period of some twenty-five years the amount of money spent on fisheries research has gone from a little over $30,000 to over $625,000. It is of special interest to me that the amount of money spent on research has increased greatly during the present administration. I am going to compare for a moment the time when the government under the leadership of Mr. Bennett was in power and the amount of money spent on research at that time. I do this only to show-and I think I can show it conclusively-that this government has not given only half-hearted support to the work of the fisheries research board. I have the figures for a certain number of years but I shall not put them all on the record. In 1931-32 there was approximately $275,665 spent on research. In 1932-33, $228,062 was spent on research. In 1933-34, $176,239 was spent on research.


Mr. MacNIOOL:: The minister should state that that was during the depression.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I am quite frank to admit that it was during the depression, but what I want to impress upon the house is that this government is not giving merely half-hearted support to the work as was alleged in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Nanaimo. In 1944-45 this government spent S338.428.0S on the research board. In 1945-46 we spent $502,009.76. Just a few moments ago I gave the figures of the amount that was spent during the past fiscal year which, up to February 28, 1947, amounted to $626,341.19.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Will the minister permit a question?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In other words, the increase in the amount spent on this board does not begin to keep pace with the increased revenue of the country, does it? I am speaking comparatively.
Fisheries Research Board


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Probably the hon. member knows the exact percentages. I have not worked them out; I do not know. Maybe he has; maybe he has not.
The hon. member for Nanaimo also made some reference to the expenditures which were being made on the Nanaimo station which, incidentally, I believe is very close to his own constituency and in which he is interested. In 1935-36 when this government took office we spent on the Nanaimo station 848,610; in 1936-37, 849,284; in 1937-38, $40,739; in 1938-39, $60,722; in 1939-40, $61,332; in 1940-41. S60,0S1; in 1941-42, $51,886; in 1942-43, S53,629; in 1943-44, $52,874; in 194445, $88,041; in 1945-46, $140,304 and in 194647 up to February 28, instead of up to the end of the fiscal year, $166,795. I believe- and I think the house will agree with me

that this shows conclusively that this government is not giving merely half-hearted support to the work of the fisheries research board. As a matter of fact one of the reasons why we have introduced this bill is to make a certain change in the administrative set-up of the board. We have done that because I found, as the minister in charge of the department, that the expenditures were running to such amounts each year that I felt some one person should be charged with responsibility of supervising, at least to some extent, the work of the fisheries research board.
In the past the fisheries research board has been comprised of, as was said a little while ago, a group of persons, two of whom represented the department, two represented the fisheries industry on the Atlantic coast, two represented the fisheries on the Pacific coast, and nine scientists. These men met annually once a year in Ottawa and outlined their programme for the year. It so happened that the assistant deputy minister of fisheries, Major D. H. Sutherland, acted as honorary secretary of the board. But what impressed me was the fact that the expenditures ran up to the figure of $600,000 and that no one person was charged with the responsibility of that amount of expenditure. It was for that reason that this section has been put in the bill.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) when he spoke a few moments ago referred to the fact that there was no representation on the fisheries research board from the prairie provinces. He said he hoped that the act would be amended to include representation on the board from the prairie provinces. I, of course, was not here in 1937 when the Fisheries Research Board Act was passed, but I assume-and this is only conjecture on my part-that the reason there are 
no members of the industry from the prairie provinces on the board, as set out in section 4 of the act, is that the federal Department of Fisheries does not administer the fisheries in the prairie provinces. I make that statement only as an assumption of my own. However I would point out that the distinguished chairman of the board, Doctor A. T. Cameron, professor of biochemistry of the university of Manitoba, does live in the city of Winnipeg. I assume that Manitoba can be regarded as one of the prairie provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister permit
a question? Does the department not administer the fisheries in the Northwest Territories? In that area there are two great lakes from which vast quantities of fish are shipped, Great Bear lake and Great Slave lake.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I quite agree with the
hon. member. In these lakes the research board has done quite extensive research work in the past.
I would also point out to the hon. member for Mackenzie that we do maintain a central fisheries research station in Manitoba. From information I have received, not from the board itself, but from others, I believe that it is doing good work there.
A great many other remarks have been made concerning a great variety of subjects which I do not believe are really germane to the issue before the house, namely, the principle of the bill. It is not my intention to make any statement regarding the great variety of subjects which were discussed. I feel, as the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) does, that these matters can be discussed much more appropriately when the estimates are before the committee.
Just before taking my seat, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and the hon. member for St. John-Albert regarding lobster hatcheries. The hon. member for St. John-Albert told the house exactly what did happen. I am not a scientist; I do not know the answer, but I do happen to know that when this subject of lobster hatcheries was referred to the scientists of the fisheries research board they did report adversely on the proposition. I should like to give both these hon. gentlemen the assurance that I shall see that further consideration is given to the matter.
I do not think there is any necessity of my going any farther at this stage. After the bill receives second reading, it is my intention to move that it be referred to the standing com-

Merchant Seamen
mittee on marine and fisheries, and there will be ample opportunity to discuss it in detail.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 181, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-P.C. 4755, July 17, 1945, revoked.
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: May I be allowed to answer four questions which were asked on this bill yesterday? The hon. member for High Park (Mr. McMaster) asked what was the number of seamen who have taken advantage of the act. The answer is 285. He asked what was the cost. The answer is, there was no cost, because, under the Compensation for Merchant Seamen Act, employers are required to pay not only compensation costs, but cost of administration of the act as well. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) inquired whether Canadian nationals on ships of foreign registry were covered. The act provides for a definition of "seaman", in section 2 (i). He will find there the answer to the question, namely, that seamen of foreign registry are not covered unless the ship has been demised to a Canadian or has been leased to or chartered to a Canadian corporation. It would be impossible to force others than Canadians to pay compensation. His other question was: What is the amount of compensation and what is the procedure? The act covers that clearly in sections 7, 30 and 25. In any of these sections he will find set out the procedure, notice that has to be given, to whom and the amount of compensation payable.


Mr. BROOKS:: This bill in itself is simply for the purpose of reserving rights in respect of compensation acquired under the regulations, but like many other bills of this kind it has afforded an opportunity for a discussion of some other matters. I was not in the house on Wednesday when there was a general discussion of the bill, but I have read Hansard since and with all that has been said with reference to merchant seamen I most heartily agree. With a great many other members of the veterans affairs committee, I did feel that there should have been more opportunity,
possibly not under this bill but in some other connection, to discuss the situation affecting merchant seamen.
These merchant seamen have been called the fourth branch of the service, and it was for this reason that the members of the veterans affairs committee considered it was a matter which should have been dealt with by that committee. In speaking of the fourth branch of the service, I should like to read what was said during the war by the then minister of transport. The Hon, J. E. Michaud on one occasion said that no other body of men in Canada's fighting services-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member or to curtail discussion, but it was agreed, when the bill came up for discussion before, that the remarks should be relevant to the section before the committee. We are now dealing with compensation for merchant seamen, compensation within the meaning of this act, which, as I understand it, is compensation in case of accident or injury. That is what the act of last session dealt with and this is to amend that act. I cannot interrupt my hon. friend if he deals with that, but if he goes beyond that I shall have to ask him to abide by the rules.


The CHAIRMAN:: I do not think the hon. member for Royal has gone beyond the question of compensation. I do not know what he intends to do. He has read Hansard, however, and he will recall that the Chairman then ruled that only questions affecting compensation to merchant seamen would be in order.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There was no limit on the date-


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there was.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I understand it, this deals with compensation from 1945. The matter of compensation for seamen during the war, from 1939 to 1945, was discussed here the other day, and there was a general discussion. It was this matter which I intended saying a few words upon today.


Lionel Chevrier: Workmen's compensation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was compensation for men who had been injured or in respect of men who had lost their lives.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Men lost their lives through accident from 1939 to 1945, and sometimes that loss of life was due to enemy action, while at other times it was due to some other cause. I do not think we can split hairs on this
Merchant Seamen

question. As a matter of fact, I would say right here that there has been very little opportunity, practically no opportunity in this house since the session started, to discuss the matter of merchant seamen's compensation.


Lionel Chevrier: There have already been two opportunities.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I tried on a former occasion to discuss it and was declared out of order. The other day when we were discussing this subject I mentioned the fact that the veterans affairs committee did desire to take up, together with other matters, this very question of compensation for merchant seamen during the war from 1939 to 1945. At that time I said that the veterans affairs committee would have dealt with the matter on a broader scale if we had not had the intimation, if perhaps not the assurance, that some consideration would be given the question by the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly not from the minister.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister at that time said it was not from him. In that connection I did wish to quote from the pages of the veterans affairs committee's report, and I do not intend to take any longer than I can avoid, to show that it was a matter which the veterans in all parties in the house-and the Minister of Veterans Affairs can bear me out -felt should be considered. The veterans of all parties in the house considered that this question of compensation for men belonging to the fourth branch of the service, who suffered more in proportion than any other branch, should be taken into consideration, and it was the fact that we thought the Department of Transport was going to give consideration to these matters that more consideration was not given in the veterans affairs committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the hon. member would not blame the minister for that.


Mr. GREEN:: But the minister tried to blame the committee the other day.


Lionel Chevrier: No. The minister tried to say to the hon. member for Vancouver South that he had some responsibility in the matter.


Howard Charles Green: Because he was on the veterans affairs committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We are whiling to assume our responsibility.


Lionel Chevrier: And the hon. gentleman replied that I knew nothing about the matter. I hope he has changed his mind since.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Who has the floor, Mr. Chairman? I would refer to page 396 of the report of the veterans affairs committee in 1946. At that time we were discussing the question of compensation and other benefits to the different civilian groups:
Mr. Green: Take the ease of the merchant
seamen. Is it our idea that the officers of the Department of Transport would appear before the sub-committee? Because that is the one case I have in mind, and I think we should have these men right here in the main committee.... and not in the sub-committee.
The chairman at that time, who was the hon. member for Rosthern, said:
On the point you mention, Mr. Green, I agree with you that we should have representations from the merchant seamen and also that the committee would want to hear from the Department of Transport. But the sub-committee in a lot of these things would be able to find out which witnesses would be most useful to the committee and it would assist in that way.
That is, it was the chairman's opinion that this sub-committee would be useful in picking out different witnesses, and so on. Then I quote also from the minutes of proceedings of May 14, 1946, after the committee w'as set up:
The chairman reported that the steering committee recommended that the representations of ex-members of the R.A.F. ferry command, together with those of the V.A.D.'s and other members of the Canadian Red Cross Society and St. John Ambulance Brigade, and of all other civilian groups-
The merchant seamen were considered one of the civilian groups.

urging claims to benefits under veteran legislation, be referred to the sub-committee appointed to study the draft bill respecting civilian war pensions and allowances.


William Ross Macdonald: May I remind the hon. member for Royal that it has been agreed in the committee that we cannot refer to any benefits other than compensation to merchant seamen. The hon. member has read from a committee report which refers to V.A.D.'s, members of the Red Cross, and so on. I do not see how the question of workmen's compensation could affect them.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That was just to connect it up. My point is that a sub-committee was set up to Study these matters affecting civilian groups, and I wanted to show that in the veterans affairs committee we did intend to study matters concerning the merchant seamen, of which compensation was one. Some question has been raised in this committee as

Merchant Seamen
to whether this matter was brought up in the veterans affairs committee last year, and what action was taken. My point is that if we had not been told in that committee at that time that the Department of Transport intended to deal with this matter and provide compensation for these men, the veterans affairs committee would have done so.


Lionel Chevrier: In the hon. gentleman's discussion of the matter yesterday did he not say it was his understanding that the Department of Transport was to bring in a bill which would have to do with a veterans charter ?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, not with a veterans
charter.


Lionel Chevrier: Then let me put it in this way. Did he not say it was his understanding that the department would bring in a bill to deal with compensation?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have here exactly what
I said. It is at page 4033 of Hansard:
Mr. Brooks:	Was it not understood in the
veterans affairs committee that the Department of Transport would bring in a bill which would give merchant seamen treatment commensurate with that given other branches of the service?
In other words, we were of the opinion that a bill would be brought in which would give merchant seamen the same treatment that was given other branches of the service. After all, the merchant marine has been called the fourth branch of the service.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to attribute any blame to the Department of Transport if that department were not aware of that fact. Since the previous discussion I have looked at the evidence. I find that a witness was called and was asked about a certain bill, and replied that he knew absolutely nothing about it. The only bill I had in mind was the bill that is now being amended. That is the only bill that ever came to my attention, and certainly it is the only bill that I had in mind last session. It had to do with compensation, not in the general sense, but compensation for injuries or death resulting from accidents.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then all I can say in that connection is that when the veterans affairs committee considered this matter it was not thinking of civilian compensation. The bill the minister has brought down deals with civilian compensation from 1945 on.


Lionel Chevrier: Not civilian.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I mean the merchant seamen, from that time on. But if we are going
to say that the men who from 1939 to 1945, were recognized by various ministers of the crown as constituting the fourth branch of the service, the men who sacrificed more in proportion than those in any other branch of the service, are going to receive compensation only after 1945, I am satisfied that not a member of the veterans affairs committee would have agreed to it.


Lionel Chevrier: No one is saying that is all they are entitled to. I am not saying that, nor have I ever said it. I simply say the bill which was referred to in that committee was the very bill we are now dealing with.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then, if the minister feels, as I am sure he does, that these men are entitled to more consideration, may I ask if it is his intention either now or in the very near future to bring in a bill which will do justice to these men?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly it is not my intention to bring in a bill as an amendment to this act. I do not think this is the place to bring in a bill covering the items my hon. friend has in mind. My own view is that it may very well be a matter that should be studied. A number of things have been done for the merchant seamen since this act was amended last year. I hope it will be possible to do more.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We admit that. I am not going to emphasize this point further. I agree with the minister that we cannot amend this bill to do the things we think should be done, but here we are near the end of the session-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We hope.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We should be; and if anything is to be done for these seamen it must be done this session. Otherwise it will go over for another year, which will be the third year after the war. If the minister will say he will give serious consideration to bringing down a bill in the near future, and will study the situation with regard to these men, I shall have no more to say regarding the matter at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot say any more than I have already said. If it will be of any assistance to the hon. gentleman I will add this, that as far as giving consideration is concerned I shall be glad to give consideration to anything at any time. I can go a step farther and say that I do not think a bill can be brought in at this stage of the session, because of the statement made by the Prime Minister some time ago in regard to the
Merchant Seamen

number of bills still remaining on the order paper. It may be possible to do something in another manner. I am not prepared to say that cannot be done, but I do not want to commit myself on this bill at this time, as to what can or may be done, other than to say that I shall be glad to consider the suggestion made by my hon. friend.


Mr. CHURCH:: This bill contains only one section, and its sole purpose is to preserve rights to compensation acquired under the regulations before the act came into force, and to continue under the act all proceedings taken under the regulations. I should like to have seen equality of treatment for all the seamen who served us in the last war. Canada is now the fifth trading nation of the world. You only have to read the report of the Minister of Reconstruction to see the growth of our shipping on our inland lakes, our rivers, the gulf and on the oceans of the world today.
First, I should like to see this provision made retroactive to the time before 1945. Second, while the minister may not be able to do much for them today, what is to be done for all these brave seamen? I suggest that during the recess of parliament he should consider making the regulations retroactive. He will be deluged with the facts concerning merchant seamen from almost every city and town of Canada, including those in the prairies, from where many of our best seamen have come, who served in the great war in the merchant marine.
In conclusion, may I say I do not see how the minister can ignore the storms we have on the upper lakes in the early spring and in the fall of the year. Two dozen men lost their lives in one year, 1927. I would ask the minister to consider, during the recess, this matter of aid to the brave men who sail the upper lakes.
In May, 1928, a statement was made in the house by me regarding brave seamen on lake Ontario, lake Erie, Georgian bay and the upper lakes who had lost their lives in the fall of 1927. These seamen were advancing the grain crop from the western provinces to the east, and many of them had been soldiers in the first great war. The towns of Owen Sound and Collingwood, and many other places along the inland waters, were in mourning for weeks. But all the men in the doomed ships could do was blow their sirens and get help from the United States life-saving stations.
I urge upon the government that they give better treatment to these brave merchant seamen, many of whom served in both wars. The

minister who has presided1 over the Department of Veterans Affairs has given approval to generous bills for the soldiers in both wars; but let us not forget the brave seamen who bore the brunt of the battle of the Atlantic, and those also who ride the storms of the upper lakes, in peace as well as in war.


Howard Charles Green: If a seaman were injured in a port of the United Kingdom, by falling from a ship during a blackout, what compensation could he obtain? What could he expect to got if the accident took place before the order in council preceding this measure came into effect on August 1, 1945?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member is referring to compensation in the nature of workmen's compensation arising from such an injury, under the law as we had it prior to the time the regulations came into force in 1945 he could not claim. He might be entitled to pension from enemy action or counteraction; but that is a matter with which the Department of Transport does not deal- although it is keenly interested.


Howard Charles Green: The case I have in mind could not be directly attributed to enemy action. Is no compensation available to a merchant seaman injured in the way I have indicated?


Lionel Chevrier: Not under this act.


Howard Charles Green: Or under any other act?


Lionel Chevrier: I know of no other act, because I am responsible only for the administration of this one. There may be other benefits from other departments with which I am not familiar. But in the department with which I am charged there is no claim, unfortunately, that the seaman could make under workmen's compensation legislation prior to July, 1945.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Transport is the minister responsible for merchant seamen.


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as the civilian aspect is concerned. The Minister of Transport is not responsible for all the gratuities and benefits to which they may be entitled under veterans legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I might be permitted to say a word in that connection. I have before me a document setting forth the reasons for retaining orders in council P.C. 133/510 of January 26, 1944, amended by P.C. 127/1111 of February 21, 1945; P.C. 109/2100 of March 28, 1945; and P.C. 148/5045 of July 18, 1945. It states that the number of eligible claims filed and paid to date were

Merchant Seamen
1.583. The number of these claims paid to next of kin was 454; the number of these claims paid to seamen themselves was 1,129, and there were no eligible claims filed and outstanding. The total amount paid to date stands at $210,221.31.
Compensation is paid to any personnel of ships of Canadian registry, also to Canadians in ships of foreign registry, provided that the amount paid in such case is reduced by any amount which may be paid by the government of the country in which the said ship is registered.
Claims are still occasionally coming in, usually from next of kin who were not previously aware that compensation was payable, particularly where the next of kin are resident in countries released from enemy occupation.
With regard to the question as to why only seventy per cent is paid to dependents, it may be said that the purpose of payment of compensation for loss of effects to merchant seamen was originally to assist the seaman in replacing those effects in order that he might proceed to sea again. Therefore, at first no provision was made for payment to next of kin.
Then, however, claims were made by parents and others who had provided clothing, et cetera, to men who had gone to sea for the first time, and provision was made in order in council dated the 31st March, 1943, permitting the total amount payable to a seaman to be paid to his next of kin.
This was further amended by order in council of June 8, 1943, to restrict the payment to widow, children, father or mother of the person to whom the regulations applied, and also to restrict the amount to be paid to next of kin to seventy per cent of the total amount payable. It is thought that this proportion is fair when consideration is given to the intrinsic value of the used clothing.
The individual payments have been controlled by schedules of rates recommended by the committee on war risks insurance and bombardment compensation, which rates have been slightly changed from time to time, and which are graded according to the rank or rating of the seamen and whether the ship was engaged in foreign trade, home trade, or other trades, at the time of loss.
In the case of foreign-going vessels, the payments, according to the latest schedule, vary from a maximum of $100 for a rating in the victualling department below the rank of bedroom steward or waiter, to $450 for master. In addition, payments were made on account of instruments or tools proved to have been
carried by masters, officers, carpenters, etc., bringing the maximum for a master to $675.
In order, however, to bring the matter to a conclusion at a reasonably early day, it has been recommended that an advertisement be placed, in the press to inform all interested persons that on and after a certain day no further claims for compensation will be admitted.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Minister of Veterans Affairs referring to claims arising out of injury caused by direct enemy action?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Loss of effects.


Howard Charles Green: It does not include claims where the loss does not arise out of direct enemy action?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe it does.


Howard Charles Green: What provision is there for the protection of a merchant seaman injured, as I said earlier, by falling from a ship in port, not due to enemy action?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member wishes to know whether the legislation is retroactive, I said the other day that it is not, and I gave the reasons for its not being so. I cannot do any more than that.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that, but here is an injustice which must be remedied. I am not blaming anybody for trying to evade responsibility. As I said the other day, these merchant seamen have fallen between the two departments, with the result that they are not properly protected. I do not think there is any order in council or act which was in effect throughout the war or since the war covering the merchant seamen who was injured through other than direct enemy action. The restriction in the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, which was passed last year and which, I believe, just followed prior orders in council, was that it should be as a direct result of enemy action or counter-action taken against the enemy. Unless the merchant seaman qualifies under that provision, he gets no compensation.
I think the Minister of Transport will agree that there should be on our statute books some law protecting these men just as there is a law protecting the men who served in the navy, army and air force. His predecessor, the Hon. J. E. Michaud, stated in an advertisement which appeared in The Searchlight of February, 1945, a publication put out by the Canadian Seamen's Union.
They have earned the title of the "fourth arm of the fighting services."
Merchant Seamen

That is only one sentence from a long advertisement praising the merchant seamen. I do not think the Minister of Veterans Affairs can point out any provision protecting the man who was injured other than as a direct result of enemy action. I would also ask him what protection there is for the merchant seaman who suffered disability through disease, for instance the man who contracted a tropical disease and is permanently disabled. My understanding is that he gets absolutely no protection. Furthermore, I do not believe the man who contracted tuberculosis is protected even under the bill before the house today, because that is not considered to be an occupational disease. The Minister of Transport will correct me if I am wrong in that statement.
These men should be covered in some way and the responsibility rests with the two ministers now before us. Frankly, I should like to see the Minister of Veterans Affairs made responsible for protecting these merchant seamen who suffered1 injuries during the war. It is a little out of the line of the work of the Department of Transport and I think this protection should be handled by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In the veterans affairs committee last year this question was side-tracked in some way or another because the two departments were concerned, but every member of that committee was in favour of giving the merchant seamen the same protection given to the men in the other three forces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was going to enumerate the benefits they receive but I think I am out of order.


Howard Charles Green: We are restricted to questions of compensation. What compensation is payable to the seaman who was injured before August 1, 1945, by other than direct enemy action?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to prolong the debate, but does not the difficulty to which my hon. friend refers arise out of the fact that from the inception the merchant marine were considered as volunteers as opposed to the other armed services? That certainly was the attitude taken by my predecessor and that was the attitude taken on more than one occasion in the British House of Commons. A statement to that effect was made in this house. The merchant marine were given certain benefits, such as those under the workmen's compensation regulations which were enacted in 1945.
I do not say this to start another debate, but my hon. friend has pointed to certain

differences which exist between the armed services and the merchant navy. I agree that there are some differences and perhaps they should not exist, but that is a fact. I should like to place on the record a question which was asked in the British House of Commons on February 27, 1945, by Sir W. Wayland, just at the time wre were considering enacting these regulations. I quote:
Sir W. Wayland asked the parliamentary secretary to the ministry of war transport whether His Majesty's government propose to accord to the personnel of the merchant navy any recognition of its splendid services on the same lines as the services gratuities.
The minister replied as follows:
His Majesty's government have frequently expressed their deep appreciation of the magnificent services rendered to the nation by the officers and men of the merchant navy. But they must take into consideration the fact that these officers and men have been employed throughout the war at industrial rates of wages, negotiated and settled by the national maritime board. In view of this fact, the government consider that they would not be justified in granting to the men of the merchant navy the gratuities which the services will receive.


Howard Charles Green: That does not refer to compensation.


Lionel Chevrier: I tried to limit the debate to workmen's compensation, but my hon. friend, as well as the hon. member for Royal, discussed other benefits.


Howard Charles Green: We were not allowed to discuss other benefits such as university training, vocational training, civil service preference and so on. Those were ruled out of order and we have been able to discuss only compensation.


Lionel Chevrier: Compensation other than workmen's compensation is certainly another benefit.


Howard Charles Green: Compensation for injury.


Lionel Chevrier: There is more than one kind of compensation; there is workmen's compensation; there is compensation for injuries from enemy action and counteraction; there is detention allowance which is a compensation. There are at least five or six different forms of compensation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly fourteen.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Veterans Affairs corrects me and says there are exactly fourteen. When these regulations were put into effect under the War Measures Act the Minister of Veterans Affairs then made a statement which I should like to place on the record. I think it answers to a large extent the objections raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South and perhaps explains the

Merchant Seamen
misunderstandings, if any, which have arisen.
I should like to quote what the minister said.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the United Kingdom minister?


Lionel Chevrier: No, the present Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: When was this?


Lionel Chevrier: This is in 1945 when the regulations covering workmen's compensation were enacted. What we are doing now is to amend the act that gave legislative effect to those regulations. The minister said:
Without doubt our merchant marine, which has grown from 37 foreign-going ships before the war to 190 now has made a magnificent contribution to the cause of the united nations. Moreover, the risks taken by merchant seamen while serving in dangerous waters and the arduous conditions under which they frequently served are universally appreciated.
It is necessary, however, to recognize that merchant seamen do not serve under the same conditions as men of the Royal Canadian Navy. They are not required to. enlist for the duration of the war. They are employees of the steamship companies, free to take or leave employment when and as they wish, and are paid industrial rates of wages for stated hours of work, negotiated and settled with the employers by their own unions. Without detracting in any way from the gallantry of the men who go down to the sea in ships and brave the lurking menace of the submarine, it is also important to note that they receive a substantial war risk bonus in addition to their basic rates of pay for voyages in dangerous waters. As a result, the rates of pay of all men, except a number of officer categories, in the merchant marine are considerably higher than those paid to corresponding rates in the Royal Canadian Navy, even allowing for the fact that the remuneration paid to officers and men in the merchant marine, except war risk bonus ,is subject to income tax, while men in the fighting navy below the rank of officers are completely exempt.
Therefore to make available to merchant seamen gratuities and reestablishment benefits on the same scale and basis as those provided for ex-members of the armed forces would clearly constitute unjust discrimination against the armed forces *who had to give up their freedom and enlist for the war's duration for service under military discipline and at a rate of pay not determined by commercial consideration.
That is I think, the basis, not only in the United Kingdom, but in Canada, for the position as we find it today. I am not going to argue with my hon. friend that the men of the merchant navy are not entitled to additional benefits, but until that position ds changed I say that nothing can be done. I have told the hon. member for Royal that I shall give consideration to what he said. I do not think a bill could be brought down, but it may be possible to find some other method of adding to what has already been done. Since that statement was made, a number of things have been done. My colleague the Minister of Labour brought in a bill having to do with unemployment insurance, and that covered merchant seamen after the manning pools were closed. I can think of one or two other things, but I do not want to rule myself out of order, Mr. Chairman, because I know the hon. member was not allowed' to go beyond the question of compensation. I simply wanted to make that statement to explain the position as it is now.


Howard Charles Green: That submission might be some answer to the question of gratuities but we are not arguing about gratuities today. The statement read by the Minister of Transport was never intended, I am sure, by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to mean that a merchant seaman who was permanently injured should not get compensation. I do not think the Minister of Veterans Affairs had that in the back of his mind at all. There remains this injustice, that many of these men were permanently injured and that some lost their lives, not through direct enemy action, but by falls on the ship and in many other accidents that occurred, or through some disease, and they have no protection and their dependents have no protection. That is an unfair situation. I am sure that the Canadian people would not want that, condition to continue. I do not think the Minister of Veterans Affairs is in favour of these men and their dependents going without proper compensation. We are trying to emphasize to the ministers and to the house that something must be done and done quickly to remedy that situation. The members from the central provinces may not run into these cases so frequently as those of us do who represent ridings on the seacoast, but we are meeting these men repeatedly, men who have been permanently injured or the dependents of men who have lost their lives, and it is not fair that there should not be compensation for these people. Most of them were not professional seamen. They went to sea during the war. Many boys left school to go into the merchant navy and did a grand job, and now they should be given every consideration. I do not see any reason why the two ministers cannot between them work out some scheme that would protect those men and the dependents of those who lost their lives.	,


Angus MacInnis: It seems to me that the protection which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South is quite important. I think he has made a very good case for it. I mentioned a case yesterday or
Merchant Seamen

the day before when this bill was up for second reading, and I am sure there are many others of a similar nature in my own city of Vancouver, and something should be done to provide for such cases. It seems to me that when we say something should be done we must mean that the act should be made retroactive until the beginning of the war in 1939. Whether that is possible I do not know, but if provision is to be made in this act for these people it can be done only by making the act retroactive. Those who know the law much better than I do or have, at least, been better trained in it, may have a better way of doing it, but it seems to me that making the legislation retroactive is the way to do it. The minister should give an undertaking that he will see whether it is feasible to do that. I do not suppose he can do it without some consideration. If I or any one of us were in his place I do not suppose we would care to do it without consideration, but if he would give that undertaking to the committee I think it would meet the situation.


Mr. GILLIS:: I asked the minister a couple of questions when he first came before the house with his estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: I answered the questions asked by the hon. gentleman before he came into the chamber.
Mr. GILLIS1: I will read the answers. Very likely they are not satisfactory.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the
second question will, I think, be fully satisfactory.


Clarence Gillis: The reason I am interested in the mechanics of an injured seaman making application is that I have a specific case about which I have been corresponding with the minister up to as late as February 10 of this year, and to the best of my knowledge it has not yet been straightened out. This merchant seaman landed in Newfoundland in pretty bad shape. He left' his ship and proceeded to hospital, and between the time or his leaving the ship and getting into hospital he was discharged from the ship. When he made application for compensation it was denied on the ground that he was not an employee on the ship at the time he made his application.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not recall the case. Was this seaman injured on the ship?


Clarence Gillis: I am not quite sure. He must have been injured because he applied for compensation. His name is William Muise. I wrote the minister about the matter and he

replied that it was being investigated. The man has been waiting since last February and has received nothing yet.
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South that this compensation should be made retroactive. If the legislation is to go through on its present basis I think the minister might just as well not have brought it in.


Lionel Chevrier: It was brought in and approved last year.


Clarence Gillis: I know, but you have an opportunity now of amending the act. Most of the cases that will come under the act go back to 1940 and up until 1945. Provision has been made for pension for combat veterans, but the difficulties in establishing a case for pension for a merchant seaman are much greater, and the fact that he is entitled under the Pension Act gives him little relief. I had one case of a chap who lost a leg through falling into the hold of a ship during a blackout. I corresponded with the Minister of Veterans Affairs about it and a lot of sympathy was expressed, but that fellow still has a leg off and has not received a pension. He is a young man and cannot secure employment and cannot buy a leg. If pension entitlement was not available to this man he should be made eligible to compensation under the present act, to say the least, because during the war the hazards aboard ship were much greater than they are today. Equipment was poor and there were black-outs-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How was the leg lost?


Clarence Gillis: This man fell from the deck into the hold of the ship. The leg was so badly injured that it had to be amputated. Unfortunately, between the time of his injury and the time that he made application for his pension the captain of his ship passed away and essential evidence which might have been obtained from the captain of the ship was not forthcoming. The entry in the log book was taken as the official record, but it was mixed up to some extent, with the result that this boy has not been able to establish anything.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Could not the black-out be construed as enemy action or as the result of enemy activity?


Clarence Gillis: There were other complications. I do not want to go into the whole story; the minister has it. What I am trying to say is that this boy should be brought under the compensation act. I believe that some compensation pension should be given to him. Many cases are outstanding. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has pointed out, there are many disabilities acruing from disease which could be attributed to the occu-

Merchant Seamen
pation that these men followed. At least we should be as fair as the provinces are. In the provinces they have compensation for industrial diseases. The provision should be written into the national act.


Lionel Chevrier: The provinces do not make their compensation retroactive.


Clarence Gillis: They have been in effect for many years.


Lionel Chevrier: When they came into force they were never made retroactive.


Clarence Gillis: I would not know; that is pretty much history. The acts have been in force for a long time. I know they provide for a lot of industrial diseases which are peculiar to the industry in which the men were and they are compensated for it. I think the major portion of the permanent disabilities from which merchant seamen suffer arise out of disease or out of accidents rather than from enemy action. I would strongly urge the minister to do the thing right if we do it at all. It is much better not to do it at all than to enact something which leads the merchant seamen to believe that there is some provision for them and, within the next two or three years, have the minister and hon. members getting a shower of correspondence trying to unravel cases that are not covered. If we made the act retroactive to at least 1940 and provided for diseases which were peculiar to the occupation or calling of the merchant seamen we would, be doing something that would not create a lot of administrative difficulties later or bring about a lot of correspondence explaining why this was not done.
As I see the matter now, I do not think there is much use in amending the act as it is unless these two provisions are made. I was a member of the veterans affairs committee and took quite an active interest in the merchant seamen, because I come from a coast and I run into a lot of them. I think it was mixed up in the veterans affairs committee the last time. I had a distinct recollection that when the auxiliary services' problem was passed over to a sub-committee of the main committee it was understood that merchant seamen were to receive the same consideration as the regular service personnel. Unfortunately, when that sub-committee reported back it made no recommendations at all on the matter of merchant seamen because, as the chairman of the sub-committee said, it was to be handled by the Department of Transport, and we allowed it to go.
Without taking up any more time, I would strongly urge that the two points with reference to retroactivity and diseases 'be brought under this act while we are amending it.


Howard Charles Green: What method is used now in checking these injuries? For example, is use made of the log books of the ships and of the records kept by the doctors in the various ports at which the ship calls?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Suppose a man is injured in Shanghai or in Liverpool, what system is used for getting back the record of the injury?


Lionel Chevrier: The man would probably be examined, and the master of the ship makes his report of the accident. There is also a record in the log book. Under the act as it stands today, if there is an accident the details are recorded. That is why it is difficult, if not impossible, to make this matter retroactive, because of the inability to obtain evidence in order to substantiate the claims.


Howard Charles Green: The same kind of records were kept by the masters of the ships during the war, were they not, and the same records would be available from the doctors in the different ports? Is that not so?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to say. In addition to what I said a moment ago, this act is on an insurance basis. By that I mean that money is paid into the fund-


Howard Charles Green: By the shipping companies?


Lionel Chevrier: -Yes; and in order to make it retroactive you would have to ask the ship owners to pay into the fund moneys that they certainly would not want to pay in view of the manner in which compensation is awarded. Assessments are payable under the act on an actuarial basis, I presume, and to upset that, now andl ask the ship owners to pay into that fund money which would cover any accident which took place from 1939 to 1945 is something that would be almost impossible of accomplishment.


Howard Charles Green: My own opinion would be that the country should pay for these injuries that were suffered during the war years. I agree that it would not be fair to go to the companies now and say that they must pay compensation. I think it is an obligation of the nation and the money should be paid by the country. If the act could not be made retroactive to cover these cases another solution of the problem might be to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to make it applicable. It is much too restricted now. That act contains a provision that funds
Sup pi y-A griculture

can be paid only where the injury is received as a direct result of enemy action or counteraction taken against the enemy. These men could be covered by that act. There is another provision in the act which is much too stringent, namely, that application must be made within one year of the occurrence of death or disability. That is causing great hardship now even in cases where there was an injury as a direct result of enemy action. But there are these two alternative ways of meeting the situation: first, by making the compensation act retroactive and, second, by amending the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.


John Lambert Gibson: Apropos of what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said, it has been suggested in the public accounts committee that we set up a royal commission to take care of the claims of Japanese citizens suffered by reason of the war or through enemy action. Probably the same course could conceivably be followed in taking care of what, I am sure, has been serious injustices which have taken place among the merchant seamen.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms service
[Stage Direction]
13. Experimental farms service- administration, $97,448.
Mr. SHAW:: While we are on this item, there is one matter to which I should like to give a moment's consideration. For some twenty years it has been my privilege to live among and be associated with farmers located in that grey wooded soil area, more particularly west of the Canadian Pacific line of rail between Calgary and Edmonton. During those years I have been able to develop some appreciation of the problems which confront those farmers, and have felt that the government. probably through its experimental farms and stations, should be giving a great deal more consideration to a study of the problems that are found where farmers are carrying on in those grey wooded soil areas. It

was with a great deal of satisfaction that I learned on March 17 of the government's intention to establish two experimental sub-stations in Alberta. One, I understand, is to be located at McLennan, to operate in connection with the experimental station at Beaverlodge, but at that time no decision had been reached with respect to the location of the second substation. I should like to ask the minister if a location for the second station has been decided upon and, if so, what progress has been made in its establishment. May I also ask if he will give us a little more information than was given on March 17 with respect to the type of work these sub-stations will be primarily concerned with?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Both types of soil are, of course, to be found at the Beaverlodge station. I do not think the second one has yet been established; at least we have no record of it here, and I am quite sure it has not been established.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Then, may I urge upon the
minister what I regard as the urgent necessity for action with respect to the early establishment of this second experimental station. As I say, I have been very close to the problems confronting the farmers in that area, and I realize what it will mean to them if the department gives some study to the problems connected with production there. Incidentally, it is a vast area, covering thousands of acres and including hundreds of farmers. If something can be done to enable them to increase production it will not only give them greater security but add immeasurably to the productive capacity of western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have just located
the information, and the answer I gave is correct. A survey is being made of the grey soils area, but the location has not yet been established, and will not be until the survey has been completed.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Then, perhaps I may go one
step farther before leaving that matter. I have given a great deal of thought to the matter of the location of this station, though, of course, I realize more will be required than just my expression of opinion; and I would suggest to the minister that the Rocky Mountain House district being the centre of that area between Calgary and Edmonton, that would be an ideal location for a station working out of Lacombe. It has a good all-weather road, and is right in the heart of the district.


Mr. REID:: I understand that in March
of this year the Fraser valley turkey im-

Supply-Agriculture
provement association petitioned the minister or his departmental officials for the establishment of an experimental station or for research to be undertaken in connection with the problems the turkey breeders are now facing in connection with feeding and diseases. While I am asking the minister if consideration has been given that appeal, I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members from all provinces the fact that it was in the riding I have the honour to represent that the first mammoth, big-breasted bronze turkeys were hatched, which have since spread all over Canada and the United States. We hear people speaking about the turkeys of the prairies, of Ontario and elsewhere, but it was to county line road, Langley municipality, that Mr. Joseph Throsseld brought foundation stock from the old country. Might I also draw to the attention of hon. members from the prairies, particularly Alberta, the fact that in 1926, 1927 and up to 1930 and perhaps a little later, turkeys were judged in that province by the feathers, not by the breast at all. At that time most of the turkeys throughout Canada were wedge-shaped. But Joe Throsseld, who lived in my district, brought this foundation stock to British Columbia, and since then his stock has spread all over Canada and the western United States, and has been the means of building up the great turkey industry, both in the United States and in this country.
We have reached the point in the lower Fraser valley, and I suppose the same condition obtains on Vancouver island as well, where in 1946 the turkey production increased to a million birds, and it is ever increasing. We have made the eating of turkeys so popular that most restaurants that know anything at all about serving the public are now buying turkeys instead of other poultry, because they find they can pay the increased price for turkeys, and make more out of those turkeys than they can by buying ordinary fowl weighing from three and a half to seven pounds.
They have a live association out there, but they are in some dilemma in connection with disease and feeding. They believe the industry is important enough to warrant some research being done by the Department of Agriculture. They appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and the department, and I now ask the minister if any decision has been arrived at and, if so, if anything is to be done?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member has asked if anything has been done or is to be done. I presume that he asks his question in connection with the broad-breasted turkeys.


Thomas Reid: Yes.



S3166-285

James Garfield Gardiner: There has been some work done, largely in connection with marketing conditions. That comes under Mr. Shaw's branch, which we have not yet reached. However, that work is largely in connection with promoting the sale of broad-breasted turkeys, as compared with other types, for the very reasons just given by the hon. member. I am pleased that the hon. member for New Westminster has taken the opportunity on this occasion to speak of the origin of the broadbreasted turkey and to call to the attention of the committee the importance of raising as many as possible of these on the farms across Canada.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I wish to say a word on this item. First of all, on behalf of the farmers I represent I should like to express appreciation for the work done at the experimental stations at Summerland and Invermere. The work that has been done for years at those stations has been of tremendous value to the fruit and vegetable industry in the interior of British Columbia. We all recognize that.
At the same time the farmers feel that those stations cannot adequately serve the Kootenay, Slocan and Trout Lake areas, because they are operating under different conditions. In the Okanagan and Summerland areas they have experimental stations which serve an arid country requiring irrigation, and at Invermere we have an experimental station serving a similar dry country requiring irrigation, but much lower winter temperature. In the Kootenay, Slocan and Trout Lake areas we have a much more humid climate, and the other conditions are quite different.
The farmers in my district have felt for many years that if they are to be served satisfactorily, because of the variation in soil types and in climatic conditions there should be at least an illustration station established somewhere in the Kootenays.
Some of our apple varieties are different from the Okanagan, as well as our other fruit varieties. In addition to that, we have a number of new settlers in localities which have not been previously cultivated to any extent. On their behalf I .would ask the minister to consider the establishment of an illustration station to serve the area which I represent, and which covers about 30,000 square miles.


Mr. McLURE:: Last night when we were on this item the minister referred to the appointment of the experimental superintendent at Charlottetown, whose appointment was not through the civil service commission, as the minister stated before, but by a special com-

Supply-Agriculture

mittee called in for the purpose. May I have the names of the committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: The committee was appointed by the civil service commission. The following are the names of the members of the board of review convened for the consideration of an appeal in respect of the appointment of the superintendent of an experimental farm, grade II, for the Department of Agriculture at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, in connection with competition Number 4794.
Mr. G. E, B. Sinclair, general executive assistant of the Department of Mines and Resources, was one. Mr. Sinclair was representative of the professional institute of the civil service of Canada. Mr. Tinney, who appealed the appointment, requested a representative of the professional institute, and the appointment was that of Mr. Sinclair. Mr. C. V. Putman was the representative of the civil service commission, and was chairman of the committee. Mr. Putman is no longer with the civil service commission, although he was at that time. Mr. J. C. Maynan was representative of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Maynan is chief supervisor of the illustration stations experimental farm service and was chosen, not by the department but by the civil service commission.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is it customary for the civil service commission always to call in someone to make recommendations with regard to these matters? I thought the commission did that work themselves. If they have always to call in a tribunal to settle an appointment in positions of the kind to which I am referring, then what is the benefit of having the civil service commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: The job of the civil service commission is to appoint persons to the civil service. That is their primary responsibility. Once those persons are in the civil service, then, of course, they are part of it and can have promotions from time to time. Some of those promotions are more or less automatic, while others are made in a different way.
In so far as this particular promotion was concerned, there was, first, an examination of all those who were competent to fill the position, made by the department's own . officials. They selected the man who now has the appointment, and recommended him for the appointment to that position. As a matter of fact they were prepared to put him into the position on the responsibility of the department.

Then the gentleman who was acting in Charlottetown and who had applied for the position raised the question as to whether tne appointment was being properly made. The provision is that that request goes to the civil service commission, to ask for a re-examination by the commission. The commission then appoints a committee to make an examination into the qualifications of the different persons being considered. That committee recommended the same man ds the departmental officials had previously decided should have the appointment. He got the appointment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This appointment still does not look very clpar. I have one other question. How many applicants were there in addition to the one who got the appointment yesterday, and the assistant superintendent who was appointed in August last? Who was the successor to the man in Fredericton? This appointment should have been made in February last, but it was carried over for nearly five months longer. Most of these appointments are made within six months after the man in the position has been retired, but they carried on and led this man to believe he was to be superintendent. There seemed to be a nigger in the woodpile.


James Garfield Gardiner: What happened was what almost has to happen in any case where there is a vacancy. The superintendent is retired, and the natural person to take charge until the appointment is made is the next in line on that particular farm. This man who was the assistant did take charge, of course, under the direction of the department. Applications were asked for from the maritime provinces and four were received. The gentleman who received the appointment was chosen from among those four as being the Lest suited to take charge. No one has been appointed to take his place at Fredericton. One reason why there was so much delay in the appointment at Charlottetown was that ;he assistant superintendent himself made a protest with regard to the appointment. A committee had to be appointed and the whole matter was reconsidered. When it was reconsidered his standing was not as high as it had been placed by the department itself.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: The
item under discussion is for $4,100,000, which represents quite a considerable amount of taxes to be taken from the Canadian people. Under the experimental farms service the federal government has set up experimental stations and illustration units throughout, the country. These stations can be most valuable

Supply-Agriculture
to our farm people. What I am concerned over is how to bring these stations into practical use so that we may have better agriculture.
At the present time these stations are not giving as great benefit to our people as they would if, for instance, our school children were taken to them. Quite often we may not be able to get the older farmers to realize the practical application of scientific agriculture and therefore the best step to take would be to try to attract our young people. I would suggest to the minister that he seek an appropriation and work out a plan whereby more of our school children may be taken to these experimental farms and illustration stations so that they may become familiar with what is being done and utilize the knowledge they obtain.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not considering an item of $4,100,000; the particular item we are considering is for $97,448. We have not yet reached the central experimental farm item or the item dealing with branch farms and stations and illustration stations. I wonder if we could stay with administration until we get cleared up?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: We are dealing with item 13.


Mr. CARDIFF:: According to the particulars on page 87 of the main estimates there seems to be a new appointment of agricultural architect, $3,450. What are his duties?


James Garfield Gardiner: One of his duties is to plan the farm buildings which are erected at experimental farms across Canada, but his principal duty is to draft plans, which are distributed free of charge across Canada, for farm buildings. These plans are what we consider to be the most suitable buildings for certain purposes.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Is it the intention of the department to open any new experimental stations or sub-stations?


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if we could wait until we reach that item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service-
15. Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $2,869,586.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Perhaps I could get an answer to my question now.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only sub-stations under consideration at the present time are those in the north country, one at Yellowknife and the other at Aklavik.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Are there no new stations to be opened in Manitoba?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is to be one in the area east of Melita in the southwest corner and another one up in the north. I presume somewhere in the area about which the hon. member for Dauphin is concerned.


Mr. McGARRY:: Is the department considering establishing an additional farm in Inverness?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no further decision made since the visit was made to that area.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the farm at Aklavik to be located at the former farm of Doctor Livingstone?


James Garfield Gardiner: The location has not yet been decided upon, although the farm of Doctor Livingstone is under consideration. It is to be an arrangement between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Mines and Resources, but the final decision has not yet been reached.


Edward George McCullough: Without my repeating what I said, would the minister indicate whether his department is considering trying to get more of our children to visit these experimental farms and illustration stations?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is some question as to where the responsibility rests for getting the people to the experimental farms. When I was much younger than I am now and living in Ontario I remember the excursions which were run to the experimental farm at Guelph, which is a provincial undertaking. Everyone in the section of Ontario in which I lived looked forward to that day and most of the families were represented in the excursions.


Gordon Graydon: With clothes-baskets full of cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Ever since I have been in western Canada I have wondered why we did not make more use of our experimental farms. When I was in the provincial government I attempted on many occasions to encourage people to go and I tried to organize the same thing. There are some people in the area in which I live who are active in that direction, and particularly in the Abernethy district which was the home of the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell. Those people make up little picnics and go to the experimental farm quite regularly and we can see the results in the farming around the district. I quite agree that it would be a good thing to have not only the school children but the adults as well go and look over what is being done on these farms. When I was west the last time I took
Supply-Agriculture

occasion to visit Indian Head experimental farm myself and I know that, just from looking over the farm for an hour or two and seeing what was about the buildings in the way of live stock, one does gain a good deal of valuable information. I quite agree that everything possible along that line should be done. We have not carried out systematically any organized plan to bring that about, but I think we should give consideration to it. I welcome the suggestion of the hon. member.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: This is quite an increase, some $574,000. I notice on page 89 of the main estimates there is a list of superintendents and assistants. How many new experimental branches are to be set up?


James Garfield Gardiner: Actually there is a
reduction in the vote. When I was speaking in a general way on the administration item I called attention to the fact that, since 1939 when wye went into war, the department has been drawing on the funds of P.F.R.A. for certain work which usually is financed direct under the experimental farms vote. Last year we made a change. The explanation that is given here would indicate an increase in the vote for branch farms and illustration stations; but when the whole transaction is taken into account, involving expenditures last year as well as this, there is a reduction in this particular item, while the vote for prairie farm rehabilitation remains exactly the same.


Mr. McIVOR:: On this vote for branch farms and sub-stations I Should like to pay my tribute to the superintendent of our sub-station west of Fort William. At first the farmers were a bit lukewarm toward it, but now the influence of that sub-station pays for itself several times over in the raising of grains and grasses and fruits and vegetables, and especially in the use of fertilizer. The farmers now realize that the use of fertilizer pays for itself over and over again. When a farmer takes his wife out to see a field where fertilizer has been used he stands up and says: This is the result of using fertilizer when you thought we were wasting money.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I want to come back to the question I asked earlier. Would the minister indicate if he would be prepared to give consideration to the opening of a pilot plant for flax fibre experimental work in the Dauphin area similar to the one opened at Portage la Prairie? If such a plant were established in the Dauphin area it could do a great deal of good work. As the minister is probably aware, the Dauphin area is one of the best farming areas in Manitoba and a good deal of flax

is now7 being grown. On page 99 of the minister's report there is a brief account of the work done by the pilot flax mill at Portage la Prairie, and it would appear that the same type of project would be very desirable for the Dauphin area.
Last year I referred to two airports, one on each side of the town of Dauphin, and I urged the minister to secure one of these airports for an experimental farm or sub-station. Since then, one of these airports has been sold, but there is still one left and I would suggest that if anything along the line of an experimental station is being considered for that district it would be wise to secure some of the buildings that are left at one of these airports because, once they are torn down, it would mean much more expense to build them up again. They are excellent buildings which could be easily transformed into the type of buildings required for an experimental station.


James Garfield Gardiner: The pilot station at Portage la Prairie is the only one we have in western Canada for carrying on experimental work in connection with fibre flax. We did carry on experimental work in the production of hemp at a much earlier stage, before my time as minister. One reason why Portage has been chosen for this pilot flax mill is that the soil and all other conditions there are more favourable for trying out fibre plants of any kind than can be found anywhere else except in the irrigated areas such as around Lethbridge, where you can apply the water. The conditions at Portage are considered most favourable, and it is hoped that it can be established that fibre flax can be produced satisfactorily in such an area. We are satisfied that if we cannot prove it can be produced satisfactorily there, there is nowhere else in western Canada outside of limited irrigation areas where it could be produced satisfactorily, and until that experimental work is completed, there would be no reason to establish pilot plants to determine whether fibre flax can be grown, successfully in less favourable areas.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In the report mention is made of cooperative experimental tests being conducted at the illustration stations at Arborg and Dugald. Would the minister indicate what the degree of success has been at these points? If such a test were successful at Arborg it would be a sure thing in the Dauphin district.


Edward George McCullough: Following along the line taken by the hon. member for Dauphin, I think the minister is aware that in the southeastern part of Saskatchewan in the constituency I represent, certain experi-

Supply-A griculture
ments are hoped to be carried out whereby we can utilize flax straw. That would not be a fibre flax. But in past years Americans have been coming over and buying baled flax straw, shipping it out of the country and processing it into certain types of paper. Has the minister any information in regard to experiments and work along that line?


James Garfield Gardiner: The experiments that are being carried on are not exactly what one might think by speaking just in terms of fibre flax. Fibre flax is, of course, for the making of the finer varieties of cloth as well as for making rope, twine and that sort of thing. But the experiments that are being carried on at Portage la Prairie more or less recognize the fact that, under the climatic conditions we have in western Canada, that type of flax cannot be grown. What we are attempting to do is to establish some other uses for the fibre, not only of the flax that is being grown as a fibre flax at Portage, but also of the flax that grows generally. An attempt is being made to establish that it can be successfully used for cigarette paper, which is in great demand and which is made from other products at the present time. Then some experiments are being made as to the utilization for making wallboard for building purposes. The experiments are not along the line of just using the fibre flax for the ordinary purpose for which fibre flax is used; its purpose is to try to establish some method of utilizing the great volume of fibre straw which is available in western Canada from the production of flax.


Mr. MARQUIS:: I understand that the minister is aware that one of the most important experimental stations is located in my county of Kamouraska at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. I wish to thank the minister for what he has done in the last few months in the way of improving the conditions of the working men, but I would ask him if he intends to make more repairs to the buildings on the farm and to improve more and more the conditions of the workmen and the employees there.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. the intention is to make some repairs there and the amounts are included in the public works estimates.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The report dealing with the pilot flax mill at Portage is brief as a general report would have to be. Can the minister indicate whether a separate report has been published dealing in particular with that one experiment which has been going on since 1945?


James Garfield Gardiner: One is being prepared now which covers the three years of work
since the plant was first established. It is not yet in print but will be printed shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
18.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, $223,036.
Mr. WRIGHT:: Last night I asked the minister a question in regard to artificial insemination of dairy herds in Canada. What assistance is the department giving in this matter? To what extent is it being used and what success, if any, is being obtained by its use?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an association known as the artificial insemination unit. The practice that is being followed by the department is to put out one bull for at least every one that they put out. We do the experimental work in connection with it.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister any idea what success is being attained?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is particularly good with dairy cattle; it is more successful with dairy cattle than with others and it has resulted in very good developments.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is a report issued on it which is obtainable?


James Garfield Gardiner: No report has been issued on it up to the present.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are all purebred registered stock eligible for compensation if they are authorized to be slaughtered by some veterinarian because of disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they are properly registered as purebred stock, payment is made on the basis of purebred stock. If they are not registered, then they would not be eligible.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There have been considerable losses among the purebred registered stock on the farm of Silver Foxes owing to the prevalence of disease there last year. Most of these are purebred animals and are registered in the records of the department at Ottawa. The claim has been made that these people should be compensated in cases where a veterinarian has been called in from the department who orders the animals to be slaughtered in order to protect other herds in that vicinity. Up to the present very little compensation, if any, has been paid and the losses have been extremely heavy.


James Garfield Gardiner: In a general way the only time we pay for the slaughtering of live stock is that provided for in order to deal with tuberculosis, in order to try to control the development of tuberculosis or proven!
Supply-Agriculture

it. There are other cases where we pay compensation in connection with hog cholera, for example, and in a few other instances where our officials order the slaughter of animals. But in a general way it is correct to say that no compensation is paid for any live stock other than cattle. The real reason for that is to prevent the spread of tuberculosis among human beings. The government does not assume the responsibility for paying for losses that individuals have because of diseases which animals may have which do not affect human beings. That is, of course, the strength of the argument which was made last night in connection with Bang's disease. It is a disease which does affect the human being and which can be transferred from the animal to the human being. It is in order to combat that kind of disease that we pay for slaughtering of animals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
19.	Live stock arid poultry, $979yll'l.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: There seems to be an increase of $139,486 in this item, and in one particular item, $30,000 for buildings and land. Can the minister tell us where that was expended?


James Garfield Gardiner: The increase amounts to $189,486. Did the hon. member ask what the increase was for?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: There is an item of $30,000 for buildings and land. Where was that amount expended?


James Garfield Gardiner: For pig-testing stations at Moncton and Waterloo.
Item agreed1 to.
Production service-
20.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $31,000 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $826,255.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: This item deals with seeds and like matters. Last evening I had an opportunity to say a word or two about the county of Middlesex and western Ontario so far as live stock was concerned. I have a certain amount of justifiable pride in the county of Middlesex. I am also grateful to the county for the opportunities they have given to me. In the county of Middlesex we have a crop and seed improvement association. They put on, I think, the outstanding seed fair in Ontario, if not in the Dominion of Canada. Over a period of some eight years there has been a tremendous increase in the production of seed grain in the county; not only in that county but in 
the various counties surrounding, there has been also an enormous increase in those counties. Less than twenty years ago there were only three registered seed growers in the county of Middlesex; today they number in hundreds.
I wish to mention three of these outstanding men. One is Mr. Alex M. Stewart, who became oat king of North America. Last year Mr. Clifford Dale was winner in the barley contest in the province of Ontario, and part of the credit for this crop and seed improvement association should go to the first president, Mr. Andrew Murray, also of Middlesex county and from my home township.
In 1945 there was exported from the area 100,000 bushels of seed grain to the United States. Last year, in 1946, there were 7,500 acres contracted for registered seed grain growdng purposes in Middlesex county alone, to say nothing of the other nine or ten counties surrounding. The results have been improved varieties and yields.
Western Ontario is the centre of a rich and fertile area, and besides the growing of grains there are pasture grasses and clovers, soya beans and corn, coarse grains, spring wheat and other seeds. In the crop year now approaching there were contracts for a large acreage of flax seed1, but owing to the very wet season it has not been possible to plant all the acres contracted for. Also in the area we have sixty seed cleaning plants and therefore in western Ontario we are equipped, we have the know-how, to produce some of the finest seed grains anywhere in the province.
Also located within the western Ontario area is the university of Western Ontario. They should and could be equipped to carry on education, training and research in the agricultural sciences, which would be of vast use to the farmers of western Ontario.
Some members of the house look upon the estimates we are now discussing as an expense. Actually they are an investment in agriculture, our basic industry, and I think we should look upon them in that light. A few nights ago I heard a discussion here about the difficulty of collecting income tax from the farmers. I suggest that if the farmer received a price that put him in the income tax brackets he would gladly pay income tax. We all pay tribute to the minister and the remarkable memory he has. Some time ago representative groups from the county of Middlesex and surrounding areas made representations to him regarding the setting up in western Ontario of a seed testing laboratory. I would ask him to remember that area.

Supply-Agriculture


Edward George McCullough: A matter of extreme importance that I wish to speak about, a matter of importance not only to farmers but to all Canadians, is fertilizer, and soil conservation in Canada. Earlier in the discussion of the estimates I spoke at some length in this regard. Tonight I do not intend to duplicate my remarks but I shall speak, first, of conservation, second, of the general picture of fertilizer in Canada, and, lastly, give what I hope will be some constructive proposals which will be of assistance in this matter.
All hon. members, whether farmers or not, should recognize that in Canada today we are following a policy which is depleting our soils of their nutritive content. If this process goes on we shall finally be in the position where we shall have smaller and smaller crops as a result of robbing the soils of their various chemicals and foods which are necessary for plant growth.
The government was in a splendid position to see that we would have an increased use of fertilizer throughout Canada and it could easily have made it possible for our farmers to become accustomed to the use of fertilizers. I feel that the fertilizer policy in Canada is such -as to discourage the widespread use of fetrilizer, and in this regard I would say that today we have a fertilizer monopoly in the country. Most of the responsibility for this lies at the door of the present government.
I would refer the committee to the report of the price spreads commission which in 1935 pointed out that for all practical purposes a monopoly may exist where there is more than one seller. In that inquiry they listed fertilizer as one type of monopoly in Canada. Since that time we have seen the growth of monopoly in the control of fertilizer. Before the war, Canadian Industries Limited had four large mixing plants: Canada Packers, four; Agricultural Chemicals, two; International Fertilizers, two, and smaller companies, about three. The situation was such that these companies were taking the sulphate of ammonia from the coke and steel plants, and in central Canada Canadian Industries Limited took the whole supply of it. While they were buying this commodity, which was a by-product of the coke mills, at $21 a ton, without touching it they were selling it at $33 a ton. Allowing for freight to the amount of $2, they were making a net profit of $10 a ton.
That was bad enough, but since that time conditions have got worse. We find now that, as I indicated earlier in this house, the government has seen fit to sell out our three
large plants, the plant at Trail, the one at Calgary and the large Welland plant, to monopoly interests. The policy followed by the government is, I maintain, a sell-out of the Canadian farmer. It is against the wishes of organized agriculture, because I am going to put on the record communications between the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and government officials to show that they knew nothing about the sale of these plants and also to show that the plants were sold against the wishes of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
First, I should like to read from the Rural Cooperator of Tuesday, January 14, 1947, a summary of a speech given by Mr. Colin Groff, Secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
We reported last year respecting the disposal of the government-owned nitrate plantsat Calgary and at Welland, Ontario. The situation at that time and throughout the year, so far as our understanding with the government was concerned was that the government, through the Hon. C. D. Howe, had assured us that even though the Calgary plant, where cheap nitrate was 'being produced, might be sold, there would be a protection for prices for nitrate for fertilizer through the fact that the government intended continuing operation of the plant at Welland. It was only in December that we learned that the government had disposed of this plant also to private interests a short time ago, a decision which was made without any information being given to us at the time, or without any consultation with us.
Before continuing with that, I should like to say that these plants were built at considerable expense to the Canadian people. I have here a letter from the office of the deputy minister of reconstruction and supply, which indicates that the total cost to the Canadian taxpayers for the Welland chemical works was $19,129,246. That plant was sold to the North American Cyanamid people on December 1, 1946, for $4,750,000. I do not think it is necessary to put on record again the prices realized from the sale of these plants, but I should like to indicate this in reference to the profits made by the fertilizer industry in this country, and I am going to read this extract because I think it should be placed on the record:
The farmers of Canada should take a good look at recent financial reports of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. This company has always been a dominant factor in the production of lead, zinc and other metals, and its monopoly position has undoubtedly affected farmers in one way or another without attracting too much attention to itself.
But this year the financial statement is interesting especially to farmers. The annual report shows that the net profit for 1946 was $23,323,168, or $7.12 per share, compared with $3.52 per share in 1945, an increase of over
Supply-Agriculture

one hundred per cent. This vastly increased profit was realized chiefly from greatly increased sales of fertilizers, combined with higher prices for base metals. Production of fertilizer was 484,720 tons compared with 369,666 of the previous year.
The company, in its annual report, says "the year 1946 was marked by a record production of fertilizer due mainly to the purchase in April of plants from the dominion government."
Last year the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked the government, through the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, what disposition would be made of the government plants. Here again I quote from the report of Mr. Herb Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, at the annual meeting in Winnipeg. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply had assured him that-
. . . "even though the Calgary plant, where cheap nitrate is produced, might be sold, there will be protection for prices for nitrate for fertilizer through the fact that the government intended continuing operation of the plant at Welland." It was only in December that we learned that the government had disposed of this plant, also to private interests, a short time ago, a decision which was made without any information being given to us at that time, or without any consultation with us.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture then, in a resolution, charged the government with breach of faith.
In regard to what might have been done by the government had we kept these plants in operation, we have found that the Alberta Nitrogen Products plant was producing nitrate, which is the most costly ingredient going into fertilizer, for $19 a ton, The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company was producing it at $29, and the Welland plant at $39. These were the prices, of course, when the plants were first being operated. Naturally we understand that, as more fertilizer was produced and the plants were used more, these costs would be greatly reduced.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why were
the costs so different?


Edward George McCullough: Simply because of the nature of the plants and the source of the material.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They use
natural gas in Calgary'.


Edward George McCullough: 
Mr. MITCHELL:: What is my hon. friend reading from?
_ Mr. VIAU: I thought it was understood that in this house we were not supposed to read speeches.


Edward George McCullough: I am not reading my speech.

Supply-A griculture


Mr. VIAU:: You are reading material prepared' at Woodsworth House, and it has to be stopped.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member is reading correspondence tabled in this house in an order for return.


Fernand Viau: He is reading material prepared by people who have never been in this house. It is well typed and well written.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would just like to call attention to the fact that this speech was put on record on June 3, and it was put on record last year. That applies to almost every word which is being put on record now. It has been answered twice already.


Edward George McCullough: I can put on record what I like.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me point out just what is on record. At page 3758 of Hansard for June 3 the hon. member who now has the floor made the same statements and read some of the same articles into Hansard. When he had finished I said:
I judge, from the trend the discussion has taken up to the present, that the C.C.F. party are carrying out what their leader announced the other day was an organized plan in the party; and I compliment them upon carrying it out, because of its effectiveness.


Percy Ellis Wright: On a point of order-


Fernand Viau: Sit down.


James Garfield Gardiner: -But the representative of the Social Credit party stated a few moments ago that they intended to carry out what is the recognized and proper procedure in connection with this discussion, and would discuss each one of these matters on the appropriate item when it came up.
Mr. Ross (Souris):	And the official opposition.
Mr. Gardiner:	And the official opposition,
while they have not announced it, have carried it out in practice all evening.
As a result, other members in the house desisted from discussing the question and going into the matter farther. Now, tonight, we are listening to the same speech being read again. The point of order is that one cannot discuss this question a second time by reading the same speech. The hon. member might as well pick up this volume of Hansard and read the whole speech again into the record.
The first point of order is that he should not be reading his speech at all; and the second point of order is that he is just reading again what is already on Hansard, and is thereby wasting the time of the house.


Edward George McCullough: On a question of privilege, I wish to say that the 83166-266
only portion I am reading consists of letters or correspondence either tabled in the house or between the minister and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I say that is perfectly in order.


William Henry Golding: It is not in order to refer to a debate of the same session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister did that.


Edward George McCullough: I am not doing that.


James Garfield Gardiner: You do not have to say you are referring to it, but you may be still referring to it.


William Henry Golding: Order. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia will agree that no good purpose will be served by putting on Hansard again what has already been put on Hansard. I hope he will try to save the time of the committee, and will not repeat what is already on Hansard.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I am repeating only very little of what was put on the record on any previous occasion. I want to clarify this, and say that, no matter if I do repeat myself, so long as I am a member of the house, when I think there is something I should fight for, on behalf of the farmers and people of this country, I am going to do it.


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member does not take the attitude that he defies the rules of the house.


James Arthur Ross: That is what he says.


Humphrey Mitchell: Do not have any mock heroics about this.


Edward George McCullough: Have I the floor?


Humphrey Mitchell: I rise to a point of order. It is still a free country. I appreciate that when we are discussing a difficult and intricate subject it may be necessary to read a speech. I think we all agree on that. But if you want to use Hansard as campaign literature, you understand, it is totally out of order.


Percy Ellis Wright: 'What is the point of order?


Humphrey Mitchell: The point of order is that you should not read a speech, even in committee.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member was not reading his speech. He was reading a quotation.

Supply-Agriculture


Humphrey Mitchell: What has he in his hand, then?


Mr. JUTRAS:: That was my first point of order. He was reading what he had said in the house before.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member is reading letters tabled in the house in relation to the matter, he would be in order. But I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that no good purpose *will be served by placing, on Hansard again what was put there a few days ago.


René Jutras: That is right.


Edward George McCullough: I repeat, as I indicated before, that I am not putting on the record anything that was put there before. So far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, let me say that some people have pretty short memories, and it would not do them a bit of harm to have things repeated to them.
I have already indicated that there was an undertaking or a commitment made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to the farmers of this country. As I said before, there was a breach of faith there, and they sold out the organized farmers of this country, and the Canadian people generally.
Now, to continue-


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order-a point of privilege. I do not think my hon. friend should accuse this government or any individual in the house of selling out the Canadian farmer, because he knows it is not true.


Edward George McCullough: By the time I have finished, if you allow me to continue my speech. I will indicate what I mean by it.


René Jutras: You are only playing
politics.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I rise to a question of privilege. I think the hon. member should be allowed to proceed and play the record. But I also think he should get a new needle.


René Jutras: That is the way I entered into it, by saying that he was still using the old broken record.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to put on Hansard again what is already there.


James Arthur Ross: Our records are original. Do not repeat them so often.


Edward George McCullough: I would not want to read the record of hon. members to my right.


René Jutras: Get your own speech, not one you made previously.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make your own speech.


William Scottie Bryce: You make a speech; you haven't made one yet.


René Jutras: I made more than you did.
The DEPUTY' CHAIRMAN: Order.


Edward George McCullough: The
suggestion in the letter of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply was agreed to by Air. Hannam, where he said this in his letter of June 16, 1944:
It is not my purpose at this time to discuss how one or more of these nitrogen plants may be operated after the war in order to best serve agricultural producers in Canada. If, in consultation with the fertilizer committee of our Canadian Federation of Agriculture, it is found that continued government operation is the best way to provide for the production of agriculture nitrogen, I think I can assure you that it will have our whole-hearted support.
I will say right here that there was a lot of controversy on the point. I think the Alinister of Agriculture and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply' should have known that they could not merely have given such a commitment or assurance that these plants could be sold to any agricultural group in this country.
Then, I have here the recommendation of the war expenditures committee. This was the recommendation of sub-committee number four of the war expenditures committee of the House of Commons. They made an investigation into the manufacture of ammonium nitrate at the Calgary plant. Their report is as follows:
That the plants both at Calgary and Niagara Falls should remain the property of the crown and should be operated as a government enterprise for the purpose of the manufacture of ammonium nitrate for the use of Canadian agriculture and other chemicals. The sub-committee fully appreciates the fact that this recommendation is contrary to the existing agreement but believes that the manufacture of ammonium nitrate and other products is of sufficient importance to Canadian agriculture that the terms of the agreement should be re-negotiated after the war.
I might say that even on September 20, 1945, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, by their president, again made a further appeal to the government that these plants be not turned over to private enterprise, but be kept or put under cooperative ownership.

Supply-Agriculture
Then Mr. Hannam had this to say, and I quote the letter to the minister:
You will recall that on several occasions our federation of agriculture interviewed you regarding future operation of government owned nitrogen plants. In view of the importance of nitrogen in a soil building programme for Canadian agriculture, we made a special appeal to you and the government, to provide that at least one of these plants-the Calgary plant-be operated by a cooperative corporation to be formed by member bodies of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in cooperation with federal government. Should this arrangement not meet with approval, we urge very strongly that the federal government continue to operate this plant for the benefit of Canadian farmers. in order to supply them this vital element of their fertilizer requirements at the lowest possible price. In fact, it seems evident to us that a high price nitrogen product would be a definite bottleneck in the fertilizer industry in the years immediately ahead.
As we have mentioned to you on former occasions, we do fear the result if these plants are permitted to be sold to private corporations whose policy in the past has been to charge all the traffic will bear.
Ybu were good enough to assure us on one occasion, that the government would not permit this to happen without prior consultation with our Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Accordingly, we are very anxious to know what, if any, development there may be in connection with these plants, and what, if any, assurance you can give us that at least one will be government operated, in order that our farmers may receive their nitrogen fertilizer at a reasonably low figure.
Here again the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply indicated that the government was going to sell the Calgary plant, but that the Welland plant in eastern Canada would be used for the purpose of producing fertilizer in this country and would be kept under government operation. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture objected to the suggestion that the Calgary plant was not to operate under government ownership, because it was able to produce nitrogen there much more cheaply. Again they suggested to the minister:
We understand also, that the cost of manufacturing amonium nitrate in the Calgary plant is only about half the cost of manufacturing in the Port Robinson plant in Ontario.
When the minister answers tonight I should like him to say why it was not deemed reasonable to keep in operation a plant which could produce fertilizer more cheaply rather than to keep the Welland plant continuing. This letter continues:
If the Port Robinson plant is to manufacture fertilizer for the farmers of Canada, are they to pay a high price, while the Calgary plant will go to private hands, where the new owners would be in a position to make excessive profits while selling at the same price as the products manufactured at Port Robinson?
In an interview with yourself some time ago, we felt we had a definite understanding with you that this plant would not be offered for sale to private interests, without consulting our Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Now in your letter, you state "Steps are, therefore, being taken to dispose of the property." Does this mean that the property would have been sold very shortly, and we would have known nothing about it, had it not been that I happened to make inquiry regarding this plant in my letter of September 20?
In his reply to Mr. Hannam the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply indicated that the plant at Calgary might become a white elephant. I remember the debate in the house on February 10 last when I brought up this subject, and the Minister of Agriculture said that we could produce all the nitrates at one of these plants for Canadian use and then in a very short time we would have to export our surplus production. I want to ask, what is wrong with having fertilizers here in Canada for export? Do we not want industries? Why should we turn this over to private enterprise so that they can make the profits I have indicated. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, in his letter of October 2, 1945, said:
As I wrote you previously, Welland Chemicals is capable of manufacturing products other than fertilizer, and should probably be kept as a government operation. This plant is being operated on a very profitable basis, and probably can continue to operate at a profit, regardless of the export situation. It is capable of furnishing all Canadian requirements for many years to come, and can do so cheaper than the Calgary plant. Certainly, its use would regulate the price of fertilizers produced privately in a manner that will fully protect users of fertilizer.
While no time for receiving tenders for the plant has been fixed, there is no doubt that sufficient time will elapse to give the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ample time to formulate a proposal for the purchase of the plant, provided early steps are taken by yourself to that end.
In October, 1945, the Alberta government wired to the minister when it became known that the Calgary plant had been sold to private interests. They said:
Today's press announces Honourable C. D. Howe considering sale of ammonia plant at Calgary. Alberta government desires to exercise its priority on this plant immediately to prevent loss of the industry to the province unless sale by dominion government contains undertaking and guarantee by purchaser of continuous operation in the province.
I wrote to the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to ask whether the contract of sale provided that the plant would be kept in operation, and I should like to quote from the letter I received from the department in reply:
The sale contract does not place any responsibility on the North American Cyanamid
Supply-Agriculture

Limited to keep the plant operating at full capacity nor to manufacture any particular type of product.
Not only did the government sell the plant, but they gave away the benefits of all the experiments which had been carried on during the war. I have a clipping here from the Globe and Mail of March 6, 1947, which asks why Ottawa wonders why the chemical plant sale alarms the United Kingdom minister. It is indicated there that even the right to the manufacture of picrite is given to these American Cyanamid people, and they are thus given complete control of that production. I do not intend to go on any farther, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward George McCullough: I know there are many hon. members to my right who would like to get this through. The leader of the C.C.F. party got up and made a fine speech against the growth of cartels in this country. I remember that at that time the hon. member for Kamloops said that all he needed to do was to complain about it, and another hon. member to my right said that the leader of this group could go and lay a complaint against the cartels. Here we have an indication that the government are allowing a cartel to exist in this country. We have set up the Combines Investigations Act with a commissioner to try to control this sort of thing. However, if the government cannot control this I wonder how any individual in this house or in the country can control it. If hon. members to my right are in favour of this sort of thing, let them get up and say so.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Who said they were?


Edward George McCullough: You
seem to be in a hurry to pass this item.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Nonsense.


Edward George McCullough: I want to tell the committee why I brought up this matter. We know that farmers who want to use fertilizer are forced to pay prices which they cannot afford. Earlier this evening we passed items running into millions of dollars to set up experimental farms and stations so that our farmers may be informed about soil conservation and thus have greater production. According to experiments which have been conducted by our universities, a wide-scale use of fertilizer would increase production by eight to ten bushels per acre. The world is crying for food and we want stable production in this country. Therefore I submit it is the responsibility of the government to make these fertilizers available to

our farmers at prices they can afford to pay. Throughout the west, and especially in Saskatchewan, the district which I know best, 11-48 fertilizer is being sold at $63.50 off the car, or $64.50 at distribution points. It can be well understood why farmers are not using it.
Here are the results of tests made by the college of agriculture of the university of Saskatchewan. After using 11-48 at four different rates per acre the average increase in bushels per acre ranged from 6-3 to 10-2. That is a considerable increase, and when you apply that increase over the whole of the province it can readily be seen of what 'tremendous value it would be to our farmers. The use of fertilizer also on grazing land is of great value because it increases greatly the nitrogen content in the dried grass and hay from that pasturage.
It is too late to do anything about these plants because they are sold and gone, but I should like to make a constructive proposal to the government. The only thing I see now is for the federal government to subsidize the use of fertilizer in this country so that our farmers will become used to it. Our land is a heritage, and I do not think we can afford to exploit it as we have our other natural resources. If we are to make a scientific attempt at soil conservation it is up to the federal government to do something about fertilizer.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Two days ago we had as our guest in this country the President of the United States, and a few years ago we had as a guest a great man in the person of the late President Roosevelt. There appears in a reputable Canadian newspaper today an article which I believe all members of this house would like to have repudiated or corroborated. It says that it was originally intended to have inscribed on the carillon bells at the Rainbow bridge at Niagara Falls the names of the late President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. But in today's newspaper, travelling all over the Dominion of Canada and, I am sure, into the United States, it is stated that through pressure-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I think hon. members will be glad to have this matter brought to their attention.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. When the
Chairman rises will the hon. member kindly be seated. When the house is in committee there can be no question of privilege on the

Supply-A griculture
matter about which the hon. member is speaking. If the house were sitting as a house there might possibly be a question of privilege, but not at the present time.


Gordon Graydon: The member ought to be allowed to finish his statement, Mr. Chairman. Three ministers of the crown are involved1.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The house is in committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I should make a few remarks with regard to the statements that were put on Hansard within the last few minutes by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The statement which has been largely read to the committee this evening was in substance put on the record on June 3 last and was also put on the record a year ago. At the time it was placed on the record a year ago I called attention to some remarks which had been made which were not entirely in accordance with the facts. I am going to say this evening that, while the record which was placed on Hansard-


Edward George McCullough: On a point of privilege, to what statements is the minister referring?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming to that and will indicate what they were. The hon. member has been reading to the committee letters that were received by the federation of agriculture from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and has referred to discussions which took place between myself and the president of the federation. The letters in themselves in so far as they were read are, of course, in accordance with the facts. But my hon. friend did not tell all the story, as he himself knows.


Edward George McCullough: You
finish it then.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will finish it and when I have finished the hon. member may have something else to say. The position which was taken by the hon. member and read on to the record previously was to this effect, with regard to the agreement entered into for the sale of the nitrogen products plants at Calgary and in the Niagara peninsula:
If hereafter for any reason the (U.K.) government at any time or times within twenty (20) years from the date hereof shall desire or determine to lease or dispose of said plant or any department or part thereof except to "any government within the British empire or North America," N.A.C.L. shall be given the first opportunity.
The impression has been left with the committee by the hon. member that governments
did not have any opportunity to buy this plant, and that the farm organizations had no opportunity to buy it. The fact is that the president of the federation of agriculture carried on a correspondence, first, with the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, and when he felt that the plant would probably be sold if something further were not done he came to the Minister of Agriculture and carried on conversations with him in regard, to the matter. As a result of the representations made, I met the farm organizations from western Canada, at the suggestion of the president of the federation, and discussed with them the whole question whether arrangements could be made for the disposal of this plant to some government or to some farm organization in western Canada. It is true that, strictly speaking, the farm organization probably could not, under the terms of the agreement, have obtained the plant directly. But there is a suggestion, that governments could have retained possession of the plant.
A letter has been read on to Hansard to the effect that the Alberta government did make inquiries, but I notice that the hon. member did not follow through, or give any indication to the committee or the country of what the final outcome of that correspondence was or whether the government of Alberta pressed its desire to obtain the plant which was located in Alberta. My memory of the discussions and my understanding of them is this, and I know something whereof I speak because I went to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply myself and asked him to hold these plants in possession of the government until such time as every possible concern in western Canada that might want to purchase the plants had an opportunity to do so. It was only after the president of the federation of agriculture came to me personally-and I am sure he will take no exception to my saying so tonight, and he will so state anywhere- and said it did not appear that any arrangement could be made to have these plants handled by any of the organizations in western Canada, or by the governments in western Canada, that the plant was disposed of. We had exhausted every possible attempt that could be made to see to it that if any government or farm organization desired to take over these plants an opportunity would be given them to do so.
I agree that, strictly speaking, there are terms in the agreement which may have made it difficult, if the company had desired to make it difficult for this kind of thing to happen; but there was no indication given to the government or to the minister, so far as I know, that the company itself would
Supply-Agriculture

have objected to the operation of this plant by farm organizations or by a government. The fact of the matter is that every farm organization in western Canada-and some of them have considerable funds of money running into millions of dollars-examined into the possibility of taking this plant over and operating it, and decided, without any exception whatsoever, that they had no desire to do so. The government itself examined into the possibilities of operating the plant-


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The federal government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The federal government also examined into the possibility. I do not say that the federal government arrived at the decision which it did on the basis of the possibility of operating it; the federal government took the position that we were not desirous of going into that type of business in the western part of Canada.
The suggestion has been made that when we were discussing this question before, I stated that the chief reason for it was the fact that the greater part of the product had to be exported. It was not the idea that the product had to be exported that had anything in particular to do with the matter; it was the fact that if we were to operate the plant as a government we would operate it in opposition to plants being operated in other areas in other countries, not to serve our own people, because the product which is an ingredient of fertilizer is not a product which is used, in quantities comparable witfi the possible production of the plant, in the fertilizer that would be useful in the western part of Canada. It is an ingredient of fertilizer which is used to a considerable extent in parts of eastern Canada and in parts of the United States. The product which is obtained in the United States for that purpose is partly provided locally and partly obtained from Chile. If we had undertaken the operation of that plant it would have meant that as a government we would be operating a plant which would not serve any real purpose in so far as the farmers of western Canada were concerned, and which would take us into competition within another country and with other organizations that were producing similar ingredients-


Edward George McCullough: The
Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company are doing very well.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether they are doing particularly well out of the plant or not; I am not in a position to say, but I am in a position to say this, that my 
hon. friend again threw out the suggestion that they might close it up. Well, if they are doing so well in it, why would they close it up? As a matter of fact, on the previous occasion when this matter was under discussion I said, in as definite terms as I could state it, that when I suggested out on the coast that there might be a possibility of the plant being closed up I immediately received a telegram from those who were operating the plant saying that it would not be closed up, that it would be operated. So far as I know, it will be operated. The plant is being operated there; but the point I wish to make is this. The government decided, as a matter of policy, that it would not operate that kind of plant. That is not the policy of the group in the opposition that are raising this question. Their policy is that they should purchase and operate plants of this kind in order to serve-


Edward George McCullough: For the benefit of the people of that part of the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says, "for the benefit of the people of that part of the country". He refers particularly to Saskatchewan. There was not a thing in the world to prevent the government of that province from buying this plant had they wished to do so. He says the service that is to be given is to be given to thousands upon thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan. If that plant could be of service to thousands and thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan, why did not the socialist government which believes in that kind of thing buy the plant at Calgary and operate it? It could have operated it just as successfully as this government could have done or as any other government could have done. I would suggest to them that when they are advocating governments taking over plants of this kind they take a look at what their own government is doing in connection with these matters in the province in which they live. If they do that, they will find that there is not very much that the government has taken over out there and tried to operate as a government, which has been of assistance to thousands and thousands.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is not what the minister says when he goes to Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: They took over a little box factory which employs some fifty or sixty men and they took over a brick plant at Estevan, which is operated on clay from which you cannot make good brick, as everyone in the western part of Canada understands.

Supply-Agriculture


Percy Ellis Wright: On a point of order, I am wondering just what the plants that are taken over in Saskatchewan have to do with fertilizer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know it has this to do with fertilizer. If the government of Saskatchewan had wanted to operate a plant and produce fertilizer it could have done so; it could have operated it. But of course they had no desire to do so for the same reason that others did not desire to do so.
If there happens to be some concern in Canada that,-by operating a plant in cooperation with some other plant, can make a success of operating it, then I do not know of any reason why they should not operate it.
There is a great deal of argument as to what they will charge farmers in western Canada for the product. There is far more necessity for considering just to what extent the plant could be used by farmers in western Canada even if it were operated. By whomever it was operated, that plant would produce very much more in the way of an ingredient of fertilizer than western Canada will use. If it is to operate at all it will operate for the production of fertilizer for somebody somewhere else, and therefore it was not so much a matter of concern to this government from the point of view of the western farmer as has been made out.
All I want to say is that those who believe in government ownership and control of all industries in Canada, when they have an opportunity to take over a plant that is considered so valuable to the farmers of western Canada as the plant at Calgary is considered by them to be, should have made a much better effort to take it over and operate it themselves and provide the farmers with this much needed fertilizer about which we have been hearing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to ask the minister two questions. I think it might be well-and it may be obvious-to say that I have no intention of entering into a debate with respect to fertilizer. Is it not true that when that plant was operating during the war and making ammonia, over ninety per cent of the product was exported and used largely on the gulf coast of the United States? In other words, ten per cent of it could be used in this country. Is it not true, that that plant, in one month's operation, could make all the ammonia which could possibly be used in fertilizer for the whole of Canada and that, therefore, during the other eleven months it would be operating simply for export business for the gulf coast of the United States? Is that not the simple situation with respect to that plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a fact, yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is it feasible today to fertilize the wheat areas in Saskatchewan? Is it not true to say that fertilizer is used today for smaller patches and more intensive cultivation? Is that not the fact? Could a man at any price fertilize a half-section of land? I do not know whether he could or not. I am simply asking the question to obtain information.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are certain places where it would pay the farmer to fertilize his land, but not necessarily with the type of fertilizer that would be made from the product which is produced in Calgary. On the other hand, in an area, where the land has been cropped for fifty years and which will still grow fifty bushels of wheat to the acre, farmers are not very likely to spend very much money on fertilizer. All over western Canada there are areas where, whenever they get sufficient rain, without any fertilizer whatever they grow anywhere from thirty to fifty bushels an acre, and some of those lands have been under crop continuously for from forty to fifty years. Of course the time may come when some of the ingredients of that soil will be used to such an extent as to make it absolutely necessary to fertilize it with something, but there has been no suggestion that any considerable amount of the product of the Calgary plant could be used for the purpose of improving cropping conditions in western Canada.


Percy Ellis Wright: It has been proved beyond doubt that the experimental station in Saskatoon, at the university, which has used fertilizer for the last five or seven years, has increased thereby the crop yields from six to eight bushels an acre.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is that from the ammonia plant?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes. It uses a considerable portion of fertilizer from this plant. The minister tried to indicate that this type of fertilizer is not used in western Canada. It is, and we have been short of fertilizer in the west ever since 1942. This year when I was at home at Easter the man who sells fertilizer in the area I represent came and told me that if I wanted fertilizer for 1948 I would have to put in my order immediately. He said that unless I had the order in within a short time I had very little chance of getting fertilizer in 1948. There is a shortage of fertilizer in western Canada. There was a shortage this year and there will be a shortage next year. The minister is just trying to wash the thing out, but I am afraid
Supply-Agriculture

he cannot do so as far as the farmers of western Canada and the farmers in eastern Canada -are concerned, because they realize more than ever the need of fertilizer. They realize that the fertility of the soil in the country has been going down. Yields have been going down in many areas simply because we have not learned how to use fertilizer to the extent to which it has been used in Europe and in other parts of the world. Anyone who has gone to Europe and has seen the use of fertilizer there, and the yields obtained from the intelligent application of fertilizer, must realize that we have to use fertilizer more and more in this country if we are to maintain the fertility of the soil.
We had in this house a committee set up in the early days of the war, and that committee recommended to the government that these fertilizer plants should be maintained. On that committee the majority of the members were government supporters. As soon as the war was over, however, as the minister stated, the government had no further interest in maintaining the government plants and sold them. That is the whole story. They were not interested in maintaining these government plants or in seeing that fertilizer was produced here so that it could be sold to the farmers at prices which would enable them to use it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is part of the story but not the whole story. No one else was interested in keeping them either. No one else was interested in buying them. Those who, it was thought, might be interested were consulted in the matter and, after examination, they said they were not interested.


Percy Ellis Wright: Again the minister is not stating the whole truth because the plant at Welland-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking of the western plant.


Percy Ellis Wright: -was sold before the people out there knew it was sold. They did not know it had been sold until they saw reports in the papers. The government had given an assurance to those people that, before the plant was sold, they would be notified. Not only that, but the minister himself stated in a letter that the government did not intend to sell the plant but intended to operate it. But they did not carry out their word.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would ask my hon. friend to stick with the area he is interested in.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am sticking with a matter that is of interest to the whole country. I am 
not interested in western Canada alone; I am interested in agriculture throughout the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not an organization in eastern Canada that has control of government that believes in government ownership and control of plants of that kind. There is only one place in Canada where that condition exists, namely in Saskatchewan, and the government of Saskatchewan, which believes in that policy, had no interest in buying this plant.


Percy Ellis Wright: Quite right, but the plant was not built in Saskatchewan. If it had been they would have been interested in it. The plant was in Alberta.


James Garfield Gardiner: They took some interest in the meat packing plant in Edmonton. Why should they not take an interest in the plant in Calgary?


Percy Ellis Wright: Again the minister is not stating the truth. The plant in Edmonton is a cooperative.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is not stating the facts when he says that I am not speaking the truth.


Percy Ellis Wright: I did not say the minister was not speaking the truth.


James Garfield Gardiner: Better read Hansard.


Percy Ellis Wright: I said the government did not carry out their promise.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government of
Saskatchewan took an interest in the opening up of the plant in Edmonton and guaranteed the funds of the farmers cooperative that operates the plant. So did this government. But not only did the Saskatchewan government do that. Ever since, they have been taking credit for what has happened in those plants. As a matter of fact, this government put up much more than the provincial government of Saskatchewan put up, and negotiated all contracts for the sale, and if the government of Saskatchewan could take an interest in the plant in Edmonton, why could it not take an interest in the plant in Calgary?


Percy Ellis Wright: I might ask the minister the same question. If his government could take an interest in the plant in Edmonton, why not take an interest in the plant in Calgary?


James Garfield Gardiner: We did. We arranged for its building.


Percy Ellis Wright: You sold it.

Supply-Agriculture


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not going to have my province slighted. As I understand it, the socialist government, according to the statement of the hon. member who last spoke, did not take an interest in this plant for the reason that it was located in Alberta. That is one of the queerest reasons I have heard advanced for anything. The reason the plant is in Calgary is the fact that it uses natural gas. I say to my hon. friend, your government's money would have been just as good as anyone else's if it had been offered to this government as purchase price. I go a long way with you in some of your ideas, but let us not say that your socialist government in Saskatchewan is afraid, ashamed

what should the word be?-to deal with us in Alberta. We will use you well and give you a profit on every deal you make with us. You will be treated all right.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member has little to say about the government of Alberta.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will make a speech on that if you want me to. I think they are a splendid government.


James Arthur Ross: Much better than Saskatchewan.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This vote is for $826,255 for plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides control, including a grant of $31,000 to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association. There is an increase of $111,999 over last year. I presume that is for fertilizer subsidy. I notice that an order in council. P.C. 2084, was passed on May 19, 194/, which deals with subsidies in connection with fertilizer chemicals, and so on. How are these subsidies operated? What is the procedure?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This new order in council does not represent any change in policy?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there has been no *mange up to date. I would not guarantee that there will not be any change during the year, but there has been none up to date.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think the Minister of Agriculture was unfair in his remarks to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I should like to remind the minister that on June 3, at page 3758 of Hansard, he declined to discuss the question, when he said:
I should like to suggest that an address like the one to which we have just listened is an appropriate one to have in connection with these estimates, but the place to have it is on the item of fertilizers.
I might remind the committee that we are now on item 20, and the minister has not been before the committee for very many hours. I think he will agree that usually he spends as many hours on the first item as he has now spent in getting nineteen items through, and the committee has cooperated by spending very little time on the general item. The hon. member for Assiniboia, I think quite correctly, was prepared to discuss this question of fertilizers, because it does affect the whole field of agriculture. I have read over the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia on June 3, and it is pretty clear to me that there has been very little if any repetition this evening. He has covered new material; and the fact that the minister has found it difficult to answer the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Assiniboia and also the hon. member for
415S
Supply-Agriculture

Melfort would indicate that this is a matter of national concern. The fact that the hon. member for Assiniboia discussed it a year ago is immaterial, for I think it is the duty of hon. members to discuss these matters year after year until they get some redress. Would the minister make some comment on the complaint of the hon. member for Melfort that it is impossible to have any assurance of supplies for 1948 in the western provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no reason whatever to doubt that supplies will be available for the coming year.


Thomas Reid: I wonder if I might draw the minister's attention and have his interest in regard to the sending of an inspector by his department to California at least once a year. The seed potato growers in my district go to California, where there are seed plots planted. There some eighty acres of land have been set aside for the growing of seed potatoes. The various states take plots of land and plant their seed potatoes there. The states participating in the scheme send inspectors to examine and look aftef the plots; then at the proper time buyers from all over the country visit those plots and buy the potatoes they desire. Apparently we do not recognize what is being done in the United States. I am not familiar with what takes place in the mari-times, but I know that in British Columbia they go to considerable expense to send men to California, not only to plant the seed, but to look after the potatoes until they mature. This is being done with the view of building up a trade in seed potatoes, and I might say it is doing very well. But our growers feel that some notice should' be taken of it by the Department of Agriculture and that it should be recognized by the dominion government. So that I am asking the minister if he will take note of this and give the matter some consideration, to see if it would not be possible to have one of our own inspectors go to California and cooperate with the growers of seed potatoes in British Columbia.


James Garfield Gardiner: In recent years we have had at least four persons go to California, including one of the gentlemen sitting in front of me tonight, checking their operations and bringing back whatever information can be obtained.
To speak of another product than potatoes, as hon. members from the west know we have even multiplied the sawfly-resistant type of wheat in California and brought back the product for utilization here. In other words, we have been keeping in touch; but I will take under consideration the suggestion that

has been made that we should do even more in that direction, and supply more information.


Percy Ellis Wright: Are the government carrying on any experiments in connection with spraying from aeroplanes in regard to weed control?


James Garfield Gardiner: The item with which we are now dealing is not 'the item under which that information can be obtained, and those who are specialists in those matters are not here at the moment. However, considerable experimental work has been done, as the hon. member knows, in connection with killing weeds by sprays; and it has been extremely successful. I am not in a position to say whether it has been done to any considerable degree with aeroplanes. I believe it has been done mainly by vehicles moving on the ground, but elsewhere it has been carried out by aeroplanes, and no doubt they could be utilized here if it were thought advisable to do so.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It was my intention to ask a number of questions concerning experiments in the use of chemicals for the destruction of weeds, but since the minister has indicated it is not possible to discuss that matter under this item, may I ask under which item it would be proper to ask those questions?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would come under botany and plant pathology, item 8, which we covered last night.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I feel that this matter is of sufficient importance that, even though the item may have been dealt with, I should hope the minister might make provision later on for some discussion. I find a great deal of confusion today in newspapers and other publications. The farmers are inquiring about the success or otherwise of the use of certain chemicals, and the sum total of it is that they are rather bewildered.


Edward George McCullough: To come back to the question of fertilizer, the hon. member for Calgary West asked the minister if it would be unreasonable to expect that western farmers in large sections of Saskatchewan and the prairie provinces could not use fertilizer, at any rate, because it would not be practical to do so. I have here a scientific report showing the effects of phosphatic fertilizers on summer fallow wheat crop in certain areas of Saskatchewan. In the controlled tests covering the years 1939 to 1943, using approximately fifteen pounds to the acre of 1148, the average cost per acre would be forty-six cents. The return averaged 6-8 bushels to the acre. If we figure that out on a dollar basis

Supply-Agriculture
it would make a return of S9.18 per acre to the farmer for his expenditure of forty-six cents.
I would say, too, with all due deference to the minister's ability as Minister of Agriculture. I saw him out on the ball diamond last night, where he did some skidding around. But. in my opinion he has done even a better job of that tonight.
I believe I have put on the record what the government did with respect to fertilizer. I say the statement of the minister in regard to Saskatchewan where we have a C.C.F. government. that they should have undertaken this proposition of buying up government owned plants, is not sufficient, and is beside the point. I might say to him that his own government has many crown corporations. I refer specifically to the Polymer Corporation, where they have reduced the price of synthetic rubber three times. One of the last reports I received from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply was that it is selling at around sixteen cents a pound. They have reduced the production costs of synthetic rubber by one-half since they went into operation. We could have done the same thing in regard to fertilizers.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did not competition reduce that price?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No competition there.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, yes; there is the competition of natural rubber. That is what reduced the price of synthetic rubber.


Percy Ellis Wright: They are still making a profit at the new price.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not doubt that they are.


James Garfield Gardiner: They do not produce it on farms, anyway.


William Ross Macdonald: There must not be so much conversation between members.


Edward George McCullough: There is one other thing concerning which I take issue with the minister. He got a little out of his orbit when he referred to clay products in my constituency at Estevan. We are trying to do a good job in Saskatchewan, with our C.C.F. government there; we are trying to do a good job for our people. It is not fair for the Minister of Agriculture to state in the house that he is not a ceramics engineer, but that our clay in Saskatchewan utilized at our clay products plant at Estevan is not suitable for th# making of brick. My opinion is entirely different.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I used to be minister in charge of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is why they went on the rocks.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I happened to know that the brick is not used extensively.


Edward George McCullough: Maybe that is why the Liberal government decided to sell it out for one dollar to private interests.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Liberal government [DOT] never owned it.


Edward George McCullough: You
owned part of it. You put a lot of cost into it-several hundred thousand dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, you are dreaming.


Edward George McCullough: My
information from ceramic engineers is that not only can we make brick, tile and face brick, but we can also make different types of pottery.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister make a statement with regard to negotiations with the Canadian seed growers' association? A few years ago, apparently in error, part of the requirements of the association were overlooked. While we had a supplementary vote later on, my recollection is that the association did not receive as much as they normally should have had for their operations. Would the minister indicate whether correspondence with the association indicates that they are satisfied with the grant, and also whether consideration cannot be given to increasing the grant, in view of the contribution to Canadian agriculture by the seed gowers association? I think the vote is altogether too small. Are they satisfied with the adjustment?


James Garfield Gardiner: Two years ago there was a misunderstanding in the matter of supple-mentaries. Last year that was adjusted. Everything the seed growers asked for was provided for them. I am not saying they could not spend more money to good advantage. But everything they have asked for, to date has been provided for them; and they are not asking for more at the present time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I gather from the minister's tone that if they have places where they could spend additional money a request from them in the near future would receive favourable consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


Mr. CHARLTON:: It is not my intention to bring back the fertilizer issue. I should
Supply-Agriculture

like to say to hon. members to my left that if they canvassed southwestern Ontario they might be able to buy a considerable quantity of fertilizer probably at less than cost price, because it cannot be used this spring on account of flood conditions. Then again I would suggest that if they had enough copies of todajr's Hansard scattered around the west it might eventually become very good fertilizer.
I wish to ask the minister one question regarding the feeds situation in eastern Canada. I know he made a statement last night, but in view of the tremendous shortage which might be expected this year, which is estimated at nearly 70,000,000 bushels of oats and barley alone, and which means a critical situation, I would urge him to make a definite statement in the very near future, if he cannot do so tonight, in regard to the government's policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I said last night, before concluding my remarks with regard to feed, that for at least another three weeks it would be almost impossible for the government, or anyone, to be satisfied as to what conditions will be in relation to feed.
We know at this stage that there will not be within at least fifty per cent of the amount of feed which will be required in eastern Canada, as compared with last year. We must take account of the fact that of all feeds used last year about half was shipped in. We also know that the crop condition in western Cnaada, with regard to both acreage and seeding, and the present condition of the crop, is as good as it has been in some of our best years. But that can all change in the next three weeks. We are, of course, hopeful that it will not, and that it will go on and be a bumper crop.
If it is, then the government can announce a certain line of policy which would mean that we would move grain down east as rapidly as it can be moved. In any event, we will move whatever there is down as rapidly as arrangements can be made to have it moved. But in case there is any change in crop conditions out west, the policy would have to be different. At the present time I should not like to attempt to say what the policy will require to be, or will be.


John Alpheus Charlton: I realize that the minister knows the seriousness of the situation. But I must point out that if a policy is not brought forward in sufficient time there is the possibility that a good deal of live stock in eastern Canada will be sold at reduced prices. If they know they have not the feed here they may not be willing to take chance on

waiting until the government policy is announced.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are urging them strongly for the next three weeks not to take any such action as that. By that time we shall probably be able to see the picture more clearly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
21. Grants to fairs and exhibitions, as detailed in the estimates, $308,500.
Mr. ROBINSON (Bruce):: I am interested in obtaining some information with respect to class B fairs. I see where there are forty-three class B fairs across the dominion. How many are there in Ontario? How many are being added this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: While we are looking up the information which has been asked for, I think I might place on Hansard a statement which I had intended to make. This is perhaps as good a time as any to give it.
Under the authority of orders in council P.C. 2294 and 2295 of June 6, 1947, the basis upon which assistance will be given to class A and class B exhibitions and .to winter fairs by the Department of Agriculture is now established. This basis has the support of the Canadian association of fairs and exhibitions, with which organization the question was discussed in detail some months ago. As in prewar years, financial support will be given by the department to all the above classes of fairs in featuring activities of junior farm club organizations and in securing judges. The main departmental grant to class A and class B exhibitions, with the same maximum limitations as applied in pre-war years will, however, in future be centred on financing capital expenditures rather than current expenditures as in the past. Owing to their limited opportunity to obtain revenue from gate receipts, et cetera, winter fairs may utilize the departmental grant for which they qualify in financing either capital or current expenditures.
Eligibility for classification as either class A or class B exhibitions in each province will, as in the past, be determined in consultation with the provincial department of agriculture. Among other things, the average prize money awarded by a fair in utility classes of live stock, poultry, grain, vegetables, fruit, dairy products and honey in the three years prior to that in which the application for such classification is made, and the location of the fair in relation to other fairs already classified, will be important factors fn determining eligibility.

Supply-Agriculture
Each exhibition association interested in securing assistance from the department toward its capital expenditures on improvements will be expected to submit its proposal in time to permit of agreement being reached prior to undertaking the work. Acceptance of an application will be conditional upon at least one-half of the cost of the undertaking being financed by the association itself.
It is evident that many exhibitions and fairs will wish to take advantage of this assistance in undertaking improvements, toward the cost of which the departmental grant available in one year would represent a very minor contribution. To enable them to finance such undertakings, the department is now authorized to enter into formal agreements covering departmental grants over periods in no case exceeding ten years. Each such agreement will be subject to final approval by the governor in council. I might explain that by saying that the amount for this purpose to a class B fair is SI,800 and to a class A, $2,500 a year. It will be possible by arrangement to have the entire amount over a ten-year period or less spent in the one year.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Do I understand that the $1,800 has to go to capital improvement?


James Garfield Gardiner: The $1,800 has to go to the improvement of facilities that are being used by the fair board, and I presume that that could properly be called a capital expenditure. But if they wish to make, let us say, a $18,000 expenditure, or a $36,000 expenditure, $18,000 of which is to come from this government, then it can be arranged that ten yearly grants can be spent in the one year, but there would be no regular grants paid during that ten-year period. The same would be true with regard to the $2,500 grants provided for class A fairs.
Periodically, requests are received from exhibition associations for assistance in constructing buildings or other major capital undertakings, the cost of which would greatly exceed that which could be approved under the general plan of departmental assistance in two-way agreements. In such cases the department is now authorized, subject to the final approval of the governor in council in each case, to reach agreement with such associations, under which the departmental assistance over a maximum period of ten years will not exceed one-third of the total cost of the undertaking, and will be limited to a maximum annual amount of $10,000.
This means that over a ten-year period it might be possible for an arrangement to be made to spend $100,000, which would be provided by the federal government. In other words, if an expenditure of $300,000 was to be made and if an arrangement was made with the province to spend $100,000 and with the association or city concerned to take care of $100,000. the federal government might take care of $100,000 over that period of time, provided that, after discussions had taken place, the council could be convinced that this was the proper procedure to follow in that particular case.
In answer to the hon. member, I would say that there are thirteen class B fairs in Ontario. They are at Barrie, Belleville, Brampton, Galt, Kingston, Leamington, Lindsay, Port Arthur. Renfrew, Richmond, Simcoe, Stratford and Woodstock.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Is the department considering any class B fairs this year ?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are some under consideration. The statement which I have just given outlines the conditions under which they may be admitted. It is based on their record for the past three years and on the discussions with the provincial governments.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I understand that an application has been made by Tees-water. Teeswater is strictly a rural district; you cannot by any stretch of the imagination find anything urban about that district. I have been led to believe that there is a probability that two class B fairs will be added this year, and these are what I would: class as semi-urban. My information may be wrong, but I understand that they are to be at Markham and Welland. I think I am justified in asking the minister to see that Teeswater does not miss out to those two places.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that all three places have made application. Those applications are being considered but no decision has yet been reached.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The fair at Teeswater is not in my riding, being in Bruce, but I wish to say that it is considered to be one of the best, if not the best fall fair west of Toronto. It draws three times the crowd that other fairs do, and I think its reputation in the past ten years will substantiate that. I certainly ask the minister to give due consideration to this application. It is an absolutely rural fair, there being no cities within miles of it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I notice in the details on page 94 of the main estimates mention is made of nineteen class A fairs at $4,000 each and forty-three class B fairs at $2,500 each. In the statement made by the minister a few
Supply-Agriculture

moments ago, lie seemed to indicate that the grant to class B fairs was to be $1,800, and I am not just clear where the difference comes in. Has there been a change in policy and has the amount for class B fairs been reduced from $2,500 to $1,800?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a grant of $500 for the boys and girls club and there is a grant of $200 in connection with judges. Then, for class A fairs these grants are $500 and $500, which raises the total grant. There are these other special grants. The total given in the statement is exactly the same as it was before the war.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The total is still $2,500 for class B fairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The minister indicated that applications for eligibility as class B and class A fairs will be considered in consultation with the provincial department of agriculture. The minister may have some knowledge of the situation in Dauphin, where the agricultural society for many years put on what is known as a class B fair. It was on the class B circuit. But during the war it was found impossible for it to continue because the entertainments were not available. War conditions caused it to drop out of the circuit for the time being, and that put them in a lower category. Since the war, they have not been able to get back on the class B circuit because their dates have been taken by other fairs. What is done in a case of that kind? Have they to put in their application anew to qualify as a class B fair or, in view of the fact that they have been a class B fair for a period of years before the war and put on an excellent fair, will they be considered as a class B fair in the future? It is through no fault of their own that they are not on the class B circuit. It is simply because their dates have been taken by other organizations.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those that were class B fairs when the war started are still rated by us as class B fairs. A letter has already gone to Dauphin asking them if they want to take advantage now of being put on the basis of B fairs.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Would the minister put on the record the nineteen class A fairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: The class A fairs are Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Lachute, Sherbrooke, St. Hyacinthe, Three Rivers and Valleyfield, in Quebec; London,

Ottawa, Peterborough, Toronto, in Ontario; Brandon, Manitoba; Regina and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta; Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Amherst is included in the winter fairs and gets a grant of $5,000. The Amherst fair takes in three provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Besides this grant of $5,000, there is a building grant of the same amount, is there not, making a total of $10,000? The same applies to all the other provinces. I was wondering whether the minister in the supple-mentaries, in view of the fact that Amherst fair serves three provinces, could not increase the grant for the winter fair at Amherst.


James Garfield Gardiner: The plan for the winter fairs is that we make a grant of $5,000, and they may utilize that either for current expenditure or capital expenditure. Of course they would also be able to benefit by the other plans that are proposed here of capitalizing that expenditure o\4er a period of years.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has any consideration been given to increasing the number of class B fairs in Saskatchewan? The town of Nipawin and the agricultural society there have been anxious to get into the class B circuit. They are situated in an exceedingly good mixed farming area and have a live board of directors, and very fine grounds, and are prepared to put on an up-to-date class B fair in that area. Would the minister say whether their application is being given consideration and if there is a chance of Nipawin getting into the class B circuit in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present class B fairs in Saskatchewan are Estevan, Lloyd-minster, Melfort, Moose Jaw, North Battle-ford. Prince Albert, Weyburn and Yorkton. Those are the fairs which are now in the class B circuit. The only comment I would make at the moment is that Melfort and Nipawin are not very far apart. They are practically in the same district. I am not aware that consideration has been given to Nipawin up to date.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In regard to these capital grants, if a fair board cannot put on a fair this year, are they allowed to make application for this capital grant? Some may not have their grounds ready this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, they are able to make application.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They can make application for that capital grant?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.

Supply-Agriculture


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you.


Mr. McKAY:: What is the record of the class C fairs held in the dominion? Has any consideration been given to making an advance to these fairs on a smaller scale than the grant for the class B fairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the record for the class C fairs. Consideration has been given many times to whether we should support the class C fairs and the decision has always been against it.


Eric Bowness McKay: There has never been a grant given to the class C fairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were a few small building grants, as relief payments, made in 1938 and 1939.


Eugène Marquis: Will the regulations be amended to facilitate the admission of new fairs into the class B circuit?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are regulations which now provide for their admission. Their record over the three years preceding their application is taken into consideration, and there is also discussion with the provincial government to determine the distribution of the fairs in the province.


Eugène Marquis: That applies in the province of Quebec?


James Garfield Gardiner: In all the provinces. Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
23. Marketing service administration, $122,749.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to say something to the right hon. minister in regard to beef cattle. I realize that this has been discussed before and I intend to be brief. What I am urging is the opening of the cattle market to the United States. But, first, could the minister give me approximate figures for any year which he has as to the number of Argentine, United States and Canadian beef imported into Great Britain, and can he tell me the price spread which Britain is paying to these three countries? I know the highest price goes to the United States, the next to Canada, and the lowest price to the Argentine. At least that is my information.
I point to something else. In 1944 we
shipped to the United States dairy cattle to the value of over $4 million; in 1946 we shipped dairy cattle to the value of over $7 million. In other words, the increase was almost 100 per cent, and yet not one beef
animal was shipped during that period. What I am anxious to know is why the man who grows the beef is discriminated against in that particular way.
I intend to read two extracts from a copy of a letter which has come to my possession, a letter written by Mr. W. L. Clayton, undersecretary of state for economic affairs of the United States government. It is dated January 29, 1947, and was written to a United States senator. I may say that this letter was prompted by an inquiry made by a large rancher in southern Alberta to a senator whom he knew in Salt Lake City. He communicated with Mr. Clayton and this is the reply. He says:
The action taken by the Canadian government in 1942 prohibiting exports of cattle was designed to make available for export to England maximum quantities of beef and other meats.
It was in order to ensure the delivery of the large quantities of meat required during that critical period that the Canadian government undertook to buy and ship the meat on a gov- . ernment to government basis.
Then, skipping a portion of it which I do not consider relevant, I continue:
This procedure appears to have been continued as the most practicable and efficient means of meeting commitments later incurred in the Anglo-Canadian meat contracts. These contracts and similar ones which the United Kingdom has concluded with some of the other dominions are understood to have been motivated by 'the desire on the part of the United Kingdom to secure during 'the period of uncertainty both as to supply and price adequate supplies of foodstuffs at reasonable prices.
I do not think there is anything controversial so far. I continue:
In fact this government has pointed out to both the United Kingdom and Canada that it considers such long-term bulk purchasing contracts on a fixed price basis to be incompatible with plans for the removal of barriers to trade to which both governments have given their support.
It seems to me that that is almost selfevident as well. Then he goes on in the last paragraph as follows:
With regard to the department's attitude toward the importation of Canadian cattle, it is our desire that all war-time controls be ended as soon as the purposes for which they were imposed cease to exist. This is in accord with our commercial-policy objective of an expanding international trade open to private enterprise on a competitive and non-discriminatory basis. The Canadian government has expressed a similar attitude. Therefore, if the Canadian government should be willing to allow the exportation of cattle to the United States, the department would have no objection. Cattle imported into the United States would, of course, be subject to import duties as modified under the trade agreement act.
I mentioned that in 1944 we shipped $4 million worth of dairjr cattle and in 1946, $7
Supply-Agriculture

million worth. I was not referring to the purebred animals which are admitted into the United States duty free; I was referring to grade dairy cattle which went in under a duty of a cent and a half a pound or whatever it is. As the minister knows, the Mexican quota has been stopped because of foot and mouth disease in that country. The importation of cattle from there is closed at the present time. The suggestion I am making in all seriousness to the minister-I know he is sympathetically inclined to the idea-is that we should now, without further delay, get some shipments into the United States while the duty remains as it is. I realize fully that we shall be met with the difficulty with respect to supplying our contracts to the old country but this is what I greatly fear, with the greatest respect for the minister. I am not saying that the minister is devising a policy to hurt this country; I do not make stupid criticisms of that kind. I am quite sure that he feels he is doing what is in the best interest of the producers of this live stock; but I have seen a number of them lately. I am not referring to the small ones; I am referring to the large ones, and they have a real fear that if we cannot continue some flow of cattle across that line, we shall lose that market. In fact they state definitely that if this one-way traffic with Great Britain is continued until 1950 we shall lose that opportunity. As the minister agreed once before, the United States is our natural and logical market. The live stock producers greatly fear that something may happen in the meantime by which the opportunity of shipping to the United States may be lost. It is certainly simple. Once matters have adjusted themselves, where is Great Britain to look for her cattle? She will look in the cheapest place she can buy them. There is no doubt about that. We know we cannot raise beef cattle in this country at a price comparable with the Argentine, because in that country they do not have to do any feeding; they have year-round pasture. The only feeding that they do is a little finishing at the end of the road.
Having regard to the fact that Mexico is cut off not by their action, but by an embargo because of foot and mouth disease, I suggest, with the greatest respect, and with some hope,' that the minister find ways and means to permit some of our cattle to go across the line.
It is a well known fact that today there are more beef cattle on the hoof in Canada than there have ever been. I assume that much of the beef which goes to England is killed and shipped as chilled or perhaps frozen meat or something of that kind. Here is the place to 
put a lot of cattle which are on the hoof in western Canada today. I ask that the minister give this matter further consideration and that something may come of it even at this late day.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to refer
to one or two of the remarks made by the hon. member. In the first place, the statement that was given by Mr. Clayton in the letter which was read is not news so far as we are concerned.	The attention of the
British government and also of the Canadian government was called to the possibility of a long-term contract being contrary to the spirit and letter of the international agreement or the international trade conference idea which had been presented to the united nations by the United States. But when they made that protest it was not made to the Canadian government; it was made to the British government, and the Canadian government was acquainted with the fact that they had made it. The British government was just as definite in its reply that it did not contravene the proposals which had been made by the United States; and I understand that, since the meeting was convened in Geneva to discuss the international trade organization arrangements, Mr. Clayton himself admitted that it was not contrary to the proposals which were made by the United States government for the convening of the international organization meeting, that this type of agreement be made. That is with regard to the one matter which is referred to and which I have seen in print in this form for the first time when this letter is handed to me, and I think it is only fair I should say that at the time the British government replied definitely to the statement and said that it was not in accordance with their understanding of the proposal. I understand now that the United States government and the British are in agreement that it is not, and that type of contract is in agreement with the principle laid down by the Americans in their proposal.
With regard to the matter of the Mexican boundary line being closed, that of course is a matter of fact. The Americans have refused to take cattle from Mexico because of a foot and mouth disease which they believe to be prevalent there and which they do not wish to have introduced into the United States.
The statement made with regard to prices obtained in Britain by the United States, the Argentine and ourselves is also correct.
I am not in a position to give the exact

Supply-Agriculture
amounts, but I think it is right to say they are paying the Americans more and the Argentine less.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the price so far as we are concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: About twenty-five.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think the
figures are: United States, thirty-five; ourselves, twenty-five, and the Argentine, as low as eleven or thirteen.


James Garfield Gardiner: It depends on quality;
twenty-five is the basic figure.


Arthur Leroy Smith: For us?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and again it must be remembered that ours is a long-time contract and the others are not. That is, one cannot tell at this stage how it will average over the entire period, but there is no doubt and never has been any doubt that cattle can be produced cheaper in the Argentine than in Canada and can be laid on the British market at a lower rate than we can produce them. There is no doubt that our natural market for a long period is in the United States.
The other factors being considered are related to the necessity for having beef supplied to Britain at present, and also have something to do with what we hope will be trading relations in the future as well as the fact that price control would be affected. But particularly, for the time being, the most important factor is the fact that this meeting is being held in Geneva, and we have stated in our discussions with everyone that, so far as this kind of contract and the arrangements for it are concerned, we think we should carry on as we are doing, at least until the conference is fairly well completed and we know the direction in which we are going as a result of the conference. That is the chief factor at the moment, although the main reason at the beginning was the reason stated in this letter; and the chief reason, I would say, still for continuing even to the end of the conference, is that Britain is in greater need of beef today than she has been for a considerable period of time. No later than today the representative of Britain was in my office inquiring with regard to the possibility of getting beef. Very little beef is going to Britain at the present time, as a matter of fact none, and little has gone over for some time. Apparently we are eating all the beef in Canada ourselves at present.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Could the minister give an approximate idea of the amount going to Britain over the last year
from the three countries? I do not want it in dollars; I would be content with rough percentages.


James Garfield Gardiner: Exports of beef cattle to the United Kingdom, in pounds, are: for 1944,	98.000,000;	1945,	184,378,000;	1946,
123.787.000.	There is a reduction of about
60.000.	000 pounds as between those two years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do you mean pounds weight or money?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is weight of cattle. In head that means 201.000 head in 1944, 385.000 in 1945 and 261,000 in 1946. To the United States, the numbers were: in 1944, none; in 1945 , 66,000-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I meant from the United States to Britain and from the Argentine to Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not those figures and I doubt very much whether you could get them. During the war the British were very particular in that regard: and I doubt very much whether we could get the figures. The British government has been following this practice all through the war, and it still is, of taking all the food it can get, whether the British produce it themselves or whether it comes from the Argentine, the United States or Canada, putting it into one pool; and, to avoid difficulty about supplying the product of any particular country, they say their people will get so many pounds of beef under their rationing system and it does not matter where it comes from. Apparently it is easier to administer that kind of thing if they do not advertise how much they get from this or that source.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We do not know over here?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be difficult to get those figures.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Apparently what we are trying to do is to get all the food we can to England1. Is there not something in this point? Instead of sending S7 million odd worth of dairy cattle into the United States in 1946, could wre not have got more food to England if we had retained those dairy cattle here? Certainly the products from the dairies are most excellent food, and we might have been able to save these and send some of our beef, keeping that line open.


James Garfield Gardiner: The main difficulty there is the one I mentioned last night, that we have not enough feed left to feed what we have. If the others had been kept here the farmers w'ould have found it difficult to feed
Carillon at Niagara Falls

them-probably they could not have fed them at all-but they have sold their live stock to the point where they can feed what they have left.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Can the minister give a statement on the relationship of the export of meat products to Britain, up to the present time this year, as compared with the corresponding period last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will get that for the hon. member at the next sitting.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 16, 1947