Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

We have power to grade beef cattle leaving the country in that manner, but it has never been exercised. We are doing it in so far as dairy cattle are concerned in connection with shipments going to the United Kingdom. No person regrets more than I do the condition the hon. member has described, namely, the difficulty of getting an export market, and the fact that the market in the United States was lost before the present government took office.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

This is a huge joke that the Tories put over on every occasion, namely, the loss of this market. For two evenings we have been treated to a dialogue about the loss of markets. The hon. member who acted as chairman of the price spreads commission was desperately anxious to indicate that the people of Canada could eat the domestic supply. That is the sort of stuff the Tories will feed to the electors at the next election, in the hope that the Canadian people will fail to remember that there was a day when prices were sufficient to warrant production, when we had large amounts of dairy products to export-in one year 24,000,000 pounds. Those >vere days when people drank more milk and ate more butter than they ever did before in the history of Canada.

Mr. GOBEJL:

You remember the Hawley-Smoot tariff?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Yes, I do; and I remember what you said about it. Go back now and tell the same story to your electors, and see whether or not you will be elected. The electors are becoming fed up on this sort of thing. We sit here day after day and listen to hon. members opposite tell us how the market disappeared when the Liberals were in office. What justification has the government for what has happened in the last five years with regard to price reductions, when because of lack of markets production has fallen off? Hon. members opposite have been advising the fellow who wants to eat to tighten up his belt and to eat less. They have advised him to eat less eggs and butter in order that they might take up the slack in home consumption. You have closed every possible market by various devices since you came into office, and I would advise you to go very slow in talking about any restriction of markets because I have in my desk statistics demonstrating how badly the markets both domestic and export have fallen off. So far as the export market is concerned, if prices continue as they are we shall not need any export market or domestic market either because, if present conditions continue, one of these days you will find yourself in the happy position of not having a market and of having no people to eat your products anyway. It will be a Godsend when there is an election and we can have this moribund outfit cleared out and give somebody who will do business for Canada a chance to do it.

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

Does the hon. member state that during the time his party was in power, when the United States tariff was raised against our cattle to three cents a pound, that did not shut practically the whole of our cattle out from the United States?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

May I draw the minister's attention to this fact, that simultaneously with the loss of the American cattle market we secured the British market, and that is where our cattle went to. This government think that they took the embargo off cattle. It is true that they attended to the frills and tagends in the way of restrictions that still remained after 1023, but the major part of the embargo was taken off in 1923 under the Liberal administration. But we never claimed that all the credit belonged to us but to all who had preceded us and had been endeavouring to remove it for thirty

Live Stock Act

years back. Immediately we were shut out from the United States market our market in Great Britain was opened up, and in the second or third year after the embargo was removed, in 19(26, we shipped over 100,000 cattle to Great Britain, which is twice as much as we ever shipped since. So when we lost one market we got the other, and that is the advantage of having two markets. You cannot have it both ways. When the British market is bad, it is an advantage to have the United States market. But who is losing the British market now? I might just as well castigate this government on that score. When the United States market prices become attractive naturally our cattle gravitate to the United States in spite of their high American tariff but this year we have shipped to the United Kingdom only between 5.000 and 6.000 head-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-and if the quota next year is based on our shipments this year we shall be limited to shipping 5,000 or 6.000 head to the British market. So there is no use in the minister indulging in these bedtime stories about our losing markets because if we lost one we gained the other, and we did not lose the American market as the result of any action on our part but because the American government conceived that the action they took was the proper thing to do for the protection of their own farmers. But the Liberal government did do something to gain the British market by removing the embargo in 1923.

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

On each occasion that I have made reference to this matter I have been careful to state this, and I did so specifically in the house the other night, that we were not accusing hon. gentlemen opposite of losing the market but simply that the market was lost when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, and that we objected to them blaming us for losing the market.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

What could we have done to retain it?

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

I did not say you could have done anything.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Then what is the

use of chewing the fat about it?

Mr. DONNELLY:

The minister says that

it was under Liberal rule that we lost our market for cattle. Anyone who knows anything about raising cattle in western Canada knows that there is only one market for cattle, and that is the United States, and that market was lost in 1911 when the Conservative party defeated reciprocity. There is no doubt about that. Anyone who knows political history knows that that is when we lost our market. More than that, the American government kept the terms of the reciprocity pact open for our acceptance up to 1919, when we had a Conservative-Union government in power, and it would not accept it. After that government went out of power and a Liberal government came in here, we had a Conservative government in office across the line. Now we have a Democratic government in office across the line which is willing to give us a measure of reciprocity, and our government here says that we are going to have reciprocity. What I want to know is why we are not having it. Why is this government not doing something about it? They have told us for the last two or three years that they are negotiating with the United States for reciprocity, but it is just another promise like those they made five years ago. We all remember the wonderful things that they were going to do then. The farmer was going ,to get wonderful prices for his eggs and butter and wheat, and there was going to be heaven on earth, but it has turned out just the opposite. The farmers have learned what this government and its promises mean. It was not long after this government was in power that our farmers realized how little its promises meant, and it is the same with all these stories that you are telling them now of the wonderful things you are going to do for the farmers. To find out what the farmers think of this government and its promises all you have to do is to go out in the country and ask them how much money they have saved, to put their hands in their pockets and feel the money that the Conservative government has saved to the farmers. The farmers will soon tell you: That money is not here; if you have saved any, it must be some place else in the country. They know that they have not got the money. They know that the packers or someone else got it, and not the farmers throughout the country. And when any of you come out and tell our people of these1 reforms and the great things you are going to do for our farmers by regulations of this kind, I say it is just so much balderdash so far as the farmer is concerned. He does not believe a word of it, and he is only waiting a chance to tell you what he feels about it.

Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):

I take issue at once with the statement of my hon. friend from Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) that there is nothing in regulation of this kind. I do not know that there was anything done by the former Liberal government in

Live Stock Act

connection with a product that helped that product more than the grading of eggs. We all know that the regulations in regard to egg-grading which were established by the Liberal government when it was in office were of tremendous assistance, and how on earth the hon. member who has just taken his seat can argue that regulations of a similar sort such as we have here for the grading of beef or meats can be of no benefit to the farmers of this country is amazing to me. I do not know that I am willing to give credit or blame to any government for all the ills or benefits that have come to agriculture during a period of years, but I am sure of this, that there is a desperate need in this country for the grading of .meats and I think the grading of cattle as well. I am fond of beef but I hardly ever eat it when I am away from home because I am tired of chewing shoe leather, and I have good teeth at that. I think it is the greatest mistake for anyone to get up and say, when the government is attempting to put through legislation that will guarantee that the consumers of this country will receive the quality product raised on the farms of this country, that that is of no value to the producer. It is of tremendous value, and every step that has been taken along this line by a Conservative government or by a Liberal government has been all to the good both for producers and consumers.

I would like to ask the .minister, while I am on my feet, what provinces have been cooperating with the dominion government in connection with the red and blue label grading. I understand when that was put into effect it was necessary to get the cooperation of the provinces, and I was wondering just how many provinces have entered into an agreement with the federal government in connection with the matter.

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

My information is that they are cooperating in all the provinces. They do not require any enabling legislation for the grading of beef up to the present time because it is purely a voluntary matter.

Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):

Does the minister think that he has sufficient power under this section and the amendment to the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act to enable him to cooperate thoroughly with the provincial governments which are willing to cooperate for the grading of beef within the provinces as well?

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

I believe so, yes. If the province of Ontario wishes to establish grades for their beef we can protect them

against beef coming in ungraded from other provinces, and that will give them full control this far, that no beef within that province can- be sold except in accordance with their grades. It really gives them full power.

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

The hon.

member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) took exception to my reference to the large percentage of domestic consumption of live stock products. I was merely quoting figures which were absolutely authentic, secured from the bureau of statistics. He may not have liked to hear them but that is his own concern. I would also call the hon. gentleman's attention to this. Those who, in season and out of season, have claimed that the Ottawa agreements have not been beneficial, with reference to the export trade, would do well to look at a statement that appears in this morning's Ottawa Journal by Sir Francis Floud, British Hi^h Commissioner, made at Hamilton yesterday in discussing 'Canada's exports to Great Britain. He is reported as follows:

Canada had received far greater advantages from the Ottawa agreements than the United Kingdom, Sir Francis said, in appealing for a greater share of trade.

Every farmer in this country knows what that has meant to the Canadian hog industry during the last few years.

Mr. MaoLEAN: Last season in our province there was put into effect a certain regulation -I do not know whether it was a dominion government regulation- or not-which prevented the shipment out of the province of dressed pork. Under that regulation, the Shipper was compelled to ship his dressed hogs to the packing plant at Charlottetown. A great many of the merchants and dealers there have been in the habit of buying dressed pork from the farmers and shipping it to Saint John, Halifax, -Montreal and other points; but under this -regulation they were not allowed to ship dressed pork out of the province. Of course, the dealers, the farmers and everyone else were up in- arms over this regulation and it was lifted. I would ask the minister whether he has any knowledge as to how that -regulation came to be put into effect, whether it was a departmental regulation from Ottawa or some local regulation- which the packers were able to have put into force there.

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

The question does

not -come under the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act-that is to say, the regulations that control the movement of products. At one time, about a year ago or perhaps a little more, but at any rate up to that time, the three maritime provinces were considered- by

Live Stock Act

the health of animals branch inspection department as one area, and under the regulations of that branch the interprovincial movement of meats was prohibited except as processed1 in plants that had been approved by the officials of the health of animals branch. The three provincial governments requested that there be a change and that rather than being dealt with as one area they should be dealt with separately. The federal department conformed to their wishes because we felt that it was only fair to do so. Some complaints have been made with respect to the working out of this arrangement, and later at the request of two of the provincial governments the regulations were rescinded. That does not come under this act but under the health of animals branch regulations.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I am a little bit

concerned about these packers' yards. If things keep on the way they are now going it looks as if we shall have nothing left but packers' yards. I remember when it was my privilege to have charge of the administration of this act. We featured strongly the building up of stockyards where both buyers and sellers could assemble in fairness under proper regulations, where butchers, feeders and packers could go to buy and others who had to sell could go to sell, both groups meeting in a common market. As pointed out in the commission's report, in recent years, since the truck has been introduced, it has been a great convenience to both seller and trucker to go direct to the packing plant. If that is to continue and we are to eliminate the stockyards-because I do not see how we can maintain them both; there is not enough turnover-there must be some radical change in the packing plants before they can be put on a parity with the stockyards as to weights and grades. The great value of the stockyards, in addition to the features I have enumerated, was that you could get government weight and grade, and that means a good deal because it determines to a large extent the price. But in the packers' yards, unless the government establishes public weighing, and I do not know whether that is intended or not, they are at the mercy of private weights and private grades, except in regard to hogs. I believe we have hog graders in the packers' plants.

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

Yes.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

But outside of

hog grading the rest is graded by the packers themselves. So that unless these packers' yards give us great safeguards to the farmers as to weights and grades as the stockyards, they will be out of luck and the first thing

we know there will be no market at all as far as stockyards are concerned, especially if the trucks keep multiplying as they have been. What value are these packers' yards to the producers unless- you have official weights and grades?