Mr. BLACKMORE:

Let me quote from a statement made by the Canadian representative at the London sugar conference, held in May, 1937. He is reported as saying:

At the same time the government of Canada reiterate the assurance already given that they do not propose to stimulate the production of sugar in Canada during the term of this agreement by subsidy, increased protection, special remission of taxes or by any other similar measure.

Mr. GARDINER:

That is a little different. I do not know of any branch of agriculture 51952-287J

that is stimulated by those methods. There is just a possibility that it might be a mistake to start in to stimulate the sugar beet industry by paying bonuses or doing other things of that kind. Making it possible for people to grow sugar beets in irrigated areas is a different matter.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

I am glad to have

the minister's statement on that because it indicates that he is rather in sympathy with the development of the beet sugar industry, which is of great importance to western Canada. When you remember that there has already been expended in Alberta in irrigation projects $35,000,000, and that the soil and climate of that province is particularly adapted to the production of sugar, and that this industry has been singularly successful in Alberta for years, you can realize that it is an industry which ought not to be disparaged.

To be very brief, this year, for example, there was produced in the harvested sugar beet area where the two beet sugar factories are located in my constituency 3,813 pounds of refined sugar per acre. All one has to do to realize the volume of that production is to imagine thirty sacks of sugar piled on this floor, and remember that that was produced from one acre. It shows the tremendous potentialities of production from irrigated land in raising sugar beets. There was a gross return of $155 per acre, $77.50 of which went to the farmer and $77.50 to the manufacturer, $25 going to labour. That indicates how important and how deserving of serious consideration this industiy is.

I notice the Minister of Labour has been following with close attention, and I am sure he will be deeply interested when I again bring to his notice the fact that one sugar factory in my constitutency with a slicing capacity per day of 1,200 tons will support, according to United States figures, ten thousand people. These people are not all, of course, directly engaged in raising or processing sugar beets, but in the allied industries as well, in the production of coal and coke, sacks and a great number of other things used in the production of sugar. Some are engaged on the railways and others in other transportation activities as a result of this sugar production.

I know we are all anxious to get the business of the session closed so I shall just say in conclusion that there is a great possibility in Canada for the development of the sugar industry. The sugar industry is not by any means the ten-cent affair which a number of people have been for some reason or other considering it. It is, on the contrary, a going concern. It has already proven itself beyond

4538 COMMONS

Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation

question a success. There are people in Canada who say that it cannot compete. But the price of sugar in Canada to-day is as low, I understand, as it is in any first class country, five cents a pound, while the price in some other countries runs as high as thirteen and fourteen cents per pound. Now if the beet sugar industry can compete successfully with other sugar refineries with prices as low as they are in this country to-day, that is good evidence that we have in our native sugar industry a successful business, a going concern. When you remember that Alberta at the present time could support seven sugar factories of the size of the Raymond sugar factory, and that by so doing she would be able to produce thirty-five per cent of the sugar requirements of Canada, you can realize what a tremendous difference the development of this industry would make to the dominion.

Mr. BENNETT:

Where would you sell it?

Mr. BLACKMORE:

We are using that

sugar in Canada.

Mr. BENNETT:

How would you move it

as against competition from the seaboard?

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Mr. GARDINER:

That has nothing to dc with this vote.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

No, not directly, but it has to do with it in one sense, in connection with the development of irrigation projects.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order. I would point out to the hon. member that we are not discussing the tariff or duties. His remarks are out of order.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but this is an important thing. If you are going to put people on the land with irrigation and water supplied to them you must be sure that conditions are such that through the adoption of irrigation they can make a success of their farming. Otherwise you reduce them to a condition of despair.

Mr. GARDINER:

Lamb prices are better this year than they have been for many years.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

That may be true; nevertheless the people who are directly concerned in my constituency had put 55,000 lambs into the feed lots at prices which they thought would be safe before the reduction in duty, but then prices suddenly dropped, much to their disadvantage.

Mr. GARDINER:

The price is up now.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

I wanted to draw the situation to the minister's attention as a word direct from my constituency with regard to the effect of the reduction of the duty.

Mr. MacNEIL:

I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to a telegram 1 received yesterday from the secretary of the single unemployed committee at Vancouver, reading as follows:

Supply-Labour-C ommitments

No truth in emergency relief for single unemployed men. Only those with home taking transportation offered food. Such are few. Great majority homeless. Situation just as desperate. Need emergency relief. Home question could be settled after. Single unemployed refused work on federal and provincial projects. Investigate.

I wish briefly to refer again to the sessional paper recently tabled, wherein it is shown that the Hon. .Mr. Clubb of Manitoba protested against the issuance of transportation to these men on the basis that they designated no particular point, and he asked that they indicate their home. That same basis is now being applied to the situation in Vancouver which makes it impossible for these men to qualify for either relief or transportation. They have been rendered homeless through no fault of their own, and so cannot designate their homes.

Second, I wish to make the point that was dealt with last night that these men have to some extent been blacklisted, I am informed from Vancouver, and are not being considered eligible to work on projects which are now being opened up by reason of federal contributions. I would appreciate a statement from the minister to clarify the situation.

Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I do not think the committee

would want me to retrace ground I have already covered in this connection. So far as emergency relief is concerned, the dominion government has offered to assume complete financial responsibility for emergency relief extended to those non-resident single unemployed men who were formerly in the forestry conservation camps. If such emergency relief is not being given at the present time, it can be only for the reason that these men have declined to accept the offer of transportation as made in the original proposal by the minister of labour of British Columbia.' Certainly the dominion government has given the requisite authority that the emergency relief shall be extended to those men, non-resident transients formerly in the forestry conservation camps, upon their acceptance of transportation to their homes.

As to discrimination against those men in public works, that question was raised yesterday in another connection and I gave my hon. friend the assurance that in any joint works done in British Columbia, provision would be made for the employment of at least a number of single unemployed. That is fully in accord with the undertaking previously given that these men will be placed on the same footing as other groups of unemployed with respect to eligibility for employment on public works.

So far as federal public works are concerned, provision has already been made that in connection with certain public works which are now either actually in progress or immediately in prospect some of those unemployed men will be taken care of through the employment service of Canada.

Mr. HEAPS:

There is one matter I wish to raise, not in connection with this item but in a general way. Every member of the committee realizes that the manner in which we have been discussing the estimates in the past few days has been entirely unsatisfactory. Very important items come under discussion, and in the rush to get through they do not receive just consideration. Important questions of administration and government policy are involved, but in the general desire to get through the business of the house members are not afforded an adequate opportunity to discuss these matters as they should. My remarks are not directed particularly to the Minister of Labour. What we have been doing this session has been done in a similar way in previous sessions. I am directing my remarks more particularly to the Prime Minister and in general to the members of the government.

On many occasions in the past we have considered the question of referring estimates to committees of the house, and there is no reason why that principle should not extend further than it does at the present time. Let me illustrate. The estimates of the Canadian National Railways, amounting to many millions of dollars, are considered each year by a committee of the house, and when they come back to this chamber they do not provoke very much discussion because members are usually satisfied with what that committee has done. I suggest to the Prime Minister that many of these estimates which we are now considering might be referred to a committee which would go into the question at far greater length and in far greater detail than we do in this house, and that would serve a much better purpose. The people would be satisfied that the estimates were receiving more careful consideration than they do under present circumstances. There is no good reason why the estimates of the Department of Labour should not be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations, the estimates of agriculture to the committee on agriculture, the fisheries estimates to the committee on fisheries, and the post office estimates to the committee that deals with Canadian National affairs. If that were done, a good deal of difficulty would be avoided and we would not find ourselves each session in the position in which we are at the moment.

Supply-Labour-C ommitments

The Prime Minister and the government should take into serious consideration the proposal that when the next session comes around some of these estimates that are being considered in the house might reasonably be sent to various committees where they might receive more detailed study.

There are many matters that I should like to discuss on the question now before the committee; but knowing the desire of the members to wind up the proceedings of the house and in view of the scant attention which the deliberations are receiving at this juncture, I content myself with the suggestion to the Prime Minister that he take into favourable and serious consideration the proposal I have now made for submitting to the various committees of the house estimates that are now discussed in this chamber where they do not receive the best consideration.