June 12, 1950

LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

My understanding is that tattooing has been used voluntarily. Of course the committee understands the relationship of this department to the matter of keeping livestock records in general, including those of dogs. It is not done by the Department of Agriculture, but is done under a recording organization set up by the different breeding associations. I think the Holstein breeders are about the only important breeders of livestock who do not have it done in that way. They have their own registration.

All other kinds of livestock are registered by this organization which is set up by the breeders themselves. I believe we pay a grant of $18,000. It is only that grant which gives us the right to say anything about what is done. The regulations require that these associations shall present their regulations to us. They are not permitted to act under them until we agree or otherwise with the recommendations made.

The present position in relation to dogs is that there has been a discussion as to whether they should be required to tattoo the dogs. Consideration has been given to the point as to whether the method should be changed from a voluntary one to one in which they would be compelled to tattoo. Many of the dog breeders object to the tattooing.

There is another method, not as satisfactory, I believe, in which note is taken of the colour marks of the animals. However, there are so many animals of the same colour that this is not satisfactory. Another system is being advocated at the present time in which the noseprint is taken, in the same way as thumbprints of individuals are taken. It is said that no two dogs have the same noseprints, and it is advocated that this method be used.

The mounted police and others have been consulted in the matter, and my understanding is that a decision is to be made this week as to the recommendation to be made. No

Supply-Agriculture

doubt we will agree with whatever recommendation is made, assuming always that the associations themselves are the ones to be satisfied in this matter. However, we are interested in having some method by which we can be fairly certain in respect of the registrations of registered animals.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
PC

Winfield Chester Scott McLure

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McLure:

Why could they not be tattooed in the same way as foxes? Thousands of foxes used to be tattooed annually, and they were all recorded. Very little expense was involved in the use of the tattooing machines. The animals did not have to be given anaesthetics or anything else. The marks are plain, and carried all through the years. They are never obliterated. One would have to cut the ear off a dog to obliterate the mark, and it could be done just as easily as it is with foxes.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

The chief objection is that in respect of small dogs the tattoo would take up most of the ear, and that with some dogs the most attractive part is the ears. The dog breeders are particular about this, and objection is raised. Nevertheless about 2,000 of the 3,000 dogs registered are tattooed. I do not know what the kennel association will decide finally, but we will not quarrel with them if they come along with a reasonable suggestion.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink

Item agreed to. Marketing service- 23. Marketing service administration, $162,006.


PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

I should like to ask a question in connection with the situation of apple growers in the whole of Canada, and particularly in British Columbia. The situation I refer to is the loss of the United Kingdom market. I am not going to take much time but I have some figures I should like to lay before the minister. It is well known that the prosperity of the apple growers of this country now and in the past depends largely on the fact that there is a substantial export market in the United Kingdom. The result of that has been that in the main the Ontario and Quebec crops have gone to supply the domestic market, with a substantial portion of the British Columbia crop being marketed domestically but the main portion of the British Columbia and Nova Scotia crops supplying the bulk of the United Kingdom market. That market has been lost completely in the last two years as a commercial market.

I suggest to the minister that he use all the influence he and his department have and in co-operation with the Minister of Trade and Commerce endeavour to persuade the British government to take at least a

Supply-Agriculture

reasonably substantial quantity of Canadian apples. I appreciate the difficulty and realize the reluctance with which one government would approach another government to tell it what it needs in terms of food products. However, I think it would be fair to put the proposition before the British food ministry that as our production has been largely geared to the existence of the British market, as we have made substantial contributions, quite willingly it is true, toward helping them solve their food problem during and since the war, they should take some portion of the Canadian apple production. It might be suggested that they divert, perhaps $3 million or $4 million -we would hope for a minimum of $5 million -toward the purchase of Canadian apples. Perhaps I should not mention a figure because this would be a matter of negotiation.

I can understand that the producers of Canadian agricultural products who depend upon export markets are anxious that they get some share of the United Kingdom market. I am not suggesting that we want to interfere with what the wheat grower or the bacon producer or anyone else gets, but I do hope the minister will lay before the British the suggestion that in what they spend for the purchase of Canadian food there should be something allocated for this Canadian product which has always had a traditional market in Great Britain.

There are certain figures I should like to lay before the minister to indicate the gravity of this problem. I have figures showing how many apples were exported to Great Britain from British Columbia and from Canada as a whole, and what percentage of our exports were sent to the United Kingdom. The following are the exports of British Columbia apples to the United Kingdom:

bushels

1934- 35

1935- 36

1936- 37

1937- 38

1938- 39

1.563.000

2.097.000

1.686.000

2.355.000

2.422.000

Then follow the figures for the post-war years:

bushels

1944- 45

529,0001945- 46

719,0001946- 47

2,552,0001947- 48 1948- 49

The average British Columbia apple crop is from 7,000,000 to 9,000,000 bushels per year, while the average exports to the United Kingdom have been 2,000,000 bushels per year. On the average, one-third of our apple crop has been exported to the United Kingdom

so it will be realized what the complete loss of that market means to our apple growers. The figures for the whole of Canada are as follows:

bushels

1934- 35

1935- 36

1936- 37

1937- 38

1938- 39

5.314.000

6.462.000

3.862.000

6.196.000

7.454.000

Then in the post-war years:

bushels

1944- 45

1,034,0001945- 46

794,0001946- 47

4,492,000

The apples exported to the United Kingdom represented the following percentages of our total exports of apples:

per cent

1934- 35

88-51935- 36

96 41936- 37

85-51937- 38

92 11938- 39

88 1

It will be seen that in the post-war period practically 90 per cent of the exports of apples from Canada went to the United Kingdom. Another way of looking at this is to say that in the years, 1934-38, our exports of apples represented 46 per cent of the apple crop in Canada or an average of 6,483,000 bushels per year. By 1948 that average was only 21 per cent, or an export of 2,850,000 bushels. The percentage of the crop exported fell 25 per cent or 4,000,000 bushels in that period while the domestic consumption of fresh apples increased to a considerably smaller extent.

In the post-war years 40 per cent of the total crop or 5,645,000 bushels were consumed domestically and by 1948 this percentage had increased only to 57 per cent of the crop or 7,729,000 bushels. The percentage of crop exported decreased by 25 per cent or 4,000,000 bushels while the percentage of domestic consumption increased by only 17 per cent or 2,000,000 bushels. It will be seen that the decline in the export market in the United Kingdom has not been offset by more than 50 per cent by the increase in the domestic consumption of fresh apples.

There has been some increase in the processing of apples, but the net situation is that our growers are faced with surplus apples. While I place the emphasis upon the British Columbia figures because they are more readily available, this situation affects not only British Columbia but Nova Scotia, which are the main exporting provinces, and will in turn affect the producers of Ontario and Quebec should an increasing percentage of

[Mr. Fulton.1

apples have to be marketed domestically. No other market has yet been found to take the place of the United Kingdom market. Along with this goes the other problem to which I think the government should be giving consideration immediately, the instituting of some floor or support price program for our apple producers now so that they will be able to say with some certainty what their future is. That perhaps comes up under a later item, and I will not go into detail here, but I think the two should be considered together.

In closing I want to ask the minister and the committee to bear in mind the serious import of these figures, the very grave position that faces our apple producers through absolutely no fault of their own but because of the complete loss of the British market. I know the minister's influence is considerable, and I ask him to do his best to persuade the British, in allocating their dollars for the purchase of food, to include a fair share for the purchase of apples. Before I sit down, I want to say that this matter cannot be put off by saying that there is not a market in the United Kingdom. The figures which have been given recently of the increasing quantities of apples imported from Australia, New Zealand, Italy and countries other than Canada, where they can purchase them with soft currency, show quite clearly that there is a market for apples in the United Kingdom. I hope the minister will tell the committee, the apples growers of British Columbia and the rest of the country, that they may expect some very concerted effort by the department to look after their interests in so far as the British market is concerned.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

Before the minister replies, I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops in connection with doing something more than we have to obtain a share of the British apple market. I think the minister has already indicated that he believes the prosperity of the apple growers depends in the future upon their receiving a share of the United Kingdom market. To support that view I want to read from a statement in the Montreal Gazette of December 15, 1949. Speaking before the closing session of the tenth annual dominion-provincial agricultural conference the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner is reported as having said in part:

Canada's farmers could not be prosperous without British food contracts. It was "essential" that Canada sell to the United Kingdom most of her surplus bacon, cheese, egg and apple production. There appeared to be no other markets available.

Supply-Agriculture

The minister has recognized the Canadian apple producers' need for the United Kingdom market. We are not speaking tonight simply for the apple growers of British Columbia but also for the apple growers of other parts of Canada who have depended in the past on the export market. Over a number of years we have been told by the experts of the department of Trade and Commerce that the market in Great Britain was finished, that there was no future market, but the experience of the past year proves them to be absolutely incorrect. There was $2,500,000 worth of Washington and Oregon apples shipped through Seattle to Great Britain last year. The British contracted for $3,500,000 of Australian apples. Considerable quantities of apples have been shipped to Great Britain from the Netherlands, and also considerable quantities from Italy, so there is no question that there is a market available there if we can overcome the currency restriction.

Last year the minister's department made arrangements with the people who were purchasing for Great Britain to defer the purchase of $25 million of wheat out of approximately $300 million. Of that, $17,500,000 was spent on bacon, $5 million on salmon and $2,500,000 on lumber. My point is that the minister has already indicated to the house during the present session that he believes we will have no difficulty in selling our wheat crop, that what we do not sell to Great Britain we can sell to other countries. Therefore I support entirely the proposal made by the hon. member for Kamloops that the minister and his officials should do what they can to see if we cannot have a similar arrangement made to take care of a certain quantity of Canadian apples. So far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce is concerned, I am quite sure that he is not particularly enamoured of the sale of apples. He made a very interesting remark that apples were not food. As a matter of fact apples have had quite a lot to do with the history of mankind, but I will not go into that tonight. I shall content myself by saying in reply to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that man does not live by proteins alone.

I happen to have the special issue of the Times that has been sent to members, and I was reading it this evening. There is an article in it entitled "The Dollar-Sterling Trade Board, Now a 'Going Concern'." The first paragraph reads:

One of the most heartening signs of positive action to break the threatening crisis in trade between the United Kingdom and Canada is the recent formation of the dollar-sterling trade board in Canada. The board will act in an advisory capacity to Britain's

Supply-Agriculture

dollar export board and although in no sense a government agency it enjoys full support of the Canadian government.

Near the end of the article there is this paragraph:

In addition to the board and its secretariat, working committees of specialists in various industries are being established. These working committees, whose personnel have been selected by members of the board from within their own trades and industries, have the task of examining in detail the statistics of exports and supplying to Britain's dollar export board technical information for the use of British exporters. . . .

Some of the technical information that we want them to supply is the fact that we have a large quantity of Canadian apples we want to sell to Great Britain. The board is composed of prominent industrialists including Mr. H. R. MacMillan, a great business executive, Mr. Hannam, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and many other competent gentlemen. I say that the apple producers of British Columbia and Nova Scotia expect Mr. Hannam as president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to do his best as a member of the dollar-sterling trade board to see not only that bacon, eggs, cheese and lumber are marketed in Great Britain but also that surplus apples which must be exported are included in the arrangements that are made with the British government for this coming year.

Therefore I ask the minister to tell the house if he thinks it is possible with the co-operation of his department and the dollar-sterling trade board to secure some of the British market for Canadian apple producers, the market that he says is essential for the prosperity of the apple industry in Canada.'

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

All I can say in reply is that we did all we could do. We even offered wheat for apples but the offer was refused. I am sure the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night was not an expression of his own view. When he said something with regard to the food value of apples it was an expression of the view of the British government. I am quite sure it is not an expression of the view of the British people because I have in my hand a copy of an article which appeared in the Vernon News which I think answers very well some of the suggestions that have been made as to how the lack of desire on the part of some in Great Britain might be overcome. The heading of the article is:

Twenty thousand letters pour in to thank growers for fruit. British people send small gifts, words of appreciation for apples.

The article reads:

A realistic indication of how much the shipment of Okanagan valley apples to the old country meant to the people of the United Kingdom is revealed by B.C. Tree Fruits Limited this week. The number of letters of appreciation received cannot be counted, but to date nearly 20,000 have come in and they are continuing to arrive with the docking of every boat. This year, fop the first time since 1946, B.C. apples have been shipped to Great Britain. Movement from the 1949 crop to the United Kingdom totalled 1,593,544 boxes. Previous to the war, Britain purchased annually approximately 2,500,000 boxes of B.C. apples and twice during the war, in the face of wartime shipping conditions, shipments reached more than the 2,000,000 mark.

Shipments this year, of course, were distributed across the length and breadth of the British isles. The British food ministry has seen fit to distribute

50,000 boxes of B.C. apples free to schools and institutions. The appreciative and enthusiastic reception which has been accorded this fruit augurs well for the future of our B.C. industry in the U.K. markets when exchange difficulties have been overcome.

The newspaper article goes on in the same vein and indicates what these people have done for themselves. I do not think any group have done a better job of marketing their product this year than the fruit growers of British Columbia. They not only marketed fruit in Canada, as was suggested a few moments ago, in competition with fruit grown elsewhere in this country; they marketed apples in thirty-two states of the union in the face of one of the biggest crops the United States has ever had. Then, when they could not market the remainder of their crop, they sent those apples to Great Britain. I believe the twenty thousand letters coming back from the British people who ate those apples is the best indication one could have that at least the British mind is being turned toward British Columbia apples, and I do not think it will be very long after the British mind turns toward British Columbia apples until the British government also turns in that direction. The suggestion coming from these people to the effect that they desire these apples may bring about the same result that their desire for more gasoline brought very recently. Probably some people over there will change their minds, if we continue to send apples as we did this year.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

I know the remarks of the minister concerning the work of the British Columbia tree fruits board in marketing their apples will be appreciated. Certainly it is a well deserved tribute; and I also believe the minister is perfectly correct when he says that appreciation of the gift of the million and a half boxes will do much in future to influence the British government to buy Canadian and particularly British Columbia apples again when the currency difficulties

are overcome. But those difficulties are not yet overcome, and we want an assurance from the minister that he will apply pressure, in a proper manner of course, upon the British food mission when they next come to discuss the purchase of food products in Canada. In that way we may have pressure from both directions, from the people at home in the United Kingdom and from our own government making representations which I submit it is perfectly entitled to make. It should be impressed upon them that our apple growers deserve some consideration in the allocation of the very limited supply of Canadian dollars they have to spend on food in this country.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

I might as well be perfectly candid. I have done every nice thing I know of to try to persuade those who come here to talk about buying food, but I have not succeeded. Others have gone over there and attempted to be even nicer than I was in the last stages of the discussions, and they have not succeeded. I think it is about time we stopped talking nicely to some people over in Britain. That does not apply to very many people, just one or two; but until they are spoken to directly I do not think we should look for very much success in the marketing of some of those products in that country.

Having said this, it does not mean that we have not been able to market our farm products. Over and over the story is repeated that we have lost the British market, or we have lost markets generally. All I have to say in reply to that statement is that with the exception of apples, which after all were marketed-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
PC
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

Well, they were marketed, and this government paid $2 million into the treasury of those who marketed them. The apples of Nova Scotia were marketed, and we paid $500,000 into their treasury.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
PC
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

It is not so new. Previous governments, and perhaps this government, permitted them to be marketed at returns which were not as high as would have been received now even if that additional amount had not been provided. That money was provided in order to increase the returns to those who produced the apples. Those apples were marketed at a return we thought was too low, and that level was increased. It is too late this evening to enter into a discussion of the general question, but it can be pretty

Supply-Agriculture

successfully shown that our farm products have been marketed. We would like to market more apples in Britain, but I do not think they are going to be marketed by nice talking. I think more direct talking must be done than we have had so far, and I am quite prepared to do it.

Item stands.

Progress reported.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Second report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of this house is desired: Bill No. 303 (letter Y-8 of the Senate) intituled an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

May I ask the unanimous consent of the house to have this bill moved one step forward by giving it first reading?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

No, Mr. Speaker. The members of our party who are interested in this matter indicate to me that they do not feel it is desirable that it be proceeded with in this way. .

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Tomorrow we will take up the resolution to ratify the convention of the world meteorological organization signed on October 11, 1947; second, Bill No. 302, the defence supplies bill. Then we will move to go into supply and take up the estimates of agriculture, citizenship and immigration, trade and commerce and public works.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

June 12, 1950