1904-07-22

SUPPLY-SIR ELZEAR TASCHEREAU.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has any information to communicate to the House with reference to the movements of Sir Elzear Taschereau? Before the House adjourned this morning I took the opportunity of calling the attention of the Finance Minister who was leading the House to a cablegram which appeared in the ' Montreal Star ' of yesterday announcing that His Lordship had left London suddenly and intended to sail by the steamship ' Ionian.' Is the right hon. gentleman aware that he has left London suddenly ; and, if so, what is the reason ? Has he been recalled ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have no information whatever.


Mr. BARKER.: Have the government made any inquiry as to the remarks of Chief Justice Taschereau, as they did in the case of Lord Dundonald ?


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a difference between the position held by the Chief Justice and that held by Lord Dundonald. We asked Lord Dundonald in regard to the remarks he had made, as he was an official of ours. Sir Elzear Taschereau is not an official of this government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: When are the final supplementary estimates to toe brought down ? Is there any other legislation to be brought down than that on the order paper?


Mr. FIELDING.: I stated yesterday that I hoped the estimates might be down to-day, but I am inclined to think they will not be down until Monday.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not contemplated to bring in any more legislation.


John Graham Haggart: I see a report in the papers that a Bill is to be introduced in reference to superannuation in connection with the Intercolonial Railway.


Wilfrid Laurier: As to that I cannot say in the absence of the Minister of Railways. There may be some departmental measures, but it is not intended to toring anything of a contentious nature.
Mr. SiPROULE. At this stage I think we ought to have some information from the government in regard to the Bills on the order paper which they intend to put through and those which they intend to drop. It is rumoured that it is not the intention of the government to put them all through. Can the Prime Minister give us any information on that point ?


Wilfrid Laurier: On Monday next my hon. friend the Minister of Finance Mr. FIELDING.
intends to bring down the estimates. Then we shall have practically everything we intend to bring down during the present session, unless some measures of a non-contentious character ; and then if my hon. friend is in a mood to go home as much as I am, we may give him some information and perhaps be guided by his intention.


Mr. SPROULE.: It is not the opposition that is running the House, but the government.


Mr. HENDERSON.: In the absence of the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, I beg to ask the Minister of Finance if he can inform the House when we may expect another meeting of that committee ? There is still one important Bill undisposed of, and it is very desirable that the committee should meet at an early day in order to finish up the business.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid I am not able to give my hon. friend any information on the subject. I was under the impression that the business of the Banking and Commerce Committee was completed. There is one Bill, I understand, which has not been disposed of ; but I was informed, as I believe my hon. friend has been, that that Bill was not to be proceeded with. If that be the case, I do not see any need of calling, the committee. I have no objection to it being called, tout I have no information of what the intention of the chairman is. 1 am inclined to think that the promoter does not intend to proceed with the Bill.


David Henderson: I may say that while the promoter may not intend to proceed writh it, possibly the committee may.


William Stevens Fielding: I will take the responsibility of saying, as one member of the committee, that as it is a private Bill, if the promoter does not want to proceed with it, 1 do not see how anybody else can have any interest in pressing it. .


David Henderson: It is in the hands of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Experimental Farms, $100,000.
Mr. TAYLOR.: When we had this item up before, the minister promised to bring down a statement showing the reason for the discrepancy of about $20,000 between his report and the report of the Auditor General as to the expenditure on experimental farms.


Mr. FISHER.: When this matter was up before, the hon. gentleman pointed out what appeared to be a discrepancy between the
statements in the Auditor General's Report and the statement at the end of the farm

report of this year, on page 429. The Auditor General's Report at page D-36 gives a statement of the expenditure on the Central Experimental Farm, amounting to $55,205.60. The discrepancy that appears is due to the following : The salaries of the officers at the central farm are charged in the Auditor General's Report all to the Central Farm, but in the experimental farm detailed expenditure the salaries of the director, $4,000 ; accountant, $758.31 ; assistant accountant, $416.65 ; stenographer, $800 ; amounting to $5,974.96, are divided amongst the different farms in the ratio of thirty per cent to the Central Experimental Farm and 174 per cent ($1,045.62) to each of the other farms. This makes a total of $4,182.47 to be deducted from the items in the Auditor General's Report. In the botanical and entomological division 30 per cent is charged to the central farm and 17J per cent to each of the others. This division is charged $3,787.56 in the Auditor General's Report. The salaries of Messrs. Fletcher, Guignard and Gibson are comprised in this figure with some other slight expenditures. The total of the four parts charged to the branch farms is $2,345, which deducted leaves $1,442.56 charged to the central farm. The chemical division is divided in the same way. The salaries of Messrs. Shutt, Charlton and the other gentlemen amount to $4,100, and the additional expenses make a total of $4,706.86 in the Auditor General's Report, out of which $3,296.76 is charged to the branch farms leaving $1,410.10. The travelling expenses are the same in both cases. There are a number of small items of freight on exhibition supplies at Nappan and charged to central farm in error amounting to 35 cents to be deducted and $120 for value of grain for exhibitors to be added. The telegrams and telephones are not divided and they amount to $144.06. In office help, &c., there was a proportion of office help charged for the distribution of seed grain as marked on the vouchers, which the Auditor General through some error charged to the central farm. That item comes to $4,018.71 instead of $4,543.71. In printing, stationery, newspapers, and periodicals, cost of money orders for chemicals, payment of chemicals, supplies and seed, instead of being $109.09 should be $104.35. In seed-grain, trees, &c., we have to add to the Auditor General's figures 97 cents and for freight on seeds from Ottawa to Nappan chargeable to Nappan $1.20, we have to deduct from the Auditor General's figures which will make that item $446.21 instead of $446.44. The horticultural division is the same in both, viz., $5,110.92. In the distribution of seed grain, trees, office help, &c., there was $525 ; for office help, $125.48 value of grain supplied by Brandon Farm ; $712.64 value of grain supplied by Indiau Head Farm, $438.43 supplied by central farm, less screenings used for seed, $334.55, leaving* the difference of $1,467 which ought to be added to the Auditor General's figures making it $6,029.56, instead of $4,562.56. The farm report shows $5,871.82 to which is to be added $157.74 for the distribution of seed, and the two lumped together make $6,029.o6 exactly the figures which appear in the Auditor General's Report. Under seed testing, and care of green houses, &c., the cost of taking meteorological observations is charged in the farm account as contingencies has to be deducted from that item in the Auditor General's Report. The reason of this is that the man who takes charge of the green houses is paid for the meteorological observations. The Auditor General has put that in with seed testing and care of green houses, whereas in the farm report it is charged to contingencies. The item in the Auditor General's Report is $1,091.39. the same item in the farm report being $1,019.39. If you subtract the $72 from the Auditor General's Report it brings it down to the $1,019.39. The item for arboretum, forestry, and care of grounds is the same in each report. In live stock the value of one short horn bull sent from Ottawa to Agassiz $350, is to be deducted from the Auditor General's figures, leaving the balance, $1,146.08. This was credited to the central farm stock in the Auditor General's figures. In farm work, &c., as the division of cereal breeding, &c., had only been in operation for a portion of the year, the expenses were included in this item and they amount to $2,805.47. There was also a small charge for services in London, England, of $25.54, making the item altogether in the Auditor General's Report, $7,913.36. There was credited in the Auditor General's Report to the Central Experimental Farm, for feed supply to poultry, and various other items amounting to $1,072.52, which deducted from $7,913.36, leaves $6,840.84 the exact item that appears in the report. For draining implements, blacksmithing and harness supplies, manure and fertilizers and dairy department, the items are the same. In the poultry department the value of feed suplied from the farm $218.59 ought to be added to $1,773.45, which makes $1,992.04, the exact item in the farm report. In Bee supplies the item is the same.
The following table will show the difference between the Auditor General's figures and the Farm's figures, 1902-3 :-



CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries general.
(How made up in farm account).
Deduct from Auditor's figures-
30 per cent charged to Central Experimental Farm-
174 per cent charged to Nappan	 ^ 045 g2
17i	"	" Brandon	1,045 62ii	Indian Mead	
1 045 Q2"	Agassiz	
1*045 61
171
Botanical and Entomological Division	
Deduct from Auditor's figures-
30 per cent charged to Central Farm-
Nappan. Brandon... Indian Head..
Agassiz....
586 25 586 25 586 25 586 25
Chemical Division	
Deduct from Auditor's figures-
30 per cent charged to Central Farm-
174
17|
Nappan ,
Brandon....
Indian Head . Agassiz	
Add to Auditor's figures-
P. O. Commission on money order remittance for chemical supplies, charged in error to newspapers and periodicals	
Travelling expenses	
Add to Auditor's figures-
Exhibitions	
Value of grain in straw and threshed,' especially' prepared for exhibi
,	. ,	_ toons and credited to farm work, &c	
Deduct from Farm figures-		'

^re'error>n ex*1^,lt'on 8uPPl'es at Nappan and charged to Central Farm
Telegrams and telephones	
Office help, &c	
Deduct from Auditor's figures-	
Proportion office help chargeable to the distribution of seed grain and potatoes, as marked on vouchers	
Printing and stationery	
Newspapers and periodicals	
Deduct from Auditor's figures-	
Cost of money orders for payment of chemicals.
"	"	supplies ."	"	seeds	Auditor's.	Farm.S cts. 5,974 96	$ cts. 1,792 494,182 47	1,792 49	1,792 493,787 56	1,442 562,345 00	1,442 56	1,442 564,706 86	1,412 903,296 76
Sydney Arthur Fisher: 



[Stage Direction]
Seeds, grain, trees, &c	
Add to Auditor's figures-
Cost of money orders for payment of seeds, newspapers and books. Deduct from Auditor's figures-
Freight on seeds from Ottawa to Nappan (chargeable to Nappan).
Horticultural division
Distribution of seed grain, trees, &c.
Add to Auditor's figures-
Office help	$	525 00
Value of grain supplied by Brandon farm	 125 48
„	n Indian Head farm	
712 64ii	it Central farm	
$ 438 43Less screenings used for feed	
334 55
103 88
Seed testing and care of greenhouses	
Deduct from Auditor's figures -
Cost of taking meteorological observations, charged in Farm account to contingencies (in Auditor's report to salaries, marked contingencies).
Arboretum			
Forestry and care of grounds	
Live stock	
Deduct from Auditor's figures-
Value of one Shorthorn bull, &c., sent from Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, to Agassiz. (Credited to Central Farm stock and charged to stock at Agassiz)	
Farm work, &c	
Add to Auditor's figures-	_
As the division of cereal breeding, &c., had only been in operation for a
portion of the year the expenses were included in this item	
Expert services in London, Eng., determining value of 8 samples of Canadian wheat	
Deduct from Auditor's figures-
Value feed supplied to poultry	 $ 218 59
ii grain	[DOT]>	to grain distribution	
438 43ii roots	m	to stock for feed from experiment plots....	295 50ii grain held for exhibitions	
120 00
All deducted from farm work .
Draining	
Implements, tools, &c	
Blacksmithing and harness supplies. Manure and fertilizers	
Auditor's.	Farm.
$ cts. 446 44	$ cts. 446 21
0 97	
447 41 1 20	
446 21	446 21
5,110 92	5,110 92
4,562 56	/ 5,871 82 \ 157 74
1,467 00	
6,029 56	6,029 56
1,091 39	1,019 39
72 00	
1,019 39	1,019 39
1,892 03	1,892 03
1,335 81	1,335 81
1,496 08	1,146 08
350 00	
1,146 08	1,146 08
5,082 35	6,840 84
2,805 47	
25 54	
7,913 36	
1,072 52	
6,840 84	6,840 84
1,958 06	1,958 06
708 67	708 67
379 54	379 54
310 42	310 42 ! .

[Stage Direction]
Auditor's.
Farm.
$ cts
cts.
Dairy department	
Add to Auditor's figures-
Poultry department	
Value of feed supplied from farm.
Bee supplies	
Contingencies	
Add to Auditor's figures-
Roadmaking under separate heading in Auditor's report	
Taking meteorological observations included in seed testing and care of
grounds by Auditor	
Cleaning museum, under separate heading in Auditors report	
P.O. money orders for supplies included by Auditor in newspapers and periodicals
715 27
715 27
1,773 45 218 59
1,992 04
218 47
128 06
116 81
72 00 2 50 0 97
1,992 04
1,992 04 218 47 320 34
Division of cereal breeding, &c	
This item included in farm work, &c., in farm report.
320 34 2,805 47
320 34
2,805 47
Feed for stock and veterinary service	
Add to auditor's figures-
Value of grain screenings from farm... ii roots from experimental plots
Museum		...		
This item included in contingencies in farm report
Care of stock	
Road making and drawing gravel	
This item included in contingencies in farm report
Steers purchased for feeding experiments	
[Stage Direction]
Proceeds of sale of steers purchased for feeding experiments....
930 44 334 55 295 50	feed 1,495 43 v. s. 64 06
1,560 49	1,560 49
2 50	
	2 50
3,087 45	3,087 45
116 81	
	116 81
2,787 85	2,787 85
4,082 00	4,082 00
These are the only discrepancies in the details and I,think I have here shown that practically with the exception of slight details and I think I have here shown that three-quarters of this difference is included in the division of salaries and the division of wages. Otherwise the discrepancies are only slight differences of opinion in the charges of certain items.
George Taylor: The hon. gentleman has produced a large number of figures showing divisions and subdivisions to account for the discrepancies, but I say to you Mr. Chairman and to this committee that neither he nor any other person can account for it in any other way than by saying that the statement which he has published and sent out bo the country is not a fair statement. I make the proposition now that he can refer the figures I am about to give to any accountant he may name-and I will ask hon.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Siembers on both sides to take down the gures I am about to give and if they do not say, one and all, that the statement I make is correct in every particular, then I will say that the hon. gentleman's statement is correct. He has said : I have run the farm at Ottawa, I have run the four other experimental farms and the total expenditure of the people's money which I made in connection with the running of those farms has been $84,128.10. I will give these figures from his own report. We have here a statement of the expenditure on Dominion Experimental Farms for the year ending June 30th, 1903. The figures for the different farms are as follows :
Central Experimental Farm	$40,022	36Nappan	
11,499	95Brandon	11,581	67Indian Head	
10,568	57Agassiz	
10,455	63Total	$84,128 18
That, the minister says is the total expenditure of the money of the people of this country in running these farms.
Now, we will see what the Auditor General says, and I will ask hon. members on (the opposite side to write down .these figures or to refer to the Auditor General's Report to verify them.
Farm-Page	in	AG.	Amount.	Central (Ottawa)	D-36.	...$55,205 60	**	V-94.	... 8,205 68	"	V-112.	... 1,430 22	**	V-113.	... 110 65	$64,592 15Nappan.. ..	[DOT] D-40..	.. $9,043 04	* V-93..	.. 30 06	9,073 10


Brandon .. .: [DOT] D-44..	.. $9,251 09	
" . . .		* V-93..	.. 496 61	
				9 747 70
Indian Head.	[DOT] D-47..	.. $8,825 15	**	. .	.V-93..	.. 1,159 78	9,984 93Agassiz	* D-49..	.. $7,649 58	*[DOT] ..	[DOT] V-95..	.. 379 12	8,028 70Grand	total.. ..	$110 782 58	
Besides this there is a special vote for printing and distribution as stated in the minister's report at page 432, of $7,000, making a total expenditure of $117,782.58.
From this there is to be deducted the re-enue from the different farms as follows :
Farm-page in A.G	Revenue.
Central (Ottawa) D-130	$2,974
Nappan	D-129..	$834	55Indian Head	D-129..	702	12Brandon	D-128..	591	23Agassiz	D-128..	410	84Total	$5,512 74
Then there are repairs to the buildings which I have, not taken into account. I have just taken down the coal and wood and inspection of boilers, making a total of $1,430.32. I have not taken into account the sundries :
Detailed, 1901-2, page V-137	$3,229 27
Detailed with Ottawa building, repairs, V-110	1,381 50
Then on page 113 there is :
Experimental Farm, Canada Atlantic Railway, transportation of ten barrels of gasoline from Buffalo	$10 70
Star Oil Works, Buffalo, 515J gallons of 88 per cent gasoline at 19 cents.. .. 97 95
These are moneys expended in connection with the farm, yet they are not included in the statement of my hon. friend published as a statement of the total expenditure. If we turn up V-94 of the Auditor General's Report we find other charges which the minister has omitted :
Street car tickets, $18.85 ; cab-hire, $4 ; post office money orders, $4.36 ;
sundries, $2	$29 21
Lime, 75 bushels at 22 cents ; papering brush, $1.35 ; pair of scissors, $1.50 ; jointer, $2.50 : large pine roller, turned, $5.25 ; 2 porous cells, $1.20	 28 30
These items are made up of goods purchased by the Public Works Department as expenditure in connection with the farm, yet the hon. gentleman ignores all that, and in his report he says that the total expenditure is $84,000, whereas that amount is $19,141 short of what was actually expended. And until he explains where that $19,000 was got, this item should not pass, but should be reduced by that sum.
Leaving a balance of expenditure over revenue of $103,269.84, and the hon. minister reports he has only spent $84,128.19, or $19,141.66 less than the actual expenditure. That is the statement I made yesterday and which I repeat, and I challenge the minister or any auditor or accountant to contradict it. Will the hon. gentleman go on the platform and tell the farmers that they can run their farms without fuel and light ? Yet in making up the expenditure, he leaves out these two important items. Turn to the Auditor General's Report V-112 and you will see there charged against the experimental farm the item of boiler inspection company, inspection of two boilers, $20. If a farmer used a boiler for the pur-m pose of cooking grain and anything went wrong with it, would not the cost of repairs be a charge against the farm ? Then take these other items :
Thos. Fitzsimmons, cartage of wood
to farm, 51 cords at $1	$	5 25
John Heney & Son, sawn maple, 25
cords at $8, 101 at $6.50	 268 25
McCulloch & Co., furnace and, nut coal, 154 tons at $7.25, 21 at $8	 1,136 72


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman has made some very strong statements.


George Taylor: Very correct statements, which required strong language.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And this the hon. gentleman is master of. He has quoted from the Auditor General's Report, and I accept as correct the figures which he has taken from that report.


George Taylor: Then you will accept my whole statement as correct ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, figures and deductions from figures are two different things. The hon. gentleman quoted the Auditor General's Report, which is divided into sections, and section D is applied to the Department of Agriculture. In that section there are many figures which correspond exactly with those in the departmental report. Then the hon. gentleman went to the section which is devoted to public works and took a lot of items out of that department.


George Taylor: Was that not expenditure in connection with the experimental farm ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are expenditures of the Public Works Department in connection, it is true, with the experimental farm.
Mr. TAYLOR, You could not run a farm without them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps not.


George Taylor: Then you should have added to your account that expenditure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have followed the method adopted toy the Auditor General and prefer his plan to that of my hon. friend.


George Taylor: The Auditor General's Report has nothing to do with the report of the Department of Agriculture.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend will only keep cool, I will be able to explain the matter to him. He has become confused by figures from two different parts of the Auditor General's report. I prefer following the lines of the division of expenditure adopted by the Auditor General, and I have kept to them and have put into the farm report the figures which the Auditor General has embraced under the heading ' D,' which applies to agriculture. I have not gone through the whole of the other departments to find out whether there are in them any figures which might possibly be twisted into subserviency of my work. The hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that the Public Works Department deals with the public buildings of the Dominion. It takes care of the post offices. It pays for the heating, lighting, management and repairs to post offices, but these are not charged against the administration of the Post Office Department by the Auditor General. The Public Works Department deals with the care of custom offices all over the country, and it heats, lights and repairs them and pays the caretaker.


George Taylor: When the Minister of Customs or the Postmaster General can seek to contrast the revenue of their departments with the cost of running those departments do they show every item of cost ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They do not. What I have done in that respect is exactly what the Post Office Department and the Customs Department do. The Post 'Office Department does not charge itself with the expense of caretaking, heating or lighting the post office buildings. Nor does the Customs Department charge itself with these items in connection with the custom house. Nor does the Auditor General charge these departments with the expenditures made by the Public Works Department in connection with these buildings any more than he charges such expenditures against the experimental farms. And the hon. gentleman has proved that toy going to the Auditor General's statement and actually taking the Mr. TAYLOR.
figures from the accounts of the Public Works Department and adding them to the charges made by the Auditor General for expenses of the experimental farms. The hon. gentleman has cited the Auditor General. He flas appealed unto Caesar. I agree to that appeal, and I go before Caesar with him. And Caesar, in the person of the Auditor General, tells us in his report that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is entirely wrong. It could hardly be otherwise, because the figures that I have given with respect to the experimental farms are identically the figures of the Auditor General himself.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) and the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) and the other ministers are dealing with the public funds of this country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) says to the people of this country : I have spent $84,000 of your money in running the experimental farms. I say that that statement is not correct. I go to the source of the information to which the hon. gentleman has referred me-the Auditor General's Report. I take every dollar that was paid in connection with the farms in order that I may know what the expense to the country of those farms has been. The Auditor General simply keeps accounts of the money he distributes for all purposes


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under different heads.


George Taylor: Of course. But, under whatever head it may appear that does not affect the amount that the people have to pay for the running these experimental farms. Could any farmer in the country run his farm without paying for fuel and light ? And why has not the hon. gentleman the manliness to charge all the amounts of such expenditure in connection with these experimental farms ? I submit that question as a practical question to any farmer in the country. The farmers of this country have put this hon. gentleman in as Minister of Agriculture, and he is supposed to handle their money carefully and with judgment. He reports to the farmers that he has spent $84,000 of their money in running the farms, but he says nothing about other items aggregating $20,000 that has beeu spent in this connection. Suppose that the president of a company or the manager of a bank were to make a statement to his shareholders in which he left out of account $20,000 of the expenses incurred in running the company, how long would he be allowed to hold his position ? Why, he would not be left in office twenty-four hours. And that is what I call upon the farmers to do, to say to this hon. gentleman : You have published a false statement of your expenditure


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I give just what the Auditor General gives.


George Taylor: The bon. gentleman says that he appeals to the Auditor General. Well, I will meet him at the Auditor Gen-errals office at any hour to-day or to-morrow, or any day next week


Mr. FOWLER.: Except Sunday.


George Taylor: Yes, except Sunday ; 1 won't work on Sunday and I won't travel on Sunday. I will meet him in the Auditor General's office at anytime he likes and will accept the Auditor General's statement as to the correctness of what I say.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall not go to the Auditor General


George Taylor: You are backing out already.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, there is no need to go to the Auditor General, for he is here in this report. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is subjecting himself to unnecessary worry. He used to be on this side of the House, and supported a former Minister of Agriculture. But he did not indict that minister because of the way the accounts were made out although they were kept in exactly the same form as before by the Auditor General and by the farm accountant. I am sorry he thinks the Auditor General makes up the accounts so badly.
Mr. TAYLOR, He has made them up correctly, and I quoted from his report.
Mr. FISHER, I have taken the figures exactly as they are in the Auditor General's Report. So the hon. gentleman need not get excited over it.


George Taylor: I am not excited. But I represent a constituency of farmers and I do not want them to be deceived.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is a case, evidently, where appearances are deceitful. I am sorry the hon. gentleman should appear to be excited when he is not excited.


George Taylor: It is my nature.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is. And I will let it go at that, acknowledging that nature is too strong for us sometimes.


Mr. LENNOX.: Probably we can get along without being excited, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) who has charge of this matter will be fair. The statement at page 420 of the Experimental Farm report, issued by the hon. gentleman, is headed in this way : ' Statement of Expenditure on the Experimental Farms for the Year ending June 30th. 1003.' Then the expenditure for the several farms is set out, all in the same manner. It will be sufficient for my purpose to read the heading of the first,-
' Central Experimental Farm, Expenditure 1902-3.' Now the hon. gentleman says he will appeal unto Caesar in the person of the Auditor General. We are having a great
variety of names for that gentleman of late, many of them not very complimentary, I am sorry to say. Csesar was a warrior, a great military genius, and, as we are appealing to warriors and great military men, I shall appeal to a greater military authority than even Caesar-I appeal to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) himself. He can hardly object to that, for he combines the virtues of Caesar, Hannibal, Napoleon and all the rest of them. It hardly comes well from the hon. gentleman to twit the hon. member from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) with being excited, or belligerent or anything of that kind, for, although now the hon. gentleman, while dealing with his estimates, exhibits a mild demeanour, yet. the other night upon the same question his attitude was very belligerent. He might take to himself a little of the suggestion that he has offered to the hon. member for South Leeds.
What I want to ask the hon. gentleman is this : Does it matter at all what system of book-keeping prevailed some years ago if that system is wrong V Is it fair to the country, is it fair to the farmers, whom the hon. gentleman officially represents, that he should persist in that which misleads, which deceives the people, which prevents them having an adequate grasp of the true condition of affairs ? I ask the hon. gentleman as an honest man, aye, as an honest farmer, I speak again as a farmer to a farmer, and I ask him, is he giving the people a fair representation of the case when he presents a statement Which is headed as expenditure of the farms, unless he includes in that statement all the expenditure of the farms ? When he says that the total expenditure is $84,128.18, is yt honest, is it truthful, to omit from that expenditure the sum of $19,141.0(1 found in the Auditor General's report ? The hon. gentleman says that he has made it up exactly in the same way as it has ben maede up before. Now I ask if it is not time that we should have honest and straightforward book-keeping, whatever we may have had in the past. Is it truthful, is it fair to send out to the people of this country a statement which purports to be the sum total of all the expenditure on these farms, and yet the hon. gentleman has to adimt in this House that there is $19,000 of ordinary expenditure for the year ending 1903 which has been deliberately omitted from that statement ? And what class of expenditure is it ? It is expenditure for ordinary repairs, it is expenditure for little matters in connection with the various farms, it is expenditure for coal, for wood, for fuel and a thousand other small matters that arise in connection with the management and carrying on of the farms. Now let me appeal to the hon. gentleman as a farmer. He said the other day that he was ready to go out and discuss these matters on the hustings with the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor). Let him

go there, or let him send some one who is not acquainted with the facts the hon. gentleman has mentioned to-day. Suppose at the meeting I happen to mention that the total expenditure on the farms for the year ending 1903 was $103,269, and a good supporter of the hon. gentleman says : No, it was $84,128. I say the hon. gentleman is wrong, but he says he is right. He then reads this published statement of the Minister of Agriculture on page 429 and following pages purporting to give every dollar of expenditure in connection with the farms, and by it I am absolutely wrong. What will the people say ? I venture to say that Grit and Tory alike, every man in that audience will have to come to the conclusion that I am wrong. Why, because this statement of expenditure on the Dominion experimental farms for the year ending 30th June, 1903, if it means anything, means the total expenditure ou those farms. Now this is not an issue between the Auditor General and the hon. gentleman, it is an issue between the people and the hon. gentleman, and I appeal to the hon. gentleman himself, not to Caesar, not to the Czar, as some hon. gentlemen opposite now call the Auditor General-I appeal to the hon. gentleman himself, to this great and distinguished combination of militarism and agriculture, I appeal to him to treat the people fairly, and not suppress a sum of $19,000 from the amount which he says gives the total expenditure on these farms.


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) asked me a question to-day in reference to this expenditure. There is a report of the experimental farm, there is an accountant connected with that farm, and it is for him to pay out the money. In these tables that are given here I understand there appears another report, a statement that the expenditure is made up and paid by him under the true head.


George Taylor: I refer the hon. gentleman to page 429 of the report.


William Paterson: I saw the heading, but his report does not show that the expenditure for coal is included, he does not say that. If the question is asked by the hon. member for Leeds why he has not put that in, the answer would be that he did not pay for it, he is giving an account only of what he himself has done. But it is evident that other payments have been made. But I do not see that we should blame the government because these other payments are found in the Auditor General's Report. Now the Auditor General is not under the direction of the director of the experimental farms or of the Minister of Agriculture, in the preparation of his statement. He is the master in that respect, and he has determined that the proper way of keeping these accounts and of publishing them, is to give Mr. LENNOX.
them, as I understand it, under the head of experimental farms. The expenditures are made directly by the accountant of that farm, while other expenditures that are incurred are not paid through him, but being paid through the Public Works Department, he places them under the head of the Public Works Department. Now, I suppose the Minister of Agriculture could have no objection if the Auditor General saw fit, under the head of experimental farms in his report, to put in the items that are paid for out of moneys that are placed in the hands of the Public Works Department. The Minister of Agriculture or the director of expert mental farms could not object. But they have no power to tell the Auditor General to keep his accounts that way. The Auditor General keeps the accounts in the way that he deems right, and therefore, under the head of Public Works, he says, I will put the coal that is used on the experimental farms, and I will put these other items. It seems to me the blame does not lie with the Minister of Agriculture, but that if there be any blame, and I do not see that there is any, it must lie with the gentleman who has full authority and power to present' these accounts to the public as he pleases. Now the Auditor General I presume would reason this way :	This House votes for lighting
and heating of public buildings, a certain sum is voted for that purpose, and out of that the Public Works Department take charge of the heating and lighting and caretaking, for instance, for the Customs, the Post Office, the Inland Revenue Department, and perhaps in some other cases, and the Public Works Department pays the caretaker of the building, the fuel, the lighting, and defray the whole expense.
Well, that expenditure appears in the report of the Auditor General, giving the country to understand and know that it has taken so much money to light, say a public building in Ottawa. Is the Auditor General then to divide up the cost of heating, lighting, &c., and charge so much of it against the Post Office Department and so much against the Customs Department ? I cannot see that this heading is deliberately intended to mislead and I do not think that anyone can see that. It says that it is a statement of the expenditure on the Dominion Experimental Farm for the year ending June 30, 1903. It gives the different expenditures and then it is signed by the accountant of the department. In this the accountant gives the statement of the expenditures made to him. How could he give other expenditures which were not made to him ?


Mr. CLANCY.: He knew of the other expenditures and my hon. friend must know that he knew of them and he could have included them.


William Paterson: Then should the Post Office Department, the Customs Depart-

ment, the Inland Revenue Department, &c., take their proportion of this expenditure and publish it ?


James Clancy: This is a statement going to the country showing how a particular account has been made up. It is not on the same footing as the accounts of the Post Office or Customs Departments. If the accountant failed to put in every item of expenditure in connection with that farm, no matter what service it was for, so long as it belonged to that farm, the account would be misleading.


William Paterson: Apparently I cannot mark it any plainer.
the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) as he will see, because the hon. member for Bothwell admits this account will have to go to different coal dealers and to the parties who made repairs and ask them for their accounts. He might be told by these parties :	We have rendered our
account to the department that ordered it. The hon. gentleman has all of these accounts. If the hon. gentlemen are right, the Auditor General should at once give instructions that in future the coal for experimental farms and all expenditures of that kind instead of being put in the report under the head of public works, is to be put under the head of experimental farms.
Mi-. TAYLOR. You have done very well ; you have done the best you could.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman says the accountant could have asked the Auditor General-


James Clancy: No.


William Paterson: How then would we know the amount of coal ?	-


James Clancy: He could go and find out as any honest man who wanted to make a true aceount could, and put in a foot note-


William Paterson: My hon. friend has suggested a foot note. There might he a suggestion there. These accounts have been kept in that way from confederation or from the institution of experimental farms and-


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. gentleman jiretend that it. makes any difference whether the accounts have been kept in that way in the past or not ? It is a question of what is fair and honest.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman says it is a question of what is fair and honest. I would not like to put it in that way because the hon. gentleman would he saying that for all these years since the farms were instituted the accounts, have been kept unfairly and dishonestly. I would not like to say that, and I do not know whether the hon. gentleman says that or not. If a change in book-keeping can be made which will make the subject plainer, that is a fitting matter for consideration, but do not attribute unfairness or dishonesty to the accountant who prepared the statement of last year because he simply gave a statement and made an account of the expenditure in precisely the same way as it had been made by every accountant since experimental farms were instituted. If the Auditor General took the view of the hon. gentleman opposite-and he is the one particularly charged with showing to the people of this country how the public moneys are expended-it is quite open to the Auditor General to do what the hon. gentleman says. It is easier for him to do it, than it is to have it done by the plan suggested by


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the duty of the Auditor General to keep the accounts of the various departments and make out their book-keeping to ascertain whether the accounts have been properly paid, and value given for them.


William Paterson: The Auditor General has all of these accounts before him and he could as easily instruct his accountants instead of putting expenditures of this class for experimental farms under public works, say that they are to be placed under letter D. experimental farms. He has all the details and would simply have to give instructions.


Mr.   TALYOR@: Why should not the accountant of the farms do this ? He has the accounts in the Auditor General's Report.


William Paterson: My hon. friend must see that according to his argument if there is any fault in the book-keeping his criticism is entirely against the Auditor General.
Mr. TAYLOR, No, it is directly against the Minister of Agriculture.


William Paterson: It cannot be against the Minister of Agriculture. He did not pay for the coal, he did not pay for the repairs, and as he did not pay for these things he is not warranted in putting them in.


George Taylor: He says that his statement gives the total expenditure in connection with the farms.


William Paterson: He does not.


George Taylor: He does. .


William Paterson: This is headed :
Statement of the expenditure on the Dominion Experimental Farms for the year ending June 30, 1903.
He does not say total expenditure.


George Taylor: If the minister when on the platform was asked from the audience how much the farm at Ottawa cost, he would turn up this report and say : There are the minister's figures for it ; they are correct. Every farmer would believe this for it is in the blue-book.



T383 COMMONS

William Paterson: The farmers would not nor would the hon. member for Leeds. The Auditor General can easily arrange this and it is he who is to blame if any blame there be in this matter.


George Taylor: No, he is not.


William Paterson: The thing could be accomplished at once by the Auditor General doing what the hon. gentleman asks should be done, because if we were to give his instructions to the accountant of, the farm, it could be easily arranged. He could send to the accountant of the farm a statement of these different expenditures for coal, Ac., and say : that is to be included in your report. It is the Auditor General that'has to deal with that. The Auditor General can instruct the accountant to give him the figures and he need not put the expenditure under the head of public works, but under the head of experimental farm. You take the public buildings throughout the Dominion where you have Customs, Post Office, Inland Revenue, and perhaps Indian Department offices, and there is no estimate made of the proportion that should go to each department. I take it that the public know that in carrying on the different branches of the public service, under the head of public works expenditure, items such as have been brought to our attention today are charged.


Mr. INGRAM.: Suppose the hon. gentleman is addressing a meeting in my constituency as he usually does, and some honest farmer were to say : Mr. Paterson what is the total expenditure on the experimental farm at Ottawa ? Would the hon. gentleman say $84,128.82. or would he say $103,269.84 1 If I were absent I suppose he would give the lower figure, but if I were present he would say $103,269.84.


William Paterson: Oh, you don't believe that. To be frank, I would not be telling the whole truth, as I understand it by the discussion here to-day. if I were to give that lower figure mentioned, but I would be justified in saying that the total expenditure as shown by the accountant was $84,128.82, although there were charges to other branches of the public service a- portion of which were incurred for the farm.
in this report and no man can deny it. No man can say it is a correct statement and tell the truth. I have no doubt that gentlemen on the other side of the House when they address the farmers will say that the expenditure on the experimental farm was $84,128.82, whereas if they told the total truth it would be $103,269.84. That is the whole thing in a nutshell and no one can dispute it.


William Paterson: It is hardly the whole thing in a nutshell. We have frequently debated in this House questions as to the system of book-keeping and for instance as to whether the distinction between capital and ordinary expenditure should not be abolished. That, however, has not been done, and the old system has been continued. I suppose the reason is that these statements are valuable for purposes of comparison. Since the farm was instituted the accountant makes up his statement on exactly the same lines, and thus you can make a comparison between the statement in 1896 and the statement in 1903. If you now added certain charges which were not added before you could not have a fair comparative statement. I am not judging the question as to whether it would not be better to change the system or not, but I am pointing out that in preserving the old system it is useful in comparing the expenditure. If you wish to adopt a new system you could not get at a comparison without adding a note to explain the difference. There is no attempt to mislead the people. The accountant does not say that it is the total expenditure, and no one can be deceived by his statement. The remedy is, easily in the hands of the Auditor General if he wishes.


George Taylor: Don't obstruct the passage of the item.


William Paterson: All right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was rather amused at the desire of the Minister of Customs to throw the blame on the Auditor General instead of on the Minister of Agriculture. That seemed to be the whole aim.


William Paterson: Not to blame.


Andrew B. Ingram: The good practical common-sense farmers want to know the truth regardless of all these niceties of bookkeeping, and when the Minister of Agriculture stated in the report that the cost of the experimental farm was only $84,128.82, it was not an honest statement'of the expenses of the experimental farm. As mv friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) says : this is a misleading report. There is no* getting around the fact that it is not true. We are not disputing the manner in which the Auditor General keeps the accounts, but we are disputing the dishonest statement Mr. TAYLOR.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He said :	Who is to
blame ? It is the Auditor General-he could have done this and done that; he could have picked out all these various items and put them together, and could have done *the book-keeping for the farm as well as auditing the accounts. Is the Minister of Customs not aware that the duty of the Auditor General is only to audit the accounts?


William Paterson: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I think added to that is the duty of presenting these accounts to the public.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to say tliat. In regard to the accounts of the Public Works Department, it is his duty to ascertain whether the expenditure has been made in accordance with the conditions of the vote of parliament and the law which provides for such expenditure. When he finds that it is correct, he has a right to show it to the public in some way. He puts it under the various branches, and shows it by his index, and in doing that he has done his full duty. He has nothing to do with showing how or where the money has been expended on the farm ; and the Minister of Customs, instead of blaming the Auditor General, should blame the Minister of Agriculture, whose duty it is to show how and for what the expenditure has taken place. The hon. Minister of Agriculture says the hon. member for South Leeds chooses to appeal to Caesar, meaning that the Auditor General is Caesar. Well, Caesar was right and Fisher was wrong, that is the only difference. It is not the duty of the Auditor General to compile the different expenditures and to say : Everything that was spent on the farm is to be found here. He shows by his index where it is to be found under the various heads, and in doing that he has done his whole duty. On the other hand, what is the position of the Minister of Agriculture ? Suppose all these farms belonged to me, and I put a steward there to run them, and placed at his disposal so much cash for that purpose ; and suppose I instructed him to make a statement to me yearly as to what had been done on these farms. Suppose I owned a farm at Ottawa, another at Nappan, another at Brandon, another at Indian Head and another at Agassiz ; and suppose I looked over the statement he made to me to see what had been done with my money and how much it had cost to run each of these farms ; what am I to expect by that statement ?. Am I to regard it as giving part of the expenditure or the whole of it ? I put my steward over the different properties and ask him to render me an account which will show the income and expenditure on all these different farms. Would I regard him as doing his duty or as [DOT]worthy of the position he occupies if he rendered me an account which misled me ? As a farmer I .was misled by the account given in the hon. minister's report. If I ask any farmer in this country to tell me what it lias cost to run these farms, will he not take that account on page 429 of this report and say, there is the account of the expenditure. When I come to balance up my cash account and find that it is $19,941 short, I ask, what has become of that money ? He tells me : I used part of that to buy coal for the experimental farm, to make repairs on the building, to provide other little necessaries.
I say :	That does not appear in your account. No, it does not, but the farm requires these things. How long would any man in
this House keep a steward who managed his farm in such a way as that ? Would he blame the Auditor General for that V Would he not blame the man who is in charge and who is responsible for the making out the accounts ? What is the answer of the hon. minister to-day ? That was the way it was done before. It may have been, but is that the proper way for a business government to argue ? Is that the correct thing to say to the people when they endeavour to analyze the cost of the various departments of this government ? The present government, when in opposition, over and over again claimed that the methods of their predecessors were wrong, and promised that if they were put in power they would adopt the right method. "Why have they not done so? Why do they desire to shield themselves behind the Auditor General and throw the blame upon a man who.is no more responsible than I am, and exonerate the party who is charged with the responsibility of showing the farmers of the country how much it has cost to run these farms ? The Minister of Agriculture has appealed to Caesar. and Caesar is right, while the Minister of Agriculture is wrong.


William Paterson: If the hon. gentlemen see that they are wrong. I do not wish to proceed with this matter much further ; but this is the point I make. Here is the report which the Auditor General presents to the public in his report on page D-29 :



EXPERIMENTAL FARMS.

[Stage Direction]
Summary.
Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa,
(Page D-36)	$55,205	60
Branch Experimental Farm, Nappan,
(Page D-40)	
9,043	04Branch Experimental Farm, Brandon, (Page D-44)	
9,251	09
Branch Experimental* Farm, Indian
Head (Page D-47)	 8,825	15
Branch Experimental Farm, Agassiz,
(Page D-49)	 7,649	58
[Stage Direction]
This is a summary of the expenditure on the experimental farms as given to the public of Canada by the Auditor General. Why is it not said that the Auditor General, in giving that summary to the people of Canada has given out a statement that is not true ?
An hon. MEMBER.: Oh.


William Paterson: That is the language which hon. gentlemen opposite are applying to the statements made in this report. I am not saying it is not true, I am not finding a word of fault with the Auditor General, but I say that my hon. colleague has followed the plan adopted in the Auditor General's Report, and if you find fault with the Minister of Agriculture, you must deal out the same criticism to the Auditor General. What
7387'

was there to have prevented the Auditor General from putting these items connected with the experimental farm, but which are charged to Public Works, under the heading of experimental farms ?
Mr. Cl. AN CIV He could not do that, because the items were voted for public works and not for the experimental farm, and the Auditor General charges against each department the expenditure voted for it.


William Paterson: I think the hou. gentleman is right, but in any case the Auditor General could have added a foot-note- as hon. gentlemen opposite say the Minister of Agriculture should have done-explaining that these items were expenditures on the experimental farms, although charged to public works.


George Taylor: If my hon. friend will turn to V-113 he will find that the Auditor General has done this. He will find there certain expenditures under the heading of public works marked as belonging to the experimental farm.


William Paterson: But you do not find any reference to this in the edition dealing with the experimental farms. If the hon. gentleman finds fault with the Department of Agriculture for not having a foot-note showing that other expenditures connected writh the experimental farm were to be found under other heads, he should find fault with the Auditor General, because there is nothing in his report giving the expenditures on the experimental farm to show that under the heading of public works there are other expenditures directly connected with those farms. But the Auditor General gives the expenditure of the experimental farm as amounting to $89,994. which is the statement embodied hi the report of the Department of Agriculture. And if a foot-note be advisable in the one case, it is equally so in the other.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) described my report as a dishonest and misleading statement, and said that if I followed the practice of former years, that practice ought to be changed. I am not prepared to admit that my statement is misleading or dishonest. It is an actual statement of the disbursements of the farm according to the system followed by all former accountants. The hon. gentleman says that that system ought to be changed and that there ought to be in the statements the items of expenditure on the farm which are charged to public works as wTell as the expenditures voted, for the farms themselves. Well, that suggestion is worthy of consideration and I do not take very strong exception to it. But hon. gentlemen opposite would be ready to condemn the gov-Mr. PATERSON.	-
eminent if the government were to change the system of book-keeping hitherto followed. We would be immediately accused of doing something very wrong. I am afraid that these hon. gentlemen are rather suspicious and they would suspect us of trying to hide something, of trying to show a different comparison if we were to change the system which has hitherto always been in vogue. I say positively that the same system as is followed in this year's report has been in vogue ever since the establishment of the experimental farm. It was in vogue under my predecessor. The reports issued by my predecessor contain exactly the same statements and the same discrepancies, taken from the Auditor General's Report. I have here tw7o of the reports under the late government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the use of the minister taking up time to establish that when everybody admits it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does the hon. member for Leeds admit that the statement which I have published, and which he denounces as dishonest and misleading, is exactly the same kind of statement as my predecessors were publishing ? Does he charge them with the same crime ? Does he charge them with having made similar misleading and false statements ? If he does, I have nothing more to say. If he will stand up now and say that wThat he has been accusing me of his own leaders were guilty of, his whole attack falls absolutely to the ground as far as any party advantage is concerned. But the contention of the hon. member for Simcoe is different. He says the system should be changed. That is a question for consideration. It may be a bad system, but if it is bad to-day, it was equally bad under my predecessors. It was a bad system when the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) supported it and allowed it to pass without objection or criticism. The whole argument from a political point of view falls entirely to the ground, and there is simply left a question of book-keeping, which I am quite ready to consider and discuss ; and if the Auditor General thinks it best to make that change in our report, I am ready to follow his advice. But up to the present I have been following the lines laid down by the Auditor General and in doing so I have been doing exactly what all the Ministers of Agriculture from Sir John Carling, who established the farms, down to myself, have been doing in .connection with the book-keeping of the department.


George Taylor: I gave the hon. minister yesterday the figures in the Auditor General's Report for 1895-6, as they compared with 1902-3.	'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not comparing expenditures ; I am comparing systems.
Mr. TAYLOR, The office expenditure under the late administration was $1,750, and under the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) it is $4,935.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman is altogether shifting his ground.


George Taylor: The late government administered the affairs in connection with the experimental farms more to the satisfaction of the country on an expenditure of $19,173 than the hon. gentleman does on an expenditure of $44,878.


William Paterson: That is not the question.


George Taylor: The hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) is very anxious to get his colleague out of a hole. But he cannot do it, with all his sophistry. He wants to appeal to the Auditor General. Well, in the Auditor General's Report page V-93, he will find another summary of expenditures of experimental farms :	Nappan, $30.06;
Brandon, $496.61 ; Indian Head, $1,759.78 ; Agassiz, $379.12 ; Central Experimental Farm, $8,205.68. And this is not included in the summary given on the other page.


William Paterson: The Minister of Agriculture is not to blame for that.
Mr. TAYLOR, Does not the accountant of the experimental farms get all the accounts, and must he not approve them before the Auditor General will pay them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not until after the Auditor General's Report is Issued.


George Taylor: The Auditor General's account covers the fiscal year, just as the experimental farm report does.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has not understood what I mean. The Auditor General's Report is printed and laid on the table long after the report of the experimental farms is prepared and sent to the printer. So, we cannot make up the report on the basis of the Auditor General's Report.
Mr. TAYLOR, The Auditor General will not pay a cent until


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not talking about payments, but about the reports-


George Taylor: I am talking about business, and I am showing that the hon. gentleman does not manage the experimental farms in a businesslike way. This we are told is a business government


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I accept that.
Mr. TAYLOR, -and we want them to manage the affairs committed to them and to present reports like business people. The accountant at the experimental farm must 235
initial the accounts before they are paid. Why, then, does he not enter each account as an expenditure ?


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) should be reasonable and listen to what is told him. The hon. Minister of Agriculture pointed out that it is impossible to do as he suggests because the report of the experimental farms is in type before the Auditor General's Report is placed on the table, so it is impossible to base the experimental farm report upon the figures in the Anditor General's Report.
Mr. TAYLOR, We will take that statement with a grain of salt.


William Paterson: You should not say that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I made the statement positively.


George Taylor: The accounts are closed to the same day-30th June-and there is no account in the Auditor General's Report relating to the experimental farms but is shown to the Minister of Agriculture's accountant long before the entry is made in the Auditor General's Report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, not one of the Public Work's accounts is shown to us. We know nothing about them until the Auditor General's Report comes out.


George Taylor: All he has to do is to go to the Auditor General at any time


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not for the same items.


George Taylor: All he has to do is to find out from the Public Works Department what has been spent for the experimental farms-how much coal has been bought, how much has been paid for light and so on. All these items must be taken account of by the farmer in his business ; yet, the hon. gentleman renders his account to the people of Canada without charging these items and in a form that will mislead the people. A good many people have almost as much faith -in a blue-book as they have in their Bible. They think that nobody would put out a blue-book that is not in accordance with the facts. Yet, here is a blue-book which misrepresents the expenditure on the experimental farms to the extent of about $20,000. And when this is pointed out, the Minister of Customs comes to the rescue of his colleagues. The Minister of Agriculture himself says that he will appeal to Caesar in the person of the Auditor General. And when I accepted that and offered to go with him to the Auditor General he backed down. Why 7 Because he knows the verdict will be against him. There is not a farmer who reads my statement, but who will say that I am right and that the report put out by the Minister of Agriculture is a misleading one. The



hon. gentleman has shown himself an unworthy steward, and he will be dismissed by his masters, the people. I have just read the figures from the Auditor General's Report of one whole series of items that do not appear as charged against the experimental farms in their report, although the money was spent on account of the experimental farms. Suppose that every business in the country were run that way. Suppose my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) ran his factory in Brantford


William Paterson: No, I am out of business.


George Taylor: Well, he has stock in the business and has a business manager there. That business manager will prepare a statement for the directors of that company. If that statement showed a deficiency of $19,000 in the bank account, the manager would very soon be dismissed. And I believe the people will say that the Minister of Agriculture has been guilty of a similar offence in sending out this misleading blue-book V


William Paterson: How many have you sent out ?


George Taylor: Not one. I would not send out a lying document to the people. I discovered the error as soon as I opened it. Yet, the Minister of Customs will get on the platform and talk about this Minister of Agriculture, represent him as a horny-handed son of toil, and a sound business administrator, although it has been pointed to him here to-day that this report does not give within about $20,000 of the expenditure on the experimental farms.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: I have been listening carefully to the discussion, and I have one suggestion to make to the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) The question that he refers to is one that ought to be discussed in Committee of Public Accounts. It is a question of the method of keeping accounts, and it is almost a waste of time to discuss such a question here.
At one o'clock committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


James Clancy: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to turn to page 78 of the report of the experimental farms. The hon. gentleman will find there under the heading ' Balance sheet or financial statement of live stock feeding operations on 200 acre farm. July 1, 1902 to June 30, 1903.' A table is given under the heading of comparative receipts. Commencing at the top of that table the number of horses is given at 19 in 1902 ; in 1903 they are at the same number. The returns are put down at $2,011.20. That return is extended in the column of gross returns made up of increase Mr. TAYLOR.
in value, value of products and animals sold. Will the hon. gentleman tell us how he arrives at that $2,041.20 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend will notice that the statement is under the heading of ' Balance sheet or financial statement of live stock feeding operations on 200 acre farm, July 1, 1902 to June 30, 1903.' The whole of the horses on the farm are charged there, 19 in number. That is the return of the value of their work on the experimental farm of 200 acres, and the value of their work apart from this.


James Clancy: There is a statement here that does not quite accord with, the hon. gentleman's statement. It says :
In the case of horses, the services of the nineteen head are valued at $3,061.80, but since the labour of 6 horses is required to do the work on the 200-acre farm, only $2,041.20, or two-thirds of the value of their labour is credited to them.
That would mean, since there are only six horses engaged, $340 for each horse. Now how is that arrived at ? How is the work of six horses put down at that value ? Other horses are running about the fields or the barnyard. How is that enormous sum of $3140 arrived at as the value of each horse ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was not quite correct in what I said before, I cannot myself quite understand that statement. It appears to be contradictory. I will have, to telephone to the accountant and find out just what that means.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. gentleman can explain the next item : ' Shorthorns, pure bred and grade.' On July 1st, 1902, there were 16, valued at $2,155, or an average price of $135 each. The next year there were 20, valued at $3,410, or an average of $170 each, making a difference between the two years of $1,255 increase. Then under the heading of ' Returns ' there is $627.77, making an increase in value altogether of $1,882.77. Will the hon. gentleman tell us how that has arisen ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place, there is an increase in the number of animals. In the second place the 20 animals are different from the 16 animals. Then the animals are valued at the beginning of the year and at the end - of the year, showing th;ft they had increased in value. The increase in the value of the 20 over the value of the 16 is the amount which the hon. gentleman mentions, $1,255. Then in addition, the produce sold from these animals is put down at $627 17. Part of that produce sold is the number of calves, and part is milk production. The two things together make up the sum that is to be credited to the shorthorn herd as their product during the year ; that is to say, the increase in value of the animals and the value of the product

sold during the year, amount together to $1,882.77.


James Clancy: It cannot be milk, because that is charged on the other side of the account. The hon. gentleman accounts for it in this way : That in 1902 there were 16 animals, and in 1903 there were 20 animals. The average price in 1902 was $135, and the average price in 1903 was $170. Now how many of these animals that were there in 1902 were there in 1903 ; how many were purchased, and what was paid for the animals in the meantime ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not under my hand a list of the animals or of the individual animals . I cannot tell how many of those 16 are included in the 20. I have a list of the cows in the-earlier part of the report, but that would not include the bulls. But the fact is there were 20 animals at the end of the year and 16 at the beginning. That not only causes an increase in value by the 4 additional head, but the probability is that some of these animals were of greater value at the end of the year than at the beginning, arising from their growth and their increased productiveness. Each animal is valued separately, and its just and fair value at the time the valuation is taken is put upon it.


James Clancy: The farm report gives a balance in favour of the live stock operation of $2,245.26. That includes an allowance for the feed of all kinds given to these animals, but from the figures given here it would seem that the amount paid to the men enumerated as being employed in the care of this stock came to $2,856. I notice in the Auditor General's Report that the sum put down for wages for the care of stock is $3,087.45. I am sure that the hon. gentleman will scarcely say that that is the whole cost of the raising of this stock. There are other men connected with the farm whose salaries have been paid, and the live stock should bear at least some proportion of these salaries as well as the other branches. I refer to such officials as the director, the accountant, &c.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can only say that the statement on pages 78 and 79 of the Farm Report is a summary of the work on the 200-aere farm, which includes in its management the stock on the experimental farm. The statement was prepared in a summary form, and does not pretend to go into all details. I confess that I do not understand the situation in regard to the horses, and I have sent for that information. There are a large number of employees on the farm who have nothing to do with the stock. The charge for the care of stock in the Auditor General's Report is different from that in the Farm Report, and I do not understand the difference. I have sent for that information also. I do not think it is fair to charge the salary of the director, &c., to the # 200-acre farm.


James Clancy: To what would you charge it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To the experimental -work. A farmer running a 200-acre farm would not have a director and an accountant. The request has been made that this account should be kept in the way a farmer would run his farm.


James Clancy: This is under the control of the director, and there are other persons whose services are constantly required in this connection.	*


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that will be a fair charge against it. If it were an ordinary farm, the man running it would correspond to the farm foreman, or the agriculturist, who is solely directing the operations.	,


James Clancy: Then, too, there is no charge made for pasture for these animals during the half year when they must have pasture.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not at the moment see anything in this report for pasture, although that should be included. If the animals are fed on the farm, the pasturage ought to be charged to them the same as the feed in the winter. I will see that it is done another year.


Mr. BLAIN.: There is an expenditure of $7,000 for printing and distribution of bulletins and reports, which is not charged to the farm at all. Is it not an expenditure in connection with the farm, and why is it not charged to it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is an expenditure in the way of distributing the knowledge acquired on the farm, but, of course, it is in no way connected with the operations of the farm. It is done by a staff of clerks who are paid specially out of this $7,000, and it appears on both sides of the balance.


Mr. SHERRITT.: Coming from an agricultural district, I may be excused for saying a word or two on this matter. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) stated that he did not distribute any of the reports of the agricultural department to the people in his riding. I am not in that position, because there is no departmental report that I have distributed so freely as this one. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) stated that he did not distribute these reports because he did not wish to distribute any thing that was false. I consider myself just as honourable and as honest as he is, but I regret to say that I am not in that position, because I sent out these reports believing that they contained the truth and up to the present debate I was not aware that they are misleading. It is true that certain matters which were brought out in the discussion last year and the year before led me to believe that these agricultural reports were to some extent wrong. For instance, when I questioned the

minister as to. how he valued his hay, he said he valued it at eight dollars per ton and he weighed it as it came in from the field, whereas every one knows that hay is supposed to shrink about one-third, and the course pursued by the minister in that respect was to my mind greatly misleading. However, I did not think the report of the Agricultural Department was misleading to the extent it is. I have had many applications for these reports by my constituents in North Middlesex, and I sent them out without any explanation. It would appear now that in order to have them properly understood I should have sent the Auditor General's Report along with them. Had I sent the Auditor General's Report out at the same time as the agricultural report, I believe the farmers of North Middlesex are quite intelligent enough to go through both reports *and arrive at correct conclusions from a study of each, but placing that agricultural report in the hands of any man it is not possible for him to understand it correctly, or to see that there should be $19,000 added to the expenses of the farm more than is therein stated. I was amazed to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that this report is not misleading. To my mind that is a ridiculous statement. I was pleased with what the Minister of Customs said to some extent; because, although he tried to go all round it he did not undertake to justify the report or to say that it was not misleading. However, he did say that because the wicked Tories had done the same thing prior to 1890, that was sufficient justification for the Minister of Agriculture to send out a misleading report. I am satisfied that not one of these gentlemen on the opposite side of the House in discussing public questions on the platform has ever referred to the fact that the expenditure on the experimental farm is much larger than is shown in the report. On the contrary they based their remarks on the figures contained in it ns being found in the blue-book that could1 not lie. 1 may say that from this out, when sending lout the report of the Agricultural Department. I intend to send an explanation stating the real facts of the case. Not only is this report misleading to men who seek information, but I think it is a very bad example to the young men of our country that a man occupying the high position of Minister of Agriculture should not only send out this misleading report, but should stand up in the House as he did and state it was not misleading. I fail to see how any person of the intelligence and ability of the Minister of Agriculture could say that this Agricultural report is not misleading. It is said that the Auditor General's Reports are public property. That is true, but every one is well aware that there are a dozen of the agricultural reports put in the hands of the public for every one of the Auditor General's Reports. There is no possible way for Mr. SHERRI IT.
the average farmer to find out what the true state of affairs Is by reading that report as it is at present published. I do not wish to detain the House, but coming from an agricultural district as I do, I consider it is my duty to stand up here and confess to having sent these reports out not knowing they were misleading and that there was an additional expenditure of $19,000 in connection with that farm which was not known to the public.
Mi-. CLANCY. I notice that the teams are Put down at $2.50 a day, which of course includes the man. If you allow the man $1.25 a day that would leave another $1.25 a day for the team, and of course the horses have to be fed. Suppose the six horses worked 300 days, instead of having $2,000 to their credit they would only have $375. Then there is a charge of 21 cents a bushel for threshing. That is the ordinary price paid to these machines going around the country, but the men have to be fed in addition to that and the 21 cents a bushel does not anywhere near represent the cost. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that there is not a man in Canada who could get his threshing done, including the pay of the men engaged, their board and so on. for 21 cents a bushel. Every farmer in the House knows that that is perfectly ridiculous. I would like to know how that figure is arrived at.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place, let me reply in regard to the horses. If the hon. gentleman will look at the bottom of page 58 and at the top of page 59, he will find a full explanation of the cost of the horses. It shows that on a team there is a margin of 32 cents a day, after paying for the feed of the horses, and $1.41$ per day for the driver. The 32 cents per day covers the wear and tear on the harness and replacing the horses as they grow old. A daily allowance of 16 cents per horse amounts to $48 in the year of 300 working days. That shows abundant margin left for wear and tear on the harness and for replacing the horses. If the hon. gentleman examines that account, I think he will find it accurate.
I cannot myself see any flaw in it.


James Clancy: I will point out the flaw.
In the first place, the calculation is made on nineteen horses when only six are used. When you divide the amount among nineteen, you will get a much smaller amount for each horse.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The calculation is worked out for each horse ; it does not matter whether the number is nineteen or six. When you take a pair of horses to do some work, we charge that to two horses. The cost of feeding and caring for a team comes to $2.16. We base this on 300 working days ; but when the account is for eating, the charge is for 365 days. For the cost of horse labour $2.50 per day is allowed for each .

*working day, which leaves a margin of 32 cents on a team, for wear and tear of harness and replacing horses as they grow old. That 32 cents on 300 working days amounts to $48 for every horse on the farm, which is an abundant sum to cover wear and tear of harness and the replacing'of the horses.


James Clancy: To what account is charged the days on which the horses are standing idle ? I will give an extreme example, and will put the average cost of a horse at just what is stated here. Suppose the horses work only one month during the year, do you simply charge their labour at the rate of $2.50 a day, and keep them for the whole year ? The kon. gentleman has kept these horses at a certain expense, and he is not charging that to any other service. The statement is entirely misleading.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will take the hon. gentleman exactly at his word. I only wish to make a fair statement, and I take the statement shown as one. Six horses on a 200-acre farm would have to work practically 300 days in the year.	,


James Clancy: Do they work half that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, as a matter of fact there are not ten days in the year in which the horses on the experimental farm are idle. I say that positively, because there is a great variety of work, and the horses are kept working all the time, every month in the year. In the winter time there is teaming to be done, hauling manure, and a great deal of teaming backwards and forwards to the city. That might not and would not be the case on an ordinary farm; but at the same time I think my hon. friend or any other farmer would arrange his work so that six horses on a 200-acre farm would be employed 300 days in the year. If he did not do that, his management of the farm would not be as economical and careful as it might be. The statement is based on a horse working 300 days in the year, which gives them about 15 days ordinary working days in which they would not do anything. The work of each team is charged at the rate of $2.50 per day, which I do not think is unreasonable. The details are given on page 59.


James Clancy: I do not think there is any man of experience in the use of horses in this House who will say that even in the most favourable wjeather, you can use a horse more than twenty days in a month. The hon. gentleman astounds me when he adheres to that calculation made to show that any man could employ a team of horses during 300 days in the year. If you can get a farmer in this House who will back that statement, I will make the hon. minister a public apology.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have at the farm the actual details of what every horse does
every day, and I will incorporate a summary of that in next year's report.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman would also have to incorporate a certificate as to the perfect sanity and character of the man who would make such a statement.


Mr. ROBERT JOHNSTON.: It is quite evident from the discussion we have had that the report of the Minister of Agriculture is completely misleading as regards the expenditures on the experimental farm. When this report of the Minister's Department is sent out, the public accept it of course as giving a correct statement of the facts; and if any one on the hustings were to declare that the experimental farm at Ottawa costs more than was set down in the report, no one would be inclined to believe him. But we have it amply proved in this debate that no less a sum than $19,000 has been left out in the statement of expenditure. That sum has been expended on the different experimental farms but not one dollar of it is accounted for in this report. Of course we can understand that the minister who not only has charge of the Department of Agriculture-the most important in the country and one which gives abundant scope for the exercise of all his energies and ability-but also at intervals takes charge of the Department of Militia, cannot be held strictly accountable, but it is high time that the people should know how this department is managed. Why should the people's money be spent in getting up a report which is absolutely incorrect ? How are we to find out how much is spent on these farms ? As the great taxpayers of this country, we have a right to have a proper report and not a partisan report. We have a right to a report that will enable us to make comparisons between the acts of this government and of their predecessors. I remember that when hon. gentlemen opposite were appealing to the country, they criticised these points of book-keeping and declared that if they were put in power they would submit the accounts to the public in such fashion that everybody might know how the money was spent. And they said : If we do not act in accordance with our professions. turn us out. The amount of money they are spending and the way they are accounting for it is a flat contradiction of every promise which they gave in this respect, and I believe that at the next appeal the country will take them at their word and turn them out. I hope that in the future we shall not have such a wrangle about these points but that the facts will be placed before the people so fairly and so clearly that there will be no difficulty in understanding what is the actual cost of these experimental farms.


James Clancy: I would like to call attention to page 59 of the Experimental Farm Reports. It shows that for the twelve

months from December 1st, 1902, to November 30th, 1903, the food of the horses was valued at $1,552.10. To care for the horses cost $560, making a total cost of $2,112.10 for 19 head, or $111.16 to feed and care for one horse for the year, or 37 cents per day, counting 300 working days in the year. Now, why confine it to the 300 working days of the year ? These horses had to be kept for the 365 days of the year.
Mi-. FISHER, The total cost of keeping each horse is $111.16, and if this were aver aged over 365 days it would make less than 37 cents per day. This would cause a reduction in the apparent cost for each working day. If we were to do that, the hon. gentleman would have a right to complain that we did not provide for the keep of the horses for those days when they were not working. We have charged up against the 300 working days enough to cover the cost of the keep of the horses for the 365 days of the year.


James Clancy: The statement of the hon. minister is, perhaps, correct. If so, I was in error


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am sure my statement is the true explanation, and that the hon. gentleman's criticism was 'based upon a misapprehension. I would like to say to him also that I have an explanation about the comparative statement with regard to the horses (page 78), to which he referred. I have not seen the officer who is in charge of this department, but I can see through it now in a way I could not before. It says :
In the ease of horses, the services of the nineteen head are valued at $3,061.80, but since the labour of six horses is required to do the work on the 200-acre farm, only $2,041.20, or two-thirds of the value of their labour is credited to them.
The reason for that is this: The feed raised by the 200-acre farm feeds all the horses and the rest of the live stock on the farm that we are now taking account of. But the work of six of these horses is required for the 200-acre farm. Therefore, we have no right to credit all the 19 horses with doing work. But if we have 13 horses whose work is not applied to the 200-acre farm, but is given to the rest of the experimental farm establishment, then the 200-acre farm deserves to be credited with the value of the services of these 13 horses. For all practical purposes it is enough if one-third of the value of the services of all the horses is left out, because about one-third of the labour of all is applied to the 200-acre farm and two-thirds is applied to the other work in the experimental farm establishment.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) has pointed out that only six horses are doing the work. Are not the other 13 also working horses ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not all engaged in farm work. There is the horse that draws the 1 Mr. CLANCY.
'bus to and from the farm, and the horse used for driving purposes. They have nothing to do with the 200-acre farm.


James Clancy: Then why should they be taken into account in the way of profit ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because the 200-acre farm feeds and provides for them.


James Clancy: But he is giving credit of $2,041 to six horses that are working.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The six horses are necessary on the 200-acre farm, and their services are not counted. Their maintenance has to be provided by the 200-aere farm, and therefore they are not charged with their maintenance or credited with their work. But this 200-acre farm also supports 13 other horses, whose work is not necessary on the 200-acre farm. They might be kept elsewhere and put at outside work and, if they were, the 200-acre farm would have a right to be credited with the value of their services.


James Clancy: But they are not performing any.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are performing services for the rest of the establishment. The other parts of the establishment are benefiting by these horses that are maintained on the 200-aere farm. Suppose that the 200-acre farm raised 1,000 bushels of oats and that Dr. Saunders, as director, took the oats and sent them out to farmers all over the country, would it not be fair to credit the 200-acre farm with the 1,000 bushels of oats? You certainly ought to, just the same as if they were taken to the market and sold. So the hay, the oats, the meal and the work of the men are charged to the 200-acre fai-m, and are applied to the keep of the 13 horses which are not needed for the work on that farm. Therefore, we credit this item with two-thirds of the keep of 19 horses, only one-third of the 19 horses being needed for the farm, and we credit the farm with two-thirds of the keep of the horses which are not used.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman states that only 6 horses are employed on the 200 acre farm.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The 13 horses are working for somebody else.


James Clancy: Here are 6 horses employed. If you have ten men and only employ five, you are certainly not going to pay wages to those you do not employ.
Mr. FISHER, These horses are working elsewhere, but they are fed and maintained there on the farm. Supposing the hon. member was a farmer and he required for his own use 4 horses. But he had an opportunity in the neighbourhood of running some teams for a lumber yard or a brick yard, and he kept on his farm 16 other horses and he fed them there, and fed the men and

maintained them there. But if he got his wages for sending them out to work for others, would he not consider it right to credit his farm with so much of the wages that he got for letting out those horses V This is a similar instance. The 200 acre farm requires 6 horses, but it maintains and feeds 13 other horses which are used on another part of the experimental farm, and that other part must pay to the 200 acre farm the value of the services of those horses, and this item is the value of the services-of those horses which is credited to the 200 acre farm.


James Clancy: Assuming the horses were of the same value, although only 0 of them worked out of the 19, it would mean the live stock were entitled to a credit of $2,041. On the other side of the account, the feed of course is charged up for the keep of the 19 horses. But there is no statement here showing how that $2,041 is arrived at.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The paragraph above is not quite so clear as it might be. I did not understand it when I first read it.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will see that each horse has to earn over $100, each one of the 19, because they are credited with $2,041.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have just been given a list of the work done by the other horses. There are 3 for the omnibus, 4 are used for the Horticultural Department, 3 or 4 keep the lawns in order, and 3 are riders. This makes up the 13 horses extra.


George Taylor: And there are 13 men to look after them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The men who look after the horses go with them. But I think my hon. friend understands now the explanation which I have given.


James Clancy: I will understand if the hon. gentleman tells me how he arrives at what each horse earns, and how he earns it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The services of the horses are put down at $3,061.80.


James Clancy: How is that arrived at ?
Mi". FISHER. I will have that worked out in a minute or two. Perhaps there are some other questions the hon. gentleman would like to ask me in the meantime.


James Clancy: I may say that I do not intend to prolong the debate. I only want to see how he arrives at that figure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to know that myself. I take the figures from my officers as being correct, and I have no doubt they are. I have found, when I tested them by working them out, that they were correct.


James Clancy: In working them out, it might be well to make this further calculation. I am unable to understand why we should take six horses and credit two thirds
of the value of their labour to them, as in the statement on page 78 of the report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The word 'their' in that statement on page 78 is improperly used. It refers not to the work of the six horses but of the nineteen horses.


Mr. BOYD.: I would ask the minister what position Mr. W. S. Sparks occupies in the department and what his salary is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is not now in the department nor in this country, but during the last winter he was employed for some institute work.


Nathaniel Boyd: At whose request was he employed in the institute work ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He was introduced to me and in conversation discussed matters connected with horse breeding and training in this country. He had been recommended to me by a number of people and he asked me if he could not perform any service for the department. I then put him on to give addresses on horse training, &c., and he also acted as judge at various shows with the approval of the department.


Nathaniel Boyd: Was he employed permanently ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; he received so much a day and expenses in the usual way.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I feel interested in these estimates because I am interested in agriculture. Every member in this House, no matter whether he is a practical farmer or a lawyer, is interested in agriculture simply because one half of all the exports of this country are the products of agriculture. Therefore anything that could be done to encourage.farming and to induce the farmer to produce more productions of a better quality is of great good to our country. I think the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) is entitled to the thanks of the country for having elicited a good deal of information in reference to the false system of book-keeping that has been practised ever since confederation, apparently, in regard to the experimental farm. I hope that from this time forward the Minister of Agriculture will see that everything in connection with the farms is so placed that there will be nothing misleading about it and that every man reading the returns will be able to tell exactly how much the experimental farm costs us. The minister says that this system was inaugurated long before he, became minister and therefore he claims that he is not responsible for it, but he knew about it and_when he knew about it, he should have amended it. Therefore the minister will pardon me if I say that he should not be excused and cannot blame the hon. member for Leeds for bringing this matter up because it certainly is, as the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Gil-mour) says, misleading. Yesterday we had

an agricultural discussion and I suppose it would be hardly proper for me to refer to it, but I may say that I voted against the minister yesterday afternoon simply because I considered that he had not discharged his duty in the matter of placing an official weigher in Montreal. That thing has been discussed and the matter settled, and I hope that the minister will see that the farmers of the country get justice, so that when they send their stuff to market there will be some one there with authority to stand between the buyer and seller and see that justice is done. This matter seems so far to have been neglected but I hope that the resolution will not be in vain. Every farmer on that side should have voted for it yesterday, and they would have done so if they had heard the question discussed but many of them were not in the House. I do not wish to make any further remarks on this subject but I would say that I am prepared to assist the Minister of Agriculture in everything that he can do to aid the farmers. Complaints have been made in reference to the cold storage systems that have been started in different parts of the Dominion. I think that this cold storage is all right and that inducements should be offered to start cold storage plants all over this country. Tuere is no doubt but that ultimately they will be established in every city, town and village because they are a necessity and because they will enhance the value of all our perishable products. Therefore I think the minister is right when he encourages the farmers to make use of this system. I would like to send reports of the experimental farms to all the farmers in my riding, but I do not think I had better send them out unless there is a foot note to the effect that all the lighting and all the coal is charged to the Public Works Department. I think a farmer would make a very poor showing if he did not take into calculation the cost of fuel, wood, &c., on his farm. I think he would soon come out at the wrong end, because it is a matter of great importance, and $19,000 is about one-fifth of the cost of the whole experimental farm. Thus one-fifth of the real cost of running this experimental farm is charged to capital account or some other account. X hope that in the future this will all be set forth so plainly that he who runs may read.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
James Clancy: I do not believe it is possible for each horse to work 300 days in the year, but at all events we are dealing with the live stock section here and not with a 200 acre farm.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think there is some-tiling in the argument of my hon. friend but as the work of six horses was requited for that 200 acre farm we credit their services to it.


James Clancy: In order to be consistent, the minister should revise these figures. Evidently he has mixed up the farm with the live stock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many thoroughbred cattle are on the farm, and to what breeds do they belong ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The statement on page 78 shows the breeds but does not say how many are pure and how many grade.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have them mixed up. How do you make the returns ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These returns are the revenue from the animals and their increase in value ; if they decrease in value it would be deducted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you /do with the swine ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We breed them and sell them. The chief revenue is from young pigs for breeding purposes and the sale of fat pigs raised on experimental work to the butcher.


Mr. McGOWAN.: Are the pigs all pure bred ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not all, but most of them.
Patent Record, $5,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is an additional vote, caused by the increased numbers of patents issued. It is all for printing, and is paid over to the Printing Bureau. We get a larger revenue, of course.
Experimental farms, $10,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is to cover last year's expenditure, which is brought up )to the amount I ask for this year.
Exhibitions, $45,000.


George William Fowler: Does this include the St. Louis exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George William Fowler: Whom have you sent as commissioner to that exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. William Hutchison is the only commissioner.


George William Fowler: What other officers are there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are a number of secondary officers, men in charge, besides certain officers who have been sent to explain our exhibits. I will get a list of them for the hon. gentleman, and in the meantime we can let the item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
For the branch of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Dairying, including live stock, dairy, cold storage, extension of markets, poultry, seed and fruit division ; employees paid from this sum not to be subject to the Civil Service Act, $220,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the usual item for this branch of my department. It is the same amount as we have had for the year just past. Some expenditures which we have had during the last year will not be needed in the future, because the payments for cold storage on steamship lines are closed up, and we shall not have to spend the same amount for that service this year that we did last year ; but I propose to extend the service in other directions, so that we shall require about the same amount of money.
Mi'. SPROULE. What work is being carried on under this branch ?
Mr. FISHER, In the first place, we have work of a general character in regard to the commerce and transportation of agricultural products. The branch is divided into seven main divisions, which are set out in the report of the department for the year. I wTill give the estimated expenditures for the ensuing year :
General head office	$31,000
Live stock division	 34,000
Dairy division	 61,000
Cold storage division	 19,600
Fruit division	 25,500
Seed division	 17,900
Extension market	 19,000
Poultry division.. '	 15,000
Total	$220,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many hands employed in the general head offices ?
Mr. FISHER, Besides the commissioner, whose salary is $5,000, there are employed Mr. O'Hara, Mrs. Henderson, Mr. Thomas, and several others and the messengers, whose aggregate salaries amount to $5,650. Then there is the publishing work, for which the clerical staff costs $1,500. There are also the renting of offices, $1,800 ; caretaker, $500 : messenger, $365 ; printing and stationery, $3,500 ; travelling expenses, $1,800 ; and contingencies, $4,400. About $4,500 are left open to be allocated according to any plan that may be worked out during the year requiring extra expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you doing in the live stock line ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We provide lectures and assistance to various fat stock shows. My hon. friend no doubt attended the Guelph fat stock show and must have noticed the great interest taken there in the department where illustrations, demonstrations and lectures were delivered. The interest taken in these is simply wonderful and that is the work to which we specially devote ourselves.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much do you pay for these lectures ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I propose next year to devote about $4,000 to the five shows.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you have $30,000 left.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There have been established what are called straight stallion shows and breeding animal shows at different points. For these we have laid aside STOOD. We have undertaken work in connection with the ordinary fairs-the country and township local fairs. We have been trying to get those established on a fixed basis, so as to have a certain amount of similarity in the prize list and management. We hope to make these fairs model fairs. Our work in the Whitby fair was very. flatteringly commented on.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman's department co-operate with the local directors ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, these fairs are entirely managed by their local associations. We only advise" them when they write and ask us. The live stock commissioner has had many experiences in that work when em-ploved by the Ontario government as institute manager. That is, when they ask for a little help in this respect we give it. We have not been giving them any prizes or any money for them to spend ; but when they come and say that in this or that respect they are a little weak, we try, by sending them a judge or some one to help them in their management, to improve the quality, management and style of these fairs. We set aside $1,000 for this purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Upon what principle do you divide it ? Does the minister give assistance to every one who applies ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A thousand dollars would not go far if we did that. We try to make conditions that we will give aid when the -people do certain things. Speaking. from memory the only fairs that have received assistance of this kind so far are those of Whitby and Richmond, Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This accounts for about $6,000 out of a vote of $34,000. What is the balance to be devoted to ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A part will be devoted to work in connection with auction sales of live stock in British Columbia, tbe Northwest Territories, Ontario and the maritime provinces. The live stock associations ot these provinces have been arranging for auction sales of live stock, and we have been helping in the work. That will cost us according to our present plans $2,450. Then we have been helping local fairs with expert judges. Some years ago there was a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed as to the men obtainable as judges for small local fairs. The suggestion was made that we should try and supply competent men to judge the various classes exhibited. We have been able, by arrangement with well known judges of different classes of live stock, to secure their services. In response to the applications sent us from the local fairs, we have been able to supply a very considerable number of expert judges, sometimes officers of the departments and sometimes men whom we have secured from outside. We have had most appreciative letters from the different fairs where these gentlemen have acted, and the demand for their services is growing all the time. We have now hundreds of requests from all over the country to send judges of this or that class of live stock to the different fairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you pay these judges?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We pay them $3 a day and their travelling expenses. We do not pay for their maintenance at the place where the fair is held, but make it a rule that the people shall entertain them. We seek to arrange a circuit for each man so as to reduce the expense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are only Grits employed on this job ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not at all. I could give a long list of men thus employed who are strong supporters of the opposition. I do not say there are no Grits, because, as the hon. gentleman knows, many of the best live stock men in Canada are Grits. But I might mention, for instance, Mr. Joseph Brethour who is one of the leading swine breeders of the country and who has always been* a good Conservative. We have employed him for the last two or three years. Another name that occurs to me is Robert Johnston, of South Ontario, who never cast a Grit vote in his life, I believe.
. Mr. SPROULE. How much of this vote will be used in this service 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $3,700. One feature introduced with regard to the work of these judges has proven very acceptable. We have asked the judges to explain their reasons for their judgment, illustrating their talk with the animals in the ring. In this Mr. SPROULE.
way they point out exactly why one animal was given first prize, another second prize and another none. Under the old practice, the judge made the award and nobody knew why-sometimes the audience found it pretty hard to understand. But we have insisted that our judges give reasons for their opinions. I have been told by many farmers personally that it Is a grand thing to give the public in this way the opinions of competent judges.


Richard Blain: When a man is sent out to judge, let us say, horses, at a fair, does he become the absolute judge of that department V Are the prizes awarded on his statement alone, or does he co-operate with the local judges ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The one-judge system at fairs is being more generally adopted. Our judges generally act alone. But, of course, we only send them out on request.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that where a board of directors send in word that they require the services of a judge the minister will send out a competent man at the' expense of the department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: WTe have been doing a great deal of that, making no charge ex-,cept that we require that the people shall entertain the judges.


Richard Blain: That is not quite what I wanted to know. Suppose that twenty counties ask for a judge, will the minister send a judge to each of them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Wherever we can. But if we are not able to get competent judges if we will not send out anybody in whom we have not the most perfect confidence.


Richard Blain: Will the minister send to the same place repeatedly ? For instance, I understand that some judges were sent to Whitby last year ; will he send judges every year to the same place ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think so. We sent to thirty-three fairs last year altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What other lines does the minister intend to take up that will require the balance of this item ?	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have been doing a good deal in the way of institute lectures. The local governments, as a general rule, carry on institute work within the several provinces, They are constantly applying to us for assistance. The province of Ontario is very well equipped in that respect, but the other provinces have difficulty in getting competent men to act as lecturers. My department has a number of officers in its employ whom we are able to spare for this service during part of the year. In New Brunswick as a rule, the institutes meet for three or four weeks at one period of the year and then for three or four weeks

at another season. We try if possible to provide speakers on such and such a subject who will go round to the various constituencies, and we have been able to supply a certain number of men to meet all demands. If we can secure thoroughly competent men to do that work we are glad to do so. When an official of the department is sent out on that business his expenses are charged to this item in the estimates. We cover all the provinces to a certain extent, but we do less in Ontario, because the local government is attending to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What consideration do you allow them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Three dollars a day and their expenses. That is the price the Ontario government pays. When they are doing this work they are not paid their salary in addition. If their salary is by the year, they do not get the $3 a day, they get nothing but their expenses. We have men employed who are not on salary, but who engage in this business for one or two months in the winter or in the summer. These get $3 a day and expenses. But when a man is an officer of the department on a salary, he gets nothing extra.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman give us a list of all those men employed last year and bring down the amount that each got ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will lay that on the table.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much have you for that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We take $3,575. Twenty-eight speakers were employed last year, who attended 199 meetings. Generally two of them go together, in some cases three, and in some cases one. Then we had last winter a national stock convention of live stock men who came here on invitation of the farm, to organize a live stock association somewhat on the lines of an organization of a similar character in the United States and of one in Great Britain. We hope to continue that effort, and the department will incur some expense. There is the printing of a report for distribution, stenographic expenses, and expenses in bringing people from a distance, officials who are chosen, by the local associations.
Then we are working out what is called a standard of excellence, with a bulletin or report of the work and conclusions of the live stock association. We expect that to cost $2,500. The officers of the department and the leading breeders of the country are trying to establish what we might call a score, by means of score cards, or standard of the different breeds of animals in the country, which we call a standard of excellence. We have a large number of breeds of animals, and the judges at fairs
find that the types which breeders have to aim at in their breeding are not well described. There is hardly any description of it, and the live stock commissioner with some assistance in the department is working to establish and to get out a book of standard excellence for the different breeds.
It is rather an elaborate piece of work and a difficult one. It has to be done in conjunction with the leading breeders of each particular breed. Some bulletins will be issued in connection with that work. We Shall have to spend money in the way of getting information, and employing a clerk to compile it. Then we will have to pay for printing and issuing that information There are a great many cuts and illustrations of the typical animals of each breed which will be included, and these will be expensive. Then bulletins on the subject will be issued and will have to be paid for, as well as the printing and distribution.
Then there is work in connection with a national live stock record. My hon. friend will remember that the meeting of the live stock men this winter asked us to establish a Dominion record. That is a pretty difficult task. There are local records to-day in different parts of the country. We wish to carry out the views and ideas of the live stock men of that convention, and I think their aim is a very laudable one. The object is to have one thoroughly recognized record for every particular breed in this country. At the present time there are records in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario and in the west, but one does not recognize the other in every case. The consequence is that a man may buy an animal to-day which he is told is a thoroughbred, which is registered, and he may be given a pedigree and certificate of registration. But when he comes to sell that animal to somebody else, the buyer looks up some other record to find the animal, and he does not find it, and he says this animal is not a pure bred. Of course there is a lot of dispute and difficulty in consequence. Farmers are wasting their money and are being deceived, not intentionally perhaps, but at the same time are being deceived in the purchase of pedigree live stock. The live stock men ask us to work toward the establishment of a national record. It will be a difficult task, a great many different and sometimes conflicting interests will have to be reconciled. At the same time I want to try and bring it about, and that will involve some expenditure of money. We shall need to bring people together from different parts of the country to discuss the matter.
Then there is the suggestion of a live stock census-quite a different thing from the census we have heard so much about. There is being an effort made to improve the quality of particular dairy cows. One of the most effective pieces of work ever done, I think, in the improvement of dairy animals

has been done .by ex-Governor Hoard of Wisconsin, a well known dairy writer and authority of the United States. Governor Hoard edits and publishes a journal known as ' Hoard's Dairyman,' in the neighbourhood of his own home, where he has not only a printing office but a record office. He has been making records of the different herds of animals, and of individual animals, and showing the difference there is between the herds in different parts of the country.
The records which he has already collected are very startling and have attracted a great deal of attention in tlxe dairy world. I venture to say that no work could be done which would do so much to improve our dairy animals as the keeping of records to show the great difference of production and of work, if I may call it so, of our dairy cows. I want to inaugurate that kind of work and to try to bring it about that our dairy interests throughout the country will not only study as to which is the best herd, but as to which of the animals in each herd is doing good work and which is running her owner into debt, for X am sorry to say that there are a great many cows in this country which are not only of no use to their owners but are worse than useless because they run them into debt. A great deal of work of this kind has been done in Denmark where the dairy interests are the best organized of any in the world. I have had a report upon the system established there for this purpose and it seems to have worked out most satisfactorily. If we can accomplish one-tenth, I might almost say one-hundredth, of the good results which have been accomplished by this method in Denmark in Canada during the next ten years, we will add $1,000,000 per annum to the value of the product of the same number of cows.


Richard Blain: Would the minister explain the superiority of the Danish over the Canadian system ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The organization there is very superior. They have been doing work among their farmers which wo have not yet been able to accomplish. The dairymen have formed among themselves associations for this kind of work and they keep records of each cow and then compare notes. [DOT] Each association employs an expert to make tests of the milk, for butter-fat, &c. They have also adopted more generally than any other country in the world the co-operation system in dairying by which the factories are owned and operated by joint stock companies, the shares of which are held by the men who supply the milk. In that way each and every one is interested personally in his own success and in their joint success, with the result that the work is carried on in a better manner and with better organization than in any other place in the world.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Mr.   BDAIN@: What kind of cows do they use ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Chiefly the dairy breed which is native to Denmark, called, I think, the Anglian.


Jabel Robinson: Carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No it will not be carried for four hours unless we get the information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly the hon. gentleman will get all the information he desires.


Jabel Robinson: Carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We come next to the dairying.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have for dairying


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To what extent have cheese makers availed themselves of these cheese curing rooms ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have the four establishments and they have been filled to overflowing with the exception of that at St. Hyacinthe. Those at Cowansville, Rrock-ville and Woodstock were full to overflowing all season and this year that at St. Hyacinthe is also full.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any charge for the use of the rooms ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have taken a certain amount of the profit. There are two profits due to the curing of cheese in this room. The cheese is of a better quality so that there is an average increase in price of about one-eighth of a cent a pound. There is also less shrinkage in cheese cured in these cool curing rooms than in the ordinary curing rooms and we have taken for ourselves the difference in the shrinkage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do cheese shrink at all if properly cooled ? I wonder what my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. MacLaren) says to that ?


Mr. A. F. MacLAREN.: I was going to ask the minister about the paraffining of cheese. Cheese which has been paraffined does not shrink, but cheese which has not been paraffined does shrink. I have known cheese which has not been paraffined to shrink from one to three pounds a box in ordinary cellars or curing rooms in two or three months, but if the cheese is paraffined there is very little shrinkage. I would like to have the minister's opinion as to that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The cheese in our curing rooms are not paraffined until they are about ten days old. We experimented with paraffining cheese at the very commencement, but now we wait until it is ten days old. As we know, the cheese does shrink in the first ten days of the curing, but after they are paraffined they do not shrink much more.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: Do you still paraffine cheese as you put them in storage, when they are ten days old ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: Do you think it is a good idea ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My expert officers think so.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: It would be a great mistake to paraffine them too soon and before a certain amount of evaporation takes place. It would not be a bad idea to issue to the cheese-makers throughout the country instructions as to paraffining, because sometimes they paraffine them too soon, and sometimes when they are too old.
Mr. FISHER, That information has been given.
Mr. SPROUiLE. Is it the intention to extend these four central stations 1
Mr. FISHER, These were established as a test in the curing of cheese, and also as a test of the feasibility of collecting cheese for curing under one roof. These four establishments were quite sufficient to carry out this test. I do not think it will be necessary for the government to increase the number of these curing rooms, but this year I intend to undertake the work along somewhat different lines. A good many people think that the system of central curing rooms is not so economical and efficient on the whole as to induce a large number of factories to improve their own curing rooms. I have been arranging this year to fit up and improve four ordinary cheese factories where the cheese would be cured under ordinary conditions, except that there would be the addition of a room where the temperature could be controlled. I propose to spend a little money on that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: Where are these factories to be located ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the Lake St. John district. In that district the dairying is making great strides, but still they are not in a central district where they can get the advantage of these curing rooms, and we intend to fit up four factories there to illustrate this kind of work.


George Taylor: Lake St. John district this year, and I find that last year $3,475 were paid as bonuses in Quebec, that Prince Edward Island got $150, and that Ontario got $325.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For what ?


George Taylor: I believe that any factory that puts in a load of sawdust and a few loads of ice gets a bonus.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These are all butter factories ; not cheese factories.
Mr. TAYiLOR. If instead of spending $82,000 on these illustration stations he would give it in bonuses to factories producing a certain quantity, he would have object lessons all over the country, and not have the thing confined to four places all over the Dominion.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These bonuses are under a system which has been established for seven years. A bonus of $100 is paid to any butter factory which would establish a cold storage room, and this has induced factories to put in cool storage rooms and has contributed very materially to the improved quality of our butter. I believe that nearly three-fourths of all the butter factories In Canada have adopted this system. There are a great many more butter factories in Quebec than in Ontario. Every one knows that while Ontario is the great cheese-producing province, Quebec is the great butter producing province. The people of Quebec, with their natural enterprise, put up these butter factories first and got the bonuses. A great many of these factories were drawing bonuses before, but a good many did not begin until last year.


George William Fowler: Do you give a bonus "wherever there is a butter factory ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We give a bonus wherever there is a butter factory fitted up with cold storage and otherwise equipped in accordance with the requirements. We give $50 in the first year, and $25 in each of the two succeeding years, if it is operated, making $100 in ttuee years. I am glad to know that over two-thirds of all the butter factories in Canada have earned the bonus, the result being that during the last year or two we have not expended quite #- much as we did a few years ago. The province of Quebec is increasing its number of factories, and consequently its production of butter very largely and rapidly, and therefore draws more of these bonuses than other parts of the country- All other parts of the -country, however, are free to draw it wherever the conditions are fulfilled. My hon. friend spoke about the paraffining of cheese.
I am free to admit that there has been a difference of opinion on that subject. When paraffined cheese was first sent to England the trade viewed it with some suspicion, and in some instances sent out instructions to buyers not to buy it. But we have this noteworthy fact, that during the present * Mr. TAYLOR.
season at every one of these stations the cheese in the cool-curing rooms has been all paraffined, and this cheese has been sold under a special brand and at a higher price than any other cheese in the neighbourhood.


George Taylor: Mr. Evertts contradicts that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot help that ; the facts contradict Mr. Evertts. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that cool-cured cheese is sold in a class by itself and commands from one-eighth to one-quarter cent per pound more than any other cheese sold on the same board. Mr. Evertts is a well-known dairyman, and if he said that at all, he must have said it over a year ago.


George Taylor: It was less than a year ago. It was last fall.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was when the prejudice still existed with regard to paraffined cheese. I admit that when the cheese was paraffined at a day old, the results were not as good as they are to-day, when it is paraffined at ten days old.


George Taylor: Mr. Evertts did not refer to the paraffining at all. It was the coolcuring he referred to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I thought the hon. gentleman said that statement had reference to the paraffining. 1 can only say that the price obtained to-day for cheese which comes out of the cool-curing rooms is sufficient to refute that statement, whether it applies to paraffining or cool-curing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you pay all the cost of this system ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. When we first established these factories, nobody knew what it would cost, and we thought it advisable to facilitate as much as we could the dairymen sending their cheese to them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you continue that system now ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think the hon. gentleman need assign that motive.


Mr.  A. F.@: MacLAItEN. When cheese is properly cured, put into cold storage at the Sproper age, and properly, paraffined, its quality is greatly improved. The great difficulty is the lack of education on the part of those dealing with the cheese when to paraffine it. Last year a great many cheeses were paraffined too green and put into the cold storage room too green ; but now they are doing better and getting a higher price for the cheese. It is all a matter of education, and when that is accomplished the paraffining and cold storage of cheese will be of great benefit to the people of this country.


George Taylor: Speaking of the cool curing stations, Mr. Evertts, said :
The money used in the erection and carrying on of these curing rooms was a useless expenditure. Mr. Evertts claimed that the results achieved did not warrant their continuance in operation. They did not aid the patrons in obtaining one-sixteenth of a cent more for their cheese than others.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, this year.
Mr. TAYLOR, (reading)

He challenged a single person to contradict him. These rooms were held up as models for others to follow. How many had built curing rooms after the fashion of the Brock-ville pine monument ? Not a one. And as to the cost of construction, operation, &c., the country was yet in darkness, notwithstanding a deliberate promise made by Professor Rud-dick last year to give such information. Mr. Evertts said the dairymen were getting their eyes opened. .There was too much playing to the gallery by men in high places.
If anybody gets the benefit, it is the buyer, because the seller does not put his cheese Into these curing rooms. No farmer or manufacturer will hold his cheese two or three weeks. He sells to the buyers every week, and if any one puts the cheese in to thesei cool curing rooms, it must be the buyer. Take the Brockville board and you will see that the cheeses sold there have'not been in the cold storage rooms. The department paid $1,111.06 for hauling cheese to the station and deliberately bought a lot and put it in these rooms and are still holding it. They have not sold it yet, if the return brought down is correct.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not got this week's sales at Brockville, but I have the report of the 27th of June and I find that the prices then were eight cents, but that the cool cured cheese brought 8 3-16, 8J. 81, 8J and 81.


An hon, MEMBER.: Who got the benefit ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The patrbns and the bankers did. The buyer will get another benefit because when he sells in England
he will get I of a cent more or 1 of a cent more for this cool cured cheese than for the other. What is more, those paraffine cheeses that came from the cool curing room weighed more per hundred pounds of the milk put into them than did the other cheese which was sold for eight cents. So that the patrons who had their cheese in the cool room gets the advantage both ways. My hon. friend has said that no one has taken advantage of this. Why, right in Mr. Evertt's own district, I have a list of the factories who have cool curing rooms on the model of the one at Brockville, but of course not on the same scale. There are these cool curing rooms at Oxford Mills, Patterson's Corners, the Farmer's Own Factory, the Enterprise Factory and a number of others. And there is a factory with these cool rooms in the Smith's Falls section, so that the hon. gentleman will see that these factories have taken example of the model we have set them and are doing the work themselves. The object is to improve the dairy business, and we have to expend money for the purpose of getting at the facts. Then we can give the facts and data to the public and the public can make use of them. The results are not to be estimated by the returns of any individual outlay, but by the advantage which the whole industry reaps from the expenditure. That is the principle we go on in our agricultural investigations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a fact that the minister has purchased cheese which he has not yet sold ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When we were making the experiment we tried to put in one or two cheese in each ease from the same vat

two of them in the cool curing room and two of them in an ordinary curing room. As those cheese belonged to the patrons, it would not be fair to experiment with them at the expense of the experimenters. Therefore we bought them, and as last year the cheese market was rather demoralized, a good many we bought early in the season could not sell to advantage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that last year was a great cheese market.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman will ask the buyers and sellers he will find it was not. The patrons got high prices, but we were buyers and were in the same position as many who bought cheese at prices in the early part of the season which it has never reached since.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much was the aggregate loss 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The year before there was a profit and last year there was a loss. The whole transaction is not yet finished, but the loss will be under $2,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister know how much of that is due to the bad system

of keeping and curing cheese and how much to the fall in the market ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There was no bad system of keeping and curing. The cheese that was cured sold at a higher price than the other.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: If you paid the average price this spring, there would be necessarily a loss of two or three cents a pound after paying interest and storage.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They have been shipped to England, but we have not yet got the returns. We had to keep them for experimental purposes in order to judge of the effects of cool-curing as against the ordinary curing. Had we shoved them off on the market, we would not have been able to test them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that by the fall the cheese were pretty well sold off.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not so soon as that. In any case it would not do to shove these cheese off on the! market a few days after they were bought.
Mr. SI'ROULE. But the hon. gentleman says he got them from week to week commencing last May. Surely they did not need to be kept until this May.
Mr. FISHER, I am told that they were sold at an average Of three or four months old. But we cannot make up a statement of the exact details until we get the returns from England.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the hon. gentleman lost about $2,000 on the transaction ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About that.
Mi-. SPROULE. That is an admirable example to set the farmers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Even if we had bought these cheese as an ordinary commercial transaction we might have lost on them, as business men have lost this year. But, we had to keep the cheese regardless of the condition of the market in order to carry on the test we were making. Had we shoved them on the market to take advantage of a temporary rise in price, we might better never have bought them at all, because our tests would not have been carried out and our report could not have been made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is about on a par with the explanation given by the boy as to why the rabbit climbed the hemlock tree-he had to climb it, the dog was so close behind him.
Mr. TAYLOR, I find that in 1902-3, the minister purchased for the Woodstock coolcuring room, $3,085 worth of cheese, and in 1903-4, $6,829 worth. Now, can he tell us why he wanted to buy about $10,000 worth of cheese ? And will he say, in view of these purchases, that he has not been speculating in cheese ? I have the reports Mr. SPROULE.
for the other cool-curing rooms here, and I find that altogether he bought about $40,000 or $50,000 worth of cheese. The cheese that he bought for Cowansville in 1902-3 he sold at a loss of $224.78. For the next year he bought $4,103.47 worth, from which he has a revenue of $1,370. But in this return he says that the cheese for that year is not all disposed of and so the revenue is not all in.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
.House resumed at Eight o'clock.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 155) for the relief of Annie Christman.-Mr. Calvert.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['The adjournment was rather earlier than I expected, and I had no opportunity to see the premier. I think I may safely say that we will continue in supply, and probably with the railway estimates.']
George William Fowler: I was asking the minister before six o'clock about the salary of the assistant to the commissioner, at St. Louis, Mr. E. P. Eastman.
Mr. FISHER, Mr. Eastman receives $7 a day to cover everything. He also receives his transportation from his home to St. Louis and back at the close of the exhibition. That is what I pay to all of those of that status.


George William Fowler: Is the minister aware that he is not a British subject ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I was not aware of that.


George William Fowler: Mr. Eastman is not a British subject, he is an American. He has been resident for some years in New Brunswick but has always refused to become a naturalized British subject and remains an American citizen to this day. I think the minister could not have been aware of that.
Mr. FISHER, No I was not.


George William Fowler: I suppose the minister will follow up the course which I believe is being adopted with respect to American engineers on the Grand Trunk Pacific and will at once have the appointment cancelled. It seems to me there would be enough Canadian applicants for a position of that kind and that it should be given to a Canadian rather than to a foreign citizen.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I certainly intended to appoint Canadians and I will inquire into that matter.


George William Fowler: If the minister finds that this person is an American citizen I would like to know what course he will take.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to inquire into all the circumstances of the case before making a definite answer, but cer-

tainly my policy would be to employ Canadians under all circumstances.


George William Fowler: I can scarcely conceive of any circumstance which would justify an appointment of this kind. The fact' that this gentleman has resided for some time within the borders of Canada would not be a justification, if the gentleman has persistently refused to become a Canadian citizen. His appointment would be worse under these circumstances than if he had been on this side only a few months and had not gained that knowledge which would convince him of the superiority of Canadian over American citizenship. I would like to have a straight expression of opinion from the minister as to what he would do if the facts bear out my statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman's statement is absolutely accurate all through it would appear to be an exaggerated case.
I can, however imagine that a man might reside in this country for many years and not become naturalized. In my own county which is a border district I have known men to live in Canada for 20 or 30 years who have never gone through the form of naturalization, and the question of their citizenship has never come up unless they have sought to vote at an election and have been challenged. Of course if my hon. friend is correct in saying. this gentleman has persistently refused in an offensive way to become a Canadian citizen that would have to be taken into consideration. I would not care to say more than I have, that in a general way my policy would be to employ Canadians only, and if an individual in the government employ showed himself to be antagonistic to the nationality of Canada I do not think it would be wise to retain him in our [DOT]employment.


George William Fowler: When I say he refused I mean that he refused by neglecting to do so although the matter was brought many times to his attention because he had on several occasions tried to vote and had been challenged, run out of the booth and refused the chance to vote. Thus the matter has been brought very closely to his attention and it certainly must be some inherent dislike to ..Canadian citizenship that lias prevented his becoming naturalized. He has been an active politician outside of voting but he has never been permitted to vote because he would not become a Canadian citizen although reaping all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will look into the matter carefully.


Richard Blain: What will the total cost of the St. Louis exhibition be ?
Mr. FISHER, I am informed that we have spent in the neighbourhood of $125,000 for the past fiscal year and that the total cost will be between $275,000 and $300,000 according to expectation.



Richard Blain: Is not that very much larger than was anticipated ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think, speaking from memory, that I estimated it would be about $250,000 to $275,000.
For the branch of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Dairying, including live stock, dairy, cold storage, extension of markets, poultry, seed and fruit division ; employee* paid from this sum not to be subject to the Civil Service Act, $220,000.


George Taylor: The day before yesterday when we were discussing poultry stations and chicken feeding, I understood the minister to say that the poultry, owing to the experimental way in which they were fed and marketed, realized 10, 12, and 15 cents per pound. Now I find in the Auditor General's Report, that from the Alberton station, P.E.I., there were sold to Montreal 321 pounds, for $16.05 of these specially fed, scientifically killed chickens, packed In a crate knd sent in cold storage to Montreal, realizing 5 cents a pound. From Mount Stewart, P.E.I., there were sent 52 cases to Great Britain, 2,466 pounds, realizing $236.15, or a fraction over 9 cents per pound, less freight and all expenses. Of 433 pounds of poultry from Rogersville. N.B., 201 pounds were sold in Montreal, realizing $10.05, or 5 cents per pound. From Bondville, Que., 11 cases were sold in Montreal, 558 pounds, realizing $40.26, or 7 cents per pounds, after deducting freight expenses. From Chicoutimi there were fourteen cases sold to Great Britain, 557 pounds, for $33.25, or 6 cents and a fraction per pound. Holmesville, Ont. -my hon. friend dilated for a long time on the great showing made by Holmesville-1 see there wei'e 59 cases, containing 750 chickens, weighing 2,617 pounds, sold in Great Britain and realizing $971)2, or 31 cents per pound. Now, any old woman in the country, catching a scrub chicken, twisting its neck her own way, could pluck the (feathers off it and sell it for a good deal more than these chickens that were killed scientifically, packed in crates, put in cold storage and sent to Great Britain and sold for 3J cents per pound.	Renfrew-I am
sorry my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Wright) is not here ; I find in the Auditor General's Report D-112 what was done at Renfrew. There were sold to Great Britain twelve cases, 625 pounds, for $43.84, or 7 cents per pound. That is what the chickens brought raised in Renfrew. Now these are just a few samples, and I want the minister to explain why he made the statement the day before yesterday with regard to the chickens that were experimented on, when some of them did not bring as much as the cost of their food, to say nothing about any other expenses ; they did not realize as much money as was paid out for the chickens and for the food they ate. Why, these chickens sent from Holmesville to Great Britain only brought 3} cents per pound.


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
It must be either that the chickens were spoiled after being scientifically fed, or in the killing process their necks were broken the wrong way. Something must have damaged the flavour of the meat, or it would have brought more than that; or it was perhaps the defective cold storage of the hon. gentleman. I want the hon. gentleman to explain how that came about.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: He might also remember the statement he made yesterday, which was supported by the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Wright), that owing to the splendid way the chickens were fattened, the attractiveness of the food to the human family, the market had been wonderfully increased, and people were consuming much more ; the market had increased and the chickens realized a larger price.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not got the details here to show why some of these lots were sold at those low prices. But right alongside of them my hon. friend will see there are other instances where chickens did sell at 12 and 13 cents a pound. I have not got the details of these sales at low prices. There must have been something wrong, but what it was I cannot tell. What I read the other night was a statement of those men who had sold at the prices indicated, who had watched the operation of these stations, and had themselves sold the chickens at the prices I gave. The chickens were fattened on the principles taught at those stations, which these gentlemen themselves had managed successfully in that way. There must be some explanation for the low prices, perhaps in regard to the export, or something of that kind.


George William Fowler: Was the station in Prince Edward Island in charge of a man named Haszard, who is now the hon. member for West Queen's ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That station was not in charge of Mr. Haszard. It was in charge of a Charlottetown gentleman who was recommended by Mr. Haszard to run that station, and for a little while the accounts of the station went through Mr. Haszard's hands. But he ,was not then a member of the House. Because the accounts went through his hands for a little while his name appears in the Auditor General's Report. As a matter of fact he was simply the medium of communication between the department and the man who was doing the work at that station.


George William Fowler: Is that man still in charge ; I think he was not a very successful operator ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That station is closed and I believe the man who had charge of it is doing business on his own account.


George William Fowler: The same business.


George Taylor: >


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, fattening and selling chickens.


George William Fowler: The cost of that station was $290 and the return $6. I hope he will do better than that on his own account.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman had the full information he would'find the circumstances different.


George William Fowler: That is what the Auditor General's Report showed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but the Auditor General's Report closes on the 30th of June, and while the expenditure appears one year the receipts would appear in the next year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not account for it, because for two or three years in succession the expenditure has been very much larger than the receipts. Yesterday the minister told us with a flourish of trumpets that his cold storage was perfection, and that the method adopted for fattening chickens was perfection, but now we find that the chickens fattened at Holmesville under his scientific system were sold in England for three and a half cents per pound, so that either the cold storage or the fattening process is a failure. Will the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Holmes) explain 1


Richard Blain: Is it the intention of the department to continue the chicken fattening stations as heretofore ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. Occasionally we close some up and then we start another in a different locality so as to educate the people in the vicinity of each station, and in some cases the men in charge go into business on their own account. I have promised to start one or two in Manitoba, and one or two in British Columbia next year in compliance with the wishes of the people, who are anxious to have them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many stations are now in operation ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Seventeen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the revenue from, and the expenditure on these stations last year 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would have to be figured out.


George Taylor: I can give my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) the information. According to the Auditor General's Report these seventeen stations cost last year $14,929.49 ; the revenue from them was $4,327.85 and the net loss to the country $10,601.64.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That's a splendid lesson for the farmers of the country.


George Taylor: More than that; taking the cost of the feed and the cost of the chickens, not including labour or any other

expense, the loss was $2,693.66. At Holmes-ville, there was a difference between the sales and the cost of the chickens and the feed of $363. We are told that this is accounted. for because the chickens had their necks twisted the wrong way and they sold for only three and three-quarter cents per pound in England. At Bondville, P.Q., the cost of chickens and feed was $889,' the sales brought $485, and the loss $404. The Bondville chickens sold for five cents a pound in Montreal and some shipped to England from Holmesville brought only three and three-quarter cents to seven and a half cents per pound. This proves that either the cold storage or the fattening system is defective.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No one ought expect that the work of these stations should be covered by the sales, but there is some justification for what the hon. gentleman' (Mr. Taylor) says. I believe it is correct to say that in some cases the chickens have not sold for as much as the food and the first cost of the chickens. I have been inquiring and I have found that there have been mistakes made and some leakages. The management of some of these stations cannot be allowed to continue. I do not expect that the sales of the chickens will cover the teaching and illustration work, but they certainly should pay for the prime cost and the cost of the feed. There is no question about that; there is no excuse for anything else and I am now having it thoroughly investigated to see just where the leakage is. It is abundantly possible to buy chickens in the ordinary markets from the farmers, fatten them, and sell them at a profit. That has been done over and over again in these stations. There are instances in which it has not been done.
I believe that in some cases they have bought poor chickens. In other cases they have been incited by competition to buy too many chickens and to pay too much for them. The proper control has not been exercised over these operations ; but I expect to correct that, so that such instances as my hon. friend has cited will not be found in future. But I think it is important that the work should go on in the country, because I know how successful it has been in many ways, and how it has resulted in a very large increase in poultry production, and a considerable increase in profit to a large number of farmers and poultry owners who have followed the lines of this work.


George Taylor: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think they must have fed these chickens on sawdust and starved them to death. I am surprised that the minister is not almost ashamed of himself, after the glowing speech he made yesterday about the wonderful development there was in the poultry trade of this country owing to the splendid lessons which had been given to the farmers by these chicken stations, and the increased price at which poultry had been sold as a result of being scientifically fattened. He made out that the consumption had been immensely increased because the chickens were so much more appreciated. He had told the farmers of this country that he wanted to go into a new line which would only cost them $14,929. and yet the very first year there is a loss of $10,000 out of the $15,000 expended-two-thirds of the whole sum, besides all the labour which went for nothing. What a wonderful sense of gratitude the farmers of Canada ought to have toward the Minister of Agriculture for these chicken-fattening stations. It seems to me that one of two things accounts for the result-either that the system is bad or that the cold storage is bad. We were treated to a glowing description of the cold storage, which was represented to be the very best that could be devised ; yet the chickens were sold at 3f cents a pound when an old woman can bring chickens to the market from the barnyard, where they are not fattened at all, and sell them at 8 cents or 9 cents, or 10 cents a pound. I want to point out that at each of the experimental farms there is a chicken branch and a professor of poultry. What is he doing ? He is teaching the farmers the best breeds for laying purposes and the best breeds for fattening. All these farms are experimenting along these lines and every year their reports give the results of these experiments. We thought that was enough. A couple of thousands of dollars a year are

spent at the Central farm for this purpose, and I do not know how mueh at the other farms. Why should this work he dupli- 1 cated ? The hon. minister is starting another system of chicken stations and experimenters all over the country, so that at each place a good supporter can get $300 or $400 for amusing himself by fattening , chickens that sell at cents or 3J cents a pound. We have reports from the experimental farms distributed to the farmers of the country, containing presumably the very knowledge we are trying to get from individuals in various parts of the country. Is it necessary to squander the public money in this way ? For every dollar of return to the people they spend $3, of which $2 have gone to the government supporter or gone to waste in order to show how you can fatten chickens at a loss every time. What kind of a lesson is that to give to the farmers of the country ? Will they thank the government for it ? Will they regard the Minister of Agriculture or those under him as' adepts in the chicken business ? I do not think they will. The very disclosures which have been made are the strongest argument that the money used for this purpose is thrown away, and that the boasted cold storage which we have heard so much about is a failure as well. There is no doubt whatever of this, as otherwise more would have been realized from these stations. Take the chickens on an ordinary farm that are running about picking up refuse and comparatively speaking not fed at all, they are sold at better prices and yield more profitable returns.


Richard Blain: Is it the policy of the hon. gentleman to continue keeping up these fattening stations ? It seems to me that when a fattening station has been in operation in any locality for two or three years, the farmers there ought to have learned all they cam from the process, and these stations might very well be abandoned. Take the station at Holmesville, and the figures show the expenditure last year $2,793.19 and the revenue $554.57, leaving a deficit of $2,229,22. If this station be established for educational purposes, my hon. friend who represents that county has not been very well educated. Of course he is occupying the chair and I do not want to say very much about him, but he told the House that the people up there were delighted with it, and that before these chicken fattening stations were put in operation, chickens were sold at about five cents a pound, whereas now they are sold at ten cents a pound. But it appears that the chickens fattened in the very establishment to which he was referring were sold at three and three-quarter cents a pound. It therefore does not look as if the policy adopted by the Minister of Agriculture was very educational in its effect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The poultry business has undoubtedly been stimulated by the establishment of these stations. There is a larger number of birds raised and fattened than ever before, and as a rule the prices are higher because these birds are better fattened. The hon. gentleman has made a suggestion which is quite in line with what we have been doing. As a general rule these fattening stations are not carried on for more than two or three years in certain localities. But in Holmesville and in one or two places in Prince Edward Island and the province of Quebec, we have breeding stations. We have found by a series of experiments that the birds we raise do better than those we buy for fattening purposes, and we therefore have been breeding birds of a particular type; and as a matter of fact, last season a large number were sold for breeding purposes instead of being fattened. Over 2,000 were thus sold. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has hit the nail on the head to a certain extent, because we have been trying, to encourage the breeding of this type and have probably been selling them too cheap.


George Taylor: They do not cost anything to raise.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It costs something to raise them. But we find there is always a strong request to us not to close a station once it is started, and I have perhaps not been as strict in that respect as I ought to be and hope to be in future. '


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it a good plan to have so many of these establishments ? If the stations" on the experimental farm are carried on on the same lines and the information disseminated through bulletins, our farmers will get all the information they need in that way.
|Mr. FISHER. I think that the object lessons furnished by these stations has done a great deal of good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am unable to see how that can be. If a farmer were to follow the example set by the government, he would soon find himself in the poorhouse, and the only lesson he would take from these stations would be to avoid what is being done there because their experiments result in a loss. I think it is radically wrong that we should not only keep up these stations on our experimental fawns, but duplicate them all over the country. There is evidently a great leak somewhere, and it is about time that it was found out, because year by year this thing instead of getting better is getting worse. It seems to me it is about time to drop the business and come down to common sense.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: I know something i about the business in Prince Edward Island.
1 Whether or not the stations there are pay-

ing, is not the question. It is true there is quite a difference between the receipts obtained from the chickens fattened and sold according to the methods followed at tnese experimental stations and the expenditure, but the stations were not established to make money, rather to educate the people in this line of business. I know that the farmers of Prince Edward Island, where these fattening stations are in existence, are now raising a better breed of chickens and making more money. The local market has been very much improved. The price in the Charlottetown market is now fully 100 per cent more than it was a few years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the price now '(


James Joseph Hughes: A pair of chickens last year was bringing in the local market from 80 cents to ?1. A few years ago they would sell at from 40 cents to 50 cents. Ac to the receipts from these chicken fattening stations, I know that in some cases a breed of chickens was purchased for the purpose of showing that it would not be profitable to raise them. It was not intended to make a profit in every case. I know also that whatever may he said as to beneficial results from the fattening of chickens at the experimental farm, the farmers where these illustration stations are carried on have obtained very much benefit through them, and would be very much opposed to having them closed. Whether the expense is too great or not, that may be a question for discussion. But I have not the slightest doubt that, whatever the direct results, the indirect results in the way of benefits to the farmers are very marked, and as the farmers do not get much in the way of protection or bounties, I think Ithat all they get in this way we should not begrudge them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the hon. gentleman is so sure of the beneficial results, can he tell us how many farmers in his section have adopted the cramming process ?


James Joseph Hughes: I know that they are raising a better breed of chickens.


George Taylor: Are they feeding with cramming machines ?


James Joseph Hughes: They are paying more attention to raising and feeding. The business is very much improved.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the county from which I come there is not one of these stations so far as I know. Yet the quantity oi chickens raised is about ten times as great as it was a couple of years ago.


James Joseph Hughes: You do not want a station there ; you are getting along well enough without it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am showing that the development of the poultry trade is not due to the information disseminated by means of these chicken fattening stations, because
whe(re that information Jias never been acted upon the development is quite as great as it is elsewhere. The best evidence that this information is not acted upon is the fact that not many farmers have adopted the cramming process. I would ask the hon. gentleman {Mr. J. J. Hughes) if he can point to one man in his section who has adopted that process ?


Mr. EMMERSON.: If the committee will bear with me for a moment and will permit a digression from the chicken question, I would like to refer to a statement with regard to Mr. Eastman, who is engaged at the St. Louis exhibition. The statement is made that he is an American citizen. I wish to correct that statement, and say that Mr Eastman has lived in the province of New Brunswick for upwards of thirty-five years, that he has been engaged in the lumber business, that he is a man of the highest character, and that he is a naturalized British subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was-he naturalized';


Henry Robert Emmerson: Within the last two or three years. I had to do with his naturalization papers myself and know the circumstances. I think it due to that gentleman and to the committee that the information should be given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did he get naturalized to vote for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Einmer-son) or to get this position 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: He had neither object in view,' I fancy. His family is established here, and he wished to claim all the rights of a British subject. I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will not feel angry at the fact. I should think, rather, he would rejoice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am pleased to know that after thirty-five years Mr. Eastman was convinced that it was the part of wisdom to become a British subject. But the statement was made that he was sent out of a polling place and refused the right to vote because he was not a British subject by birth or naturalization.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He could not be sent out of a polling place under those circumstances, because he never sought to vote until he was naturalized. I am familiar with his personal history and with his relations to the politics of the country. He is a man of the highest character ; treasurer for the province of New Brunswick of the High Court of Foresters ; known and very highly respected all over the province, and a prominent business man connected with the lumber industry.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not a word was said against his character, and there was no desire to reflect upon it. The question was simply whether he was a British subject.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is not the man to seek to vote, unless he had the right to

vote, and X contradict the insinuation or tlie statement made against him.


Robert Johnston: The hon. member from Prince Edward Island (Mr. J. J. Hughes) has given us a lecture on the benefits to the farmers of his section resulting from the chicklen fattening stations. He spoke of it as a protection to the farmers of Prince Edward Island. If it is a protection to the farmers of Prince Edward Island and it does not pay expenses that means that other parts of the country have to pay for the protection given to his constituents. Is there one of these stations that last year received enough from sales to pay for the chickens and the feed, to say nothing of other expenses ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not the figures under my hand, but I am informed that several of them did.


Robert Johnston: I would ask the hon. member for Prince Edward Island whether any of the stations in bis section paid for the chickens and the feed ?


James Joseph Hughes: I have not the figures.


Robert Johnston: I am assured by those who have looked into the matter that not one of these stations have received enough from chickens sold to pay for the chickens and the feed that went to fatten them. This may be a protection to the people of Prince Edward Island, but is it fair to the rest of the Dominion ? It is surely unfair for one section to ask another section to pay for its benefits through a scheme that is established for the advantage of a few people who are supporting the party in power. This scheme has been a failure so far as making money is concerned, and if the people who are educated by these experiments follow the example of the people carrying on the experiments, it will certainly nor add to our national wealth.
Why should they start any more V We have in Ontario a splendid agricultural college and an agricultural farm for experimental purposes, and any one who wants to learn how to feed and fatten chickens can easily get the reports from that college, without it being necessary to duplicate these establishments all through the country. I think it is the duty of each province to start an agricultural farm and run it as its own expense. Now since the Minister of Agriculture has made a fair test of his business, I do not think it is in the interest of the farming community that he should continue it. Taking into consideration the cost of the test, the rent of the buildings, and all these things, he now knows for a certainty that chickens have not brought in any year the cost of their purchase and their feed ; and yet he wants to bleed the country to the tune of a good many more thousand dollars to establish these stations in other places. I know very well that where he starts a feeding station Mr EMMERSON.
no Tory need apply for a position; but when it comes to paying the deficit each Tory has to pay his share. Now I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to drop these experiments since he has found them a failure. He acknowledged a while ago that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) had struck the nail on the head when he said there was a leakage somewhere in giving out the fowl. I venture to say uo Tory got those chickens at less than they are worth.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Lots of them.


Robert Johnston: If they were given away they were given away the same as appointments-to political friends.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were not given away, they were sold to anybody that came along.


Robert Johnston: For less than they were worth ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For less than they would have fetched if we had tried to sell them for a high price. Our object was to disseminate the breed throughout the country.


Robert Johnston: In Ontario all we have to do is to look up the records of what is done in the Agricultural College at Guelph, and we can certainly do as well fattening chickens there as the hon. gentleman. I would ask him as an honest representative of the farmers, after be has tested this business and found it a failure, to drop it.


Richard Blain: I notice one thing peculiar about these experimental stations. There are three in the province of Ontario, and every one of them is in a Reform riding. One would imagine if they are to continue for the province of Ontario there should be some of these stations in Conservative ridings.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps the Reform members look better after their constituents.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the hon. minister hears them better when they call. I see one at Bowmanville, in the county of Durham, represented by a good supporter of the present government. Another is in the county of West Huron, rather a noted county in western Ontario.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A distinguished county.


Richard Blain: The other is in Renfrew.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Another distinguished county.


Richard Blain: Perhaps they will be a little more distinguished after the next general election. But it does seem a little strange that these three establishments for the province of Ontario should be found in three Reform ridings. My hon. friend said he was selling these chickens cheap to the farmers, I hope he will not take advantage of

that practice when the election comes along. I think the minister will not deny that the chickens sold by the farmers generally in the province of Ontario are equal in every respect and bring as high a price as those from these establishments. For myself I do not think that these establishments so managed are in the interests of the people of Canada, but if the hon. gentleman thinks they are, he should distribute them more fairly, instead of confining them to Reform ridings.


Haughton Lennox: X have the greatest respect for the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Blain) and for the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), but I do not share in the views they have expressed on this question. I am quite prepared to consent that in all these experimental matters we should pay out more money than we receive. If the minister could not account for the difference between the net receipts for the chickens and the expense for their food, I would have some hesitation in supporting the continuance of the experiment. But the minister has accounted for the deficiency. He has annnounced in the most definite way that this industry can be carried on in a manner that will make it ultimately profitable, and I believe that is the case. I do not think, however, the hon. minister has been as candid as he ought to have been, because the announcement he has made to-night he could have made last night when the same subject was before the House. I think we may now accept his statement that the shortage comes, not from the fact that a profit cannot be made, but from the fact that there has been mismanagement, and probably something worse than mismanagement in these matters. Now I suggest that the government shall continue 'these experiments. I believe there is an enormous demand for chickens. I believe that money can be made out of the business, and X believe in opening up all the avenues of industry and profitable investment in this country, and as this is one of those industries which is directly connected with the farm. X would like to see it continued. I want it continued in the future upon a proper business basis. The minister has admitted that there has been a leakage in this matter. He says that he does not believe it results from any favouritism. I do not care how it has happened, I think it should be prevented. This branch of the experimental work should be continued and in the future it may be made a profitable branch of the work. I think it is right to experiment in regard to this- industry and I think that notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for Peel the farmers will approve of the expenditure of money upon this experiment but they will hold the government of course to an honest and careful expenditure of money
even though it is for experimental purposes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are doing all this work at the farm and are sending out every year from 50,000 tb 100,000 bulletins containing this information. I do not think we should duplicate any of this work. Why should these fattening stations be maintained; especially when out of every three dollars you put in them you lose two ?


Robert Johnston: I can easily understand how the hon. member for Prince Edward Island (Mr. J. J. Hughes) or any other member from a county where a fattening sltation is operated should be in favour of them. These stations provide a home market for these farmers for their chickens, and of course a home market is always the best. The fattening station takes up all the chickens from the surrounding country at a good price without any trouble to the farmers so of course they are in favour of it. But people who live in other parts of the country do not profit from the establishment of these stations as do the hon. member's supporters. In the county of Huron, of course, the station at Holmes-ville furnishes a home market for the chickens raised in that county and takes them off the hands of the farmers without any expense or trouble.


David Henderson: It seems to me that the system of fattening chickens adopted by the Minister of Agriculture is rather getting away from the legitimate mode of farming operations. I think myself that the business of the farmer is to raise chickens, to raise as many as he can. In this the government can very materially assist him by having at all times a supply of the eggs of the best breeds of poultry not only for laying purposes but for food. Let the farmers be encouraged in every way possible by providing a full supply of eggs of the varieties that are most approved of, for the purposes of the fattening stations. I know in the section of country from which I come this process of stuffing chickens is not in vogue. I have not heard of its being adopted by any one, but I have known a person with a large poultry yard who desired to get rid of his whole flock to find no difficulty in selling them all, live weight, at 10 cents a pound. That I think is a great deal better than fattening and stuffing and selling them at 7 cents or even 10 cents a pound dead weight. I have an idea that it would be much better and more profitable to encourage the farmer to raise the chickens and sell them to professional chicken fatteners. You will find in large places such as Toronto, companies which will do this class of work. In Toronto I know there is a large company which will take all the chickens they can secure within a radius of some 30 or 40 miles of that city.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At the fattening stations we do about the business the hon. gentle-

man speaks of, that is we buy the chickens from the farmers and fatten them. At the rearing stations we do that partly and we also raise them from eggs in order to compare the results from chickens raised on the spot and fed from birth and those which are picked up from farmers around. At the breeding stations we have been breeding birds which we think especially adapted for fattening purposes and also selling breeding eggs. That is the educational work that has been going on and largely as a result of what we have been doing the market in Toronto has vastly improved. I do not claim credit for the whole of it, but I do say that since we have commenced this fattening and preparing for market, and since attention has been directed to it, it has been constantly increasing and there is a very large market.


David Henderson: I think it is a matter that should be left largely to private enterprise. Are there any other fattening establishments throughout Canada such as I have described at Toronto.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are one or two others, but I think this is the best.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the supplementary estimates come down we will want further information on cold storage, fruit, seed, and some other matters.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will be glad to give the information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You had better not give it to-night, because it will take you till seven o'clock to-morrow morning. You can give it on the suplementary estimates.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Very well.


Richard Blain: We will also want some information about this ' extension of markets.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Very well.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What business will be taken up on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: The adjournment was rather earlier than I expected, and I had no opportunity to see the premier. I think I may safely say that we will continue in supply, and probably with the railway estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 9.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 25, 1904.