1904-06-16

Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: The Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) was good enough to inform us yesterday that he would make a statement to-day respecting the bringing down of some further correspondence in relation to questions between the Association of Engineers and the government as to the employment of aliens. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to make that statement to the House ?


Hon.   S@: I do not know if the hon. gentleman quite appreciates what I said. The hon. gentleman intimated yesterday that all the correspondence had not been brought down, and I stated that I would make inquiry upon that point and inform the House. I have made that inquiry, and I find that the Department of Labour, over which I preside, made a return which included all the correspondence that was available, but that there may have been some, I think two or three letters, that had been forwarded to the 'Department of Railways and Canals. My deputy informs me that he understood the Department of Railways and Canals was also in possession of some correspondence. There has been some correspondence, one or two letters since. There was an order made yesterday, and my department is now collecting everything that has not been brought down since the last return, and I suppose that in a day or two that return will be made.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the Department of Railways and Canals bring down the correspondence it has V


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: We ought to have it all grouped together in one department, I presume. I will endeavour to have it all' included in one return.



DISMISSAL OF LORD DUNDONALD.

Rt.   H@: Before the Orders of the Day are

called, X beg to say that, as I stated to the House yesterday, that some further papers would be brought down with respect to the removal of Lord Dundonald, these papers will be brought down before the close of the present sitting of the House.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: X, presume they will include all that I have asked for ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Yes.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) if he is ready to give me an answer in reference to the letter I spoke to him aoout yesterday 7
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK i(Postmas-ter General). The hon. gentleman yesterday inquired whether I had received certain letters from a certain named person in connection with a certain matter, and I told him I would make inquiry upon the subject and make a statement to the House. This inquiry has reference to an order of the House made for a return of the correspondence upon a certain subject. The department has made a return in compliance with the order of the House, and every paper that is properly produceable before this House under that order has been produced.
I do not think it would be proper for me to give categorical answers as to whether I have or have not received certain correspondence. If that correspondence is of a public nature it belongs to the public, if the correspondence is of a private nature no person has a right to inquire whether such correspondence has been received.


Uriah Wilson: I may be allowed to say to the Postmaster General that I have obtain from Mr. Prest permission authorizing the Postmaster General to remove the word ' private ' from that correspondence. I wrote a note to the Postmaster General asking if he would be good enough to give me a copy of the letter. I have also information that Mr. Walker wrote -three -letters, and none of these letters were private.



EXTENSION OF THE FISHING SEASON.

Mr. A. G. BELL.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, as I see that the Minister- of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) is in his place, I wish to ask him if he has received any communication from the fisher men asking for an extension of time for the taking of lobsters on the coast east of Halifax ? I understand that the fishermen have not been doing much this season. I have some correspondence myself upon the subject, and I would like to know what information the minister can afford us upon it.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I have re ceived several requests for an extension of Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the time of the fishing season, and the government are considering that matter at the present time.



PAPERS RE ALASKA BOUNDARY AWARD.

Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what progress has -been made in the preparation of the documents which -were to be brought down in connection with the arbitration respecting the Alaska boundary. A few months ago the Prime Minister informed us that these documents would all be brought down, and I then suggested that they be brought down in such a way that we could readily understand what the proceedings were, and what the issues had been before the commission, in order that we might be able thoroughly to appreciate the whole question. It seems to me that the papers might have -been brought -down and printed within the period that has since elapsed. There may be reasons for the delay that I do not know and which have not occurred to me. But in the ordinary course, the period of a few months would seem to have been sufficient for the preparation of the return. The government are now proposing to take every day as a government day, and therefore we are not in a position to put any motion upon the order paper in regard to that matter if we desired to do so. I would therefore suggest -that the Prime Minister should expedite this matter as much as possible. Perhaps he would now inform us when we may expect it ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not later than next week, probably the middle of the week.



THE INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 125) for the inspection and sale of seeds (Mr. Fisher) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. CLANCY.: I would say that before we proceed with this Bill the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) promised to bring down the recommendations made by certain persons outside, and any expressions of opinion received in regard to it. The hon. gentleman has not been good enough to favour us with those yet.


Mr. FISHER.: I think that what my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) alludes to is the way in which this Bill was distributed amongst the people to give them an opportunity of studying it during the last recess and also an epitome of the expressions of opinion received from the people to whom this Bill was sent. I have here in my hand a statement of the distribution as made of 32,000 copies of this Bill. We sent out the Bill for the purpose of eliciting an expression of opinion from the people who are interested in it, in the following way :	To
seed merchants in Canada, wholesale and retail 6.500 copies, to all the members of the Dominion Seed Growers' Association 430

copies, to all tlie officers of the different farmers' institutes, agricultural societies and farmers' clubs in all of the provinces, 6,340 copies, to newspapers in all provinces together with newspaper bulletin 970 copies, to members of parliament 210 copies, exchange list, that is experimental stations abroad, 230 copies, to individual applicants 550 copies, per department farmers' mailing list and to lists of members of agricultural organizations whose names were in the department, about 15,500 copies, in store about 1,270 at the date this memorandum was made out. I might in explanation, say that arrangements were made with the superintendents of the farmers' institutes in each of the provinces so that one man on each deputation or delegation was instructed to discuss the subject at every meeting. They wmre provided from the office of the seed division here with printed charts, with samples of various seeds and summary information showing the results of the investigations in the seed laboratory of the department here. There were about 900 of these farmers' meetings held. We have no absolute definite information that this Bill was read and discussed at all of them, but the reports that have been received from the institute lecturers would indicate that it was discussed at all of them, and that there is a strong desire on the part of the farmers in Canada for an Act that will tend to suppress the evils connected with the seed trade. Twenty-seven of these reports have been received from agricultural lecturers each of whom spoke at a large number of meetings and they all clearly show that the provisions of the Bill were fully supported by the farmers at every meeting. The only suggestions that have been made by farmers were to the effect that the Bill should be made more stringent. A large number of letters commenting on the Bill have been received from individual farmers during the past two months, and in all of them there has been an urgent appeal for the passage of this Bill and asking that it shall be made law without any unnecessary delay. I may say further that no communication has been received from any farmer entering any protest at all, or in any way pointing out that the provisions of the Bill would hamper his operations. We have received communications from some 13 seedsmen, more than one letter from many of them. In some of these the provisions of the Bill were pointed out as being too stringent. Several of the seedsmen considered that having to label all packages of timothy, alsike and red clover seed would greatly hamper them in carrying on their business. Letters were received from two seed merchants in support of the Bill as it now stands. We received a number of resolutions that were passed by the following- organizations :	The Farmers' and
Dairymen's Association of New Brunswick, on February 23, 1903; the Nova Scotia Farmers' Association on February 9, 1903 ;
the Ontario Agricultural and Experimental Union on February 5, 1904 ; South Renfrew Farmers' Institute at meetings held at Brudenell, ICillaloe, Stewartville, Loch Win-noch, White Lake, Burnston, Gratton, Mount St. Patrick, Shamrock and Renfrew, on February 27, 1904 ; the Central Farmers' Institute for British Columbia on April 27, 1904 ; the South Brant Farmers' Institute ; resolutions adopted at different meetings held in the riding, February 29, 1904 ; the East Peterboro' Farmers' Institute on December 5, 190.3 ; the Metchosen Farmers' the Farmer' Institute convention held at Indian Head, Assiniboia, Feb. 11, 1904 ; the Farmers' Institute convention held at Brandon, February 10, 1904, and Farmers' Institute meetings in Haldimand, Monck, Brant, Oxford and Norfolk, 33 meetings in all where after discussion, votes on this question were taken and resolutions passed. I am informed that there was no opposition to these votes.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman the resolutions that were passed, and can he tell the committee whether these Farmers' Institutes propose to adopt the hon. gentleman's Bill or a Bill in this direction ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We received a good many of these resolutions from the officers of these institutes, though not all of them. We also have letters from several others of the Farmers' Institute, lecturers who state in general terms that a large number of resolutions favouring the Bill have been passed by a number of local Farmers' Institutes. In these cases particulars have not been received by the department. The council of the corporation of Matsqui, British Columbia, have also passed a resolution. While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say a few words in general terms upon this Bill.


James Clancy: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds to explain, I would like to say that I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed at the information the hon. gentleman has given us. I am thoroughly in sympathy with a measure in the direction in which this Bill goes, but it was rather a surprise to the committee, I am sure, to me to learn that the hon. gentleman has received no support generally for his Bill, as it is, from localities in Canada the least interested in many features of this Bill. I would like to know, to what very great extent the maritime provinces and the western provinces are interested in the cultivation of clover for instance. I am surprised to find that the Bill has been so little endorsed generally throughout the country. We all know that when resolutions are passed at these meetings in favour of a Bill, such resolutions refer to the provisions of the Bill generally, and not to its details. I think there should have been more general ap-

proval before the Bill was presented to the House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There were in all thirty-three farmers' institute meetings.


James Clancy: How many of these passed resolutions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A vote was taken in all of these, and there was no dissentient vote. These meetings were held in Haldimand, Monk, Brant, Oxford and Norfolk; some of them large seed-growing counties in the province of Ontario.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to read one of these reso lutions.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: And at the same time state how many persons were present at each of these meetings ; as a rule there are about half a dozen.


Mr. FISHER  .@: This is a specimen resolution -which was sent from Burford, Ont., and it is written by I. T. Taylor, secretary of the South Brant Farmers' Institute, and addressed to myself :
Feb. 29, 1904.
Dear Sir,-At a series of Farmers' Institute meetings held in South Brant during this month, the subject of good seeds, and weeds was discussed, and the Bill called the Seeds Control Act introduced by yourself at the last session of parliament, was brought before the farmers and discussed. The following resolution was adopted at seven different meetings in the riding, and I was instructed to forward a copy to you :-
Resolved (re Seeds Control Act), moved by Thomas Parkes and seconded by Owen McAlister, that we, the members of the South Brant Farmers' Institute having been made acquainted with the provisions of the Seeds Control Act which was introduced in the House of Commons last session and laid over on account of opposition from seed merchants and other, and for non-support by those directly interested, desire to express our hearty approval of the said Act, believing that it would be in the direct interest of the farmers of the Dominion if such a law were placed on the statute-books, and that a copy of this be sent to our representative and also to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.


James Clancy: That looks like a stereotyped- resolution prepared and carried around.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no means of knowing anything of the kind ; it was not prepared and it was not stereotyped by any body in connection with my department. My statement is, I think, correct, that this Bill was discussed at several hundred farmers' gatherings of one kind or another since last session of parliament, and the opinion of the farmers expressed at these meetings was practically unanimously in favour of it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) himself says that he is in sympathy with the Mr. CLANCY.
principle of the Bill. There are several interests in the country which are affected more or less by this Bill; there are the farmers who buy the seeds ; there are the men who deal in these seeds, retail and wholesale, and there are the producers of the seeds. The origin of this Bill was a feeling amongst the farmers that they had no means to protect themselves against paying for bad seed, and against the even far greater injury fo them of sowing weed seeds instead of genuine seeds. This feeling was most insistent amongst the farmers of Quebec and the maritime provinces, who have suffered more than the farmers of the great province of Ontario in this respect.


James Clancy: Where did these bad seeds come from ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is rather difficult to trace where they come from, but of course they are sold to the farmers by dealers. In the maritime provinces hardly any seed is raised for sale ; in Quebec a certain amount is raised for sale in a few localities, but the great bulk of the seed raised for sale in Canada comes from the province of Ontario. Most of that seed is raised in perfect good faith by the men who raise it. They raise it to the best of their ability under their present conditions and methods, for the purpose of selling it in a legitimate way. As a matter of fact, everybody knows, nobody better than the seed merchants who purchase it, that a great deal of that seed is not of first quality, but is mixed with weeds or other seeds, while a good deal is not well ripened and consequently is not germinal. I do not say this as any reflection on the men who raise the seeds. They have been carrying on this business for many years to the. best of their ability and in a practical way; but at the same time the results have not been what the purchasers of the seed had a right to expect.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that farmers generally have not in their minds the idea that the grain or seed they are growing is to be used as seed. Does the hon. gentleman mean the farmers or the seed growers, and to a large extent the seed merchants ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was speaking more particularly of small seeds like the seeds of grasses and clovers. Seed grain is raised very frequently without any intention of it being sold for seed purposes.


James Clancy: So is clover.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Sometimes clover is, although I am in the judgment of those who know the business when I say that in most cases it is grown for the purpose of being sold as seed.


James Clancy: Not at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is my opinion. The hon. gentleman may be right and I may be wrong.


James Clancy: In the locality where a great quantity of clover seed is grown I know that is not the case. Much of it is for export.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that it is grown for export, and not to be sold in Canada ?


James Clancy: Not especially. It is not grown to be sold as seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot accept that statement altogether. The man who raises clover seed, speaking of the large farmers, would probably at the outside require for himself a few hundred pounds, and he might very easily have a thousand pounds or more, perhaps several thousand pounds, and he certainly would not be cutting and thrashing all that and making it into seed for his own use alone. He would use as much as he wanted for himself, but a great deal of it would be sold. As a matter of fact, we know that in certain sections of the province of Ontario men raise large quantities of clover and grass seed for sale. Those men have been carrying on the business, I believe, to the best of their ability ; but old, cultivated land is frequently found to produce other seeds and weed seeds. The result is that a very large portion of the seed bought by the seed merchants has not been thoroughly cleaned before being put on the market, and is not of a quality which the purchaser would wish to take. Of the three classes chiefly interested in this business, we have first the producers, next those who buy the seeds from the farmers, the merchants, who clean the seeds and sell them again to farmers, retail merchants and jobbers. There are a number of great com-, mercial houses in Canada engaged in this business. I think the great majority of them do their business excellently well. They do the necessary cleaning of the seeds. They have special machinery and appliances for the purpose. They sell to the local dealers, and these in turn sell to the farmers. My object in drawing this Bill, and in all these investigations and discussions which have preceded it, has been to try to secure for the farmers of the country as pure and good seeds as it is possible to get for them, keeping clearly in mind the necessities of the business in all its branches-to interfere just as little as possible with the course of this business and with the people engaged in it. I wish to avoid as much as possible interference with the ordinary channels of trade or the practices followed, except when those practices are not in the interest of the community. I want to state very emphatically that I do not think there has been intentional fraud on the part of those engaged in the seed trade in Canada. The men who grow seed grain and clean it necessarily 157
obtain in that process different grades. They have the very best seed, that which is practically absolutely pure and germinal. Some merchants adopt standards, differing from others. Some divide their seeds into a greater or lesser number of grades and sell the seed according to its grade. The majority of farmers, I think, do not appreciate or understand the great difference there is in the purity and cleanliness of the different grades of seed. The result has been that a great many people, I will not say were intentionally inclined to be fraudulent, but as a matter of fact were selling to the farmers of the country grades of seeds which the producer, if he knew their quality, would not have thought of buying at the prices which he paid for them.	.
This condition of affairs is what justifies the passage of such an Act. It is impossible for the ordinary purchaser to be able to know that he is getting exactly the seeds he intended buying. In some things a man can judge what he is getting. If he buys a horse he can examine it and tell in a general way what it is worth. But the ordinary farmer, when he buys seeds, cannot tell whether he is getting good value, because in order to do so he would have to examine them under a microscope or powerful magnifying glass. He would require to know also the different varieties of seeds, and this therefore seems to me a legitimate case for the passing of a law to regulate transactions of this kind. After careful consideration of the question I brought in an Act last session, but the seed merchants think that its provisions are too stringent and have found that they could not carry on their business under it. I have therefore in the present Bill considerably modified the' provisions of the Act in the direction desired by those engaged in the trade. 1 have not however gone quite as far as the seed merchants asked, for if I had, I would not be able to protect the purchasers. This subject is one of great importance to agriculturists' and I am quite willing to adopt any suggestions which may make the law more workable and effective.


James Clancy: 'I am afraid that the hon. gentleman will not find that support for his Bill from public opinion which is necessary in order to make any law effective. The question has not been presented to our farmers in such a way that they could have an opportunity of giving their views upon it, but has simply been presented at institute meetings by men whose object was not to have the defects of the measure discussed but to have it extolled as something which could not fail to* benefit the farmers. And the only support he has been able to secure for his Bill in its details is one which he took care to secure. All he has been able to produce is a copy of a resolution passed at an institute meeting in this province, but any one knows how easy it is



to secure an endorsation of tliat kind. I happened to be present at one of those meetings and I found that the farmers, instead of being invited to discuss the measure, were simply treated to an elaborate panegyric of it. Let me refer to the very first clause :
No person shall sell

That prohibition applies to every man, whether he grows seed for himself upon his twenty-five acre farm or whether he is a large farmer or a dealer in seed, who may be buying and selling in the ordinary way.
No person shall sell or expose or have in his possession for sale for the purpose of seeding

How is the minister going to determine whether a farmer has seed in his possession for the purpose of seeding or not? The thing is abolutely unworkable. Every one does -not grow seed to sell as seed and, though the Minister of Agriculture may say that the Bill is adapted to the conditions, yet, without presuming to contradict the hon. gentleman, I may be. allowed to humbly suggest that that does not settle the question- it is not proof. I venture so far as to tell the hon. gentleman that his Bill is based upon wrong principles, that is upon principles that cannot be reduced to practice in this everyday world. If the hon. gentleman wished to provide against seed merchants willingly, knowingly, allowing seed to leave their warehouses in utter disregard of its composition, that might be a very proper measure. My experience small as it has been, I think, is a fair guide to the actual conditions. I believe We have very few seedsmen in Canada who will knowingly send out bad seed. It is to the interest of every reputable seed merchant-I am speaking more particularly of the province of Ontario-to be most careful about the kind of seed he sends out because his house may be brought into disrepute in a single day if the seed he sells is other than he represents it to be. He can only hope to gain and keep the support of men by being careful and reliable. The hon. minister has not said that in the province of Ontario there has been any widespread complaint on that ground. I have not heard of a single case of any reputable seed house in Ontario sending out a pound of bad seed. If there is a general outcry on that ground, I confess I have not heard it ; and if there has not been a general outcry, I would ask the hon. minister from what quarter comes the demand for this Bill, this mischievous Bill so far as appears on the face of it, which is now introduced for thu second time ? The hon. minister must have had something to warrant him in introducing so drastic a measure. He must have information to show that, the farmers have been made, Intentionally or unintentionally, the victims of bad seed. If there is any complaint in the pro-Mr. CLANCY.
vince of Ontario perhaps he will givp me some evidence of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Let me deal in order witli the two points the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy has raised. In the first place, speaking of the resolution which I read, he seemed to think it was a resolution that had been put before a lot of farmers' institutes and passed in stereotyped form. In answer, I may tell the hon. gentleman that no such resolution was prepared by anybody that I know of. The meetings were left entirely to themselves as to the form of the resolution and as to whether they would pass resolutions or not, or give any expression of opinion. I will read one or two resolutions to show that the form was not stereotyped. Here is another which reached me from German, and was the expression of opinion from the Farmers' Institute of East Peterborough :
Resolved, that in the opinion of the Farmers' Institute of East Peterborough the Bill respecting the inspection of seeds offered for sale is a step in the right direction, and the government will have the hearty support of this institute when considering this Bill.


Mr. GILMOUR.: Does this refer to the Bill of this year or of last year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To the Bill of last year which was a more stringent Bill.


James Gilmour: I know it was. Last year's Bill was an impossibility.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And yet, this farmers' institute said that we should have their hearty support in considering that Bill. I have another resolution here, but I see that it comes from Midland, New Brunswick. As my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) speaks especially of Ontario I can hardly read this to prove to my hou. friend anything about Ontario, but the form of it will show that the resolution is not stereotyped :
Moved by F. E. Sharp, seconded by W. W. Fawcett and resolved : Having had the results of this work given to us to-day and knowing that the conditions referred to are common to the whole Dominion, this convention of the New Brunswick Farmers' and Dairymen's Association

This, it seems, was the provincial association, and not simply a local institute.
-urge upon the minister the necessity for immediate legislation which shall fix proper standards of grading with respect to the purity and vitality of seeds of grasses and clover, and shall establish a system of official control to prevent imposition upon the farmers by such regulation? and penalties as will ensure its observance.
And this is the letter accompanying the resolution. It is dated from Chatham, New Brunswick and signed A. G. Dixon :
I beg leave to submit for your consideration tile inclosed resolution, which passed unanimously at our annual convention held recently

at Sussex, N.B. This resolution seemed to express the sentiment of 300 farmers present. If such legislation should be obtained and the observance of such law carried out, it would save the farmers from being imposed upon by unreliable seedsmen and dealers from which they have suffered such a loss in the past.


James Clancy: Where are the resolutions from Ontario, the seed growing province 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have one here from the south riding of Renfrew.


James Clancy: Of course, we know what that is in advance.


Mr. WRIGHT.: It will be all right.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) does not need to believe anything he does not wish to. But this is a resolution from Ontario, and my hon. friend should take that for gospel. The letter accompanying the resolution is as follows :
At the several meetings held during the past winter in Brudenell, Killaloe, Stewart-ville, Loch Winnoch, White Lake, Burnstown, Grattan, Mt. St. Patrick, Shamrock and Renfrew, the inclosed resolution was presented and unanimously adopted, and consider it of the greatest importance that the farmers of this section should be able to secure seeds practically free from foul seeds.
This is signed by Gregor MacIntyre, secretary South Renfrew Farmers' Institute. And this is the resolution :
Whereas, at the various branch farmers' institute meetings held in the south riding of Renfrew during the present winter the matter of having such a Bill passed by the House of Commons as was introduced last session by the Hon. Sydney Fisher, whereby some guarantee will be given to farmers, who of necessity must buy a large amount of seed each year, that he is getting clean and fertile seeds.
And whereas, at all these branch meetings the members have either by resolution or otherwise, expressed their unqualified approval of having such an Act passed.
It is resolved by the members of this Central Farmers' Institute, that we heartily approve of the efforts now being put forth in this direction and the members of this institute desire that our secretary be and hereby is requested to notify our representative in the House of Commons of the action that has been taken by tbe various branch institutes of the riding and to request that he use every legitimate means to assist in having such a measure become the law of the land.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will leave that subject for the resolutions in favour of this measure. They all embody the idea that the farmers have a grievance, a difficulty in tlieir business, and they want to see that difficulty removed and their situation improved.


James Clancy: I sat down to give the hon. gentleman an opportunity to give some evidence of a popular demand for this Bill, some evidence of the difficulty, of the loT^
evil that induced the hon. gentleman to introduce this measure. The hon. gentleman has merely given us some advertisements of his measure. I would like him to tell us from what quarter the outcry lias come for a measure of this kind.
ilr. FISHER. I have not got that information under my hand to-day, because it was all produced last session. If the hon. gentleman will look up the debates of last session he will find the information I then gave to the committee, and which I will repeat before the Bill goes through if the hon. gentleman desires it. I think when the hon. gentleman opened his remarks this afternoon he stated that he believed in the principle of the Bill, believed. I thought (he said, that there was a necessity for some such a Bill.	.


James Clancy: No.
Mr. FISHER, Then I understand that he does not believe in the necessitv of such a Bill ?


James Clancy: I did not say that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does my hon. friend think there is no necessity for legislation in regard to the business of seed distribution in this country?


James Clancy: I will say to the hon. gentleman that I think all questions of this nature should receive attention from time to time, but the legislation must be upon such grounds as will commend itself to the approval of the people, whether in that line or any other line. I am in sympathy with any measure that will correct such evils as can be corrected by law. I ask the hon. gentleman to point to one seed merchant in the province of Ontario who has been guilty, either by inadvertence, deliberation or disregard, of sending out bad seed to the farmers. There may be such cases but I am not aware of them ; but if there are, a remedy should be found, and a drastic remedy.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I have not yet heard the Minister of Agriculture produce any demands for the introduction of this Bill. But I understand that the Minister himself is a practical farmer, and if he is, he knows how much weeds cost the farmers of this country, and therefore he does not require any prompting, I should think, from other farmers. Besides, if he were not a farmer, he has only to travel on the railroad through the country to see what weeds are costing the farmers, what harm they are doing to the farms. If you travel over the railroads at the present moment you will see in many fields nothing but yellow mustard, and you will see in other fields nothing but white daisies. There are other weeds just as obnoxious. As has been said by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. COMMONS
Clancy), I think this Bill is in the right direction. But it is a question with me whether it is not too drastic for the seedsman and farmers, even as it stands now. But we all know that we must place before us a high ideal in order to obtain fairly good ends. I had the pleasure of attending two farmers' institutes last winter, and one gentleman came there, a farmer I think, and he showed us a number of obnoxious weed seeds in different kinds of grain. In one pound of clover he said he had found over a thousand weed seeds.


James Clancy: That is an extraordinary statement.


Jabel Robinson: I am only giving his statement. I never counted them or measured them. However, I have no rea'son to doubt his word. We know that when a man grows seed he grows it for sale, he sells what he does not require to sow on his own ground, he does not grow seed to burn. His object is to make money out of it, and he could not make money if he destroyed it. Besides the seedsmen, the farmer also sells seed and gets as much money as he can for it. I think the seedsmen are in sympathy with this Bill, because they desire to buy pure seed. To my knowledge they have means of cleaning it up, they have got the machinery for cleaning nearly all the weed seeds out of the pure seed. Unless they do this there should be a law to make them do it. If this Bill is carried and put into force we will not see in every second field these obnoxious weeds. At present these weeds are a source of great loss to the farming community, and if the Minister of Agriculture can do anything to relieve the farmers of this heavy loss he will accomplish something very desirable. The object is to give the farmers pure seed and to induce the farmers to be sure and raise pure seed, but when the minister puts in this Bill, as I I see there is in one clause, a provision that 99 per cent of a quantity of seed must be pure and that 99 per cent of it must grow, then I think he is going a little too far because I am satisfied that no man can raise seed 99 per cent of which will grow, no matter how pure the seed may be. He ought to try and make this Bill workable, but I think it is going a little too far to oblige every seedsman and every second farmer to pay a heavy fine or serve one month in jail if he is found selling impure seed.


Mr. BLAIN.: I think it would be desirable if the hon. minister would give us an explanation of the differences between the present Bill and the Bill he introduced last session. I would also like to know how the hon. gentleman proposes to deal with a farmer who is growing seed and wishes to sell some of it to a neighbouring farmer.


Jabel Robinson: The hon. gentleman understands that in every farming township there are a number of farmers who make a specialty of growing timothy, and clover seed, and naturally they become sellers to tfieir neighbours. What I would like to know is how far this Bill, if it is passed, will apply to those ? Will the Bill make them occupy the same position as the seed merchant who sells seed to the general purchaser ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend from Both-well put a question to me a few minutes ago that I would like to answer. He said that "he would like me to point out a single case in Ontario where seedsmen had sold bad seed. I will just give him a very concise reference to a bulletin which was issued by my department in 1902 on this question. In that bulletin are lists of various samples of seed which were bought in the places indicated where they were exposed for sale by seed merchants and merchants who were selling seeds. These are some of the facts in connection with the quality of these seeds. At St. Catharines a sample of timothy was found which contained 31,982 weed seeds in the pound.


Mr. INGRAM.: What month was that bulletin issued in ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that these collections were made in Ontario in April and May.


Andrew B. Ingram: In 1902 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In 1902. There are 1,-
350,000	seeds of timothy in a pound and in this particular sample there were 31,982 weed seeds in the pound.


James Clancy: What variety of weed seeds ?
Mr. FISHER, I have the details of about twenty species of weed seeds that were found in varying numbers in the Ontario samples. Eleven samples contain Cinquefoil ; ten, sheep sorrel; nine, May weed; eight, lambs quarters ; seven, peppergrass ; five, Canada thistle, and five, false flax, shepherd's purse, cockle, dock and worm seed. Mustard was also found in a few samples. In a sample purchased in Brantford there were 79,000 weed seeds to the pound. Brant county is a seed-growing county.


Andrew B. Ingram: To a very limited extent. There are dozens of counties far ahead of Brant in the matter of seed-growing.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but still it is one
of the seed-growing counties in the province of Ontario. In another sample obtained at Brantford there were 26,000 weed seeds : in one obtained at St. Catharines, 10,000, and in another one at Mallorytown, 10,500. I will now take alsike clover. There are
700,000	seeds in a pound. In one sample obtained at Toronto there were 14,400 weed

seeds in a pound ; in another sample obtained at Toronto 49,000 weed seeds ; in a sample obtained at Hamilton 14,500, in one at Pembroke 14,000, in one at Galt 23,500. These are the largest numbers and they run down to seven, eight and nine thousand weed seeds in a pound. Of red clover there are 350,000 seeds in a pound. In a sample obtained at Brantford there were
13,000	weed seeds, another sample at Brantford 10,000, a sample at Ottawa 10,000, another sample at Ottawa 20,000, another sample at Ottawa 5,500, another sample at Ottawa 675,- a very pure sample, in another sample at Pembroke 10,300, in another at Ottawa 10,000, in another at Pembroke 36,900, Renfrew 13,000, Carletou Place 19,900, and there are various other smaller figures. This shows the hon. gentleman that even in the province of Ontario there are foul seeds sold to the farmers in grass and clover seed.	,


James Clancy: How was that information obtained ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That information was got by an officer going around the country and buying seed.


James Clancy: When V


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I told the hon. gentleman -in 1902.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to assume from that statement that strong complaints were received from the farmers of Ontario as to foul seeds in 1902 V Are we to assume that from any correspondence which the hon. gentleman has in his department V


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is a statement 'of the samples that were purchased at that time to find out what the quality of the seeds sold in general trade was ? There were a number of other samples procured in which there were not so many weed seeds. I have given those which show that there were foul seeds in large numbers in some of the samples obtained.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the evil was general would the farmers complain generally of that state of affairs ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I think they would. 1 think that what the hon. member for Elgin said a few minutes ago is perfectly true that one has only to go around the country to see what an immense number of weeds there are growing in our fields. The farmers want to get rid of these weeds. What I said before was that the farmers cannot detect these weed seeds in the seed which they buy themselves. It is practically impossible. A very clever well-informed and observant farmer can take a sample of seed in his hand and know only in a very general way whether it is fairly clean or not. That is about the extent he can go. But by a laboratory analysis you can get that information.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman received complaints from Ontario ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not in the correspondence, but I may have general letters in the department. This question was dealt with last year. I have not with me to-day for the purpose of this discussion the information which I* gave to the House last year. I think that I did give to the House then considerable evidence of the fact that there was a general demand in this country for this legislation. Four or five years ago, when the work of the seed laboratory was first begun, there was comparatively little information of an exact character before the farmers of the country. But, they felt they were buying bad seed. I have had numerous conversations with farmers and 1 have had complaints of various kinds with regard to seeds but at the same time until the seed laboratory was established and until analyses were made of seeds, the information which is given in this bulletin was not available to farmers. When they got that information I venture to say that a great many farmers were startled and taken aback and felt that something must be done to save their farms from this evil. They knew the evil existed but they did not know to what extent it existed, they had no details or information upon which they could found any charge or argument and the seed laboratory has supplied that to a considerable extent.


Andrew B. Ingram: It strikes me as a remarkable state of affairs. I hold in my hand the report of the Bureau of Industries for Ontario for 1902, and I will point out to the hon. gentleman that on pages 8 and 9 it deals with fall wheat, spring wheat and barley, and on the following page with oats, pease, beans buckwheat, rye and corn and there is not one single word of complaint about foul seeds. Page 11 of this report deals with hay and clover and hay and clover seed, and there is not one single word of complaint from the correspondents of foul
SGfidS.
If the complaints are general throughout Ontario, surely these correspondents who are practical farmers, would have drawn the attention of the provincial authorities to these serious complaints. We know that in Ontario it is at present an offence to allow thistles to grow on the highways and the farms, but that law is not observed. What is the use of enacting a stringent law of this kind, when we know it is impossible to carry it out. I do not believe that any farmer in this House could guarantee that the seed lie sells is actually pure, and if this law is passed you would prohibit a farmer from selling his seed if there is even a small percentage of foul seed in it. If this law cannot be carried out, it will do more harm than good. The best guarantee that you can hare against foul weeds, is to have first-

class farmers who will look after the cultivation of their crops.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These answers read hv the hon. gentlemen are sent in to the provincial Department of Agriculture on special forms of questions which are prepared, and there is no question on that form with regard to weeds. They are statistics as to the crop and its general condition, and the questions include no reference to weeds, so that the hon. gentleman's criticism is not well founded. A good many of the provisions of this Bill only apply to clover and grass seeds, so that if my hon. friend would study the measure he would find it is not so drastic as he seems to think.


Mr. McGOWAN.: My experience is that some legislation along the lines suggested by this Bill is very desireable. I know a good many farmers who have had their farms poisoned by foul weeds, and there is a general opinion amongst the farmers of my locality that some legislation of this kind should be adopted by parliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear.


John McGowan: I would point out to the hon. minister, that in my locality a number of farmers have purchased turnip seed in which there was a good deal of foul rape seed and that has done a great deal of damage. I am sorry the minister does not provide against that in this Bill. It would not be well to have the provisions of this measure too drastic, but at the same time there certainly should be some legislation passed in this direction.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister is mistaken when he says that these correspondents make no reference to weeds. Here is a report in regard to spring wheat in which it is said that the crop is good in point of yield and quality. They would not say that the quality of the grain is good if there were foul seed in it. Then again, in reference to the grass crop, it is stated in one of these reports that it is not of good quality, and if that were caused by reason of foul seeds, surely it would be so stated. I am not a practical farmer, but I do know that practical farmers are not in such a fortunate position to deal with this matter as are the managers of the government farms, backed up by any amount of money. It is for the ordinary farmers of Canada who are trying to live by the products of their farms that we are legislating here, and we should be careful not to pass any law which will militate against the interests of this most deserving class of the community.


Mr. STEPHENS.: It appeal's to me that unless the merchant was able to have the seed which he sells tested,-which of course could not be done in most cases,-it would be impossible for him to know whether 90 per cent of the seed would germinate as is required in the Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mi-. RICHARDSON. The objects aimed at by this Bill are of the most desirable character. Nothing could he more important in the interests of the farming community than that the country should, if possible, be rid of the noxious weeds that infest it. But, to pass legislation of a character so onerous, so tyrannical, and with such heavy penalties as are provided in this Bill, is a very serious matter, when you may have it directed against persons who have no dishonest intention whatever.
We have had in the province of Ontario for a long time a law to prevent the spread of thistles, and to have them cleared away from the highways, but that law is inoperative. I do not think it should be. It is one that could be enforced much more easily than the Bill we have before us, which on its face is of an impracticable character. It is desirable that some regulation should be placed within the reach of every farmer which would enable him to have an inspection and analysis made of the seeds he buys, and to have it made free ; and the farmers should be invited as much as possible to have this inspection made. But after having made that provision, it is rather drastic legislation to provide that every one engaged in the seed business, and who may not have the skill or ability to analyse seeds, shall be liable to such heavy penalties as are provided in this Bill. These are of a character to render it inoperative and impractical. * While in full sympathy with the object aimed at, I think the Bill should be of such a practical character that it could be put into operation, and, while safeguarding the interests of the dealer and the producer, would also safeguard the interests of the farmer who buys seed for his own use.


Aaron Abel Wright: I have had considerable experience, not only in growing seeds but in selling them. The law for the prevention and destruction of thistles growing on the highway is entirely different from the Bill now before this House. A farmer is not going to complain against his neighbour because he allows thistles to grow on his wayside, for he does not think it desirable to have the enmity of bis nearest neighbour. But I can assure you that if a farmer buys from a seed merchant a hundred pounds of clover, and finds after he has sown it that there is a lot of foul seed in it, he Will have no qualms of conscience about hauling the seed merchant over the coals and making him responsible for the damage done to his farm. I am delighted that something has been done by the Minister of Agriculture on this matter. We have been labouring too long in the province of Ontario under the evil of foul seeds, and it is time we had some redress, if any one has any doubt of this, let him take the Canada Atlantic and go from here to the town of Arnprior when the fields are ripening, and if he does not see the necessity of a Bill, of this kind, he

will certainly be very blind indeed. With reference to what the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) says in regard to a stereotyped resolution being passed everywhere, 1 do not know7 whether that hon. gentleman has the power of being omnipresent or not; but I can assure him that the farmers of South Renfrew are intelligent enough to frame a resolution for themselves, and do not require a stereotyped resolution ; and I hurl the accusation back in the hon. gentleman's teeth with all the force of w7hich I am capable.


Richard Blain: I did not understand the hon. member for Bothwell to say that the resolution passed at South Renfrew7 meeting was a stereotyped resolution sent there for the purpose of being passed.


Aaron Abel Wright: I understood him to say that all the resolutions were stereotyped, that passed in South Renfrew included in the number.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman misunderstood the hon. member for Bothwell.


Aaron Abel Wright: At the various meetings held in the south riding of Renfrew, two practical farmers were present-Mr. Clen-dinning from the western part of Ontario, and Mr. Hutton, who lives near Smith's Falls; and they had a large chart of the various kinds of seeds w7hieh had been bought at different places, showing the amount of foul seeds contained in them. At every meeting this question of foul seeds was discussed, not only by these men, but by the farmers, and at every one of these meetings resolutions were passed extolling in the highest terms the action taken by the Minister of Agriculture on this subject. I know from the experience I have had in selling seeds that something of this kind should be done. Another thing to which my attention has been drawn, and which has not been brought out by the Minister of Agriculture, is that w7hen the farmers go to buy clover seed they cannot tell whether they are getting late or early clover ; and it w7ould be w7ell if the label which the Bill provides shall be attached to each package of seeds, giving the name of the kind of seeds, should state w7hether it is late or early clover. The Minister of Agriculture has received one testimonial w7hich is not among those he has read to-day. That testimonial came from the hon. member for Bothwell, w7ho tells us that he attended just one Farmers' Institute meeting, and that at that meeting he noticed that there w7as not a single individual opposed to this Bill. This is an important fact, and I suppose that the reason the hon. gentleman in his search for thunder, did not visit any more of those meetings, w7as that he discovered that there was not a single individual opposed to this Bill, and that cooled his ardour. I think we should have the name of that place, and have the hon. gentleman's testimony added to the others.
Mr. GIL'MOUR. I will say at once that I am in favour of this Bill or any ott)er Bill that would carry out the purpose intended. The minister has told us that the farmers' institutes throughout the country have voted unanimously and have sent in petitions in favour of legislation of this nature. I do uot wonder at that. Ninety-nine farmers out of every hundred desire legislation for this purpose ; but it is one thing to seek legislation for an evil ; it is another thing to make legislation for that evil. With that statement I want to say this, with regard to the>
difference between this Act and that of last session. In this Act you propose to relieve the farmer of all onus of selling foul seed provided he does not give a certificate that it is free from the foul seeds named in section 3. Section 7 relieves the farmers of responsibilities -and penalties unless they should give a certificate that the seeds sold are free from foul seeds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


James Gilmour: And the whole responsibility is cast upon the seed merchants ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The farmer can only take advantage of the exception in section 7 Jf he sells on his own premises. If he sells 'the seed generally he cannot do so.
Mr. GILMoUR. He can also sell it to the merchants and be so relieved. He can sell it anywhere and any place and unless he gives a certificate he is not liable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He cannot sell except at his own home and be free from responsibility.
Mr. GILMuUR. This Bill in section 7 provides :
The provisions contained in this Act shall not apply to-
(a.) any person growing or selling seeds lor the purpose of food ;
lb.) any person selling seeds direct to merchants to be cleaned or graded before being offered for sale for the purpose of seeding.
He can take it to town and sell it to a merchant.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


James Gilmour: He shall be relieved if he sells to any one, unless he gives a certificate that it is free from foul seeds. The whole responsibility is cast upon the seed merchant and I do not think the seed merchant can comply with this Bill. I would like the hon. minister to bring down such a law as would enable the seed merchant to comply w7ith it. Unless the seed merchant can comply with this measure, he will be in a worse position than before. If he cannot comply with the laws of the country, he would naturally go out of business.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend asks me whether the seed merchants have protested or whether they have agreed to the

provisions of this Act. I would say in the first place that I have not understood that the seed merchants took exception to the general provisions of this Act. But they have protested against the provision to which my bon. friend has just alluded, and by which the farmers are allowed to sell to their neighbours and escape the provisions of the law; They have also pointed out certain difficulties in living up to the Act, but I do not think those "difficulties have a risen with regard to the quality of the seeds. I think that the seed merchants have practically accepted the provisions of sections 3 and 4 which indicate the grades. There is one point in this, however, in which the seed merchants differ from this Bill. They are quite ready to adopt what they called a minimum standard. below which no seed should be sold in the country at all. for grass and clover seeds. I understand they are willing to accept a minimum standard and object to any grading above that standard. This Act does not grade but it provides that if a merchant chooses to put a certain specimen of grain and mark it No. 1 quality or anything to indicate superior excellence, under those circumstances it must come up to a certain grade. And it indicates what that means in section 4 :
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have In his possession for sale, any seeds of timothy, red clover, alslke, or any mixture, containing the said seeds, in or from any receptacle, package, sack er. hag upon which is marked ' No. 1 ' or any other designation which represents such seeds as of first quality, unless they are free from the seeds of weeds named in section 3 of this Act.
Then it goes on :
And contain out of every 100 seeds not less than 99 seeds of the kind or kinds represented, or seeds of other useful and harmless grasses and clovers, of which 99 seeds 90 must he germmable.
That is the distinction we think necessary to justify the marketing of seed as No. 1 or of the highest quality. If seedsmen say that is too severe, they need not mark their seed. In the Act last year we undertook to fix the different grades. In this Act we do not. We fix a minimum grade below which no seed can be sold by anybody. That is, there must not be more than three seeds in the thousand that are seeds of certain weeds. The seed merchants who have discussed the matter with me seem to think that this is a grade that would be quite practicable.


George Stephens: I would like to ask why it is that when some clovers are included in this Bill, alfalfa is not included also ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Bill does not pretend to deal with the whole question. We would be very glad to go much further, if we felt we could do so successfully. We have un-Mr. FISHER.'
dertaken in this Bill to deal with the most common seeds that are sold. And I think I am safe in saying that, of the grass and clover seeds, that are sold in this country, the three kinds here named alike, red clover and timothy would cover, from 95 to 98 per cent of the sales. If we can get the country educated up to the point of dealing with these we can later on deal with those which are sold in less quantity.


George Stephens: Alfalfa is sold in my county to a large extent.


Mr. ERB.: Section 4 provides that 99 seeds out of 100 are to be of the kind or kinds represented. Then, of what kinds may the hundredth seed be ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It could not be a seed of any of the weeds named. It might be the seed of some other grass or of some harmless plant.


Dilman Kinsey Erb: May not some of the 99 seeds be those of harmless grasses ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It says so in the Bill-that the seed shall contain not less than 99 seeds of the kind or kinds represented or seeds of other useful or harmless grasses. That would not prohibit the sale, if, for instance, in the timothy a few clover seed were found.


Dilman Kinsey Erb: It would not be permissible to have the hundredth seed that of any of the kinds mentioned in sections 3 and 4 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. As has been pointed out to me, a pound of red clover consists of 350,000 seeds. One in a hundred would be 3,500 seeds. That would be a very lai'ge proportion of noxious weed seeds and seed so foul could not be classed as No. 1.


Dilman Kinsey Erb: Have the seedsmen represented that it is possible to have grass seed without having more than one seed in one hundred that of one of these weeds ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not only have they said so, but a great proportion of the samples that were tested would grade No. 1. The question was asked me by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Stephens) a few minutes ago as to the way in which a merchant selling seeds could find out whether those seeds were up to standard or not. In the first place, the country merchants, in practice, buy their seeds from reputable seedsmen whose business it is to test their seeds before they send them out.


George Stephens: My question referred to germination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as that is concerned, it is easy for a man to test the germinating power of his seeds in a week or ten days. He might want to sell the seeds within a day or two of buying them it is true. I am advised that a man accustomed to handling seeds can judge pretty fairly by the look of the seeds as to its power of germination. But, in any case the seed laboratory is at

the disposition of those who wish to have their seeds tested.


Richard Blain: If I understood the hon. minister, he said that he had sent out an officer of the department throughout Ontario to purchase samples of seeds in different places, and he told us some of the results. If what he told us is a fair example of the class of seeds sold in Ontario, the position of the farmers is a very serious one. Surely, the minister does not mean to say that the seed sold by the merchants in the ordinary way in Ontario is as bad as the examples he quoted to the committee. I would like him to state whether his officers found this condition general in Ontario.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The instances I gave were taken from the bulletin which was published in 1902. The samples were collected partly by an officer of the department and partly through correspondence with the institute workers throughout the province. We asked these gentlemen to buy from the ordinary dealers here and there enough seed for a sample and send it to us. I may point out that the statement I made a few minutes ago was in answer to a demand from the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) whether in Ontario any bad seeds were being sold. In the list I quoted from were a large number of samples which were very good.


Richard Blain: I think the hon. gentleman ought to quote the good as well as the bad.


Mr FISHER.: I am quite willing. They are all given in the bulletin and have been before the public for about two years. In making my statement I said that there were others not neatly so bad as those I quoted, and many of them quite good.


Richard Blain: What proportion of them were found bad ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For instance, take the case of timothy in the province of Ontario. In seven samples out of twenty, more than
5,000	bad weed seeds were found. Eight samples had between 1,000 and 5,000 bad weed seeds.


Andrew B. Ingram: Were all these samples the same weight ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The samples were taken from the ordinary packages in which the seed was being sold and sent to the laboratory to be analysed. From half a pound to a pound was taken and sent to the laboratory here in each instance to be analysed. There are two analyses made of every sample. The samples were taken from men who were selling seeds as a business, either country storekeepers, merchants or regular seedsmen.	.


Dilman Kinsey Erb: How many samples were pure


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There was one containing 191 weed seeds in a pound, I would call thai pure under the provisions of this Act: there was another containing 181 weed seeds, that
is also practically pure. Another contained 634, another 815 and another 916. All the rest contained over 1,000.


Richard Blain: What proportion of the twenty samples came up to the standard ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that all of them came up to the minimum standard in this Act.


Mr. COCHRANE.: This is an important question, and I would be glad if legislation could be devised that would remedy the evil that exists. I understand the Minister of Agriculture to say that it does exist in the province of Ontario. As 1 understand it, suppose I raise seed not entirely pure and sell it to a seedsman, there would be no penalty on me. I think the Minister of Agriculture made too wide an assertion when he said that no foul seed could be sold under this Bill, because I think I can raise grass seed not entirely pure and sell it on my own premises, or sell it to a seedsman, and no penalty could be imposed on me under this Bill. Now, I want to ask the minister if any machinery has been invented whereby a seedsman can clean the seed and make it pure ? Suppose that I raised foul timothy seed and took it to a seedsman, is there any machinery whereby that merchant can clean it and bring it up to the standard ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that there is undoubtedly machinery which will bring it up to the minimum standard. As to bringing it up to the maximum standard, it would depend a little on the nature of the impurities in the seed. But a great deal of even pretty foul seed can be brought up to the first quality mentioned under this Act by machinery which is well known, and which Is in use to-day among the seedsmen of the country. I may say to my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) that I have such a list as 1 mentioned from every one of the provinces


Mr. SPROULE.: I listened to what the minister said with regard to the situation of the seedsmen under this Bill, and I must admit that my experience is not like hi3, because wherever I have conversed with seedsmen with regard to the Bill of last year, they said they could not comply with its provision, that if such a law was enacted it would compel them to go out of the business. I admit the desirability of a law that will give us pure seed, but I do not think the present Bill will accomplish that end. The only question to my mind is whether, if this Act is passed, it can be made workable. It seems to me there are a few provisions that go too far. For instance, section 3 says :
No person shall sell, or offer, expose, or have in his possession for sale, for the purpose of seeding, any seeds of cereals, grasses, clovers or forage plants containing any seeds of the following weeds.

Then follows a list of the weed seeds. The section goes on :
Unless each and every receptacle, package, sack or bag containing such seeds, or a label, securely attached thereto, ;s marked in a plain and indelible manner-
(a.) with the initials of the Christian names, and the full surname and address of the wholesale or retail seller ;
(b ) with the name of the kind or kinds of
see i .	*
(c.l with the common name or names of the aforenamed weeds, the seeds of which are present in the seed sold or offered, exposed or had in possession for sale.
Now if I correctly understand that seetiou, every package containing the seed for sale must have the initial of the wholesaler or retailer upon it, as well as the kind of seed Contained in it, with the names of the weed seeds present, and a list of those is given Now take oats for instance. The seedsman usually keeps his oats in a bin. You want to purchase some seed oats and he takes them out of that hin. As I understand this section, he would require to have upon that bin the name of all the weed seeds present in those oats.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Only those that are mentioned here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wild oats is among the names of weed seeds mentioned here. The name ' wild oats ' has to be put on every bin containing oats, because there are few lots of oats which do not contain wild oats. Then we find mentioned bindweed, per-rennial sow-thistle, ragweed, great ragweed, purple coc-kle, cow cockle, orange hawkweed or paint brush, ergot of rye, and some others. Every one of these weeds, if the cereal contains any of these seed weeds, must be marked on the bin containing the oats, or on the bag, or whatever receptacle they are sold in. I think this provision will pretty surely be ignored. I do not think one seedsman out of a hundred would attempt to carry that out, and a law that cannot be carried out is worse than useless, because not only does it do no good, but it creates a contempt for law. Then section 4 says :
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, any seeds of timothy, red clover, alsike or any mixture containing the said seeds, in or from any receptacle, package, sack or bag upon which is marked ' No. 1 ' or any other designation which represents such seeds as of first quality, unless they are free from the seeds of weeds named in section 3 of this Act.
If he sells the seed as No. 1, it means he sells it as of the first quality, and it can only contain a certain percentage of weed seeds. Then the seed must also contain a certain percentage that will germinate. Now, how is the purchaser to tell whether every seed will germinate or not ? Suppose a quantity Mr. SPROULE.
of seed sold as being of the first quality was found to contain more weed seeds in the crop than is allowed, or a greater percentage of seeds that did not grow than is allowed under this Bill, and an action for damages was instituted against the seedsman, how are you to prove it ?
There has been no sample taken in advance to enable you to ascertain what percentage of seeds is germinable and what is not, and to ascertain what percentage of weed seeds is contained in it. I take it that if seeds are sold under this Act as No. 1, or first quality, it will leave the seedsmen open to an action at law if it is found afterwards that the seeds which he sold injures a man's farm or .if they contain weeds when they were supposed to contain no *weeds. But, an action cannot be maintained under this Act because of tbe difficulty of proving the offence to the court. It seems to me that this makes the law in that respect unworkable, and I think in some other respects as well it is unworkable. While it appears to be an improvement on the Bill that was introduced last year, I think still that it would be utterly impossible for seedsmen to comply with its provisions. The hon. Minister of Agriculture said that it is an easy matter to use machinery to clean the seed so that it will come up to the minimum standard, not the'maximum standard. My experience and information are that weed seeds are taken out by sieves and where you have weed seeds of about the same size as the ordinary grass 'or clover seed you are cleaning, it is absolutely impossible for any machinery in the world to do that work, and to make the grass seed perfectly clean.


Mr. WM. ROSS (South Ontario).: I presume the discussion regarding the quality of seeds in the province of Ontario must have arisen because Ontario province is the great producer of seeds in Canada. Perhaps you might say that the entire crop of red clover and alsike not of timothy, though a large proportion of timothy may be included-is produced in Ontario, and this is due to the fact that the other provinces either do not grow these seeds or their climatic conditions are found unsuitable. I was very much impressed with the general provisions of the Bill introduced last year. I think there is no observant member of this House or observant Canadian who travels through this country, especially at this season of the year and now on for the next two or three weeks, but will notice that the crops of hay and often times grain as well are sadly spoiled by the large proportion of weeds which are growing in them. To whom that is due we cannot tell. Whether it is due to the carelessness of the man on the farm or the man who sells him the seed, the fact is that the weeds seem to have spread over the entire country. The wild mustard seems to be increasing at an alarming rate. Although

certain scientists have discovered that by spraying it can be killed, that process, I have been informed, has not been found altogether satisfactory. This is one of the most noxious weeds we have. However, the fact is that the country is being fast overrun with weeds. Under these circumstances if this House could bring forth a proper measure which would regulate the evil in such a way as to prevent the spread of weed seeds, it would be a boon to the country. But it seems to me that a great deal must depend upon the man who cultivates the farm. If he will continue to sow seed that is bad he must of course have all the weeds which go with it, and the consequences. I am not opposing this Bill at all, but I want to criticise it and I want to hear from other members of the House in regard to it. I feel that the difficulty is in the actual working of the Act. I have been accustomed to handling seeds nearly all my life and the great difficulty I see is in connection with the working of the Act. I am a little afraid that in this Bill we have something in the nature of paternal legislation, that we are undertaking to look after the business of the man who should look after his own interests. I. have sometimes thought, as I have listened to the discussions upon different Bills in this House, that we have too much paternal legislation. I do not presume to call this Bill paternal legislation, and I feel with the majority in this House that something should be done whether this Bill is in the right direction or not. We had a Bill last year and I thought some of its provisions very drastic indeed. After we had discussed it and after I had thought over it during the recess, I felt that the Bill should be modified in some way. It has been modified in the Bill, which is now before the committee, but, looking at the clauses, there are some features of it yet which would need some modification. Take clause 4, for instance : it seems to me that when you say that of every 100 seeds, not less than 99 shall be of the kind or kinds represented it is rather high. In red clover there are some hard seeds and it would be very difficult to comply with that clause. If it were put at 97 or 98 seeds the proportion would be a little better. Then, it states that of those 99 seeds, 90 must be germinable. Ninety per cent is a high standard of germination. Almost any one who is accustomed to dealing -with seeds day after day, and having perhaps a dozen or two dozen samples presented to him can tell what proportion will grow. A real expert seed buyer will be able to tell yon a week after a crop has been offered to him by sample, just what proportion of the crop will grow. I think if the number of germinable seeds was made 85 instead of 90, it would be a better proportion. Then, the minimum clause is an improvement upon the provision of last year's Bill. The minimum clause provides that:
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, for the purpose of seeding in Canada, any seeds of timothy, al-sike or red clover, or any mixture containing the said seeds, if the seeds of the weeds named in sections 3 and 4 of this Act are present in a greater proportion than three to one thousand of the seed sold, or offered, exposed or held in possession for sale.
In case there were a million and a quarter seeds in timothy, that would give 3,750 seeds which would be allowed which is a fair proportion, and if there were 3,750 seeds of that kind allowed in a pound, I should think that would be sufficient. In regard to clause 8 the penalty is very serious for such an offence. It provides that any one who violates the provisions of the Act shall for each offence, be liable to a fine for the first offence not exceeding $5 and not less than $1. Suppose you load a cai with 200 bags of seed, and suppose that all the hags were found not to comply with the provisions of the Act, if you had 200 bags which do not comply with the provisions of the Act, and you had to pay $5 each in fines that would amount to $1,000 on a carload of seed. I think, that, considering, the value of a car of seed, it is an enormous fine to impose. This Bill is designed to regulate a very old and valuable trade, a trade which is very largely carried on in the interest of the country. The capital invested in the province of Ontario in farming operations is over a billion dollars and that is all at stake in connection with every farm that there is in this great province, because every farmer sows seed. Under these circumstances, I think that the fine should be as small as it is possible, considering the interests which are at stake, and that it should not be any higher than is necessary to regulate this old standard trade. Recognizing the rapid spread of weeds throughout the country, I think that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is to be commended for the steps he has taken to check this evil. The establishment of a seed laboratory and the distribution throughout the country of information regarding noxious weed seeds, their habits and how to kill them and regarding the germination .of seeds haw' given the farmers an immense advantage. If the majority of the House think, that this Bill will regulate the seed trade, I am prepared to support it. I am prepared to support the minister in anything that is right and proper in connection with this matter. I believe that in a year or two after this plan of education has gone on a little further, possibly we may be able to get a Bill which will suit every interest. I am not saying that the present Bill does not suit every interest now, but looking at it from the ordinary experience of every day business life, I can see that even this Bill, which is aii improvement on last year's Bill, may require to he amended from

time to time in accordance with existing conditions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I appreciate the support which my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross) has given to this Bill, and I may say that most of the difficulties which he has pointed out are of minor detail which can be very easily modified. As to the fines, it can be very easily arranged that where only one package is sold the penalty shall be so much per package, but if there be a large number of packages sold, the aggregate penalty should not exceed a certain reasonable amount. I shall be glad to consider that in committee.


Richard Blain: Did the correspondence which the minister has had in connection with this Bill between last session and this, include any correspondence from the representatives of the different provinces. Has he had the co-operation of the provincial ministers of agriculture ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am reminded now, that there is a letter from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia, and also a letter, or perhaps more than one, from the Hon. Mr. Elliot, Commissioner of Agriculture in the Northwest Territories. 1 think there are one or two letters from Mr. Ferris, of New Brunswick, and possibly from Mr. Dryden, of Ontario, but I am not sure.


Richard Blain: One would have thought that the minister would have communicated with these gentlemen who represent the agricultural departments of the different provinces. Has the minister sent a copy of this Bill to the ministers of agriculture for each province ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know if it was sent to the ministers, but it was sent to the deputy head of the department in each province, so that it was thoroughly understood and known in the departmental offices.


Richard Blain: Just in a formal way ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The same as it was sent everywhere else. In reply to my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross), I would say that the provisions of this Bill are about as mild as they can be to accomplish the object in view. I am much gratified to find throughout the counlty a very great awakening on this subject, and I have most gratifying testimony from the farmers as *well as from the seed merchants of the good results from the investigation by my department, and from the discussions that have arisen. There is no doubt that in the last tnree years there has been a very considerable improvement in the handling ot seeds throughout Canada, and a very general demand on the part of the farmers for better seeds, which has lea to an improvement in the seeds offered for sale. There
is to-day a considerable quantity of refuse seed some of which is sold in this country and this Bill aims to do away with that absolutely. My hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) asked me about the methods of cleaning seeds. As a farmer I never myself raised seed, having always bought it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Have you done any ploughing ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite a lot. I have never raised a crop of seed for sale, but I am informed by those who have, that the seed merchants who have complete machinery for the cleaning of seed, can clean it so as to live up 'to the provisions of this Act. The system of screens and sieves is only a part of the best cleaning machinery ; there is a system of drafts and blowers-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is done by the fanning mill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but the results do not depend upon the size of the seed. The ungerminable seeds are much lighter as a rule and they are blown away ; even an ordinary fanning mill properly worked can almost always clean the dirtiest grass seed.


James Gilmour: Not the ordinary fanning mill.


George Stephens: The Chatham mill can.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I believe the Chatham mill is a very good one, and is quite capable of cleaning the dirtiest seed. But any good fanning mill can clean seed so as to bring it up to the minimum standard fixed in the Bill, as a general rule. Therefore, I feel that with proper care, with care that we may fairly ask should be exercised by a person engaged in this trade, the seed merchants can live up to the conditions of this Bill. When the seedsmen interviewed me a little while ago, I think I am correct in saying that their chief objection was to that clause of the Bill which allows farmers to sell seed to their neighbours without being subject to the conditions of the Bill. I have kept that clause in the Bill, because I have felt that a farmer buying from his neighbour has not only the protection of requiring the seller, if he choses, to sell to him subject to the provisions of this Act and to give him a certificate, but he has also the protection of knowing from his own observation whether his neighbour's field from which he has taken the seed was clear and clean or not. He has this special protection which the ordinary purchaser has not. The farmer is not allowed under this Act to sell promiscuously. He is only allowed to sell to his neighbour on his own premises.


James Gilmour: He is allowed to sell to the merchant as well.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is allowed to sell to the merchant seeds to be cleaned. He can


William Ross: 

only sell on his premises seeds to be used for seed purposes. Otherwise, under section 7 he can only sell seeds for the purpose of food, or to merchants to be cleaned or graded before being offered for sale. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that he would forbid a farmer selling seeds to a seed merchant? If he did, he would stop the whole trade in the country.


James Gilmour: No, I do not. But 1 ask the hon. minister whether it would not be better to fix a minimum standard, and leave it at that, instead of making provisions for three or four different grades which no person can comply with. I would be very suspicious of a seed merchant who would make these marks. I would rather take the mark of a firm of standing that had been in existence for forty or fifty years, such as that of which my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Bruce) is at the head.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend seems to have lost sight of the fact that this Bill simply requires the minimum standard, but that if a seedsman wishes to label his seed as of No. 1 quality, he has to comply with certain provisions. Would my hon. friend think it wise not only to fix a minimum standard, but to allow every seedsman to call that No. 1 quality ? I do not think the farmers of this country are prepared to say that that should be done. '


James Gilmour: The word of the man who has been in business for thirty or forty years that the seed is pure would be sufficient.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are people engaged in the seed business whose word is as good as the bond of other people ; but there are a lot of other people engaged, in it not of the same standing, and there are others who are selling seed at second and third hand, and we should apply machinery to prevent these people doing what they ought not to do. Nobody need do more than live up to the minimum standard, but if any one undertakes to tell a farmer that a seed is of first quality, he is required to comply with the condition of section 4. With regard to section 3, it is an actual concession. It provides that a man may sell seeds with those weeds in them, provided he says what weeds are in them. It is not a dominating clause ; it is a concession to the seedsmen of the country.


James Gilmour: I have not consulted any seedsmen in regard to this measure ; but if I were a seedsman and had to comply with the provisions of this Bill, I would just label my seeds according to the minimum standard, and would then tell the purchasers which was pure seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite satisfied that the majority of well known seedsmen do not to-day sell any seeds as No. 1 which would not come up to the provisions of section 4.


James Gilmour: Perfectly true but they would not put their foot into a trap of that kind.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why should fixing of the maximum proportion of seeds of the weeds that may be tolerated be left to the decision of the Governor in Council ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is also a concession. If that section were not here, one weak seed of some wood would condemn a whole carload. We have to make some regulations by which what we call absolute purity shall be defined. As the government desire to take up supply this evening, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of iSupply.
Experimental farms. $100,000.
['We will proceed with supply, the estimates being those of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Postmaster General, and perhaps Customs. I am not quite sure as to their order, but probably we may begin with Marine and Fisheries.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister intimated yesterday, I believe, that we were to' have another Bill brought down, this session. It seems to me we ought to know something about the provisions of that Bid before we go on with the estimates. The opposition has an undoubted right to know what the House is to be committed to, and to call for the redress of grievances before supplies are granted. I do not think it is asking too much of the Prime Minister to request him to give us some information of the purport of the Bill to which he referred.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend i Mr. iSproule) takes me rather unawares ; i did not expect that 1 would be called upon to give an explanation this evening of the matter he has referred to. Perhaps he was not in his place when I gave the information to which he refers. I stated, in answer to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), that on moving the motion of which I have given notice for to-morrow to take Monday as a government day for the rest of the session, I would advise the House as to what legislation we would propose. I hope that will be satisfactory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was because of the announcement made yesterday that an explanation would be given ' to-morrow '-that is to day, as the intimation was given yesterday -that I put the question.


Wilfrid Laurier: I said I would give the explanation on introducing the motion of which I have given notice for tomorrow-Friday.	When I move to take
Monday as a government day the House will be entitled to know what further legislation the government intend to bring down.
495!)


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that, in this item, there is an increase of .$10,000 over the expenditure of last year. What is the explanation of this 7


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say, in the first place, that i am asking additional sums in the supplementary estimates for the current year, which will soon be brought down. A very considerable proportion of this increase is due to the increase in wages and salaries on the farms, which has been found absolutely necessary. We have the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa and four branch farms, and they employ in the aggregate-I am making rather a guess-between eighty and ninety men, in addition to the staff of officers. Wages have gone up generally throughout the country. I was informed a little while ago that if I did not immediately increase the wages on the farms at In-'dian Head and Brandon, all the men on them would leave. These were experienced men who had been a good while on the farms, and we found, as a matter of fact, that we were not paying wages equal to the farm wages of the community around. I wao obliged, therefore, to agree to an increase of from 20 to 25 per cent all round on the ordinary wages of these farms.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the rate of wages on these farms 7


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The foremen are the highest paid men, then the teamsters, then the men in the barns attending the cattle, and then the labourers. I find that on the Experimental Farm at Ottawa one teamster is entered here on the list at $8.75 per week for last year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And has to board himself ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. This case may be taken as a criterion of the wages. You could not keep the man at the wages paid.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What do the labourers get 7


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $7' or $7.50 a week.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And have to board themselves ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. We do not board men on any of the farms. On each of the western farms there is a boarding house, but the men have to pay their board at these houses.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many hours do they work 7


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The teamsters and labourers work ten hours. The men who take charge of the cattle and work inside the barns begin a little earlier and stop a little later, but their work is supposed to be lighter and nicer work, and they get paid for Sundays, because they have to be there on Sundays. Besides the ordinary wages, we had to increase the pay all along the line, including the pay of the officials. I am Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
proud to say that in the Director of Experimental Farms, Professor Saunders, and the other officials, we have a very efficient staff of experienced experts, men who have shown by their work there how valuable they are to the country, and how thoroughly equipped for their duties. There is a very considerable demand, not only in Canada, but in the United States, for expert service, and we have to pay these men proportionately to what similar men get elsewhere for similar work. And I have even had to contend with direct offers from other countries to these gentlemen to tempt them away. As a Canadian 1 am proud of the fact that these men, who are also Canadians, are so well treated and so satisfied to remain in the service of Canada, that some of them at any rate have refused offers of considerably higher pay in oilier places: rajther than leave their work here. They are devoted and enthusiastic to their work on the Experimental Farm, they take an interest in their work, a pride in it, and several of them have refused to leave it for higher pay and go elsewhere. These offers come from a foreign country. In view of this fact, and with my knowledge of these men, their energy and capacity, and in view of the fact that in other walks of life all through the country men are being paid higher than they were two years ago, I hare felt bound in the interests of the experimental farms as well as in the interest of these gentlemen, to increase their salaries. These increases have been going on for the last year or two, and the result is that the item which was voted last year of $90,000 will not be sufficient to jiay the expenses of the farm for the current year. I shall therefore be obliged to ask for $10,000 more for this year's work. I had a conversation on this matter with Prof. Saunders, and we agreed that we could not carry out the work required on the farm without more money.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the labourers employed throughout the year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Most of them are. We have to dispense with a few of them in the autumn, but during the winter we employ as many of them as we can on what is called the seed distribution. During the winter we put up tens of thousands packages of, seeds, which are sent out over the country to the farmers, and in this work we employ men who are not engaged in the Held and in the barns. There are generally a few men on each of these farms who are not employed all the time during the winter, but practically a good employee is given work nearly the -whole year round. I am informed that the increase of wages and salaries would not be less than 25 per cent on tne old rate. I am also informed that we have increased the staff somewhat, and witu the increase of the staff, the increase

of wages and the increase of salaries, we will use up $75,000 out of this $100,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much is the labourer getting ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The common labourer is getting the same as the city labourer, $1.50 for a working day. Teamsters get a little more, and foremen a little more still.


Mr. LOGAN.: What increases, if any, have been made in the staff at the Nappan farm, and what are the wages paid to the men employed there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Tnere is no increase in tlie staff at Nappan. There is a slight increase in the number of labourers there. The pay of the labourers is about on the same scale as the pay at the central farm. But on the western farms in Brandon, Iuuian Head and British Columbia, the pay is higher. We cannot get labour there at the same price.
Mr. LOGaj. What is the pay of the labouring man at Nappan ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Ordinary labour runs from $1.40 to $1.60 a day, the men boarding themselves. Of course there are some skilled labourers who get higher wages than that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many employees are there on the central and other experimental farms ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On the Central Experimental Farm, excluding the officers, there are about fifty employees. There are ten or twelve men, varying a little as the seasons go, on the branch farms making a total altogether of very nearly one hundred employees.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In addition to them how many skilled labourers have you ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That includes the skilled labourers-all except the officers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many officers have you ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nine. At the Central Experimental Farm there is the director, Prof. Saunders, Prof. Fletcher the botanist and entymologist. Prof. Shutt. chemist. Prof. Grisdale. agriculturist and Prof. Macoun, horticulturist, making five officers proper. Then besides that there is Mr. Gilbert in charge of the poultry, Mr. Fortier his assistant and in the office they have three stenographers, an accountant and assistant clerk. Mr. Fletcher has two assistants in his work. Mr. Shutt has two assistants in the laboratory and there are two clerks in the office. That I think covers the whole staff. That makes altogether at the Central Experimental Farm, including officers, office staff and assistants, foremen and employees in the neighbourhood of seventy-five. * On each branch farm there is a farm manager
and a book-keeper or secretary to the manager who has to do stenographic work and keep the books. On the farm at Nappan there is a horticulturist. The other farms have no such officers. Mr. Sharp, in British Columbia, is himself a horticulturist and there is no fruit growing to speak of at Indian Head or Brandon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you not a horticulturist and a bee-keeper at the Central Farm ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Prof. Macoun who is the horticulturist of the whole system is here and he has under him an orchard foreman and a garden foreman. The farm foreman, Mr. Fixter, takes care of the bees.


Richard Blain: Would the hon minister give us a statement of the wages paid to the labourers on the different farms so that we will have an opportunity of knowing what the current rate of wages in the different parts of Canada is ?
Mr. FISHER, The rate of pay here for the common labourer is $1.50 a day, that is the usual rate of labour in the city. At Nappan it is about the same. There may be one or two men who only get $1.40 a day although I do not believe that there are. At the three western farms the pay is $1.75 a day.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that include board and lodging ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They pay for their own board and lodging at all of the farms.


Richard Blain: When the hon. gentleman took office what did these labouring men get ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that the ordinary labourer was paid at that time $1 a day in the winter and $1.25 a day in summer at Ottawa. I have no details of what was paid in the west.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What difference do you make now between wages in winter and summer, if any ?
Mr. FISHER, Now, they generally average a dollar less per week in winter than in summer.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister mentioned some increases in salaries and some additions to the staff of officers that he proposes to make. Will he give us a statement of these ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think perhaps I did not express myself correctly. I have been increasing the staff and salaries. The actual scale on the farms to-day requires this extra $10,000 to meet the increases which have been made in salaries and-in the staff. During the last year I have appointed Dr. Charles E. Saunders to the office of experimentalist here. That has reference to plant breeding. Dr. Saunders the director has himself for many years been conducting ex-

periments in the breeding of plants, the breeding of new varieties both of wheat and fruit. This is a very special class of work requiring expert knowledge and treatment. I found very soon that Prof. Saunders was overburdened with the work and responsibility that were thrown upon him, and that it was impossible for him to continue to deal with this work which requires extraordinary attention to detail. At certain seasons of the year the experimentalist has to watch very closely every little detail and every change in connection with the experiment which he is carrying on. It was utterly impossible for the director to do this and attend to the general management of the whole of the farms. I felt it necessary to have somebody who would be specially charged with this work. There was some assistance which a new man coming in would be able to render the director and relieve him of some of the very onerous duties which he had been carrying on for many years and in the performance of which he practically endangered his health. Dr. Charles Saunders is an expert in this particular work. There are very few in Canada who have studied and practised plant and fruit breeding and I was glad to secure the services of a gentleman who had studied under Dr. Saunders, and who had shown expert knowledge. Within the last year I was obliged to appoint another assistant chemist to cope with the increased work. Mr: H. W. Charlton was appointed to this office, I think two years ago, but it is an increase the full effects of which we are trying to meet this year by the supplementary vote.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is not an increase, if be was here last year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is not an increase for next year, but I will be obliged to ask for a supplementary vote of $10,000 so as to overtake arrears. I do not expect any increase next fiscal year. The work that is done on the farm to-day would require for this fiscal year $100,000, and I am asking $100,000 for next year. We had to pay during the currrent year certain amounts, the obligations for which were incurred last fiscal year, when I did not get any extra vote.


Andrew B. Ingram: What are the arrears ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is rather hard to say which individual thing incurred these arrears. There were a number of expenditures incurred last year which the vote of last year did not meet and which had to be paid out of the vote of this year. I believe that the supplementary vote of $10,000 will clear up all the expenses to the end of this fiscal year, and I hope $100,000 will be sufficient to cover entirely the expenditure of the next fiscal year. I also added Mr. Fortier as an assistant to Mr. Gilbert in the poultry division. Mr. Gilbert's time Mr. FISHER.
has been so taken up with addressing public meetings and institutes and forwarding information with inference to poultry, that he has not been able to undertake any new experimental work for several years back, and for which there is a great necessity. There have been greatly increased demands from the French Canadian farmers of the province of Quebec for information about everything connected with poultry, and I felt it would be very important to have a gentleman who could give explanations in French as Mr. Gilbert does in English. Mr. Fortier commences with $700 per year ; he was engaged last September or October.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is he provided with a house ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. $700 is all he gets and of course his travelling expenses. Last autumn there was an additional typewriter put into the office whose name is I think, Mr. Dupuis, or something like that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that include all in connection with what you call salaried officials ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am just informed that last year there was a Miss Hagar added to the staff at $480 a year. This young lady was employed at some special tabulated work of a scientific character in connection with the results of some experiments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many employees were on this farm in 1896 7


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say off-hand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many were there three years ago ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can only give an estimate which has been made on the spur of the moment by the director, that there are about four now where there were three then. There are about 100 on all the farms, of whom about 75 are on the central farm. The officers and office staff number about 25 and the farm employees about 50.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. gentleman tell us the cost of the salaried officials of the Central Experimental Farm ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The total amount of the salaries for all the farms, including the .managers of the branch farms and the office help, is $33,498. The Auditor General's Report shows that the salaried officials of the central farm last year cost $23,296. It would be a little more now, owing to the increases which I have mentioned. The wages paid to all employees below the salaried officials amount to the following : Central, $21,000 ; Nappan, $4,800 ; Brandon, $5,600 ; Indian Head, $5,300 ; Agassiz, $4,400.


Mr. DANIEL.: I notice by the report of the minister on the experimental farms that

some experiments were made at Nappan in the keeping of bees, and the only report on them that I can find is the following :
Six colonies were put into winter quarters last December. All died during the winter.
This does not give us very much information on bee-keeping. The report should give us the reason why all these died. The weather is no colder down there than in other parts of Canada where bees are successfully kept.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not any further information on that point, except that the director informs me that all over Canada last winter there was an extraordinary mortality of bees. If there had been any special reason for the death of the bees in that case, 1 think it would have been stated in the report.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It seems rather remarkable that they all died, that there was not a single bee left. I think bees flourished in other parts of the country.


Edward Cochrane: It is a strange thing that we are paying gentlemen of scientific knowledge to keep bees, and the only information we have is that they all died. We have not a bee left to tell the story. AVe have a Minister of Agriculture, and when we ask him for information he cannot give it. What is he here for ? I want to tell the hon. gentleman that there are plenty of men keeping bees in the riding which I represent, and those bees did not all die. AVe have an experimental farm, and I, as a farmer, am prepared to pay any reasonable amount for the management of the experimental plots ; but I am not prepared to pay for a deputy to take care of hens, and when we ask for information the minister tells us he has not all the details. The details of the hen department are something like those of the bee department-we have an account of what we pay, but not of what we receive from it. I am willing that we should pay any reasonable amount for thi experimental plots, but when it comes to paying nearly $22,000 for help on a farm of some 200 or 300 acres, it is difficult not to enter a protest. In my opinion, if the hon. minister cannot make the farm pay, leaving the experimental plots out of the question, he should get out of the business. How many acres in that farm ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 465, of which 200 are worked as a stock farm, and with the exception of the ground taken lip by the buildings and their surroundings the rest is devoted to experimental work.


Edward Cochrane: And we pay $21,000 for labour on that 200 acres ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $21,000 covers all the labour, including experimental work, arboretum, vines and shrubberies, orchards, gardens and everything else.
.158


Edward Cochrane: I have heard a good deal of that orchard. In our section of the country, we would not consider that orchard kept in proper condition at all. The farm, outside the experimental plots, should pay its way, especially a farm which has the advantage of the care of so many scientific men, and for which you can obtain any quantity of cheap manure in the city. If you cannot make it pay, what is the use of keeping it ? I see that we pay in the neighbourhood of $2,000 for feeding stock. AVhat experiment is there about feeding stock ? The farmers in the section I have the honour to represent know as much about feeding stock as any of the gentlemen on this farm. Unless the hon. gentleman can succeed by experiment in devising some method of feeding stock; cheaper than it costs now, there is no advantage in having stock on the farm at all. Judging by the information given us by the Agricultural Committee, if it costs as much to feed and fatten stock in our section as it does on the experimental farm, every farmer who feeds stock would lose money. AVhat is the use of experimenting in keeping milch cows if you cannot raise enough on that farm to feed them ? And all these men who are employed on the farm are kept around the buildings all winter. How long could the hon. minister run a farm of his own if he had to keep all the men employed all winter ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The great bulk of the labour on the farm is expended on experimental work. In the farm report there is a full statement of the expenditure in connection with the 200 acre farm which is run as a stock farm. Out of 465 acres, only 200 are run that way. The rest are given to experimental work which brings in no return at all. But we have beeu complimented on that work over and over again by all sorts and conditions of people and from all sides of politics. The labour expended on that is much greater than the labour employed on the 200 acre farm which is set aside for stock. Over two-thirds of the whole wages are spent In experimental work and the work about the grounds and the arboretum and that kind of thing. There is an account kept at the farm of the labour on each branch, and although it would be a considerable task to work it up, I could obtain from the book-keeper a statement showing how much labour is charged against each individual piece of work. Page D-37 of the Auditor General's Report, contains a summary of this kind of work. At the bottom of the page the hon. gentleman will find a division on a certain scale of the different expenditures. This is not all wages.


Edward Cochrane: Salaries of officials cover $23,296.29.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not wages at all. Just below that are the farm wages $21,000.



But if the hon. gentleman will look at the bottom of the page he will see a division of this expenditure under different headings. The different departments have some expenses besides labour.


Edward Cochrane: I would like the hon. gentleman to explain the difference between ' farm work ' and ' care of stock. '


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman can put them together if he chooses. Farm work is one thing, but care of cattle includes a good deai of experimental work. When a man feeds cattle for experimental purposes, he must take a great deal more time than where cattle are fed merely with a view to profit. In the experimental work the feeding requires careful measuring, weighing and accounting, and all this means labour and expense.


Edward Cochrane: If my information is correct, the hon. gentleman's experiment in fattening stock resulted in greater expense than we get for the beef in the section I represent. If that is the case, the experiment is useless.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know what report the hon. gentleman refers to, but, as a rule the experiments in feeding at the farm have been profitable-that is they show that the farmer who carried on feeding in that way would make a profit.


Edward Cochrane: Yes, that is very well, being in a city like Ottawa. But if that were carried on in my section, it might not pay.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, we cannot work the farm at Ottawa as if it were in Northumberland.


Edward Cochrane: But if its experiments are such that farmers in the country cannot carry them out, they are in reality a failure. He may make a success of feeding when he sells the beef at 75 cents to $1 pet-hundred more than we can get. But if we fed on that basis, we would be losing money.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) forgets another thing-that when the experiments are being carried on, different systems of feeding are tried one against the other. While all may show a profit, one will show more profit than others. Even where loss occurs, the information so gained is valuable to the farmer, because he needs to be warned against mistakes as well as advised what he should do. It is of the very nature of experiment that some things should fail.


Edward Cochrane: How long does it take a scientific gentleman to arrive at a conclusion. The Minister of Agriculture, with his scientists about him has been experimenting for seven or eight /ears. How long a time is required ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That depends on how much knowledge is required. If a man is Mr. FISHER.
contented with a little he can arrive at it very soon, but if he desires a great deal of knowledge it will take much more time to acquire it.


Edward Cochrane: That is about as much satisfaction as we generally get. The minister takes a long time to explain, and when he reaches his conclusion, we are in just as satisfactory a position as we were before he commenced. Does he tell me and the farmers pf this country that it requires eight or nine years to come to the conclusion what is the best way of feeding an animal so that he may give us practical advice as to the way in which beef can be most cheaply produced ? .1 think it is worse than a humbug to talk to the farmers in that way, to tell us that it will take us long to get the information we want as the information we want is great. I am here to say that, at the end of eight or nine years scientific men should have been able to reach a conclusion as to the cheapest way to feed an animal.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand the scientific feeders of stock at the farm do not feed the same as my hon. friend from East Northumberland does.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know how that hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) feeds.


Edward Cochrane: I feed to make a little money.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman makes money, I congratulate him.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand the hon. minister to say that in the experimental feeding of stock different quantities are fed to different animals in the same group, whereas in the ordinary commercial feeding all would be fed the same. Of what advantage is this scientific feeding to the practical farmer ?	*


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was speaking of the difference in cost of the different methods of feeding. Even under ordinary conditions, a man, who is what we call a good feeder will recognize the difference of individuality in the animals, and he will give each the quantity of feed of which it can make the best use. We try experiments not with one animal, but with a group of animals.


An hon. MEMBER.: The same herd.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The same herd. But we attempt to get groups of animals' which will as much as possible correspond with one another. Take, say, a dozen steers here and another dozen as nearly as possible like them in another group. We feed one group in one way all winter, or a certain number of months, and another group in another way for the same number of months, and note what the results are. I think the farmers will recognize that there is a good deal of individuality in each animal, and if we were to experiment with a single animal

the result would be of little value. We have to take large groups of animals in order to make a fait test. Sometimes we have even to duplicate the experiment before we are in a position to give forth 'a statement which the farmers may depend upon. In that respect I wish to compliment Prof. Saunders because he has been exceptionally careful, in sending out reports, to send only those upon which the farmers may rely and may base their work. I think the reputation of the experimental farms on this continent and wherever their reports reach, has been largely due to the fact that the work has been done with great care, and no hasty conclusions have been jumped at. If to-day the reports of the experimental farms are received as authoritative, it is due to the extreme care and accuracy with which experiments have been conducted. 1 do not think my hon. friend realizes the amount of extra work, of extra labour, of extra time and extra money which must be put upon these experiments to give them that character.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman says he arrives at an average by experimenting with different groups of animals. We had one of the employees before the Agricultural Committee who told us that they fed one animal in one way, and another animal of the same herd and in the same stable in another way ; they were not grouped together in the way the minister describes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are different classes of experiments. The experiment he alluded to was feeding dairy cows, not herds. If the feeder was feeding a group of shorthorns he fed each individual in that group to the best advantage in order to show what that group could do, each of them was dealt with to the best advantage. Another group of cows was also dealt with, each to the best advantage. The experiment I referred to was where a group, say, of ten or a dozen steers were taken and fed in a certain way to see how much gain they would make in a certain period ; and another group were fed in a little different way. For instance, we have been making experiments between one group of steers loose and another group of steers tied up. but feeding them in exactly the same way in order to see which group would make the most gain. It is evident that it would be more economical for the ordinary farmer to feed his steers loose than to feed them tied up. if they made equally as much gain. We have had varying results. The first year the result of that experiment was a little different from the result of the second years experiment. Although we have now been going on for three years, we may have to go on three years more before we can arrive at such a conclusion as can be relied upon. Those that are tied are tied 1584
with a chain around the neck, and the chain is attached to an iron rod. I think the first seasons' work was in favour of the group that was tied up, and the next seasons' work was in favour of those that were loose. It is of great benefit to the farmers to be able to get such experiments made for them. In issuing these bulletins of the reports, we try to give as many details as we can without encumbering the statements.


Mr. ALCORN.: The minister has spoken of experiments in feeding different herds of cattle, but these experiments must necessarily be made upon a large scale with a considerable number of animals. Does he think that the whole experiment is of general benefit to the ordinary farmer in the community ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. The ordinary farmdr does not need to do all these things for himself. After he has obtained the results from the experimental farm he can say : Such and such a method of feeding animals has been tried and proved to be the best. I will adopt that method.


George Oscar Alcorn: Can he in reality practically follow the method prescribed in the bulletins ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, there is nothing, to hinder any farmer who keeps stock from feeding his animals in the same way as they are treated in the experimental farm.


George Oscar Alcorn: Will the hon. minister say it is practicable for every farmer in the country to pursue the methods prescribed in these bulletins to his own pecuniary profit ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, there is no doubt whatever that if he would take the reports and bulletins as issued and use a little common sense in applying what he finds there to his own conditions and circumstances, he would be immensely benefited. As a matter of fact we know that a very large number of farmers do find that they are benefited because we get countless letters from farmers, some of them asking questions, but explaining that they have been very much interested in what they have read, that they have applied the methods and that they have derived great benefit from them.	[DOT]


Edward Cochrane: If the farmers have been so much benefited by the information received from your bulletins why are you, going on with the experiments still ? The question is how long you are going to continue these experiments to arrive at a conclusion.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will have to continue these experiments as long as the world goes on and agriculture lasts. There are constantly arising new problems to be dealt with in this country and to stop

where we are would simply be stopping after we had progressed only a small distance upon the road to the attainment of knowledge.


Edward Cochrane: That is hifalutin.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is not hifalutin. It is a simple fact and I am glad to know that we realize that in the agriculture of this continent there are problems which have to be solved.


Edward Cochrane: We know all that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then the hon. gentleman knows it all.


Edward Cochrane: No.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman does he is in a hopeless condition.
Mr. (JoCHRANB. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I made no such statement. It is just such gentlemen as he that are in that deplorable condition that they know it all. There was a member of this House, Mr. McMillan, who satisfied himself years ago in reference to the feeding of animals tied up or loose in the stalls and that gentleman was one of the most practical men I ever met with here.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He was.


Edward Cochrane: And he settled the question that the hon. gentleman is trying to experiment with.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some hon. gentleman seemed to think it remarkable that I should ask the hon. minister how cattle should be tied. Of course they are not practical farmers and they do not understand it. Do I understand the hon. minister to approve any particular method of tying cattle in the stables ? Take milch cows.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman asks me as a farmer what I would do, I would be glad to give him my opinion, but I would not like to give it authoritatively as Minister of Agriculture.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the gentleman I am asking.	-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Minister of Agriculture ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are a great many methods of tying up cattle, some of which may be found more convenient in one barn than in another. There are certain things which are required to be, considered in tying up cattle and if the results desired are obtained by tying them by one method in one barn they may not be obtained by tying them by that method in another barn. As a matter of fact I am reconstructing my own stables on my farm, and while there is one method of tying up animals which I think the best, it is not convenient Mr. FISHER.
to put it in my stables and therefore I have to adopt the; second best method. But that is a matter of private information that does not apply to the general subject.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The hon. minister has taken several minutes to tel! us how pattle should be tied up. I would like if he would devote one minute to answering the question of my hon. friend and say which is the best method.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot answer that in one word, because undep one set of circumstances one method may be better than another method under a different set of circumstances.	.
Mr.'INGRAM. Would the hon. gentleman recommend for milch cows the method known as stanchion tying ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have put swing stanchions in my own barn.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is where the head of the cow is placed between two posts and the cow can work 'its head up and dowry, but not sideways.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said swing stanchions and not fixed posts. These stanchions are madq of two uprights with cross-pieces at the top and bottom. The top is fastened with a little chain with a bar at the top and bottom and a chain below. The result is that the stanchion plays fast and loose and the animal can put its head wherever it likes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Supposing that at night the milch cow is asleep


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am getting down to practical farming. The hon. gentleman used the term of swing stanchion. When the much cow is sleeping, can she sleep as nature intended when a stanchion such as he has described is used ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister tell us really how nature intended the cow to sleep ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman had watched milch cows sleeping as often as 1 have, he would know without any difficulty.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am bound to say that there are a good many who do not know.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have seen them often. They sleep just the same as human beings. Some sleep in one position and some in another.


Andrew B. Ingram: That may be very satisfactory for the minister, but for practical farmers it is very unsatisfactory. I suppose

we will admit that to have milch cows produce the best possible results, you must, in the matter of rest, adopt such a method as will allow them as nearly as possible to conform to the conditions of nature. If the animals are compelled to occupy positions which are unnatural they will hot produce such good results. This is a serious matter as regards milch cows. It is a very serious matter, and I want to point out to those hon. .gentlemen who think they are farmers, but who are not practical farmers, that by reason of the use of vertical stanchions, which do not allow the milch cow to sleep or rest as nature intended, the cow does not produce the same as she would if she were left to rest as nature intended. I was expecting to hear from the hon. minister that in the matter of these upright stanchions he would not, as Minister of Agriculture, recommend such a mode of tying milch cows. I have listened to some very able lectures, and I confess that the ablest lecture on milch cows I ever listened to was by a lady, who advanced the theory that you should apply the same rule to dumb animals that you apply to human beings, and treat them with the same kindness. That lady came from Wisconsin, and she knew more about dairying than any half dozen of the so-called professors I hear going around the country.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: According to the Auditor General's Report, Page D-36, you have expended $59,287.60, less proceeds of sale of 61 steers, amounting to $4,082, leaving a balance of $55,205.60. Does that show a loss of that amount on your operations ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; we buy steers and fatten them for experiment and sell them again. The purchase price goes against the expenditure, and the selling price goes in as an off set to the general expenses of the farm. The money from the sale of crops, fruit, &c., goes into the consolidated revenue account. In round numbers, there are generally sales of $5,000 or $6,000 from the Central Experimental Farm of various products, which do not appear in this account. The suggestion that this is a balance against tire farm is not correct, but even if it were we do not pretend that the sales from the farm cover the expenditure. The expenditure is for the purpose of carrying on experiments, and not for raising crops or fattening animals to sell. Some of these steers were fattened for experiments by various methods and sold in the spring, whereas, if we tried to make money out of them as an ordinary farmer would, fatten them off toy what we considered the best method and probably make more profit.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Well, that is the loss, including the cost of experiment ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; there is included in that $55,000 the salary of the director, of the scientific staff, the work of distribution of bulletins, the distribution of seed, the care of the arboretum, the care of the grounds and buildings, and all that kind of thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One would expect that there would be some return from the poultry business, for instance. Poultry can only be raised for two purposes-for sale as food or for the eggs the hens lay. For last year we have a cost of $1,588 for, poultry and a return of $322. The farmer who would not be able to make a better showing would soon reach the poor-house.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The expense of the poultry division includes the salary of Mr. Gilbert who attends to the poultry, and who spends a great deal of his time travelling about the country and addressing public meetings on poultry matters. It also in-eludes the cost of experimental work, such as the comparing of different breeds and ascertaining the results.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The keeping of fowls is not like the care of an experimental plot from which very little return would be expected. One would suppose that the poultry would be kept in such a way as to show what kind of a return a farmer would have from the work.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Is the arboretum a new idea started lately?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it was started very soon after the beginning of the farm.


George Taylor: Can the hon. minister give me the total expenditure in connection with the Central Experimental Farm for the year 1902-3 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are certain expenses which apply to all the farms. At the end of the farm report of last year will be found a statement of expenditure on Dominion experimental farms for the year. It shows a total expenditure on the Central Experimental Farm of $44,104.36, against which is to be set the proceeds from the sa^e of steers amounting to $4,082, leaving a total expenditure of $40,022.36. This, however, does not include the whole of the salaries of the officials, which are apportioned to the different farms in what is considered by the director and the accountant to be a fair and proper proportion ; and the Auditor General has sanctioned and endorsed that division.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The total expenditure is stated in the Auditor General's Report to be $55,205.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In that ease the total salaries of the officers are charged to the Central Farm ; but though they reside here, a. good deal of their correspondence and distribution and other work is divided among the different farms.


George Taylor: Am I to understand from the hon. gentleman that the statement which he has just read from his report is a correct statement of the total expenditure in connection with the farm for the year 1902-3 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the statement my official gives, and I suppose it is correct. It has been audited by the Auditor General.


George Taylor: I will give the hon. gentleman a statement from the Auditor General's Report, and I wiy ask him and his officers to contradict it if they can. At page D-36 the total expenditure charged to the Central Experimental Farm for the year 1902-3 is $59,287.60, and that is only a portion of the expenditure. At V-94 there is another expenditure charged of $9,996.92, made by the Public Works Department and charged to the experimental farm; making a total expenditure in connection with the experimental farm of $69,284.52 last year. Is that correct ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: ' What the hon. gentleman says is taken from the Auditor General's Report is correct so far as it goes ; but I have given the hon. gentleman a statement in regard to the division of certain work among the different farms.


George Taylor: That is taken into' account by the Auditor General in these amounts.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed by the director that that is not the case.


George Taylor: The total expenditure is. as I have stated, and from that the proceeds from the sale of the steers, amounting to $4,082, is to be deducted. I want the hon. gentleman to verify or contradict that if he can.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can only say to the hon. gentleman that I am assured by the director that the total expenditure there given includes the total salary of the director, the total salaries of all the officers of the experimental farm, and all the work done at the experimental farm for the various other farms. It also includes the cost of the purchase of steers amounting to $2,787.85. With regard to the item of the Public Works Department, that is totally different. There are constantly required repairs and additions to the farm, and for that purpose we have in the Public Works Estimates an item of $10,000 for repairs and maintenance of all the farms, not the Central Farm alone just in the same way as the Public Works Department maintains the buildings and all the public buildings of the country.


George Taylor: If my hon. friend were a practical .farmer, as he pretends to be, and purchased supplies and kept accounts, he would keep an account of everything in connection with his farm.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend claims to be a practical farmer, but he has not given us any evidence of it. A practical farmer, when he *purchases supplies, would keep an account of every item and charge that item against the proper department. Bht to find out what this thing is costing the country, we have to look not only at the experimental farm accounts but at the public works accounts. The total cost of the farm last year, according to the Auditor General's Report was :
D-26	159,287.60
V-94	 9,996.92

Less revenue, sales of stores
D-36	$ 4,052.60
Other services, D-125..	..	2,974.,00

 7,056.00
.	$62,228.52
Showing a net loss to the country on the running of this farm of $62,228, without making any charge for interest on the investment. What farmer could run his business at that rate and keep it going ? My hon. friend charges up the loss against experimental work, but I would refer him to the record of his predecessors, and he will see by the Auditor General's Reports that this same work was done as well, if not better, in every department by his predecessor and at much less cost to the country. Let me compare the expenses under the Grit administration and the Tory government. In 1895-6 according to the Auditor General's Report, the expenditure was : B-7, $34,205.87 ; Q-70, $5,999.44, making a total expenditure under the late administration in 1895-6 of $40,205.31. From this deduct the revenue $3,784.74 and you have a loss of $36,420.57. That loss has been increased by $30,000 under the hon. gentleman. Let us go into this question further so that our farmers may know what this practical farmer is costing them. I shall take the Auditor General's Report for 1895-6, under the heads of departments which then existed and which are continued to-day, and not including the great number of new departments which the hon. gentleman has established :
	1895-6.	1902-3.
Salaries in general	$3,434 43	$5,974.46Farm work	3,929 99	5,073 23Care of stock 	1,738 45	3,087 45Dairying department ..	323 36	611 02Horticultural department.	2,163 57	4,896 37Chemical department.. .. Botanical and entomo-	191 74	4,332 62logical	275 75	3,755 06Poultry department .. ..	416 91	
And Mr. Gilbert was running that department then as he is to-day.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Gilbert's salary is not charged up there.


George Taylor: A proportion of it is. Mr. Gilbert's salary and Mr. Saunders' and all

the salaries were combined and a portion charged to each of the farms then established at Nappan, Indian Head and elsewhere.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not in the figures which the hon. gentleman is reading.


George Taylor: Yes, the hon. gentleman can verify it for himself by the Auditor General's Report. Mr. Gilbert's salary is now charged to the Central Farm, but then it was divided as was Prof. Saunders'.
1895-6-	1902-3.
Poultry department .. .. $ 416 91	$1,588 93
Forestry department ..	1,502 82	1,302 51
The hon. gentleman has not increased the forestry department although he has increased the arboretum very largely. I find the office expenses in 1895-6 were $1,760, but under the hon. gentleman's administration they have increased to $4,395.06. The hon. gentleman has stuffed the place full of political hangers-on from cellar to garret, which accounts for this large increase in expenditure, and all these men are not doing more work than the others did.
1895-6.
Drainage	
225	50Drawing manure	
299	05Distribution of seed	grain	781	80Seed testing and greenhouse	
*.	775	50Preparing exhibits	.. ..	212	60Arboretum	
341	88Distribution of bulletins.	525	50Fencing	
176	13
1902-3. $1,546 72 213 56 1,613 67
1,089 19 388 81 1,730 24 75 00
East year the hon. gentleman did not purchase any unless it went through the Public Works Department.
hon. gentleman and his professor who is sitting beside him-who can say that there is more efficient work done to-day on that farm than there was previous to these gentlemen taking office. They are spending a lot on travelling expenses and fads, such as we were given an example of in the cheese curing station at Brockville. Here is a loss to the country of $62,228 on this experimental . farm. My hon. friend beside me gave an illustration of the way things are done when he showed that $1,500 was spent on chickens which gave only a revenue of $300. But that is a small affair compared with what the hon. gentleman is doing all over the country. I would like to explain how it comes that he has increased the expenditure in connection with the experimental farm at Ottawa from $49,000 to $69,000. What is he doing for the $30,000 increased expenditure that he has put upon
the farm ?
* -


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not looked at the Auditor General's Report of the several (items the hon, gentleman (Mr, Taylor) read. I can only say that, on the face of them. they show that the items are not compared on the same basis. For instance, the hon. gentleman quotes one' item for something like $4,000 or $5,000 for salaries, and puts that against another item of $59,000 and says they are on the same basis. It is evident that these two figures do not represent the same service. Why, Professor Saunders has had a salary of not less than $4,000 a year ever since he became connected with the Experimental Farm, and we have always had nearly the same staff of officials as now.
1895-6.
Contingencies	$3 875 00
Apiary, a new account	
Roadmaking, new account	
Experimental department,
new account	
Drawing gravel	
Nothing was charged in 1895-6 for the experimental department, but the hon. gentleman has expended $2,655. The total of these items in 1902-3 taken from the Auditor General's Report,-and there are travelling expenses and other items amounting to $11,000 which I have not taken into account-amounts to $44,478.28 as against $19,173.25 under Conservative rule. Adding the $11,000 to this* makes a total of $55,000 against the $19,000 under the Conservative administration. I remember the late member for Huron keeping us here until daylight, dilating on the extravagance and iniquities in connection with running the experimental farm by the late government, when that farm was run at $30,000 less than it costs to-day. To-day we have a net loss to the country on the running of this farm as I have shown, of $66,000 as compared with $36,000 under the late government, and there is not a man in .the House-not even the


George Taylor: I said that at that time the salaries of the heads of this service were distributed over the different farms, so that a proportion of Professor Saunders' salary would be charged at Nappan, a portion at Indian Head and so on. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) tell me what the salaries of all the officials on the farm at Ottawa were last year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The amount was $23,296.


George Taylor: I gave $5,974, and that is all that is charged in the Auditor General's Report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But he gives the total at $59,000 and that includes the whole $23,000 of salaries.


George Taylor: I gave the hon. gentleman the total of over $59,000, quoting the Auditor General's Report, and there he will find the items which makes up this total sum. The hon. gentlemas (Mr. Fisher) has the Auditor General's Report before him. Let him contradict one single statement of mine, if be can.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The items the hon. gentleman refers to do not make up the total of
1902-3.
32 00 12 81
2,655 07 104 00

$59,000. The total given at page D-38 is $44,478.28.


George Taylor: Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) had better let this item stand until he can come down prepared to give the committee and the country a statement showing the total expenditure on this Experimental Farm at Ottawa, and the revenue, so that we may know what it costs. The hon. gentleman contradicts the Auditor General's Report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not at all, I am quoting from the Auditor General's Report.


George Taylor: If he is ready to accept the Auditor General's Report, then he must take the figures I have given, because they are from that report. If he is not satisfied, let him bring down a statement showing the expenditure and revenue with regard to this farm.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the minister (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) are both right. On page
D-29, we fijid the amount for salaries $5,974.96. Where is the misunderstanding ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There must be some difference in the way the salaries are divided. I do not know exactly what the difference is. The director informs me, in regard to salaries that, as the details are given, the director's salary and the accountant's salary are divided among all the farms. But the salary of each official is put in that official's department. For instance, Professor Fletcher's salary is put in with the entomological and botanical division. There can be no doubt that, as my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) says, there is a difference in the way these two items are made up. The hon. member for South Leeds has given one statement from the Auditor General's Report, while I was looking at another in the same book.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where the explanation is, I am bound to say, I do not know.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know the difference. They are both in the Auditor General's Report, and both correct, I suppose.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When the hon. gentleman brings us the information with regard to this matter, I would also like him to bring us some explanation with refer ence to this bee trouble. I find that over $140 was paid in wages to look after these bees, and the bees are dead.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The bees the hon. gentleman speaks of were in Nova Scotia, the bees at the experimental farm are not dead.


Andrew B. Ingram: What amount oif poultry have you ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are about 200 birds and 400 or 500 chickens this spring.


George Taylor: To satisfy the minister that I was right. I may say that I have in my hand the Auditor General's Report for 1895-6 giving the salaries at the experimental farm, on page A-10. Prof. Saunders' salary is $4,000, the accountant's $900, the stenographer's $920, assistant accountant's $468, making a total of $5,888. Then on page B-9, 1896-7, the total expenditure at the Central Experimental Farm is given as $40,294. About the same figure as I gave for the previous year, $40,205, when our friends were in power.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The salaries at the experimental farm are given at $17,766. I find just below that the whole of Mr. Shutt's salary was charged to the chemical department.	.
Mr.	TAYLOR.	I gave	in my statement
the items for the chemical department.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall have to examine this, I will look into it.
Mr.	TAYLOR.	I	see	by the AuditorGeneral's Report	that	the	total expenditure
is $69,000, less receipts of $7,000, showing a loss of $62,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We had better leave the item until we get this information, because there are many other questions we would like to discuss.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The statement in the report is in just the same form as it has been for years back. The Auditor General himself goes over that with the accountant of the farm and endorses it according to the accountant's statement. It is just as much endorsed by the Auditor General as are the details in his own report. I am not acquainted with the exact methods by which it is made up. I could not get the details without the assistance of the accountant and his books, and I do not think any member would have the patience to go through them. Still, if the hon. gentleman insists upon it I will get it.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman admits himself that his statement and the figures that appear in the Auditor General's Report do not agree.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I find onlpage D-36 and 37 that the statement in the Additor General's Report is exactly the same as I gave, only it is divided in a different manner. In the experimental farm report the statement is divided into certain lines, and in the Auditor General's Report it is divided in a little different way, but the total is almost exactly the same, namely, $44,478, while in the farm report the total is $44,104, a difference of only $374.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will look at the Auditor General's Report he

will find that $24,000 is exclusively for the wages of the staff. It includes that and nothing else.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the Auditor General's Report, at D-37 ?


George Taylor: D-36 and 37. It says : Professor Saunders, $4,000, and it proceeds to give the names of other officials, whose salaries total, in round numbers, $24,000. Then, if you add to that the wages of the farm labourers, you get $44,000. The result is that the hon. minister is paying $44,000 in salaries and wages of officers and labourers, and he has a return of $3,000, to say nothing about the steers. The hon. gen. tleman does not say in his report that the working of the farm alone cost $44,000 He gives-it as the total expenditure, whereas the Auditor General's Report shows that he has paid $44,000 for wages alone when be has only a return of $3,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The accounts in the Auditor General's Report at pages 36 and 37, to which the hon. gentleman alludes, refer to the salaries of the general staff.


George Taylor: Certainly.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, the farm report, to which my hon. friend aUudes, at page 429 only includes the proportion of the salaries that is charged by the Auditor General to the central farm. That does not include the whole of the salaries. It is the same all through, and it applies, not only to Professor Saunders, but to the other men who are engaged in the work of the farm.


George Taylor: Why did not the hon. gentleman tell the farmers of this country that it cost $69,000 for the making of these experiments and the running of this farm V He tells them that he spent $44,000, while the Auditor General's Report shows that he spent $69,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Auditor General says that I spent $69,000, but that, in the first place, includes the public works expenditure on the farm, which is not included in the farm report ; and, in the second place, it includes the whole of the salaries of the general staff, which are not fairly chargeable to the central farm alone. The report goes on to give the expenditures at Nappan, Brandon, Indian Head and the other experimental farms, which are not charged to the central farm, but which are charged to these other farms. The aggregate of the whole farm system comes to the same amount in one case as in the other, but in one case it is divided in a certain way and in the other case it is divided in another way.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the salaries of the gen era! staff were not included in the year 1895-6 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were included in just the same way.
Mr. ARMSTRONG!. Proportionately as they are now ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the farm report they were put proportionately, just as they are in the farm report now. In the Auditor General's Report they were included, just in the same way as they are in the present report.


George Taylor: Then this comparison must be fair.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The comparison is fair if the same class- of division is taken, but the hon. member for South Leeds has taken one division in one year and another division in another year.	*


George Taylor: But my hon. friend must see that by the Auditor General's Report, pages 36 and 37, there is an expenditure of $44,000 absolutely chargeable to the Experimental Farm at Ottawa, not one dollar of which is chargeable to the other farms. If the hon. gentleman will turn to page D-35 he will see that there is an expenditure for contingencies of $128. That is not included in this $44,000. Then there is feed for stock, $930, which is not included in the $44,000. But, if you include all these items, it gives you $59,000 ; and if you add $9,000, . chargeable to public works, you get a total expenditure of $09,000. Why does the hon. gentleman not show these figures in the report that he gives to the farmers of this country 7


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That report includes the whole of the salaries of the officers. It includes the salary of Professor Saunders at $4,000, for instance, which is not divided at all.


George Taylor: Why should it be ? He is giving all his time to the farm here now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; Professor Saunders' work applies just as much to the affairs of the branch farms as to the Central Experimental Farm. The work of all these other gentlemen applies as much to the one as to the other. ' There is a system of making two divisions of the expenditure. One is shown by the Auditor General at pages 36-37 D of his report, and the other is shown by the farm report, in which the expenditure is divided up according to the farms. In the Auditor General's Report it is not divided according to the farms.
Mr. TAYLOR, Why should it be ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The sum total is the same in the two. In one case the salaries of the principal officers are proportionately divided between the different farms and in the other case they are not.


George Taylor: It should be so stated that the farmers can understand it.
1 Mr. FISHER. I think they understand it.


George Taylor: Not from the hon. gentleman's report. We have all the details of this $44,000 of expenditure, and it is all in connection with the experimental farm here. I am going to give the items which go to make up the $44,000, which, added to the $11,000 and the $9,000, make a total of $69,000. We have at page I)-36 of the Auditor General's Report the following list:
Salaried Officials ($23,296.29).
Saunders, Wm., director of farms, 12 m.
to June 30, 1903	;	$4,000 00
Bret.teli, C. T., herdsman, 12 m. to June
30. 1903, at $50	 600 00
Charlton, H.. W., clerk, 12 m. to June 30,
1903, at $75	 900 00
Charron, A. T., assistant chemist, 12 m.
to June 30, 1903	 1,000 00
Cramp, T. M., assistant accountant, 12
m. to June 30, 1903	 758 31
Ellis, W. T.: head gardener, 12 m. to June 30, 1903, at $45 ; taking weather
observations, 12 m. at $6	 612 00
Fixter, John, foreman of farm work, 12
m. to June 30, 1903	, .. .. 1,100 00
Fletcher, James, botanist and entomologist, 12 m. to June 30, 1903	 2,050 00
Gibson, A., assistant botanist, 12 m. to
June 30, 1903	 700 00
Gilbert, A. G., manager poultry department, 12 m. to June 30, 1903	 1,000 00
Grisdale, J. H., agriculturist, 12 m. to
June 30, 1903, at $125	 1,500 00
Guignard, J. A., clerk, 12 m. to June 30,
1903, at $75	 900 00
Hager, Margaret M., clerk, March 10 to
June 30, 1903, at $40	 149 00
Hay, W. H., accountant, 5 m. to November 30, 1903	 416 65
Holz, Herman, foreman horticultural department, 12 m. to June 30, 1903.. ..	540 00
Macoun, W. T., horticulturist, 12 m. to
June	30,	1903	 1,400	00
McMurray, A., clerk, 9 m. to March 31,
1903, at $75 ; less 22 d. in Sept., 20 d.
in March at $75	 570 00
O'Hanley, M. C., stenographer, 12 m. to
June	30,	1903	 800	00
Pelletier, Euggne, clerk, 12 m. to June
30, 1903, at $75	 900 00
Saunders, C. E., experimentalist, 6 m. to
June	30,	1903	 600	00
Shutt, F. T., chemist, 12 m. to June 30,
1903	
2,000	00Watson, J. F., stenographer, 12 m. to June	30, 1903	
800	00
Then we have a page and a half of the names of farm labourers, whose wages.
added to those of the officials I have just read, made a total of $44,000. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman how he Is going to show the people of this country by his report what the actual expenditure has been, in view of the statement which appears in the Auditor General' Report ? I could give a list of the farm labourers if I wished to detain the House. Their wages, added to the salaries of the officers whose names I have read, make a total of $44,000. The Auditor General's Report shows that the expenditure added to this amounts to $69,000, which, if Mr. FISHER.
it is reduced by $7,000, gives a total loss of $62,000. If the hon. gentleman can explain this statement in any way, let him do so before he asks this House to adopt this item, and let him show what this farm is costing the people under his management. I say that last year it ran in debt $62,000 without charging one cent of interest on the investment ; and if the minister can contradict! that, I want him to do so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Auditor General's accounts are there, and can be dealt with on their merits. If the hon. gentleman wishes to put that construction on the accounts, I suppose I will have to let him.


George Taylor: Then the hon. gentleman must admit that he has made .a loss of $62,000 on the farm. He says he spent $44,000 and the Auditor Genera*! says $62,000, and the minister has plenty of clerks and stenographers at his disposal to find out where the mistake is.	[DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These figures have been submitted to the Auditor General and declared to be correct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Auditor General is not responsible for the kind of book-keeping the Minister of Agriculture adopts. The Auditor General can only ascertain if the money was properly paid out under the various heads for which it was voted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All the items are submitted to him and classified, and he certifies them as correct.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then the statement of the member for Leeds is correct.
Mi-. FISHER. He can draw his own conclusions from the figures.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the statement made by the hon. member for Leeds is incorrect, it is the duty of the minister to tell us in what respect it is incorrect.


Mr. AVERY.: I think it would satisfy both sides of the House if the minister would 4et the item stand until he brings down that statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I really don't know what kind of statement I can bring down. I suppose I could bring the whole books of the farm here and lay them on the table.


Melzar Avery: We do not want all the books; we just want a detailed statement from the books.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The detailed statement appears in the report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do they not agree then ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because as I have tried to explain over and over again, so far as I can see, the only difference is that one

gives the salaries of the officials divided between the different farms and the other does not so divide them.
bution of seed grain, trees, &c, is the amount'there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 

How much


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Auditor General's duty is to examine the. accounts to ascertain if the payments made are according to law. But it is not his duty to compile the expenditures under the different headings, so as to show the House and the country the full expenditure in connection with the farm. That is information which should he given by the minister and which the people should know so as -to enable them to judge whether we are getting a fair return for our expenditure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand that the alleged discrepancy is between the statement in the farm report, and certain portions of the Auditor General's Report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is one discrepancy, but there may be others which we have not ferreted out.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite sure that I am willing to give any explanation it is in my power to give.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What the House wants is the expenditure in the various lines connected with the central farm, and the returns which we receive in the shape of revenue.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The revenue, except for the steers does not appear in the farm report, because that goes into consolidated revenue, but it appears in the Auditor General's Report. In the statement at the end of the farm report the salaries of the officials are charged up partly to the central farm and partly to the branch farms. If you look at the end of the volume you will find the entry : salary of superintendent, including portion of salaries for work done at Ottawa. That is charged to each of these different farms. If that is totalled up, it will be found to come to the amount charged in the Auditor General's Report for the salaries of the whole experimental farm system, only in the Auditor General's Report they are put down to the central farm, because these officers live in Ottawa, and their salaries are paid here, though work extends over the whole five farms, in the farm report they are divided and apportioned, but the details of their salaries are just the same in the two reports.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will turn to his own report, he will find at page 429 the item :	' Distribution of trees
and tree seeds, including $85.58, value of tree seeds supplied by Brandon and Indian Head farms, $157. ' Now, if he turns to the Auditor General's Report at page D-32, he will find the expense in connection with the Central Experimental Farm for the distri-


George Taylor: And the hon. gentleman says in his report that he spends $157 for it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a totally different thing. At page 432 of the farm report, under the summary of expenditure, is this item : ' Distribution of seed grain, potatoes, &c., from Central Experimental Farm, including value of grain supplied from Brandon and Indian Head experimental farms, $5,871. ' That work is not done as a portion of the central farm work. It is done for the whole Dominion of Canada. If the hon. gentleman \^ill look carefully at the item of $157, he will find that it is for the distribution of trees and tree seeds, and does not include the distribution of ' seed grain, potatoes, &c., ' mentioned in the other item.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If I understand the question before the House, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) wishes to find the difference in the expense of running the farm in the year 1895, and in the year 1903. The Minister of Agriculture does not seem to he able to give it. Would it not be advisable for him to examine into that, and give a fair statement to the House ? I am sure the people of the country are anxious to have it. The Minister of Agriculture also made the statement that he thought the expenditure on the stock part of the farm would amount to about one-third of the whole ; that would be over $18,000. Since then 'the hon minister has stated that he did not think it would cost nearly that much. Would it not be an advantage for the members of the House and the people at large to know exactly what that stock farm did cost-how much the minister spent on it, and how much was returned from it. I think it would be advisable for the hon. minister to have a statement brought down to the House in regard to these matters.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A comparison between the expenditure of the year 1895-6 and that for the past year can easily be obtained by examining the statements which are put at the end of the reports for both years in the same way. With regard to the expenditure on the 200 acres of land, it is given in detail at page 78 of this year's report. It shows a total expenditure on live stock feeding operations of $10,438.94 and a total revenue of $12,684.20, leaving a balance of returns over expenditure of $2,245.26. There are statements of a similar character with regard to the production of crops on the farm, in respect to grain, hay, roots, corn, pasture, &c., giving all the details.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. minister stated that there was a balance of $2,000, as I understood him, after he had grown the grain and marketed it. He did not tal^e

into consideration tlie expense at all of growing the grain.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The grain is taken at its market value.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But you have not taken' into consideration anything about the work of the farm.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The market value of the grain covers all that. The market value is sufficient to cover the cost of raising, ' and the other portion of the'report shows that the market price, which is charged to the animals, is sufficient to leave a profit on the raising of the grain and hay.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Had you over $2,-<300 profit.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I say that taking into account the expense of caring for the stock, we have a profit of 82,200 on the operation of feeding. There is another statement showing what it costs to raise so many thousand bushels of oats, so many hundred tons of ensilage and so on, and I say that taking those things at the market price shows a profit on the feeding of the stock. We have a profit first on the raising of the things and second on the feeding of them to the stock. The report of the experimental farm shows that.


Edward Cochrane: Does it show the amount paid for labour ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, on each crop.


Edward Cochrane: I understand that you could not give me that information. ^


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not give it offhand, but it is in the report.


Mr. HALLIDAY.: According to the farm repoi\t, page 429, the steers purchased for feeding experiments cost $2,787 and the steers sold realized $4,082. Turn up the Auditor General's Report, D-36, and I find there were 52 steers charged up for feeding purposes, whereas the sales of the steers amount to 61. That statement is very misleading.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On that page there is a statement of 40 steers and then of 12 steers, making 52 in all. The sale was 61, but that must have comprised some steers which we had on the farm and did not have to purchase. We raised some, and I suppose the difference is made up by those we raised. We raise a number of calves every year, and when they get to the selling age, we sell them along with the other steers.


James Halliday: In the farm report the statement is misleading. You purchase so many at $2,787, and the proceeds of your sales were $4,082, making a profit of $1,297.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the farm report we i^ave been showing the value of the stock Mr. ARMSTRONG.
at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year. If we sold so many animals at the beginning of the year, it would make that difference, but there were other animals raised which came to take their places.


James Halliday: You have charged $3,080 for feeding the stock and in this report at page 78 there is not near that amount charged.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In that statement we had so many horses, cows and steers at the beginning of the year and so many at the end, and the difference of course is the difference of stock taking. The value of the animals at one date is balanced against their value the other date.


James Halliday: There is a discrepancy of $200 between the farm report and the report of the Auditor General.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can only account for that by supposing there was some stock on hand.


James Halliday: No, that was for feeding the stock. In the Auditor General's Report there is a charge of $3,087.45 for feeding the stock, page B-37.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the care of the stock.


James Halliday: They charge in this item $2,856 for taking care of the stock.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The only explanation I can give is that horses that are working on the 200 acres were charged in the statement of the stock and not the horses working on the arboretum and that kind of thing, whereas the item care of stock on- page D-37 includes these.


George Taylor: If I understand anything about book-keeping

and I think I do because I have been at it since I was eleven years old, and that is a good while ago now- the explanation of the minister is no explanation at all. The Auditor General's statement seems to be quite correct, whereas the report of the minister is very misleading. If the hon. minister will take his own report, page 429, he will see that the total expense of the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa is given at $44,104.36. If he will take page D-37, of the Auditor General's Report, he will find charged for salaries in the experimental farm alone $44,478.28. Why do not these figures agree ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have already told the hon. gentleman several times, but I will tell him again, that the Auditor General included the whole of the salaries of Prof. Saunders and other officers and that only a portion of these salaries are charged against the experimental farm in my report at page 429. In the farm report, the rest of these Salaries are charged in the succeeding

pages to the other farms. In the Auditor General's Report they are not. Therefore, they are not charged twice in either case.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will take up the Auditor General's Report and turn to the item beginning D-29, I think I can satisfy him that the total expenditure by the Auditor General's Report is the amount that I stated, not dividing the salaries. That amount is $59,287, and besides there is the amount spent by the Public Works Department to which I have referred. On page D-29 the first item is salaries general detailed (page D-37) $5,974.96. The next item is botanical and entomological department $3.787.56. In that charge there is an item for salaries and wages of $3,755.06. The next item is the chemical department, $4,706.86, in which there is an item for salaries and wages of $4,332.62. The next item is travelling expenses, $1,651.66. And I would ask the hon. gentleman to read the details of that item as given in the Auditor General's Report, and ask his officers what these items f|or ' sundries ' mean. For instance, Mr. Fixter charges for transportation $62.22, living expenses $35.25, and sundries $5.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These are all detailed in the accounts rendered by the Auditor GeneraJ and passed by him.


George Taylor: They are certified by the minister, I suppose, or by the accountant of his department, and the Auditor General has to pass them, no matter whether they represent tips to the waiters, or drinks at the bar, or anything else.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not the way the Auditor' General generally does. When) an expenditure is made of the exact nature of which he is not advised or does not approve he generally protests.


George Taylor: The next item is exhibi-ions, $692.98, which includes an item of wages detailed of $388.81. The next item is telegrams and telephones, $144.06. Then office help, &c., $4,543.71 which includes salaries and wages detailed of $4,395.06. Then comes printing and stationery, $826.68. Then newspapers and periodicals, $109.09. Then seeds, grain, trees, &c., $446.44. Horticultural department, $5,102.92 ; distribution of seed grain, trees, &c., $4,562.56 ; seed testing and care of greenhouses, $1,691.39 ; Arboretum, $1,892.06 ; forestry department and care of grounds, $1,335.81 ; live stock, $1,496.08 ; farm work, $5,082.35; draining, $1,958.06 ; implements, tools, hardware and supplies, $708.67; blacksmithing and harness supplies, $379.54 ; manure and fertilizers, $310.42 ; dairy department, $715.27; poultry department, $1,773.45 ; bee supplies $218.47 ; contingencies, $128.06 ; division of cereal breeding and experimental, $2,805.47; feed for stock, $930.44; museum, $2.50 ; care of stock. $3,087.45 ; roadmaking and drawing gravel, $116.81 ; steers for feeding experiments, $2,787.85. These items make a total of $59,287.60. Now, will the hon. gentleman tell me how the expenditure in connection with the farm, taking the items I have given as quoted from the Auditor General's Report and the salaries and wages included in which are summarized at page D-37 showing an amount of $44,478.28, agree with his statement. It is true the hon. minister figures the wages and salaries out pretty nearly, but still there is a discrepancy of about $400, because the amount he gives is $44,104,36 as against $44,478.28. Between his statement and that of the Auditor General there is $300 or $400 of a discrepancy. The Auditor General says here that the total expense in connection with this farm is $59,287, yet the hon. gentleman tells the farmers by this report that the experimental farm at Ottawa only costs $44,000. Now by' what sy'stem of book-keeping can the hon. gentleman contradict the statement of the Auditor General ? I have given every detail from his report, every expenditure ; let the hon. gentleman bring down a statement if he can that will contradict that. I say that the loss to this country last year was $62,228.52 as against a loss in the last year of the Conservative administration of $36,420.57, dealing with every item in the same way, when the work was done just as efficiently as the work is being done by the hon. gentleman to-day.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it is necessary to go over the figures again. The hon. gentleman has again deliberately included in the one statement the whole of the salaries of the officials, and applied it to the Central Experimental Farm in the statement of the Auditor General's Report. In the other statement the whole of these salaries are not charged to the central farm, only a portion of them. That is the whole difference, and I have explained it over and over again. I cannot bring down any statement other than is shown by these figures here. They are the figures of the Auditor General's Report in both cases.


George Taylor: Do they agree ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The sum total on page 37 is not the same total, the details are not the same, the items are not the same, but because the totals are nearly the same the hon. gentleman has jumped to the conclusion that they ought to be the same. The Auditor General will have to cook the accounts to make them the same. The one includes the whole salaries charged to the central farm ; the other includes only a portion of the salaries, but includes a lot of other things which, in the aggregate, nearly makes up the difference in salaries ; and because they nearly make up the difference the hon. gentleman jumps to the conclusion

that an attempt has been made to make them the same.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman says that the total of $44,478-28 contains different items than those that are contained at the foot of that page and on the head of the fallowing page.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I say they contain totally different items from those on page 429. In that case the $44,478 are for salaries and nothing else ; in the other case the total is $44,104.36, which contains a portion of the salaries which are fairly chargeable to the central farm, and also all the other expenses fairly chargeable to the central farm. Because the figures are so nearly the same the hon. gentleman jumps to the conclusion that they are actually the same, whereas they are totally different.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Even supposing the item with regard to the salaries of these officials is correct and is distributed as the minister states over the different farms in the country, that explanation would not apply to the item of wages. Even allowing' his statement to be correct that in his own report of the experimental farm, the item of salaries of officers is distributed in the proportion that ire thinks is just


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That the Auditor General thinks is just.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Whoever makes up the items-distributing that among the various experimental farms, still that explanation would not apply to the item of wages. Now, the item of wages, which the Auditor General. puts down to the central farm at Ottawa, amounts to $21,181.99 ; whereas the amount of wages that the hon. gentleman debits to the central farm amounts to only $9,900. Now, surely such a discrepancy as that merits more explanation than we have had. I cannot understand how the Auditor General debits the central farm with $21,000 in wages, while the minister only debits it with about $10,000.


Mr FISHER.: If the hon. gentlema will turn to page 429 of the experiments farms report he will find the followin charges :
Salaries of officers engaged in the 'general work otf the farms, proportion chargeable to the Central
Farm	51,792 49
Wages, farm work, including experimental work yvith grain and other farm crops : also salaries of officers
in charge	 6,840 54
Wages, care of stock	 3,087 45
Chemical division, proportion chargeable to the Central Farm	1,412 90
Botanical and entomological division, proportion chargeable to the Central
Farm	 1,442 56
Horticultural division, including salary
of officer in charge	 5,110 92 '


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Poultry division, including all supplies ;
also salary of officer in charge...$1,992 04
Forestry division and care of grounds.. 1,335 81
And so on. These are the divisions in eluding the wages spent in each. The $21,000 odd off wages shown in the Auditor General's Report includes the care of farm stock and the expenditure for wages in the horticultural division, the chemical division and so on as shown in the farm report. The items are divided up on a different plan and therefore it is almost impossible unless you have the details of the whole work to be able to compare them.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think the mode which the hon. gentleman has adopted in his report of explaining these expenditures to the country is one calculated to deceive the people. When you find in a detailed report such as this is supposed to be two items, one referring to wages for the caring of stock, and another to wages relating to the farm work, you naturally conclude that these are the only wages which are paid at the Central Experimental Farm. If these other items include wages it is only a reasonable request on the part of the members of this committee that the' amount spent in wages, whether in the care of stock, or farm work, or in the botanical and entomological division, should be credited to the word ' wages ' and then we could understand what was meant. It is absolutely impossible for any one to get a clear understanding of the cost of these various services from this report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman may be right in his judgment that this is not the proper form of these accounts, but'with the exception that they have been somewhat amplified in later years and more detailed, these accounts in the report have been practically the same ever since the farm reports have been issued. It may be an incorrect system, but it is the way in which these farm accounts have been made up for the report to show the expenditure of the farms ever since the inception of the farm system.


George Taylor: Would the hon. minister tell the committee what he pays to the superintendent of the farms at Brandon, Indian Head, Agassiz and Nappan ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $1,500 a year apiece.


George Taylor: Then the hon. gentleman tells us that the balance over and above the $44,000 of expenditure that he shows in his report at page 429 and which is chargeable to the other experimental farms, has been divided. If he will turn over the page in his report he will find the following charge:
Salary of superintendent, including proportion of salaries for general work, Ottawa, $2,545.62.
And the same for the farms at Brandon, Indian Head and Agassiz. Deducting $1,500

that leaves $1,000 that they have paid as their proportion of the wages paid by the experimental farm, which would amount to
,j*0. The Auditor General in his report at page D-36 states that the cost of these farms has been $59,227. Will the hon. minister explain to me where the difference has gone ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the details of that difference.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman said that the difference is made up in the wages that are charged to the other farms. He is misleading the people, because there is only $1,000 charged there.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would not make up the difference.


George Taylor: No, it does not make it up. The hon. gentleman should be able to give us a 'statement explaining that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try to give the information.


George Taylor: He has told the farmers that it only costs $44,000 when the amount is $69,000, according to the details which are given in the Auditor General's Report. My hon. friend says that he has charged that to the other farms, but when we take up his report in regard to the other farms he only charges $1,045 as their proportion of the expenses at Ottawa. So, there is a discrepancy of $20,000 to be accounted for. We must know where that has gone.
Mr. SPROUT,E. I think it would be better for the hon. minister to allow this item to stand and bring down a statement giving that information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will be quite ready to do so, and if hon. gentlemen opposite will say wnat they would like in the way of information I will try to get it. I do not wish to force the item through without full information. I am quite satisfied that the information is get-at-able and will prove perfectly satisfactory to the committee. It is the right of the House to have all the informatioh that hon gentlemen have asked for and I would be only too glad to bring it down. I know what my hon. friend from South Leeds wants, I know what my hon. friend from East Elgin has asked for, but if there is any other information that is desired I will be glad to bring it down. I take it for granted that hon. gentlemen do not wish to waste the time of the House, that they do not wish to obstruct. Of course I could not for a moment think that they would do that, because at this late date of the session I take it that they must be anxious to put the work through.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can assure the hon. gentleman we have no desire to obstruct the work. We only wish to get the information
so that it may be understandable and that it may be presented to the country in such a form that the country will understand it as well.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the hon. minister has shown a desire to furnish the committee with all the information that he can, but he evidently could not give uB the information which we desired in reference to some of these items.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I coufd not go into the details of the accounts on the spur of the moment.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like the hon. gentleman to explain the item at the bottom of page I)-37 of the Auditor General's Report :
Salaries, general, $5,974.96.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try to find that out.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some time ago I asked the hon. gentleman for information about the number of members of the agricultural societies of the Northwest.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have sent to the Northwest to get the details. I think the information has arrived by this time, but I will ask my deputy minister. As soon as it arrives I will give it to my hon. friend.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there any other revenue from the experimental farm except from the sale of the stock ? I see you keep bees ; what do you do with the honey ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We sell honey, and eggs, and fruit; the farm crops are all fed on the farm. The details of the sales are in the Auditor General's Report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister understands that we want an account of the total expenditure on the experimental farm here in the various lines, and as well, the revenue from that farm on account of the sales. That will apply to all the farms. We want the expenditure on the various farms, taking into account the proportion that belongs to each of them, because I understand the minister to say that a certain portion of what should be charged to the other farms is included in the expenditure of the central farm here.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That appears in the Auditor General's Report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We would like to have that charged to each of the farms in every line, public works or any other line.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The details of the public works expenditure are given exactly on tha different farms. If we build a barn at Agassiz, for instance, it is taken out of that $10,000. The details are all in the Auditor General's Report, but of course the hon. gentleman does not wish himself to look it up, and I will have to get one of the officials

to look it up and hand it to him. Now, first of all, I understand he wants an explanation of what is called the discrepancy between the statement at the end of the farm report and the statement in the Auditor General's Report; and, in the second place, he wants the actual statement of the expenditure on the central farm here for the work of the central farm, not including these salaries of officers which are for the whole system.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The proportion properly charged to this central farm.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Exactly. He wants it divided up on the principle which is applied in this statement at the end of the farm report. That is the principle on which that statement is made, and I venture to say that statement will be found to be absolutely correct. The only difficulty at present is that I do not quite see where the whole of the difference between that and the statement in the Auditor General's Report comes in. 1 thought it was almost all due to the difference in regard to the amount of salaries charged, but if the figures of the member for Leeds are correct and cover the whole, that cannot be the only difference. I will find out if there is any other difference. It there is anything I have not covered, I should be only too glad to be reminded.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the aggregate of the revenue derived from the different farms.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: When the superintendent of the experimental farm was before the Agricultural Committee I gave notice that I intended to ask as to the revenue and expenditure on each of the farms separately


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The total revenue and the total expenditure ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes. The director, not having come before the committee again, we thought this was the best place to ask for that information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Undoubtedly. If that is all the information th/e hon. gentleman wants, I will try to bring it down. If hon. gentlemen are satisfied with it, I suppose they will allow the item to pass after the usual fair discussion on the next occasion. I move that the committee rise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: In accordance with the statement orf the premier early in the day, I beg to lay on the table the remainder of the correspondence relating to the removal of Lord Dun-donald.


George Taylor: That will be printed with the other ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


William Stevens Fielding: I suppose the previous order for printing will cover it.
I move the ; djournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will proceed with supply, the estimates being those of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Postmaster General, and perhaps Customs. I am not quite sure as to their order, but probably we may begin with Marine and Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 17, 1904.