1914-02-26

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
71i

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	In a letter dated March 26, 1912, signed H. P. Duchemin and addressed to Hon. J. D. Hazen, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, a copy of which has been placed on the table of the House, the following statement appears, namely: ' With regard to the excluding of counsel, I may say that I followed this course in accordance with instructions given me by other departments of the Government.'
2.	What departments of the Government instructed said Duchemin not to permit counsel to act for parties who were Deing prosecuted before him for partisanship?


Mr. CODERRE:: Agriculture:	So far as this department
is concerned, nil.
Naval Service: So far as this department is concerned, nil.
Indian Affairs:	So far as this depa tment is concerned, nil.
Mounted Police: So far as this department is concerned, nil.
Public Works: So far as this department is concerned, nil.
Mines: So far as this -department is concerned, nil.
Trade and Commerce: This department has not issued instructions of any kind to H. P. Duchemin.
Auditor General:	So far as this department is concerned, nil.
Insurance:	This department issued no
instructions to Mr. Duchemin.
Customs:	So far as this department is
concerned, no such instructions were given to Mr. Duchemin.
External Affairs: So far as this department is concerned, no instructions have at any time been given to Mr. H. P. Duchemin.
Inland Revenue:	So far as this department is concerned, Mr. H. P. Duchemin never was employed in the capacity of a commissioner to investigate questions of partisanship.
Labour:	So far a3 this department is
concerned, nil.
Interior:	So far as this department is
concerned, nil.
Militia and Defence:	So far as this department is concerned, no instructions were issued to Mr. Duchemin.
Finance:	So far as this department is
concerned, nil.
Governor General's Secretary: So far as this department is concerned, nil.
Post Office: So far as this department is concerned, there is no record of Mr. Duchemin having been instructed not to permit counsel to act for parties who were

being prosecuted before him for partisanship, the only stipulation being that if such parties desired to be represented by counsel it would have to be at their own expense.
Justice:	So far as this department is
concerned, nil.
Answer for Department of Railways and Canals.
Pictou, N.S., January 20, 1912. Honourable Frank Cochrane, M.P.,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-Referring to the case of Joseph Veniot, which was heard by me to-day in Pictou, I would ask you to kindly instruct me whether you wish to have a verbatim copy of the evidence.
There is another point on which I would like to receive your instructions. When this case was called this morning Mr. John U. Ross, a barrister of this town, asked permission to appear and represent Veniot at the hearing. I told him that while I would not object to his presence or the presence of tiny one interested in the proceedings, I could not allow counsel to be heard either for or against any of the parties interested in this case, herein following the rule that was laid down by Mr. J. T. Ross, commissioner appointed for similar work in 1896-97.
At the conclusion of the evidence of each witness I asked Veniot whether he wished to have witnesses asked any questions and put to them all the questions that he suggested. Even though counsel was excluded I found that this case took several hours to hear.
Kindly instruct me as to what procedure you wish followed in regard to this point. I am inclined to think that if counsel is admitted at these investigations, they will be interminably prolonged and it will be slow work with the long list of cases that are liable to arise requiring investigation.
I would also suggest that the department might cause a pass for use on the Intercolonial railway to be issued to me as commissioner, in order to avoid the very large amount of additional accounting that will be necessary in connection with the daily disbursements for tickets. As it is necessary to go to practically every part of the eight counties included in the jurisdiction assigned to me, there will be a great deal of travel to and fro and some ground will have to be covered and recovered possibly twro or three times within the same week.
It appears to me, therefore, that it would save a great deal of additional and unnecessary work if a pass covering a limited time wrere to issue in this connection.
I have the honour to be, Sir,	.
Your obedienc servant,
(Sgd) Henry P. Duchemin,
Commissioner.
Ottawa, 24th January, 1912.
Dear Sir,-I have yours of January 20, in reference to the procedure to be followed in the investigations held by you. It is not necessary to go to the expense of having a verbatim copy of the evidence taken and I feel that you have taken the right course in the matter of counsel, as to permit counsel to be heard and to cross-

examine would interminably prolong these matters, as you state, and there is the added fact that the precedent quoted by you could scarcely be objected to.
The transportation asked for by you will be forwarded to-day.
Yours very truly,
Henry P. Duchemin,
Barrister, etc., Sydney, C.B.
TRIPS OF HON. Li. P. BRODEUR.


Mr. BALL:: 1.	Who accompanied the Honourable L. P. Brodeur on each occasion upon which he has crossed the ocean ?
2.	How many stenographers accompanied or were employed by him or his staff on each occasion and at what cost?
3.	How many servants or valets were in or were engaged for the party on each occasion?
4.	How many ladies, including wives, daughters or other persons, accompanied the party on each occasion?
5.	Were the expenses of the said ladies, or any portion thereof, paid by the Government of Canada, directly or indirectly?
6.	What was the total cost to Canada for the whole party on each occasion?
7.	What sums or contributions were paid by the G-overnment of Great Britain and Ireland towards the expenses of the party on each trip?


Mr. HAZEN:: X. Iii 1907, Mr. R. N. Venning, Superintendent of Fisheries; Mr. R. A. Wiallard, private secretary, and Mr. N. Potvin, messenger. In 1909, Mr. G. O. Morisset, private secretary, and Rear Admiral Kings-mill. In 1911, Mr. G. J. Desbarats, Deputy Minister of the Naval Service; Rear Admiral Kingsmill and Mr. G. O. Morisset, private secretary.
2.	No information other than that Mr. Brodeur's private secretary accompanied him >as a stenographer on each occasion. Expenses for travel and subsistence only were paid, amounting to $1,954.70 in 1907, and $1,623.89 in 1909. In 1911 the private secretary's expenses appear to have been paid out of the minister's advance.
3.	Mr. Potvin, messenger, on one occasion only.
4.	From the papers in the Department oi Marine and Fisheries it appears that Mrs. Brodeur and two lady guests accompanied Mr. Brodeur to England in 1907.
5.	The transportation, including Pullman berths for these ladies, which amounted
to $307.50, was paid by the department in April, 1907, and the amount was refunded by Mr. Brodeur on the 15th January, 1908.
6.	Records show a total cost of $8,215.08 in 1907, $6,705.14 in 1909, and $6,412.28 in 1911 for the whole party on each occasion.
7.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries has no information.


TORONTO-SUDBURY LINE.
*Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What is the length of the Toronto-Sud-bury Canadian Pacific railway line.
2.	When was construction commenced, and when completed?
3.	How many steel and concrete bridges are included in its mileage, and the length of each?
4.	What is the weight of rails, the ruling gradient on each division, with character of the curves?
5.	How many miles will traverse territory unexplored?
6.	What is the average cost of the stations?
7.	What was the cost per mile?
8.	What terminals, shops, roundhouses, &c., are included in this cost, and what is the cost of each?
9.	Who was the engineer in charge of construction?


Mr. ROGERS:: The following information is supplied by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company:
1.	226.16 miles.
2.	Commenced 1904, completed 1908.
3.	35; aggregating 6,219 feet; maximum length, 1,695 feet 5 inches.
4.	80 lbs. to the yard. One pusher grade
four miles long, 8-10 of one per cent balance of line, maximum grade 3-10 of one peT cent. Maximum curvature 5 degrees.
5.	None.
6.	$3,857 each.
7.	$48,705.
8.	Muskoka, $83,741.60.
9.	F. S. Darling, John G. Sullivan.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY APPOINT
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	What are the names of the new appointees of the head office staff of the Intercolonial railway, since September 21, 1911?
2.	Who were their predecessors?
3.	What is the salary of the individual new appointees, and what is the salary of their predecessors respectively?
4.	On what railways did the new appointees see service, and what were their respective salaries there?
5.	Who, of the head office staff, received an increase since September 21, 1911, and what is the increase?


Robert Rogers: 5.	F. P. Brady, $125; S. L. Shannon, $116.66 "W. H. Estano, $50; J. W. Wortman, $14.17; R. W. Simpson, $133.34; A. C. Selig, $25; J. S. O'Dwyer, $33.33; A. R. McGowan, $25; F. E. Whelpley, $25; 0. F. Burns, $41.67; W. C. Paver, $25; D. A. Story, $83.33; O. Cameron, $40; Geo. Ackman, $39.85; H. H. Melanson, $100; Geo. C. Allen, $25; W. N. Rippley, $25; W. U. Appleton, $150; J. J. Walker, $10; W. F. Taylor, $25; Louis Lavoie, $33.33. The 330 odd clerks on the head office staff received increases equal to an average of about $5 per month.


EMPLOYMENT OP SILAS RIENDEAU.
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Is Mr. Silas Riendeau, ol Montreal, formerly of Granby, in the employ of the Government?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	.What are his duties?
4.	What salary does he receive?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes, in the Department of Agriculture at Montreal.
2.	To inspect live stock cars that require to be cleaned and disinfected.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	$1,050 per annum.


TRANSPORTATION OP FRESH FISH.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Referring to the guarantee given by the late Administration relating to the cost of transporting fresh fish by fast freight from Mulgrave and Halifax to Montreal, did this guarantee apply to every day in the week or only on certain specified days each week? If the latter, what are the days?
2.	When was a daily fast freight train running on schedule time first started on the Intercolonial railway between Mulgrave and Halifax and Montreal?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	The guarantee applied to one day each week. On Saturday from Halifax and Monday from Mulgrave.
2.	March 10, 1901.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-DISTRICT No. 3.


Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Is the division of the Intercolonial railway between St. John and Halifax known as number three (3) division?
2.	Is the Government aware that P. P. Gutelius, general manager of the Intercolonial railway, is said to have stated at an official interview held at St. John, N.B. recently, as reported in the press the following:
' This district number three is losing on the passenger business about $25,000 a year, a larger proportionate loss than on any other. St. John to Halifax is Included in district number three. The paying section is between

Moncton and Montreal, or to the like effect.'
3.	Is the statement, as alleged to have been made, correct and in accordance with the facts?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No; not so far as the Minister of Railways and Canals is concerned.
3.	No.


ERECTION OP WALL AT ARTHABASKA.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Who has been given the contract for the erection of a wall at Arthabaska between the property of the federal Government and the Dumoulin estate?
2.	How much did such wall cost?
3.	Have tenders been asked for?
4.	Has such contract been given without any tender ?
5.	Was there only one tender received by the department, that of the contractor?
6.	If not, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	A. Quesnel.
2.	$1,400.
3.	4, 5 and 6. Yes, from A. Quesnel, who
agreed to do the work for $1,400, which was considered to be fair and reasonable by the chief architect, and was accepted by him.	.


ARTHABASKA POST OFFICE.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Who has secured the contract for the putting up of the clock in the tower of the postoffice of Arthabaska?
2.	When was such contract awarded?
3.	Have tenders been asked for?
4.	Is the Government aware that the four dials are s^id to have been broken through the negligence of the contractor?
5.	How much has the Government paid for the new dials not yet set in?
6.	Why does not the gong sound at every hour of the day and night?
7.	How much did the Government pay the contractor?
8.	Is the Government aware, as alleged, that the woodwork which supports the clock is not strong enough, and that the inside of the tower is not finished and cannot offer a sufficient support, so as to keep said clock in a solid position? If so, is it the intention of the Government to see to it?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Roland Picher, jeweller, Arthabaska.
2.	Tender accepted May 22, 1913.
3.	No.
4 and 5. Dials are of cast-iron and are not broken, but some glass sections were broken by the wind. The cost of renewing these will be about $28, not yet paid for.
6.	The work in connection with machinery not yet completed. When it is, the gong will strike correctly.

7.	Nothing has yet been paid the contractor.
8.	The floor in clock room is sufficiently strong for the purpose. As to finishing or wainscotting the interior of this room, it can be done at any time, but would not, in any way, strengthen the installation of the clock proper.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Is the roof of the post office of Arthabaska in any way defective, and was the tin-plate badly soldered?
2.	Is It the intention of the Government to cause that roof to be repaired?
3.	If so, who has contracted for such work?
4.	Has the latter been given by tender?
5.	Why are those repairs not made?
6.	Is the Government aware that scaffolding has been erected around the tower of the post office of Arthahaska, the whole height of the tower, since the 15th of December last?
7.	Is the Government informed that such scaffolding is said to be a permanent danger for the life of those who have to go in and out of the post office?
8.	Why has such scaffolding been erected, if there were no urgent repairs to be made?
9.	Who constructed the scaffolding, what price has been paid for same, or what amount of money is claimed from the Government?


Robert Rogers: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Some joints of the galvanized roofing and galvanized cornices have been found to be broken, and are now being repaired. The work is being done by day's work, and has been delayed on account of the very severe cold weather.
6, 7,	8 and 9. Scaffolding has been
erected around tower, in order to solder up joints above referred to, and is considered to be perfectly safe, and to fully protect the public. This scaffolding was erected by Mr. Oscar Clouthier, plumber, of Vic-toriaville, and as the work is not done, nothing has yet been paid.


DOMINION ATLANTIC LEASE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	On what date does the lease from the federal Government to the Dominion Atlantic railway, of the line of railway from Windsor junction to Windsor expire?
2.	Has an application been made for the renewal of such lease?
3.	Does the department propose to introduce any provision in regard to the lease, that the short transportation and express charges on that line of railway shall not exceed those which are made on other parts of the Intercolonial railway?
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	First of January, 1914.
2.	Application has been made to enter
into a new lease.
3.	The lease is being negotiated.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY CONTRACTS.
Mr. MURPHY:: ,
1.	Who were the contractors for the construction of that portion of the National
Transcontinental railway extending from mile 1332.85 to mile 1407.85?
2.	What prices per yard were paid the said contractors for the following items respectively :-concrete 1-3-5, concrete 1-3-5 in arch culverts and concrete 1-3-6 in arch culverts?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Messrs. E. F. and G. E. Fauquier.
2.	Concrete 1-3-5, $13; concrete 1-3-5, in arch culverts, $14; concrete 1-3-6, in arch culverts, $14.


Charles Murphy: .
1.	Under contract No. 18 on the National Transcontinental railway, were payments made on account of drawback in the months of January and June, 1911?
2.	If so, what were the amounts paid and the name or names of the person or persons to whom the said payments were made?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	In January, 1911, yes; in June, 1911, no.
2.	In January, 1911; $75,000 deposited in the Bank of Ottawa to credit of Messrs. E. F. & G. E. Fauquier.


STRUCTURAL IRON WORKERS.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Has the Government received any representations in respect of the fair wage clause from the structural iron workers of Montreal?
2.	If so, of what nature and from what contract?
3.	Has the Government taken any action thereon? If so, of what nature?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Complaint was made some months ago of the non-payment of current wage rates to some of the structural iron workers employed on the Grenadier Guards armoury building now in course, of erection on Esplanade avenue, Montreal. Complaint has also been made that structural iron workers at present employed in the erection of the Montreal Customs examining warehouse building are not all receiving the current rate of wages of this trade in the district. .
3.	Both of these complaints have been investigated by one of the Fair Wages officers of the Department of Labour, and have also been the subject of correspondence with the parties concerned. The Labour Department was not called upon to furnish any Fair Wage schedule in the case of the armoury contract and no Fair Wages
me
- COMMONS.
Clause is contained in this contract. The current wage rates of structural iron workers in Montreal when the Fair Wage schedule was prepared for the Customs House contract was 35c. per hour. It has been represented to the department that none of the structural iron workers at present employed on the building are -receiving less than this amount. The complaint is that the current wage rate of structural iron workers has advanced to 40c. per hour since the Fair Wage schedule was made up, and that the contractors are not observing this latter rate in all cases. Communications on this point are now passing between the department and the parties concerned.


INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What is the average rate of interest now being paid on the National debt of Canada?
2.	What is the average rate of interest paid on that part of ,the National debt which matured in the last ten years?
3 (a). What is the average rate of interest on that part of the National debt maturing in the next ten years, (b) and the amount of said debt as maturing?


Mr. WHITE:: 1.	3.5007 per cent.
2.	3.8290 per cent.
3.	(a) 3.7466 per cent; (b) $27,078,016.01.
National debt in the above question is
interpreted as meaning funded debt.


NATURALIZATION IN CAPE BRETON.
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	What is the number of persons naturalized in Cape Breton county, Nova Scotia, during the last ten years?
2.	What was the nationality of each?


Louis Coderre: 1904.	German, 1; Italian, 1; re-admission, 3; Russian, 1; Syrian, 1; United States, I; total, 8.
1905.	Chinese, 1; Dane, 1; Italian, 1; readmission, 1; Syrians, 7; total, 11.
1905. Austrians, 3; French, 1; Germans, 2; Italians, 8; re-admissions, 3; Russians, 7; United States, 1; total, 25.
1907.	Austrians, 4; Italians, 2; re-admissions, 2; Russians, 7; Syrians, 11; United States, 2; total, 28.
1908.	Austrians, 5; Belgian, 1; Dane, 1; French, 5; Germans, 4; Italians, 2; readmissions, 7; Russians, 14; Swede, 1; United States, 6; total, 65.
1909.	Austrians, 6; Belgians, 15; Chinese, 1; French, 5; Hungarians, 3; Italians, 88; Russians, 2; Syrians, 3; United States, 4; total, 127.

1910.	Austrians, 6; Italians, 8; Norwegians, 1; re-admissions, 3; Russians, 31; Syrians, 2; United States, 1; total, 52.
1911.	Austrians, 2; Belgians, 2; Germans, 4; Italians, 30; re-admissions, 2; Russians, 21; United States, 1; total, 65.
19112. Austrians, 7; Belgians, 2; Dane, 1; French, 2; Germans, 2; Greeks, 2; Hungarians, 2; Italians, 3; Norwegian, 1; readmission, 1; Russians, 24; Swedes, 2; Syrians, 14; United States, 4; total, 67.
1913. Austrians, 15; French, 1; German, 1; Italians, 21; Norwegian, 1; re-admissions, 6; Russians, 5; Syrians, 3; United States, 10; total, 63.
Austrians, 51; Belgians, 20; Chinese, 2; Danes, 3; French, 14; Germans, 14; Greeks, 2; Hungarians, 5; Italians, 164; Norwegians, 3; re-admissions, 28; Russians, 112; Swedes, 3; Syrians, 60; United States, 30; total, 511.


MARION BRIDGE-WOODBINE MAILS
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying the mails between Marion Bridge and Woodbine Post Offices, Cape Breton South, Nova Scotia?
2.	What amount per year does he receive for the service? -
3.	Were tenders received for such service? If so, from whom?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	W. A. McLean.
2.	$60 per annum.
3.	This contract has been in the hands of the postmaster, W. A. McLean, since the opening of Woodbine post office on the 1st August, 1895, having been renewed at the expiration of each regular period since that time. The only change was made on the 1st June, 1912, when the frequency was increased from semi-weekly to tri-weekly at pro rota. The price having been considered reasonable and the services given by the contractor reported from time to time as satisfactory, it has not been considered necessary to invite tenders.


PAYMENTS TO HEATH STRONG.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What remuneration did Mr. Heath Strong receive for his services re the dismissal of John A. L. McLellan, late light-keeper at Fish island, Prince Edward Island?
2.	How many days was the said Mr. Heath Strong employed on this case, and what were the dates of his employment?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The remuneration paid Mr. Heath Strong for his services was at the rate of $15 per day.
2.	One and one-lialf days. Dates, August 23 and August 24, 1912.


MONTREAL RESIDENT ENGINEER.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What is the name of the Montreal resident engineer of the Department of Public Works?
2.	What are the names of the members of the staff?
3.	Who is the officer of the staff entitled to give orders, to sign the documents relating to the works or correspondence between that office and the Public Works Department?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Mr. J. L. Michaud.
2.	Messrs. J. L. Michaud,, district engineer ; Paul Paradis, senior assistant engineer; J. H. Parent, senior assistant engineer; J. Dansereau, senior assistant engineer; J. T. Girard, draughtsman; J. N. Levesque, senior assistant engineer; Jos. A. Adam, junior assistant engineer; A. Gron-din, draughtsman; E. St. Jorre, clerk; J. Archambault, clerk; J. L. Preville, junior assistant engineer; Chas. Groleau, clerk; Miss L. S'te. Marie, stenographer; Miss The-rese Duhamel, stenographer; A. E. Dubuc, engineer in charge of dredging; -William Abbott, clerk; Hortentius Beique, general foreman; H. Constant, clerk of works; A. Chevrier, chainman.
3.	Mr. Michaud, and in matters regarding dredging, Mr. Art. E. Dubuc, engineer in charge of dredging in the Montreal district.


SUPERINTENDENT MONTREAL PIBOTS.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a successor to the late G. Riley, who was superintendent of the Montreal pilots?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint an experienced pilot to that position?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.	,
2.	Matter under consideration.


VANCOUVER DRILL HALL SITE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Was there any commission or moneys paid by the Department of Public Works to any person or persons in connection with the purchase of block 43 D.L. 264 A., Vancouver, for a drill hall site?
2.	How much was paid to the legal adviser or agent for the department at Vancouver in connection with the said purchase?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Nothing to date.	-


IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1. What is the total value of all goods imported into Canada from the United States during the last fiscal year?
2. What is the total amount of duties paid on same?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$455,322,535.
2.	$68,929,805.04.


THE FARMERS BANK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALEX. CHISHOLM:
1.	Is it the intention of the Government to compensate the shareholders of the Farmers Bank for the double liability as well as the original paid-up subscriptions?
2.	What relief, or assistance, if any, is it proposed to give to the shareholders?
3.	Are the shareholders who lost the money they invested, and have also had to pay the double liability, to be treated differently by the Government, from the depositors in said bank?
Mr. WHITE:: 1. It is not the intention of the Government to make any grant in relief of the shareholders of the Farmers Bank.
2 and 3. Answered by answer to No. 1.


EXPENSES OF POSTMASTER GENERAL.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General take a trip or trips in the Canadian West and other parts of the country with the Right Hon. Herbert Samuel, Postmaster General of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, during the year 1913?
2.	How many stenographers and servants accompanied him and what were the travelling expenses of such stenographers and servants?
3.	Was the Postmaster General accompanied by ladies, and what are their names?
4.	What amount has the Government paid as expenses for that trip?
5.	Were the expenses of that trip shared by the Government of Great Britain and Ireland?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes; the Right Hon. Mr. Samuel
was the official guest of the Canadian Government, and the Postmaster General of Canada accompanied him. Both postmasters general were accompanied officially by two gentlemen, acting as their private secretaries.	.
2.	No stenographers, but there were two porters on the car, as is usual in such cases.
3.	No ladies were present officially on that occasion.
4.	$1,338.77.
5.	No.


SEABOARD GRAIN INSPECTION.
Mr. NEELY:: 1.	Has the Government been urged to have a reinspection at the seaboard of western grain? If so, who made the request?
2.	Does the Government intend to establish this inspection at the seaboard?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	No, though the subject has been discussed by various persons.
2.	Not at present.


DISMISSAL,.
*Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Who recommended the dismissal of Alex. McRae, late lighthouse keeper at Point Prim, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Who recommended the appointment of his successor?


John Douglas Hazen: 1 and 2. Mr. A. A. M Lean, M.P., and Mr. Donald Nicholson, M.P.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Turgeon.-For a return showing:-1. How many temporary clerks were employed in the library of Parliament during the sessions of 1911-1912 and 1912-1913, their names and the salary paid to each for such service, and the total so paid. 2. How many temporary clerks are at present so employed, their names and salaries respectively. 3. If any temporary clerks were employed in said library, during the session of 1910-1911; if so, how many.
4.	What was the then number of permanent clerks in the library, and the present number of temporary clerks employed in said library.
5.	Why temporary clerks are employed in said library in positions superior to and at higher pay than that paid to permanent clerks.
Mr. Middlebro.-For a return showing:-1. The average cost per mile of construction of the Canadian Pacific railway from its inception to date;	2. The average cost per mile in
the last ten years;	3. The average rental per
mile of lines leased by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the names of such leased lines;	4. The rental paid by the Canadian
Pacific railway for the Toronto, Grey and Bruce railway from Toronto to Owen Sound.
Mr. Middlebro.-For a return showing:-1. Who were, from incorporation, and who are, the officers and directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; 2. The amount of capital stock of said company, the amount paid up, and who are the holders of such paid up stock, and the amount held, and still held, by each; 3. If this company, or a subsidiary company, has contracted to build any portion of the National Transcontinental railway; and, if so, the total amount of their contracts for such work:	4. What portion of such contracts
or work was sublet, and on such sublet contracts what profit was made by the said company.
Mr. Neely.-For a return showing:-1. What chartered banks in Canada have gone into liquidation since Confederation, and at what date in each case;	2. The loss in each case
to the depositors, the note holders and the stock holders respectively; 3. Yhat relief, if any, was given in each case by the Government to any of the parties suffering loss.
Mr. Aikins.-For a return showing:-1. The freight rates charged during the years 1912 and 1913, on wheat from Canadian ports to ports in the United Kingdom by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's Steamship Lines, the Allan Steamships Line and the Canadian Northern

Railway Company's Steamship Lines;	2. The
profits made by the freight boats of the said several lines which carried wheat alone or with other freight.
Mr. Aikins.-For a return showing:-The freight rates charged during the years 1912 and 1913 on wheat from Fort William or Port Arthur to ports on the Georgian bay and Canadian ports on lake Huron and lake Erie, by the Canadian Pacific Steamship Line, the Northern Navigation Company, the Merchants' Mutual Line, Inland Lines, and the Canadian Lake Line.

Mr. DOHERTY moved:: That a select committee composed of Messrs. Northrup, Maclean' (Halifax), Murphy, McKay, Carvell, Robidoux and the mover be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act relating to the election of Members of this House, and into the practice and procedure in connection with election petitions; and to consider what changes are desirable therein, with power to send Jor persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Do I understand that the names have been discussed with my hon. friend from Halifax?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Might I humbly suggest that the minister might have had one name from the province of Quebec?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was under the impression that the mover (Mr. Doherty) was from the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to an item which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of Tuesday, the 24th inst., reading:
Divorce Sub-committee-Members of Commons will Listen to Evidence.
By way of carrying out a proposed reform through which the House of Commons will be able to more intelligently follow and pronounce^ upon divorce case, the private bills committee has selected a sub-committee to attend the meetings of the Divorce Committee and listen to the evidence. It consists of Chairman Sharpe, Messrs. Robb (Huntingdon), Carvell (Carleton, N.B.), Boys (Simcoe), Steele (Perth), and Thoburn (Lanark).
For the present session the sub-committee will simply attend the divorce committee. Next session it is proposed to amend the rules so as to have a joint committee of the two Houses hear all divorce cases. Heretofore this power rests only with the Senate Committee, which forwards to the Commons its reports along with the evidence.
Has this arrangement been made after consultation with the Government, and are the rules to be amended to that effect?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no information
as to the matter referred to, nor do I know whether the Private Bills Committee has delegated any sub-committee to amend the rules. I understand that there is pending before the House at present a motion for the appointment of a committee of this House to consider the amendment of the rules. I know of nothing further.


JURISDICTION OF THE ROYAL NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE MAGISTRATES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Wilfrid Laurier: I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to a dispatch from Dawson which appeared in the press two days ago, to the effect that a conviction for larceny by one of the Mounted Police magistrates had been quashed because, in the opinion of the judge, the Mounted Police had no jurisdiction. Has my hon. friend received any information upon the subject, or has he communicated with Dawson about the matter?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The matter has not
come to my attention. I will ascertain what the situation is.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Tlr. DEVLIN:: I wish to rise to a question of privilege. It is a question which affects the dignity of the House and the veracity of a minister of the Crown. I regret that I am forced to raise this question in the absence of the hon. Minister of Militiar, as it particularly affects him, but the matter is of such moment that I have no doubt the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is now leading the House, will bring it to the attention of the minister concerned. On Monday, the 23rd of February, the Minister of Militia made this statement (Hansard, p. 1074):
The story goes that a certain distinguished gentleman, the ex-Minister of Agriculture and some of his friends in this House had mortgages on a lot of swamp property around Farnham. It was supposed to be used for the raising of tobacco, but it had ceased to be used in that way. Consequently, these gentlemen could not get the amount of their mortgages out of the place. One gentleman said: [DOT] Let us lay out a military camp there.' Reports were immediately forthcoming from two distinguished officers of the service that this was a magnificent site for a camp, and accordingly Farnham camp was unloaded on the Militia Department for a fabulous sum.
These gentlemen received a rake-off for the mortgages which they could not collect in any other way. I understand that both of them had held seats on the Liberal side of the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I beg to say to the hon. member that in my judgment he is out of order. It is not, as I understand it, a question of privilege affecting the hon. member or perhaps any other member of this House. The party against whom the statement was made is not a member of this House, and therefore the statement could not affect any member of the House; so that I think it can hardly be regarded as a question of privilege.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If you rule, Mr'. Speaker, that I am out of order I will go on with the question later in the day. But I submit that this is a question that affects not' the dignity of any particular member in the House, but the dignity of the House through the fact that a minister of the Crown


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not affect the
privilege of any member of the House.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What I was going to say, if you had allowed me to finish my sentence, was that the charge is that the Minister of Militia has supplied false information to members of this House, and as a member of this House I was rising in my place to complain of the false information that was supplied to us. If 1 am out of order-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member is out of order and it will be apparent to him that he is violating two rules: first, it is not a matter of privilege in the House; and, secondly, if the allegation is with respect to some person outside of this House it would be a violation of the rule which prevents any member of the House bringing in newspapers or other outside information to contradict the statement of a member of this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend was just stating a case, but he did not finish his statement of that case. He was referring to the fact that a member of this House, within the knowledge of everybody, had made a certain statement. I do not know what my hon. friend was going on to say, but I think in all fairness to him we should know exactly -what he is going to say before we say it is out of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman was reading from ' Hansard ' a statement with reference to a certain occurrence which took place in this House the other day, and which referred to the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Hughes). The statement he was reading referred to an outsider, not to a member of this House, and if the allegation was incorrect that fact could only be proven by an outsider. Therefore, it would be bringing information from an outsider to contradict a statement made by a member of this House, which is not permissible.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I had not spoken of an outsider at all; I had simply risen to state my case. It will be readily understood that before a verdict can be rendered in a case the facts must be stated, but if Your Honour \vill not allow me to make a statement of the facts I will resume my seat.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Sitting in the Chair, I knew what the facts related to. The hon. gentleman was reading the statement out of ' Hansard '; therefore, I was quite aware what it related to. I spoke so as to prevent going on with a discussion which seemed to me to be useless.


Wilfrid Laurier: If Your Honour knew what he was speaking of, Your Honour could not know what he was going to conclude with. My hon. friend had a right to. state the point-it may be out of order or it may be in order, but it seems to me that it is impossible to say whether my hon. friend is in order or not until ho has stated what the point is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman stated that an allegation which had been made as to an outsider was absolutely untrue; therefore, he was making a statement which could only be supported by evidence coming from outside, which evidence is not admissible in this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that my hon. friend was reading what had been reported in ' Hansard,' and that he was proceeding to his conclusion but that he was interrupted before he had come to the conclusion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. member afterwards stated what he was referring to and he said that the statement was absolutely untrue. It was this statement which was referred to, and he was endeavouring to contradict it by means which were out of order.


Mr. OLIVER:: Might I suggest that the question is not that of the Farnham camp, but the question is that of the veracity of a minister, and surely there must be some means by which the House can protect itself against statements made on behalf of the Government, which lack veracity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The ruling of the Chair must stand until it is appealed against.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the ruling of the Chair, may I ask ? Is it that my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) cannot proceed to make his statement ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, I appeal from your ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Devlin, member for Wright, rises to a question of privilege, namely, that a certain statement made by an hon. member of this House was untrue, the statement applying to a certain person not a member of this House; Mr. Speaker ruled that this was not a question of privilege. Sir Wilfrid Laurier appealed from the ruling of the Chair.
The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not a statement of the case. The statement of the case is this: My hon. friend from Wright was proceeding to state what he called a question of privilege, and he was interrupted by Mr. Speaker on the ground that the question was not one of privilege. I interposed and said that he should be allowed to make his case. I put the question: If he could not be allowed to make his case, and you, Sir, said ' No.' Therefore I appealed from your ruling. My point is that my hon. friend from Wright was not allowed to make his case, and that is the point upon which I appeal from your ruling.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I did not say that the Minister's statement was untrue, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The second time the hon. member for Wright got up he stated that the allegation was made not against a member of this House, but a person outside of the House, and that it was untrue. I ruled that, as it did not refer to a member of this House, his statement was not admissible here and that it was not a question affecting the privilege of any

member of this House. For both of these reasons I thought his statement was out of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is only part of the case. I put the question direct: Will you allow my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) to state his case? and you ruled that you would not allow him. That was the point upon which I appealed from your ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I understood the
matter, the second time that the hon. member for Wright spoke he finished stating his case.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I had just begun.


Wilfrid Laurier: Just begun.


Mr. BORDEN:: It seems to me that it
is a question that ought to be resolved in a very simple way. His Honour the Speaker has ruled-and without looking at the authorities I think he has ruled correctly-that a matter raised in respect to some person not in the House is not a question of privilege in the way in which this has been brought forward. If the hon. gentleman from Wright has a question of privilege which comes -within the decision of the Speaker, there ought to be no objection to his stating it; but if he is proceeding to state a case which is contrary to the decision which has already been rendered by Mr. Speaker and which commends itself to my judgment, then I think he has already stated his case sufficiently to enable Mr. Speaker to arrive at the decision he did.


Wilfrid Laurier: My right hon. friend is altogether in error. My hon. friend from Wright was proceeding to state a case. I did not know what the matter was; I did not know to what point he was coming. Before proceeding to tender his statement, he was simply reciting a case, _ upon which probably he wanted to make a motion or to which he wanted to call the attention of the House, when he was interrupted by Mr. Speaker. There was some further discussion. Then I put the question to Mr. Speaker: Will you not allow my hon. friend to state his case? Mr. Speaker stated:	No, I will not allow
him. It is upon that point that I appeal from your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for-
Wright had stated his case sufficiently to
enable His Honour the Speaker to judge that it was in respect of a person not a member of this House. I for one cannot see the advantage of making any further statement unless the hon. member for Wright is in a position to affirm that his further observations will bring the case within the ruling laid down by Mr. Speaker.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: With your permission,
Mr. Speaker, and for the information of the right hon. the Prime Minister, I might state that I rose to a question of privilege, as I believed that the substance of what I was going to submit to the Chair and to this House was sufficient to show that the dignity of this House had been affected inasmuch as the veracity of a minister of the Crown had been called in question, and that it was supposed that the minister of the Crown had furnished this House with false information. I was proceeding to state upon what I based my allegation and to give to the Chair the facts of the case when. Mr. Speaker simply said that I could not state my case to the House. Thereupon the right hon. the leader of the Opposition appealed from the ruling of Mr. Speaker.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that if the varacity of any hon. member is called in question by some one outside of the House, that is a question of privilege for the hon. member whose varacity is called in question and not for any other member of the House, so far as the question of privilege is concerned.


Wilfrid Laurier: My point js
simply this, whether or not we shall have the right of freedom of speech. My hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) may be right or he may be wrong. No one can say whether he is right or wrong until he has stated his case, and he has not been allowed to do so.
Mr. M^IGHEN: The right hon. gentleman must admit that the hon. member for Wright went so far as to say that the case consisted in the submitting of an allegation made by the hon. Minister of Militia, as reported in 'Hansard'. He proceeded to say that this allegation was false. He then read from the allegation sufficiently far to bring to the notice of Mr. Speaker the statement made by the hon. Minister of Militia. That being the case, it became clear at once that it could not be a question

of privilege on the part of any hon. member of this House, because it did not affect the honour or privilege of any member of this House. At that point the Speaker ruled that the hon. member for Wright was out of order. If Mr. Speaker, before' he renders a decision, has to wait until an hon. member has stated his whole case, what is the value of ruling out something that is already in?


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker came to a conclusion before my hon. friend from Wright had made his statement. That is what I object to. I asked Mr. Speaker to allow my hon. friend to finish his statement, but he would not allow him to do that.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot see that my right hon. friend is quite logical in that. If the hon. member for Wright is admittedly proceeding to make a statement which contravenes a rule that the Speaker has already laid down, there is no interference with freedom of speech in that regard, because according to the premises it is a statement which he ought not to make, and which is not a matter of privilege according to the principle already laid down by the Speaker. If the hon. member for Wright is willing to declare that the statement he proposes to make is within the rule laid down by the Speaker, there ought to be no objection to iris proceeding with that statement. But, I inferred, I think rightly, that the statement has proceeded sufficiently far to enable the Speaker to see that it was not a matter of privilege. Therefore it seems to me that the Speaker properly intervened.


Wilfrid Laurier: I appeal to my right hon. friend; the Minister of Militia made a statement with respect to a certain member.	.


Robert Laird Borden: No.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: With respect to one who is not in the House. There are many things that can be done upan such a statement. He might have desired to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to that statement and to ask him, if it was incorrect, to retract it. That is perfectly in order. The Minister of Militia made a grave allegation against an hon. gentleman, and although he is not a member of the House, I believe he has a right to his fair name. If it is shown to the hon. Minister of Militia that he made a false statement, it 
is within the rules of the House to bring it to his attention and to ask him to correct it. My hon. friend from Wright, however, was not allowed to proceed at all. That is the only point with which I find fault, namely if Mr. Speaker has ruled: No, I will not hear any more; I decide at once. That is the matter upon which I appealed to the judgment of the House, viz, that my hon. friend be allowed to make his statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the right hon. the leader of the Opposition scarcely does me justice in that statement, because the hon. member for Wright was twice upon his feet. The first time, he referred to a statement made by'the hon. Minister of Militia and commenced to read the ' Hansard ' report of that statement. I sent for the Clerk of the House to consult him as to whether that was in order or not and he agreed with me that it was not in order. The second time the hon. member was on his feet, he stated that the i3tatement was made against an hon. gentleman who is not in the House and that the statement was absolutely false. I ruled that, in the first place, it was not a question of privilege, because it did not affect the privilege of any member sitting in the House, and in the second place, if his allegation was correct, it must be substantiated by evidence brought from outside this House, to contradict the statement of a member in this House. That is not permissible. I wish to say one thing more with regard to what I conceive to be my duty. The rule as laid down, both in the British House and in this House, is as plain, I think, as the English language can make it and it is that, while others may raise a point of order or objection, it is the duty of the Speaker, when anything is said that is out of order, to immediately call attention to it; which I did, of course,'knowing what was referred to, and-


Wilfrid Laurier: But, Mr. Speaker, if you had allowed my hon. friend from Wright to proceed with his case, he would have read these words:
The story goes that a certain distinguished gentleman, the ex-Minister of Agriculture and some of his friends in this House had mortgages on a lot of swamp property around Farnham.
So, the statement affected not only the ex-Minister of Agriculture but certain members of this House. But you did not

allow my hon. friend to go on with his speech. Had he been permitted to go on, he would have shown that you were in the wrong. I put the question: Do I understand that you will not allow my hon. friend to proceed with his case? And you said: No. And thereupon I appealed from your ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like the right hon. member to make his statement setting forth what he holds to have been improper in the ruling, and submit it to the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will make it in this way: The hon. member for Wright was proceeding to challenge some statements made by the hon. Minister of Militia against the ex-Minister of Agriculture and certain members of this House. He was interrupted by Mr. Speaker, who told him that the matter was not one of privilege. Thereupon, the member for Quebec East (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) put the question whether or not Mr. Speaker would allow the hon. member for Wright to proceed with his case. Mr. Speaker ruled that he would not allow the hon. member to proceed. Thereupon there was an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right hon. gentleman is not exactly correct 4 p.m. in this respect, that he was three times on his feet, and it was only at the third time that the ruling was challenged.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was three times on my feet to urge that my hon. friend might be allowed to proceed. When, at last, I put the question direct whether he might proceed or not, and you decided against him, I appealed from your ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have only to say, with reference to the ruling on the reading of ' Hansard ' to which the right hon. member has referred, that the emphatic statement was made by the hon. member for Wright that it did not apply to members of this House, but that it referred to a gentleman not now a member of the House. If the hon. member for Wright had been prepared to say that the statement referred to members of this House-whether friends of the gentleman named or otherwise, would have made no difference-I would have taken his word. That statement was not made, but the emphatic statement was made that it did not refer to any gentleman who is now a member of this House.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I did not consider that the time had come when I should have said to whom it referred. I was quoting language officially reported in this House:
The story goes that a certain distinguished gentleman, the ex-Minister of Agrieulture, and some of his friends in this House had mortgages on a lot of swamp property around Farnham.
In this I was quoting language which had been used in this House on the 23rd of February by the hon. Minister of Militia. And when I said that this affected the dignity of this House, I think I was within my rights. But you would not allow me to proceed with the statement of my case, though you could not know what case I was going to state.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. member for Wright if he is prepared to say that this has reference to members of this House. If he does, he would be in order; if not, he would be out of order, in my judgment.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I ask the right to proceed with the case I was going to state to the House, but I am prepared to submit to your ruling. I cannot give you the conclusion of the case before I have stated the facts, and if you declare I cannot proceed with my case, as I say, I submit to your ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The rule is that a member must state his question of privilege, and it does not necessarily follow, in my judgment, that he can go on and make a long argument or read documents on the subject before the Speaker is given means of judging whether it is a matter of privilege or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: My objection is that you could not form your judgment as to that question until the hon. gentleman had come to a conclusion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member should state his question of privilege.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I think I had reached the word ' Farnham', but perhaps I had better begin again:
The story goes that a certain distinguished gentleman, the ex-Minister of Agriculture, and some of his friends in this House had mortgages on a lot of swamp property around Farnham, It was supposed to be used for the raising of tobacco, but it had ceased to be used in that way. Consequently, these gentlemen could not get the amount of their mortgages out of the place. One gentleman said: 'Let us lay

out a military camp there.' Reports were immediately forthcoming- from two distinguished officers of the service that this was a magnificent site for a camp, and accordingly Farnham camp was unloaded on the Militia Department for a fabulous sum. These gentlemen received a rake-off for the mortgages which they could not collect in any other way.
It was the ex-Minister of Agriculture and some of his friends who are mernbers of this House who, according to this statement, had received this rake-off. {Reading):
I understand that both of them had held seats on the Liberal side of the House. My hon. friend cannot find an officer in the eastern townships, be he a Liberal or be he a Conservative, who will say that one can ride for a distance of a hundred yards in a straight line in Farnham camp without getting into a bog hole and losing the shoes off his horse's feet. One of those officers who made the report was one day talking to a colonel and he said, 'Don't you think it will make a magnificent site?' The colonel replied, 'There is just one thing it lacks.' 'What is that?' said the officer. ' Why,' he says, 4 It requires to be planked over.'
An hon. Member:	Was _it Mr. Sydney
Fisher?
Mr. Hughes: Mr. Sydney Fisher, ex-Minister of Agriculture; certainly.
When the Minister of Militia, whom I am glad to see in his seat now, made this statement, he referred to the ex-Minister of Agriculture and to certain members of this House as having received a rake-off. We have a statement, published in a newspaper this morning, purporting, to be made by Mr. Sydney Fisher. It says-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is distinctly out of order, because it is not permissible to bring into the House any paper or document printed outside, for the purpose of contradicting statements made by a member of the House.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I will not use the newspaper. It is publicly reported that Mr. Sydney Fisher, one of the gentlemen named, has said that the Minister of Militia was conveying to this House false information, in which there was not a word of truth.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I submit that the hon. gentleman is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The hon. member rises to a point of order.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman,
in what lie has said, has made it plain

that he is speaking here on behalf of Mr. Sydney Fisher, and his alleged question of privilege has to do with importing here a defence on behalf of Mr. Sydney Fisher, who is not a member of this House. If the hon. gentleman wishes, on behalf of any unstated members of this House, to disprove an allegation made against them, so far as I am concerned, I do not object on the ground that it is not a matter of privilege, but in so far as he wishes to bring in, directly or indirectly, a denial :by Mr. Fisher, he is distinctly out of order.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: When the Solicitor General interrupted me, I was about to say that one of the gentlemen named had publicly made the statement that the words of the hon. Minister of Militia were absolutely false, and as the words reflected upon the honour of members of this House, I was. simply rising to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was then leading the House, in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, and to ask him, as the Minister of Militia was not in his seat, to convey to the hon. Minister of Militia the statement made in the public press, so that he might have an opportunity either of correcting it, or asserting on the floor of this House that the impressions he sought to convey to the members of the House on Monday were true and based upon facts; and that he might also have an opportunity of proving his statement.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let us hear from the Minister of Militia now.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I am concerned, it does not seem to me that the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) has raised a question of privilege at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do we understand from my right hon. friend that the Minister of Militia may throw taunts against a member of this House, and that the matter being brought up "by an hon. gentleman on this side, it does not constitute a question of privilege? The Minister of Militia said the other day:
The story goes that a certain distinguished gentleman, the ex-Minister of Agriculture, and some of his friends in this House had mortgages on a lot of swamp property around Farnham.
He then proceeded to say that these gentlemen received a rake-off. Does the minister persist in that statement, or will he take the manly course, and say he was at fault?

Mr. SAM. HUGHES: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the
minister, outside this House, and under his own signature, repeat what he has said?


Mr. HUGHES:: I am delighted to see the leader of the Opposition getting a little vitality.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are a dead man yourself.


James Joseph Hughes: Let me tell my right hon. friend that in this House or out of this House-I do not belong to the craven crowd. I will go a little further. I will tell him it is current property throughout the length and breadth of the eastern townships that the unloading upon the people of the bog at Farnham as a camp, was engineered by Sydney Fisher. That is what I said before, and that is what I say to-day. I say further that a former member of the House by the name of Mr. Meigs is reported to have had mortgages on the property which could not be redeemed in any other way, and the property was unloaded on the Dominion Government by tile engineering of this gentleman and Mr. Meigs. That is the current story; does the hon. ex-First Minister not know it?


Wilfrid Laurier: Personally I know nothing of whether it is true or false, but I challenge my hon. friend to state outside the House the charges he has made.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not require any
lessons in gallantry or courage from the hon. ex-First Minister, or in intrigue, either.



TRUST COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved second reading of Bill No. 70, respecting Trust Companies.
He said:	This is a measure to provide
general legislation for the incorporation and regulation of trust companies. In this matter the Dominion has not, as the House is aware, exclusive jurisdiction, as it has in the case of banks. Most of the trust companies carrying on business in the Dominion of Canada are incorporated under provincial authority. Many companies have, however, come to Parliament for incorporation, and hitherto incorporation has been granted in two ways, 72
either by letters patent under the Companies Act of the Dominion or by Special Act of this Parliament. Under the Companies Act, the Secretary of State has power to issue charters incorporating companies for any of the purposes or objects to which the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends, except the construction and working of railways or telegraph or telephone lines, the business of insurance, the business of a loan company, the business of banking and the issue of paper money. Trust companies are therefore not within the exception, and in consequence have been incorporated in the past by letters patent issued by the Secretary of State.	Under the
authority of the Companies Act, letters patent have been granted over a period of years conferring exceedingly wide powers on trust companies. For the information of the House, and in order to show why I desire to enact that hereafter no trust company shall be incorporated by letters patent, I shall refer to some of the powers which have been conferred upon trust companies by the issue of letters patent. Into the question as to whether the Secretary of State has any discretion as to the powers which he will grant by the issue of letters patent, it is not necessary to enter now. I have before me a copy of the charter of a trust company incorporated about a year ago, and by it the following, among many other powers, have been granted:
To accept, fulfil and execute any trust committed to the company by any person, corporation or court of justice on such terms as may be agreed upon or as the court shall approve of, and take, receive, hold, convey and lease all assets and property, both real and personal, which may be granted, deposited, committed or conveyed to the company with its assent upon such trust or trusts, and to manage estates of deceased or insolvent persons and to act as executor, administrator, trustee, receiver, sequestrator, assignee, curator to insolvent's estates, guardian, committee of the person, tutor or minors or curator to interdicted persons.
Then these further powers are granted, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House:
To promote, organize and manage financial, commercial, industrial, trading, development, mercantile and other companies and corporations ; to subscribe for, purchase, acquire, underwrite, hold and sell or otherwise dispose of, on commission or otherwise and to deal in the shares, bonds or other securities of any company or corporation notwithstanding the provisions of section 44 of the said Act.
[Stage Direction]


Further:
To acquire by purchase, lease, exchange or other legal title and to sell and otherwise deal in the business, property, francmses, rights and undertaking of any financial, commercial, manufacturing, industrial, development or other trading corporation of any kind or of any firm, partnership or individual for the purpose of promoting, enlarging and organizing companies, and to carry on the same and to manage, operate and carry on any business, property and undertakings so acquired and to assume the liabilities thereof.
Further:
To enter into any arrangement for the sharing of profits or union of interest, joint adventure, reciprocal concession or otherwise, with any person or company carrying on or about to carry on any business similar to that of the company hereby incorporated and to promote or assist in promoting and to become a shareholder in any such company.
To advance money or guarantee the obligations or contracts of or otherwise assist or aid in any manner any company whose shares of capital stock, bonds or other obligations are held by the company.
To issue fully paid-up and non-assessable shares, bonds, and other securities of the company in payment in whole or in part for any real or personal property, rights, franchises or other assets acquired by the company by any title or for services rendered by way of promotion or otherwise.
To invest arid deal with the moneys of the company not immediately required in such securities and in such manner as may be from time to time determined.
I am sure I voice the view of every hon. gentleman in this House, that powers so wide, so varied and so unrelated should not be granted to companies which enter into such intimate and fiduciary relationship with the public as trust companies do. I think it must be clear that the Companies Act, under authority of which letters patent have been issued in the past ten years conferring powers as wide as those I have mentioned upon trust companies, must be defective.
Charles Murphy: Is it the intention to
amend the Companies Act also?


Mr. WHITE:: It is my intention to provide that hereafter no trust company, as defined in this Act, shall be incorporated by letters patent. I find that 31 trust companies have been incorporated by letters patent since 1901. Of those, 20 have been incorporated during the past two years. It would appear [DOT] therefore that the number has increased in recent years, and it is quite evident that incorporators are desirous of obtaining the very wide powers which they are able to obtain under the Companies Act rather than come to Par-

liament for special legislation giving them the power of carrying on the business of trust companies throughout the Dominion.


Mr. NESBITT:: Will this legislation affect the charters or powers of existing companies?


William Thomas White: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: 1 am in favour of the minister bringing in a Bill such as he describes. For the past few years, in the Banking and Commerce Committee, when the various trust corporations come up for charters, we had sometimes great difficulty in reconciling them to an even basis, as it were. We had constant

applications to widen their powers, and I think it was the Banking and Commerce Committee really that urged the minister last year and the year before to draft such a Bill as he is proposing now. I cannot say anything against it, and I have no doubt the Banking and Commerce Committee will give it very serious consideration and do all the amending of it that is necessary.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, might I first congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. White) on his return to his duties in the House after his illness. Speaking merely from memory, it seems to me that the adoption by Parliament of this Bill would necessitate an amendment to the Companies Act and also a change in the form used by the State Department under which letters patent are issued. These are mere matters of detail, but I draw attention to them now, so that they may be dealt with concurrently with the consideration of this measure.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend's suggestion occurred to me and it has been considered. The opinion is that, having regard to the fact that this Trust 'Company Act is a general Act and that it especially provides no trust company shall, after the passing of this Act, be incorporated by letters patent under tne provisions of part 1 of the Companies Act, chapter 79 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, no substantial amendment of the Companies Act will be necessary, because any lawyer, knowing as he should know that there is general legislation affecting trust companies, would have before him this provision in this Act respecting trust companies and therefore would not apply for letters patent under the Companies Act because the right of obtaining such letters patent has been done away with. Nevertheless, for greater clearness and certainly I would see no objection to putting trust companies in the exceptions in the Companies Act and then the public would not be in any way misled as to the rights of obtaining charters by letters patent.


Charles Murphy: That would prevent a possible slip which might occur in the department when the Secretary of State or the Under Secretary was not present.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Act seems certainly well conceived and there can be very little doubt that such legislation is becoming more and more a necessity. The

fact, which is now patent to everybody, that trust companies are very largely resorted to for the administration of the estates of widows and orphans makes it all the more necessary that adequate safeguards should be taken to make sure that the money put in their hands is absolutely beyond the possibility of any misfortune. My hon. friend has made a statement which goes to show the necessity of having such legislation at a very early date. He said that during the last two years some 20 trust companies had been incorporated. That number is certainly startling, and there is reason to doubt that they are all of such a character as could be desired. Has my hon. friend any information as to whether these companies which have received their incorporation are now in operation ?


William Thomas White: I am unable to say whether they have been organized. The charters have certainly been granted, and I should presume most of them would be alive, so to speak, at the present time.


Wilfrid Laurier: They have legal life, but whether they are actually living is another matter. My hon. friend, in answer to a question put to him, stated that he had not fully made up his mind whether or not this Act should be made retroactive, as he saw very considerable difficulty in that. I quite agree with him. The reasons may be strong and many why it should be retroactive, but it is only in very extreme cases now that Parliament will agree to make any law retroactive. I suggest to my hon. friend that all of these companies which have been granted charters but are not yet in operation, might be very properly brought within the terms of this Act. If a company is in operation it is a vested interest which Parliament would hesitate to interfere with, but in case of a company having a charter and not being in full operation, the Act might very well apply to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 83, respecting loan companies.
He said:	After the general explanation
which I have given as to the object of the legislation which I.am introducing to regulate trust companies, it will not be necessary for -me to say much with respect to this Bill which has the same purpose in
i EBRUARY 26, 1914
view, namely, to create a general act under which loan companies may be incorporated.
I may say, briefly, that loan companies invest their own funds, funds which they have received by way of deposit and moneys which they have received from the sale of their debentures. In the past, loan companies have been incorporated under Dominion authority by letters pat. ent, and by special acts as in the case of trust companies. The powers which I confer upon loan companies under the provisions of this Bill, are those which have been approved by the Banking and Commerce Committee and by Parliament as proper and necessary for the conduct of the business of loan companies throughout the Dominion. I have imposed certain restrictions with respect to the holdings of real estate, and I have provided new legislation requiring returns and financial statements to be sent to the minister or Department of Finance giving full information as to the financial condition of loan companies having Dominion charters, and details of their investments. This will, I think, be very much in the public interest, because after all the best safeguard which the public can have against the operation of companies, which might be of an improper character, is publicity. Provision is also being made for inspection by the treasury board in the event of a report being made by the minister calling attention to irregularities or features in the returns which he thinks may require attention. Loan companies have been incorporated under the Companies' Act to the number of 13 only, whereas by Act of Parliament 38 have been incorporated during the same period, since 1872. That shows clearly that part 3 of the Companies' Act, which provides for the incorporation of loan companies, has been regarded as inadequate by persons seeking the incorporation of loan companies. Whether it is that the powers are not sufficiently definite, or that other provisions of the Companies' Act are defective in so far as loan companies are concerned, I am not in a position to say. I will now move the second reading of this Bill, on the understanding that it be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	Might I ask whether
any effort has been made to secure uniformity in these laws. We have nine legislatures in the Dominion, all of which can legislate on the same subject, and it i3 highly desirable there should be some uniformity. One company getting
its powers from the local legislature may be side by side with a company receiving its charter from this House. It will be apparent to the minister that it is highly desirable that the powers of these companies should be of the same extent, and that the laws should be, as far as possible, uniform. I would suppose that the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice would possibly meet with very little objection from the provincial jurisdiction in bringing about uniformity in the law. I would suggest to the minister, in passing, that there is here an opportunity for the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice to try and obtain uniformity in regard to trust companies and loan companies.
William Thomas White: I appreciate the importance of the matter to which my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has drawn my attention, and to which I have given some consideration. I have held the view that, while unquestionably the Dominion has jurisdiction to incorporate trust companies, this is a class of company that might well be incorporated by the provinces. There may be a difference of opinion as to that, but certainly most trust companies carrying on business throughout the Dominion are operating under provincial and not Dominion charter. On the other hand, the business of a loan company, I think, properly comes under the jurisdiction of the Dominion because in one feature of its business it is analogous to banking, namely, taking deposits from the public. I did consider, before introducing these Bills, whether it might not be proper for me to take up with the several provinces, if I might without offence, the question of obtaining uniform legislation in reference to this very important subject. Whether that is feasible or not, I do not know. I have already received a request from the authorities of two of the provinces to send them a copy of this legislation and what I think they have in view is precisely what my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the House. Whether the several provinces would be willing, because there is no question as to their jurisdiction, to adopt legislation of this character, I am unable to say, but I shall undertake to forward to each of the attorneys general, or the provincial secretaries, a copy of this law when it is enacted. In that way it will be before them and they can take such action as they deem proper. If there is anything I can do to promote uniformity I shall be only too glad to do

it, because I have the same view upon that point as has my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), namely, that the most important business conducted by trust companies is as executors, administrators, curators or guardians of deceased persons and consequently trustees for widows and orphans. Therefore, I think their operations should be surrounded with all possible safeguards in the public interest consistent with their being enabled to carry on their business with reasonable freedom.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be desirable if there could be uniformity between provincial and Dominion legislation, but I am sorry to say that I do not see much hope of that. Can my hon. friend tell me the position of the dispute between the Dominion and the provinces in regard to the power claimed by the provinces to create companies?


William Thomas White: In the absence of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), I am not in a position to make a statement as to that. I could only give my understanding of it, but that might be incorrect. I am quite aware of the significance of the remarks made by my right hon. friend and of their bearing upon the respective jurisdictions of the provinces and of the Dominion, and of the right of the province to exclude or to authorize companies having Dominion powers to do business within the provinces. Not having definite information, I refrain from making any statement on the point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should like to say
for the information of the House, because it is desirable that we should follow the rules of procedure, that while on the second reading of a Bill a minister has the right to speak twice, it is not permissible to speak back and forth across the floor of the House before the House has gone into Committee of the Whole, as some hon. members have done. I should have intimated to the House, before the minister spoke a second time, that it was open to any hon. member to make any observation that he desired to make, but I did not do so.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) and my hon. friend the member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) have been discussing the importance of uniformity in legislation and more particularly the special phase of uniformity which formed the subject of
[Mr. W. T. White. 1
their remarks. May I suggest that to secure further imiformity my hon. friend the Minister of Finance should repeal part 3 of the Companies Act? Part 3 forms a very considerable portion of the Companies Act, extending from sections 177 to 275 inclusive. 1 think that as a necessary sequence of the legislation introduced by my hon. friend, with which, from my experience in the State Department I am in hearty accord, an Act should be introduced repealing that portion of the Companies Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Arts and Agriculture-division of entomology,

Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understand this is an
entirely new item. Would the minister be good enough to explain it?


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture):: This is new this year,
simply because in past years we did this work under the next item, which is for the administration and enforcement of the Destructive Insects and Pest Acts. A great deal of the work of the Entomological Branch has nothing to do with the experimental farm, and for convenience of working we have decided to make it a separate branch. This is why this new vote appears for the first time. ,We have officers at work in different parts of the country and a great deal of expense is entailed upon us by the campaign we are carrying on against the brown-tail moth and the gypsy moth in the Maritime provinces. These pests constitute one of the greatest dangers we have in this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: The creation of this branch will not be criticised by anybody because we appreciate the importance of such a branch. Would my hon. friend give some information as to the organization of the branch, its personnel, and the work it is doing.


Martin Burrell: The branch will be presided over by Dr. Hewitt, who has been at the head of the division of entomologists. He will have one or two of the other officials formerly connected with that work, and probably only the apiarist will be at the Central Farm. These gentlemen will issue the various bulletins, which in them-

selves take almost one-third of this item, in connection with the methods of counteracting the ravages of destructive insects. They will carry on field, laboratory and investigation work. Our idea is to put the whole of this most important work upon a systematic basis and to keep trained scientific entomologists constantly in touch with the progress of the work throughout the country.
I spoke of the very important work we are trying to do in regard to the brown-tail and the gypsy moths, which are now invading the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and which are capable of enormous ravages. When I inform the House that the United States Federal Government and the Governments of the different eastern States have spent, since these pests got a foothold in Massachusetts, which was only in the year 1897, more than ^8,000,000 trying to fight these insects, and not any too successfully, hon. members will thoroughly understand means to prevent their ravages in Canada justifies large expenditure. The brown-tail moth is now in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick covering quite a large area, and the gypsy moth is within forty or fifty miles of New Brunswick at the present time.


Wilfrid Laurier: What trees do they attack?


Martin Burrell: The gypsy moth defoliates deciduous and coniferous trees. The brown-tail moth attacks deciduous trees and not coniferous trees. The danger of the brown-tail moth, which is a common European pest, is that it can spread very much more rapidly on this continent. The female moth is a very strong flier, she lays large numbers of eggs and could cover large sections in this country with very great rapidity. These two insects, like some of the worst insects that have appeared on this continent, have come here from Europe and we have not been able to find among our common predacious insects, any insect foe in the larval or in the perfect insect stage to keep them down. Tne consequence is that these insects spread rapidly. Some of the most valuable work which is being done in the United States is the introduction of parasites, both beetles and flies, and we are introducing them also into New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the hope that they will multiply and keep these mischievous insects under control.
5 p.m. We are now fighting them, in co-operation with the provincial
Governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, who are maintaining the same number of inspectors as we are. In the winter we are discovering and destroying the nests, and we intend to carry on a great deal of experimental work during the summer. Although the work is arduous, and I am afraid that the increase of the insect is quite noticeable, I am sure the House will approve such an expenditure.


Mr. KYTE:: What area in Nova Scotia has been discovered to he infested with the browndail moth?


Martin Burrell: Perhaps it might be useful to give the area affected in the United Stated since 1897, when that insect first appeared there. At the present the area infested with the brown-tail moth is
33,000	square miles in the eastern stateB. In the United States the area infested with the gypsy moth is 16,000 square miles. The brown-tail moth, in New Brunswick, is in the counties of St. John, Queens, Sunbury, Charlotte, York and Carleton, covering an area of approximately 6,000 square mileB.


Mr. MICHAUD:: In Victoria, New Brunswick, this moth has done a great deal of harm during the last year or two along the St. John river.


Martin Burrell: In Nova Scotia, the brown-tail moth is in the counties of Hants, Kings, Annapolis, Digby, Yarmouth and Shelburne, covering an area of 3,200 square miles. There are about 9,200 square miles in Canada infested with the brown-tail moth, as compared with 33,000 square mileB in the United States. The gypsy moth has not yet come to this country; it is about forty or fifty miles south in the state of Maine. We hope during the winter, by constant inspection, by destruction of the nests with the young larvae in them, and by the introduction of these parasites, to make good headway.


George William Kyte: When did this pest first make its appearance in eastern Canada?


Martin Burrell: It was first discovered in Kings County, Nova Scotia, in 1907. That is the first registered discovery. It was introduced into the province by flights of the female moths carried by strong winds from the neighbouring states, and of course it came on lumber and on ships. The first discovery in new Brunswick was m 1911, when it came in on prevailing winds from the state of Maine. It is also brought in on nursery stock. We are main-

taining a very strict inspection over nursery
[DOT] stock.


Pius Michaud: How long do these moths take to kill a grown tree-one or two years?


Martin Burrell: I could not say positively as to that. If the foliage of a tree is absolutely denuded by these insects, it would certainly not take more than another year, if the pest came again, because the tree would be so weakened that it would have very little foliage the next year, and would not be able to breathe at all.


Mr. ROBB:: Last year considerable damage was done by caterpillars to the fruit trees and also to the maple trees in Canada. Has the hon. minister given any consideration to a method of preventing the caterpillar plague? I am not sure whether it is under provincial or under federal control.


Martin Burrell: I do not know to what caterpillar my hon. friend is referring.
These insects do practically all their damage in the caterpillar or larval form.
I think my hon. friend must refer to the ordinary tent caterpillar which does a great deal of harm throughout Canada but whose destruction can be accomplished in various ways. It breeds very fast and covers a large area very often, and then, because it is the victim of a number of native parasites, when these parasites multiply it is kept in check. Then, just as with the locust it does not appear for several years when, the parasites having died dawn, the caterpillar gets another start. It is an example of the continued oscillation in nature with which all are familiar. In orchard work it is not hard to control this insect, because its nest can be seen so easily.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
remedy?


Martin Burrell: The remedy is to spray with arsenical poisons. The caterpillar takes its food by means of its jaws, and so will take in the poison of the spray. Another way is to destroy the nests which appear on the trees.


Pius Michaud: That is a very slow process, and some other remedy should be discovered.


James Alexander Robb: Is it not better to take off in March or April the nests which are banded around the limb of the trees? I think that was advised in the bulletin issued by the department.


Martin Burrell: This item covers the expense of bulletins' dealing with all these things, which bulletins are sent out in very large numbers. As to our relation to the work of the provincial governments in these matters of agriculture you can hardly lay down any hard and fast rule, and there must be some overlapping. We wish to make a specialty in dealing with all these things that may fairly be described as interprovincial, that can spread from province to province, and by means of our educational and bulletin work to reach as many people as possible, working, as far as possible, in conjunction with the provincial governments, all of whom of course are interested in such work.


Frank Oliver: Last yeajr while Parliament was sitting this city was for a time in a most disgusting condition as the result of the caterpillar plague. This is the seat of the federal Government, here is located the Central Experimental Farm, with I suppose, an entomological service. This city also, like others, has its municipal government, and, like others, is under the jurisdiction of the province. I would like to know whose fault it was that we had such an almost unbearable condition as we had last year. I am not suggesting that it was the fault of the Department of Agriculture or of the Government of the day, but I would like to know whose fault it was. Information as to how this pest could be dealt with must have been available here. If the condition which arose was the fault of the civic authorities, I think it would- be right and proper for the Minister of Agriculture to rise in his place and say so, or, if the provincial government was responsible, that should be made known. Certainly it was a terrible condition, that here, in the capital of the country, we were subjected to a disgusting pest which was also damaging to the permanent beauty of the place, and yet no remedy seemed to be applied.


Martin Burrell: Of course, we all have
a very clear recollection of the condition to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) refers. I cannot see that the duty or responsibility in the matter was ours. We felt the responsibility of giving the information as to methods of cure, and that we did in the most public way, but the application of the remedy, I should think, would be with the local authorities. I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree with me that it is not for the federal Government to clear the streets and back yards of a pest of this kind,

but there is an individual responsibility resting on the citizen, and a civic and provincial responsibility as well. I think we could hardly undertake to deal with a familiar pest of this kind. The only case that would justify our taking direct action would be the incursion of some pest from abroad whose operations are not understood and which had no natural enemies in the country. In such a case, having the scientific equipment and better men than are employed in most localities, we might take hold of the work that would not otherwise be done. But if in this case we give the necessary information-we do very freely-it is the duty of individuals and the civic authorities to attend to the work.


Frank Oliver: I understood from the hon. minister that in the case of the pest now coming into the Maritime provinces actual work was done by the department. The minister makes a distinction between .a native pest and an imported pest, and I am sorry to know that in case of a recurrence of the conditions of last year, should we be so unfortunate as to be here late in the season, it will not be possible for the department to take active measures in this city against the pest. I do not know what the remedy is, but, while not wishing to relieve the civic authorities of any responsibility, I would respectfully suggest that, in case of a recurrence of the pest this summer, and should Parliament still be in session, the department should depart from the rule the minister has laid down, and, as a matter of fact, relieve the city from the disgusting appearance it had during so many days last year.


Martin Burrell: I would not like to go so faT as my hon. friend goes. I do not think it is our duty to attend to an evil which is an ordinary occurrence, and the method of dealing with which is known. I draw this distinction: There have been cases in the United States and elsewhere of a foreign pest coming in, jeopardizing a whole industry, and threatening to cover the country with extraordinary rapidity. In such a case interference was necessary. But take a pest which, in some ways, is equally bad, the -common house-fly, a filthy and abominable pest-it would not be said that it was the duty of the federal Government to attend to the business of making [DOT] everybody take the precautions to stamp out this evil. There may be some special responsibility resting upon the Government
with regard to Ottawa because it is the federal capital. So far as we can logically and properly step in and assist, we are only too glad to do so. But I do hot think we should undertake the work of cleaning up every man's garden or saving eveTy shade-tree in Ottawa.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My county grows the finest apples fn Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Martin Burrell: That is a large claim.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I hear no dissenting voices, I suppose I may assume that I am stating an accepted fact. But last year this pest of caterpillars destroyed some of the beautiful orchards in my county. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will help the apple-growers of Rouville-and the apple-growers of all Canada, or at least of the province of Quebec-if this evil exists only in Quebec-to overcome that plague, and that some of this money will be spent for that purpose; otherwise we may lose the best apple of Canada, the Fameuse, which is grown in the county of Rouville. Will my hon. friend tell the committee whether any part of the moneys which are handed to the provincial governments is devoted to the purpose of banishing this pest from our orchards? I should like to know also how it is that the moneys allotted to the province of Quebec are put, so to speak, in the hands of a guardian. I understand that in the other provinces the moneys are handed to the Minister of Agriculture, whilst in the province of Quebec an exception has been made. Mr. Chapais, whose knowledge of agricultural conditions I do not question, but who, it seems to me, should not have been put over the Minister of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, was given the control of the expenditure of those moneys; at least the Minister of Agriculture in the province of Quebec is obliged to report to Mr. Chapais, who, in turn, reports to my hon. friend the minister. There is quite a feeling in our province about this matter. The other provinces have no such guardian, and surely my hon. friend did not deem that in the province of Quebec there should be one. I may tell my hon. friend that the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec is a real farmer, a man of great knowledge who has made a success of his farming, and has the confidence of the farming communities in that province. What impelled my hon. friend to follow a different course in
11.34

regard to the province of Quebec than that which he followed in respect to the other provinces?


Martin Burrell: Although this discussion should, perhaps, take place under the regular item, I have no objection to answering my hon. friend's question. I have a very lively recollection, however, of an unfortunate precedent established by my predecessor when, having made an assertion about a certain apple being the finest in the world, he drew down upon his devoted head and upon the House a deluge of talk about the value of apples from every man from an apple growing county in Canada, so I will not enter into the discussion of that matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My friends opposite may attempt to banish the county of Rouville under the next redistribution, but I do not wish the Fameuse apple to disappear.


Martin Burrell: As to the other questions, I have to come back to my original position. The federal Department of Agriculture desires to give all information which will enable the people to combat the ravages of these common pests. When I was a fruit grower myself I had a great deal of experience with these things; I did not get any financial assistance from the Government, but I got the information that enabled me to understand the history of these pests and to become acquainted with the best ways of combating their operations. I found that by a little energy and attention to details, nearly all of these pests could be kept in fair check. With reference to the other question my hon. friend has raised, it would be quite in order for any province under the Agricultural Instruction Act to receive money for the purpose which we have been discussing so long as it be educational or instructional. I do not think the Act could be fairly interpreted as providing that you could give any province money that would enable it to get people to go and do certain work, because that would not be educational or instructional, but I do think it would be well for the Act to enable the provinces to appoint experienced men to go around, as, indeed, is being done, to teach the people the best remedies to adopt. That, I think, is educational and instructional, and therefore it is quite legitimate. As a matter of fact, a considerable portion of these various grants to the provinces, including Quebec, is devoted to things along that line. In Ontario they have given $80,000 [Mr. Lemieux.j
to district representatives, and a large portion of these moneys would be used in the way my hon. friend mentions. With reference to the other part of my hon. friend's remarks, I think he has, perhaps, rather misunderstood the situation. I do not think the word 'guardian' is the right one, as I understand it. There was a question on the Order Paper about a guardian being imposed on the province of Quebec; and, aside from the word ' guardian ' being not quite the correct one, I do not think the office was * imposed.' As my hon. friend knows, under the Act we have the right and authority to ask for statements, examine accounts or appoint any officer to supervise the work. Dr. James, who as my hon. friend knows, is a very capable man, has been all through the West and is not only thoroughly familiar with conditions in the West and East, but has personally known for many years most of the leading men in the provinces connected with agricultural educational work. Before this Bill became law, and long since, he has discussed verbally and by correspondence nearly all these questions. Unfortunately, good a man as Dr. James is, he has only a limited knowledge of the French language, and it was thought advisable, in the interests of the province of Quebec and of the provincial Government-so far as I know no objection was raised on this point when the matter was first discussed-to take the course we did. Both myself and the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) discussed the agreement with Mr. Caron, and all details were carefully gone over. My instructions to Mr. uhapais were to discuss, at any time he or Mr. Caron wished it, the various lines of work-whether anything should be altered; whether anything done would come within the meaning of the Act; what was in the best interests of the province-and to give him advice or assistance when he wanted it. But in no sense of the word was he to dictate to those in authority, or rigidly to put down a line on which they must stand. It is Mr. Chapais' business to see that the work is done and to see, as far as possible, that it is done along the lines laid down by the Act and by the agreement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. James does this for the other provinces?


Martin Burrell: He has been keeping in close touch with that work for the other provinces. It is expected that he will have a full report of all work done in the various

provinces to lay before the House, as we have to do under the Act next session.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member surely does not wish to imply that Sir Lomer Gouin, the Premier of Quebec, and Mr. Caron, the Minister of Agriculture, have no knowledge of the English language. If he knows these gentlemen, he must know that they speak English as well as he does himself.


Martin Burrell: I do not think my hon. friend's observation is quite in order, because, after all, it is very much better that one of our officers who is dealing with this work should have a thorough knowledge of the language of the province in which the work is carried on.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chapais is acting as paid officer of the Department of Agriculture?


Martin Burrell: He is acting as a federal officer under section 6, I think, of the Act.
Administration and enforcement of the destructive Insect and Pest Act, $50,000.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: What success has Mr. Strickland had with the pest known as the cutworm which has been destroying a large amount of grain in southern Alberta?


Martin Burrell: I am sorry I cannot
give my hon. friend full details, although I will be glad to send him later the actual ' results of the work. That will of course appear in the annual report. Mr. Strickland has done a lot of good work; he is studying more or less the parasites and Remedies that will be helpful. My recollection is that some new species of the cutworm had appeared in the district to which my hon. friend refers.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Mr. Strickland will
be there again this season?


Martin Burrell: Yes, I suggested that he get back there at a reasonably early date.


Mr. LAW:: How much of this money is
to be expended in Nova Scotia?


Martin Burrell: More money has probably been spent in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick than in other parts of the Dominion because in those provinces we have been fighting the brown-tail and gypsy moths.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Who has charge of the eradication of the brown-tail moth in Nova Scotia?


Martin Burrell: Mr. Saunders, I think.


John Howard Sinclair: Is that in connection
with the Experimental Farm?


Martin Burrell: No, it has nothing to
do with it. Mr. Saunders was appointed before I came into office.


Frank Oliver: I understand there is
another pest in southern Alberta known as the eelworm. Has the minister any information to give in regard to the success in fighting that pest?


Martin Burrell: I am sorry I cannot
give my hon. friend that information, although I will be glad to send it to him later. Mr. Strickland has been studying both these pests.


Frank Oliver: The minister should have some idea of the progress made in fighting such serious pests as the cutworm and the eelworm. Have we made substantial progress in fighting these pests, or is the battle still on without a measure of success?


Martin Burrell: The battle is still on
but there are encouraging signs. I will be glad to refer to the matter again before we get through the Estimates.


Frank Oliver: If there is any information I think it should be given at the earliest possible date.


Martin Burrell: The Agricultural Gazette which was discussed the other night will give information like that from month to month.


Mr. CARVELL:: As the discussion on this item seems to be pretty well exhausted, I would like to call the minister's attention to the Experimental Farm at Fredericton, N.iB., and perhaps the minister will state to the House the reasons, if any, why the Experimental Farm was located at Fredericton; and in the second place why, after they had decided to locate at Fredericton, they did not get hold of" a piece of land good enough to raise produce. The soil of that farm is only one-third or one-quarter of the quality of what we cons der soil in the province of New Brunswick. It was not because good soil could not be had around the city of Fredericton, because the minister knows very well that very good soil is to be found in the province. The farm is some three or four miles below the city and is entirely away from transportation facilities. Two railroads I think run by it, but there is no ready access to it. A farmer who goes to Fredericton and wants to see the Experimental Farm has to drive out three or four miles. Will the minister explain whether any attempt was

made to analyse the soil or was this farm simply bought because somebody wanted to sell it? In going over the Auditor General's Report I notice that A. D. Thomas, whom I know very well-the Minister of Marine knows him also as a sound Conservative to the core; one who never varies for a moment, a Grand Master of the Orangemen, and all those things that go to make a good Tory-I find that Thomas received $1,000 commission for buying a farm that cost only. $13,000, although that is three or four times what it is worth. It seems to me that some explanation of that commission is due, and I think the minister should give it.


Martin Burrell: The farm at Fredericton was selected after careful consideration. We were anxious to do for New Brunswick what had been done for every other province. It seemed to me that New Brunswick was entitled to have an Experimental Farm. Nobody knows better than my hon. friend that there is great difficulty in the selection of places for experimental farms. There might be a great many other places in New Brunswick which would be admirably suited for one of our farms, the place where my hon. friend comes from for instance, but as Fredericton is centrally situated and is the capital seat of the province, and is accessible, it was considered that, on the whole Fredericton was about as well adapted as any other place could be. I am not saying Oarleton would not have been a good spot. I do not profess to be such an expert as .some men, although I certainly have had a little to do with farming. It is quite obvious that I could not personally select all the farms, but I happened to be at Fredericton and walked over this particular place before it was bought.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did it impress the minister very favourably?


Martin Burrell: I do not like to make any animadversions about the soil of New Brunswick, because it is a beautiful province. The reasons that would induce you to buy an experimental farm are not always those which would lead you to buy a farm to makd the most money out of it. We would serve the province better by taking a farm that was fairly typical of a large number of farms, even if it were not in very good condition, than by selecting the best land that we could find in a district and using that for experimental farm purposes. Some 
one would say: Anybody can farm if you buy the best piece of soil that you can find and spend all sorts of money in its operation. My hon. friend says that this farm is four miles from Fredericton. My recollection is that it is not over two miles from Fredericton.


John Douglas Hazen: Two or three miles.


Martin Burrell: It did not strike me that it was more than that; however, that is not a point of very material importance. We sent our own men down to investigate. Mr. Grisdale was down and made a thorough examination of the property from every viewpoint. It was upon his advice and report largely that we came to make up our minds about purchasing this property. I do not think that the price was at all out of the way. In regard to what my hon. friend said about Mr. Thomas, I am afraid I cannot tax my memory with the whole matter, but my recollection of it is that Mr. Thomas had done exceedingly valuable work in connection with the securing of options, that it might otherwise have been difficult to have got on some of these properties. Some of these properties were in a very involved condition, and my recollection is that it was the view of the department that if Mr. Thomas had received $1,000 for securing these options he was instrumental in saving us several times over that amount. I looked into the matter carefully, consulted the deputy minister about it and we felt that we were fully justified in doing what we did and which has been done again and again in the history of the acquisition of experimental farms.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry not to have heard some justification by the minister for this enormous amount paid to Mr Thomas. I am not here to quarrel with the minister nor with Mr. Thomas. There is no doubt that Mr. Thomas has been a good party worker. He rounded up that particular section of the Orange vote for the Government; it was necessary that he should do it and he will do it again. But it does seem pretty tough that the people of this country have to pay a party heeler a thousand dollars for buying a $10,000 or $12,000 farm. The minister knows that is not right. I realize that he is not responsible; he is only technically responsible.
I do not believe that the minister, left to himself, would pay this man a thousand dollars; he knows better. But political exigencies in New Brunswick are such that the minister has to give way. That is

where I blame the minister. The minister not only had a report from Mr. Grisdale condemning the site in question, but reports on other farms that were so far ahead of this farm that they are not to be mentioned in the same connection. I think he will find a report that Mr. Grisdale wanted to pay $20,000 for another farm that was a farm; that was not only typical of the best land but typical of the poorer land. But unfortunately this farm was in the town of Woodstock and was owned by a bad Grit, and that settled it


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Had Mr. Grisdale seen it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Grisdale was there
and saw it and if I am not mistaken Mr. Grisdale recommended it. This is a farm of 400 or 500 acres. The owner has lately sold 10 or 15 acres to the Agricultural Society at about $200 an acre.


Martin Burrell: What is the name of
this farm?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Smith farm. I am mistaken in saying that he sold it for $200 an acre; he sold it for about $100, or $115 or $120 an acre. There are 200 acres of beautiful upland and 200 acres of rougher land. It would have been typical of practically every quality of soil that is found in New Brunswick. The minister would have had there a real experimental farm on which it would have been possible for him to have demonstrated something. But instead of that he went the way that his political friends told him to go and he bought a farm that is practically nothing more than a sand heap. The minister would not say he would have bought that farm if he had been left to himself? No, the minister would not take that farm as a gift and live on it. There is not a man in this House who would take that farm as a gift and live on it. There is not a plan in this House who would pay $1,090 for the whole of it and yet he pays Duncan Thomas $1,000 for buying it. My hon. friend talks about there being so many options. There are only four of them altogether. He could have got another farm within a mile of Fredericton which is on what is called the Maryland road. I have forgotten the names of those who own it. It is a farm composed of splendid land, a farm which would have been of some value a3 an experimental farm and a farm close to the University of New Brunswick. But, unfortunately, the acquisition of this farm did not suit the political exigencies of the hon. Minister qf Marine
and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) and therefore the hon. Minister of Agriculture was compelled to buy the sand neap and pay $10,000 or $12,000 for something that is no good at all.
Hon. gentlemen may think I am speaking a little strongly about this but every -word I am saying is true. I am not painting it as black as it is. It is a pity, it is a shame, it is almost a crime that when New Brunswick, the one province in the whole of Canada that did not have an experimental farm, was to be provided with an experimental farm it should be given something which is worse than useless, squandering $27,000 or $28,000 in the initial stages and the Lord only knows what amount will be squandered by this Government in the future, notwithstanding the fact that they could .have found within the province thousands and tens of thousands of acres of as good land as can be found on the continent of America. My hon friend talks about finding fault with going to Fredericton; but I am not finding fault on that account.


Martin Burrell: I am not saying you
found fault.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps there is no place in the province of New Brunswick that is more accessible than the city of Fredericton, but if my hon. friend wanted to place this farm where it would be of the greatest use to the farming community he has gone to the wrong place, because Fredericton is not an agricultural community to any extent and it never will be a highly developed agricultural community. The agricultural areas of New Brunswick are in two sections, one in the east, in the county of Rings, and one in the west, in the counties of York, Carleton, Victoria and Madawaska on the upper reaches of the St. John river. I never could understand why it was that two Conservative Governments in working out an agricultural policy in the province of New Brunswick, should bedevil the thing to tbe extent they have done.
The Minister of Agriculture wants to take a great deal of credit to himself for starting this wonderful, agricultural educational policy. We have a suspicion on this side of the House that this Agricultural Gazette, which has been issued, and about which there was so much criticism here the otheT evening, is for the purpose not so much of glorifying the Minister of Agriculture as of trying to make popular this agricultural policy, which means to educate the people.

I am not a farmer-yes, I am a farmer now -I am the son of a farmer also and I think I know something about it. My hon. friend' the Minister of Agriculture has contributed this year some $20,000 or $30,000 to the province of New Brunswick for agricultural education. The province of New Brunswick, which has the legal right to divide this up in any way it sees fit, has established an agricultural school in the town of Woodstock, which is the centre of the only agricultural portion of the province of New Brunswick. Some years ago, a wealthy man left by his will about half a million dollars to be divided up for certain public uses. The residue of the estate, after certain schemes were carried out, was to be devoted to establishing a technical school. That residue amounted to about $300,000. An arrangement has been made with the trustees of the estate and the Government of the province of New Brunswick by which they have established what they call a vocational school, but a portion of the money which my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture is asking is going to support that vocational school, and to that extent it is to be an agricultural school, an agricultural college if you will, but they have not ten .square rods of land beyond the land on which the building stands. If the Minister of Agriculture was really trying to work out an agricultural education policy, one which would be of some benefit to the people, he surely snould have had an agricultural school beside the experimental farm. He has a school in the town of Woodstock and an experimental farm in the city of Fredericton, .sixty-five miles distant. I fail to see how the two of them are to be of any benefit to the. people of New Brunswick. If the hon. minister puts a farm beside the school or a school beside the farm, then I think there will be some benefit. Even if it were in Fredericton, I would not find very much fault. The farm is of no use per se, and it never can be made of any use. The school can not be of any use, because there is no farm in connection with it. I am afraid that a very serious blunder has been committed in connection with this matter. It seems to me that even at this late date the minister might do something to establish an experimental farm of some value at least in connection with this school. If he did, he would be doing something to benefit the people generally, and all the money would not be squandered. The Minister of Agriculture has a farm that is no 
good to start with, and, being controlled by the class of men he has there to-day, it is absolutely useless. He might as well throw the $25,000 or whatever the item is into the St. John river as to try to carry on a farm down there. If the minister would go there and see the way in which matters are being handled, and the way in which money is being squandered, I think he is farmer enough himself to feel like closing up the whole institution and throwing it into the river.
Mr. WM. SMITH:	Is there any good
land on the farm?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is simply a high plateau oif sand. Of course, if the minister puts enough fertilizer on the farm he can make things grow. Surely, however, that sand farm is not typical of the land of New Brunswick. We have not too much good land in the province of New Brunswick, but we do not use the poor land for farming, we let it grow up into forest. So far as an agricultural school or experimental farm is concerned, we want .something that will teach us to farm our good land and not our poor land. I am sincere in my remarks, and I feel that a very great error of judgment has been made on the part of some persons responsible for the establishment of this farm in the place where it is and for the establishment of this school in the place where it is, and for not putting the two together. The hon. minister could buy a farm at Woodstock. If he did not want to buy a farm from a Liberal, there are lots of Conservatives there and he could buy from one of them. Then he would have his school and his farm together in the only real agricultural portion of the province. He would have the whole St. John river valley. It is accessible by railway from north, south and east. As it is, I am afraid he has that which is of no practical value whatever.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not wish to take up the time of the House discussing agricultural items, because, like the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), I am not much of a farmer. Each of us is the son of a farmer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am a farmer myself.


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that the hon. gentleman claims to be a farmer, but I do not think his farming operations have been of a very extensive character so far. The hon. gentleman, referring to the purchase of a property at Fredericton as an

experimental farm and referring to a farm which he described as a magnificent farm in the county of Carleton, said that it would not have suited my political exigencies to purchase a farm there. I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by that. By no political action or other action of mine was the Department of Agriculture influenced in purchasing the site which they have purchased, and which I think is a very good site at Fredericton. I felt that the purchase of a farm ought to be left to the choice of the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture, in purchasing that farm for the purpose of an experimental farm was not influenced to the slightest extent by any representations of mine, because I made no representations whatever in regard to the matter.
My hon. friend, in describing the farm that has been purchased, has not done justice to himself or to the farm. I know the locality very well. It is in the city of Fredericton, not exactly within the bounds of the city, but within about three miles of the post office or the legislative buildings. Fredericton is a very extensive city in point of area, and this farm is situated on the banks of the St. John river. The Canadian Pacific railway runs through it in the rear and the St. John Valley railway also traverses it. By motor or team it is only a very short drive from the parliament buildings. As my hon. friend states, an experimental farm should be situated in a place easy of access, and I think there is very considerable advantage in having this farm situated close to the city of Fredericton, which is the capital of the province, to which the members of the legislature come every year, and to which many other people come in connection with parliamentary and departmental business. There is a further advantage in having that farm situated in a place close to the University of New Brunswick, and where agricultural education is carried on. It is also situated close to the offices of the ' Department of Agriculture of the province. Those probably are all influences which actuated the officials and the Minister of Agriculture in selecting this property for an experimental farm. Without wishing to be offensive at all to my hon. friend, I think that he is speaking in the language of very great exaggeration when he describes this farm as a sand hill. I have not been there since the changes have taken place, but I understand it is part of the farm which formerly belonged to the late Edward Simonds, and was known originally
as the Simonds farm. Far from its being a sand heap, from my knowledge of the locality-and I have known it since I was a boy-I say that the land is good average land, and there is no reason whatever why an experimental farm should not be situated in that locality, and why it should not serve all the purposes which experimental farms serve in different parts of the country. As to the price paid for it, I have never heard that price criticised before. My own opinion would be, having regard to the area, the situation on the St. John river and the accessibility to the city of Fredericton, the sum paid is a reasonable one as compared with the prices paid for other farms in New Brunswick of late years. My hon. friend has referred to Mr. A. D. Thomas, who received a commission of $1,000 in connection with the purchase of the land, as a 'ward-heeler.' The < hon. gentleman has done himself less than justice by that word.
I have known Mr. Thomas since I was a boy, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that there is not in Canada a man possessing a higher sense of honour, a man who is more thoroughly respected, than Mr. Thomas. He is a man of spotless reputation, a good citizen. The fact that he has been elected* Grand Master of the Loyal Orange Order, I think is no reason why he should be singled out for attack. I am not a member of the Orange Order myself. If the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) or my colleague from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) were here-both members of the Orange Order-I assume they would come to the defence of Mr. Thomas and would not allow the hon. gentleman's remark about the man who was Grand Master of the Order to which they belong (being a political heeler) to go unchallenged This matter arises, of course, because, naturally, different localities would put forward claims for having this farm placed in their midst. It was natural that that should be the feeling in the splendid agricultural county of Carleton from which my hon. friend comes. It is natural that that should be the feeling in the county of Kings, which is also a splendid agricultural county. But I have no doubt that all the different elements of accessibility and the others to which I have referred were taken into consideration by the Minister of Agriculture before it was decided to locate this experimental farm near the cuy of Fredericton. I think the result will show the wisdom of the choice from every standpoint. My hon. friend, no doubt, is speaking largely to his constituents in the county of

Carleton. That is quite a proper course for him to take, but I am sorry that in taking that course he has made a speech that would leave the impression upon the minds of those who have heard him that there is so little good agricultural land to be found in New Brunswick. One would think from his remarks that the only good agricultural land to be found in New Brunswick was in the county of Carleton or the county of Kings. But there is a great deal of good agricultural land in the counties of Queens and Sunbury. The great county of Westmorland has magnificent marshes where splendid hay is produced and which should be able to raise great quantities of cattle not only to supply the local market but to send abroad as well. The northern counties of Restigouche, Gloucester and Northumberland have seen of late years great development in agricultural work, and a different condition of affairs prevailing among agriculturists from that which prevailed before. I had no intention of taking part in this debate when I came in, but when the hon. gentleman speaks of this selection of a farm as having arisen from my political exigencies, I think I should refer to the matter so that it may appear on the pages of ' Hansard ' as having been corrected.
At six o'clock, the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed .at eight o'clock, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Just before dinner, when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) saw fit to discuss the matter of the Fredericton Experimental Farm, he went out of his way to give a certificate of character on behalf of Mr. A. D. Thomas, who received $1,000 commission for buying this farm, and said that I had made an attack on Mr. Thomas. I had no intention whatever of making an attack upon Mr. Thomas; I give him as good a certificate of character as does the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The minister evidently considers that the narration of the fact that a man occupying Mr. Thomas' position got $1,000 for buying a farm for $14,000 is an attack upon Mr. Thomas; I say these are the simple facts. My hon. friend also tried to make some capital out of my saying that New Brunswick is not a great agricultural province. I am bound to tell the truth, Sir; I wish .the facts were different, but I do not see that anything is to be gained by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and myself coming here and tell-

ing the committee something that is not true. I said there were two portions of the province of New Brunswick which were agricultural, the eastern portion around Kings county-I do not say Kings county alone, but that is the central portion of it -and the western portion, consisting of the upper end of the county of York and the counties of Victoria, Carleton and Mada-waska. That is what I said, and I stick to it. I know' there are other places in the province where agriculture is carried on to a considerable extent; I wish there were ten times as many. Unfortunately, it has not been carried on to a very great extent, except in those places to which I have referred, for the simple reason that in many places the soil is not suitable for agricultural purposes. There are, however, 150 miles of land, up and down the St. John river, which are equal to the best portions of Ontario, and the same thing may be said of Kings county, .and portions of Queens, Albert and Westmorland counties. However, I am not going to spend any more time in discussing that matter, because it is neither here nor there. The important feature of the short speech made by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was, as I view it, the fact that he entirely forgot to deal with the question under discussion. The question is, whether the minister was justified in buying the kind of farm he did, situated as it is, and whether his department was justified in paying a political friend $1,000 for purchasing it. These are some of the things I tried to bring before the committee, and these are the very things my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries skated over without touching at all. He simply tried to draw a herring across the trail by saying that I was making an attack upon Mr. Thomas and running down the possibilities of our province. It is not so easy to get away from the real question at issue, as my hon. friend evidently thinks. He said he did not influence the Minister of Agriculture in this thing-not in one iota. I am afraid, therefore, that I was too complimentary to the Minister of Agriculture; I had rather taken the ground that he was the innocent machinery by which the deal was carried out. My friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, however, said that the Minister of Agriculture alone is responsible. The Minister of Agriculture was there; he saw the land, he knows what it is like; he would not buy it himself, and he bought it

for the Government. If you want any evidence, Mr. Chairman, that that land is not fit for an experimental farm, all you have to do is to go to the Auditor General's Report. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries took a lot of trouble to tell this committee that the land is right in the city of Fredericton. So it is. The city of Fredericton is something like the western cities, in that it extends many miles into the county. It is true that this land is in the city of Fredericton, but it is three miles from the lower part of the city; my hon. friend thinks it may be a little more, and perhaps it is. 100 acres of that land were bought from J. Q. Adams for $2,000 or $20 an acre;	another 110	acres	were boughtfrom H.	C.	Jewett,	at $2,000 or lessthan $20	an	acre.	Does	the Ministerof Agriculture believe he is justified in buying land of that character in the city	of	Fredericton,	within three
miles of the post office or parliament buildings, for experimental farm purposes-land in the capital city of the province of New Brunswick that can be bought for $20 or less, and even then I have no hesitation in saying that he paid two or three times as much as any other man would have paid for the same kind of land.
I want to make a correction in the statement I made before dinner, because I want the record to be correct in every way. I said the minister had an offer from Mr. Charles L. Smith to sell 500 acres of land in Woodstock-the very best land that could be acquired for any experimental farm, including all grades of soil-for $20,000. I am wrong in that. I think the offer the minister has in his department is $30,000. The difficulty was that another gentleman, this time the postmaster at Woodstock, Mr. Norman W. Winslow, was the medium; he was the commission merchant in this case. Mr. Winslow, and as he stated, my opponent, Mr. B. F. Smith, had to have $10,000 as a rake-off, and therefore if the farmer wanted to sell his farm he was compelled to put the price at $30,000 so that the politicians could get $10,000 as a rake-off; he would get but $20,000 for his farm. These are the facts of the case. I did not propose stating them, and would not have done so had not my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries manifested a desire to delve into the matter. That, I am afraid, is the reason why the experimental farm was put 65 miles away from the college. So far as I know, that was the only farm in the county of Carleton that was looked at by the offi-73
cers of the department. If my hon. friend goes to his record he will find that what I have said as to the price which Mr. Smith wanted for his farm is correct. I am telling him the names of the persons concerned, I am telling him how much the rake-off was to be, and bow much the farmer was to get for the land. The sale did not go through; therefore the rake-off did not materialize, but I am afraid, as I have said, that we now have before us the real reason why the farm was 65 miles from the college. But that is only one illustration of the things that are going on in the province of New Brunswick under this present economic, honest Government. As the session progresses, we will try to give our hon. friends opposite a few more illustrations, but probably this will be sufficient for the present. Now, that my political friends have had their say, and now that they have got my hon. friend in the position in which they have, regarding agricultural education in the province of New Brunswick, I hope the minister will take some steps to provide himself with at least a small farm, if he cannot get a large one, in the vicinity of the college in the town of Woodstock. The cost of the building, as I said, was contributed by a public-spirited gentleman, who died some years ago and left his estate for educational and charitable purposes. So the college has cost the department nothing and it has not cost the province of New Brunswick anything. All that the Department of Agriculture in the province of New Brunswick has to do is to maintain the institution. I do hope the Government will spend some money-even a quarter of the amount they are spending in Fredericton-in buying a small piece of land, if they cannot buy a large one, to be used in conjunction with this college in order to have some real agricultural instruction imparted to the people who may attend that institution.
We had great hope of some benefit being derived from the establishment of this institution, but the way things have gone I am sorry to say our hopes are not nearly as sanguine as they were two or three years ago. We feel that the matter has been so bungled by the politicians and for political purposes and party exigencies that any real value has been entirely dissipated; no benefit will be derived, and unless the hon. gentleman will do something to get a farm -if he cannot run a stock farm let him have a seed farm, or something that will make the college of some value. I hope



the discussion this afternoon may enlighten the mind of the minister to some extent, and set him thinking whether he cannot do something to remedy the great wrong done to the province of New Brunswick.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: During the discussion on Tuesday of the vote for experimental farms, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) made statements which would lead us to believe that the district representative at Woodstock owed his appointment to the federal Minister of Agriculture. I find, on investigation, that these appointments take place as follows: the county council applies to the Ontario government for the representative to be appointed, and the Ontario government makes the appointment. As I said on Tuesday night, these men had been appointed for several years at least in various places before this grant was made. I am glad to see that the minister is donating $80,000 towards the grant in Ontario; but the agricultural representative of the county of Oxford is paid by the county itself $500 towards his expenses, so that we are not entirely indebted to the Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion, as my hon. friend from South Oxford would like us to believe, foT that appointment or for the payment of the appointee. That is the way most of the appointments are made in Ontario. I see there is a grant of $10,000 on account of agricultural education in the public schools. The public schools, I presume, also get that through the Ontario government, so that it would be difficult for them to know whether they derive any benefit from this grant or not. In any event when that was divided among all the public schools in Ontario it would be very hard for them to see it or recognize it. I have no doubt the minister divided it as well as he could. Speaking of experimental farms, i would ask how many acres there are in the Central Experimental Farm near Ottawa?


Martin Burrell: About 465 acres.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In the Auditor General's Report for 1912-13 the expenses of that farm are given as $110,995 and the income at $14,962.05. I would like to know if that report is correct. Looking at the number of men employed on the farm I am afraid the farmers of Ontario would not think that they derive a benefit equal to the expenditure. When it is observed that the

names of employees cover three or four pages, the farmers of Ontario would think that if they had that many men employed they cou'd farm the whole province. Probably they could not, but at least they could farm a whole township and very likely another one thrown in. So far as I can see, the experimental farm expenditures are growing very much more rap d y than the income. I notice that the expend ture here given does not include the cost of the seed department, or any of those departments which I think are doing very excellent work.
Speaking of this little magazine, it is, I find, largely an advertisement on the same plan as the grant of $10,100,000 which I have said before was largely an advertisement of the department, because we could have granted $1,000,000 increase per year to the Agricultural Department without any special notice being taken of it. After all the great glittering headings in the newspapers of the $10,000,000 grant was, I am sorry to say, very largely an advertisement for the Government or the minister, and he is using this magazine to a very large extent to increase that advertisement. I hope the minister will remember from this out to put in some articles giving practical illustrations of what can be done in farming. I would suggest that if he could get some accountant in his department to devise a simple plan of agricultural book-keeping and have that copied by the various agricultural papers in the country it would be of great practical value to the farmers. I presume that farming, taken as a whole, is the only business in the country in which those engaged do not know just exactly what the products of the business cost. If a manufacturer were to manufacture his goods for a year and put them on the market without know.ng the cost of manufacture before he set the price, I am afraid he would come to an end in a short time.
As a rule the farmers have no idea of what their goods are costing them; they sell for what the market demands. Once the farmer commences to keep track of what his various stuff is costing him, from pigs to grain, I know from my own experience of farming, that he will begin to delve into the science of agriculture and become in a very short time a scientific farmer to a great extent. I only offer that as a suggestion. When Mr. Ruddick got the farmers-to a very small extent I am afraid- to weigh their milk and to ascertain whether their cows were paying them or

not, it was a great step forward. Those who have adopted that system I am sure would never go back to the old haphazard method of just guessing whether the cows were paying them. There is no branch of farming to which that same idea could not be applied with just as good results. The minister might get some cheap land, even such farms as my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) was talking about a short while ago, where immigrants could be taught the rudiments of farming before they look for farm work. That would probably be expensive, but I know that the greater portion of the men who are brought here for farm work do not stay on the farms. It may be because of the greater attractions of the city, but the fact remains we are getting too many people in the cities and towns. We are purposely trying to avoid this flocking to the city in our immigration branch; at least, so far as I know, the Minister of the Interior is not encouraging that type of immigrant. Many of the immigrants who go on to the farm are so absolutely ignorant of farming that they are more of a nuisance than they are worth. If the minister would establish .some place where these men could be taught the rudiments of farming, I am sure he would have applications by the thousands from men wishing to learn, and it would be the means of keeping these men on the farms. Farm wages, in our section at least, are just as good, when you take board into account, as the wages paid in towns and cities. The city labourer may get higher wages, but after he has paid his board he is no better off than the man working on the farm. The question of what we are to do with the three or four hundred thousand immigrants coming to this country every year is a very live one. We want production on the farm very much more than we want other kinds of production. I am free to confess that a great many of these immigrants are not fit to go on the land when they first come here; the farmers will not be bothered with them, and as to taking up land themselves, they would only starve unless they had means to carry them over two or three years until they got some knowledge. I throw out these suggestions to the minister to see whether he could not work out something on these lines.


Mr. E. PAQUET (L'Islet):: Mr. Chair man, before the hon. minister answers the question which has just been put to him. I may be allowed to make a few remarks in connection with the estimates of the Denart-73J
ment of Agriculture now under consideration. On the eve of the general elections of 1911, the hon. S. Fisher and the hon. Mr. Fielding proudly estimated the population of Canada at eight millions. The figures of the Census, showing a shortage of 800,000 souls in the actual results as compared with the Government forecasts clearly set forth the tendency of the Liberal party to lay fiaims to imaginary achievements. When we taunted the Liberal Government, and justly so, for not keeping in Canada immigrants brought over here at great cost, when we deplored the emigration of Canadians to the United States, hon. gentlemen questioned the correctness of statements and statistics emanating from reliable sources. However, these figures of the Census furnish evidence of a much more grievous character, showing a decrease in the population of the rural districts throughout eastern Canada.
According to the last Census, the population in the rural districts of the province of Quebec increased by 39,951 from 1900 to 1910. We find that the population which has thus increased is not that inhabiting the rural districts proper, but that settled in the small villages. The greatest evil we have to fight against is the abandonment of country life, which creates a scarcity of farm labour and draws our people towards the United States and large centres, leaving our fields deserted and unproductive. The abandonment of farm life, the scarcity of farm labour, the increasing high cost of living, are all social problems the settlement of which is eagerly sought by the Dominion Government. The Minister of Agriculture has courageously taken the lead in the movement for the uplift of Canada. He is endeavouring to restore to agriculture its charm, to the land its fertility, its crop-producing capacity, to the country districts their workers, of which immigration is despoiling them.
On January 26, 1914, I listened with surprise to the harsh words uttered against the agricultural policy of the Government by the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr Lafor-tune). He seems to thing that the Government has not as yet had a thought for the farming class and has not done its duty towards the tobacco-growers.
I cannot approve of such utterances on the part of my hon. friend. As a matter of fact, the first thought of the Conservative Government has been for the farmers, for the tillers of the soil, when, acting on its knowledge of the constitution and of the requirements of the people, it started a policy of co-operation with the provincial

governments with a view to promoting agriculture.
Specially for that purpose, this Government appropriates $10,000,000. In order to bind the country people to their lands, the hon. Minister of Agriculture has given his first thought to the farmers. Accordingly, we are unanimous in honouring and acclaiming those who further the uplifting of agriculture.
Expenditures for agricultural purposes, 1909-1910, $983,379.93; 1910-1911, $1,319,905.30; 1911-1912, $1,567,021.83; 1912-1913, $2,536,077.49; 1913-1914, $2,683,500.
To-day the hon. minister calls on us to appropriate $3,950,000. Such expenditure is not made in vain. Indeed, during the month of December, 1912, our exports of home products amounted to $38,658,625. In December, 1913, the figure reached $55,803,642, which shows an increase of 44 per cent.
Exports of farm products: December 1912, $22,859,325; December 1913,	$35,367,942;
April 1st to December 31, 1912, $119,209,170; April 1st to December 31st, 1913, $177,706,169.
Those figures show the progress of agriculture under Conservative rule. The hon. member for Montcalm alleges that the Conservative Government is not doing anything towards promoting the cultivation of tobacco. At page 334 of the Public Accounts of the province of Quebec, we find that the Quebec Government expended $10,000 of the Dominion grant towards promoting the growing of tobacco and the proper curing of that plant.
Farmers' institutes in the county of Montcalm have not been forgotten in the distribution of that Dominion grant. The farmers clubs of St. Alexis, St. Jacques, Ste. Julienne and Ste. Marie-Salomee have benefited by that grant. The hon. member for Montcalm should be satisfied with the amounts granted towards the furtherance of tobacco-growing in his county.
I attach the greatest importance to the Experimental Farm at Ottawa and to the experiment stations spread over the Dominion; but our farmers live too far away from the Central Experimental Farm to deprive the greatest benefit possible from its teachings.
In 1911, we had thirteen agricultural experiment stations. Thanks to the interest taken in the matter by the hon. Mr. Burrell, we have to-day twenty-six experiment stations. Those farms are schools, both in respect to theory and to practice.
In 1910-11, the Liberal Administration spent $153,483.16 on experimental farms.

The Hon. Mr. Burrell, in view of the wide field open to agricultural experiments, calls on parliament to appropriate $770,000 for our experimental farms. Both Conservatives and Liberals will join hands to carry on the national work.
I may be allowed to refer briefly to the work accomplished at the Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere agricultural station since the month of June, 1912. The improvements primarily required for carrying on experiments in agriculture, related to the enclosing and draining of the land. The fences on the property are good evidence of the work accomplished. Several hundred cubic yards of stone have been removed. A few acres of land have been cleared and levelled. Covered drains have been put in, covering 16,500 feet in length. We have there an orchard comprising 339 fruit trees, representing 117 varieties of apples, plums, cherries. I shall dispense with describing the farm buildings, soon to be completed and which will be on the most modern plan. A fact well worth mentioning is the increased area of the farm, a circumstance which con tributes not a little to the opportunities of that agricultural station, through the greater facilities afforded for carrying on experiments, particularly in the breeding of live stock, that most interesting and profitable branch of farming. The money has been applied to useful purposes, and I must congratulate in this connection both the Minister of Agriculture and the farm superintendent.
Since 1910, we have taken part in the world expositions held at Buffalo, Osaka, St. Louis, Liege, Milan, Seattle, Brussels and Ghent. During the fiscal year 1910-11, the Liberal Government called on the Dominion parliament to appropriate $149,979.68 for exposition purposes. To-day the Conservative Government asks for an appropriation of $400,000 towards the same object. At such expositions is unfolded the history of the agricultural, forest, mining and manufacturing industries of Canada. The hon. Mr. Burrell knows that expositions are an important factor in the development of agriculture, commerce and the industries. By means of expositions, we are in a position to attract capital, extend our markets and stimulate an influx of desirable immigrants. Why should not Canada have its world's fair? We might in that way draw the attention of all civilized peoples to our young country. The friends of the farming class emphasize the importance of developing co-operative associations as a means of forwarding the progress of agriculture.

According to Mr. J. Meline, co-operation will in time become the great means of liberating agriculture. Through co-operation agriculture will be in a position to obtain the highest returns from its products, the profits of the middlemen being done away with. In Europe, agricultural workers have gone in fully for co-operation. It is a recognized fact that members of co-operative associations secure as a rule higher prices than individual farmers. Bavaria has been the vantage ground of a special form of cooperation, agricultural banks, the special purpose of which is to procure for the farmers the capital required.
I am bound to pay a high tribute to the constant and well-directed efforts of Mr. Alphonse Desjardins toward promoting cooperative associations. The Dominion Government is materially helping on the cooperative movement in the province of Quebec. I think the Minister of Agriculture should be very cautious in extending such help to co-operative associations, which may turn out to be in the last resort a vulgar means of political patronage in the hands of the provincial governments.
I should bear testimony to the good and patriotic work carried on through our schools of agriculture. For fifty-five years, I believe, distinguished priests at the college of Ste. Anne's have devoted themselves to the admirable work of agricultural education. Under the Agricultural Instruction Act, the hon. Mr. Burrell is applying this very session for grant of $7,000 for purposes of domestic science, and $60,000 for our agricultural schools. We are instilling new life into our schools of agriculture. The Conservative Government feels the need of strengthening the teaching of agriculture through mouth and pen, in the shape of experiments and illustrations.
I was pleased at receiving a copy of the French edition of the Agricultural Gazette. As stated in writing by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, we hope that the Agricultural Gazette will promote the common weal by co-ordinating the efforts of workers disseminated over a vast area. The high cost of living is just now making itself felt the world over. It is manifest in protectionist, as well as in free trade countries. Economists have set themselves to the task of finding a remedy for the evil which is afflicting civilized countries. Their view is that the most practical means of solving the problem of the cost of living is. to increase production.
As stated by the hon. Minister of Finance increased production is the key to the unravelling of that problem. Through the agricultural legislation of 1913 and the wise use of the moneys voted for agricultural purposes, Canadian agriculture will develop and come to its own in this young country of ours.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are in a large measure responsible for the increase in the cost of living. Under Liberal rule, the cost of living increased 35 per cent. While our country districts were being depleted of population, hon. gentlemen opposite were busy drawing to our shores hosts of consumers, but comparatively few producers. This Government will secure more satisfactory results in the measure that it will direct its best efforts towards increasing the producing capacity of the Canadian soil. The Liberal grants which have been voted during the last sessions and those which are included in this year's Estimates to provide for our transportation system and our national ports, are a striking proof of the wisdom of an Administration which realizes what are the requirements of the farming community.
If only the Quebec local government, following in the foot-steps of the Dominion Government, gave its first thought to the farmers, the old-settled districts would produce as much as they formerly did. If the Quebec Government gave more encouragement to colonization, the field of agricultural production would be more rapidly extended. The Quebec Government does not call on its legislature to appropriate the moneys required for the promotion of agriculture. The receipts of the Quebec Government during the fiscal year 1912-1913 reached $13,000,000. Out of that the Government appropriated only $436,133.64 for agricultural purposes (Public Accounts, p. 393). Let us see what is being done in the province of Ontario in this respect. That province expended during the same year $1,210,074 towards assisting agriculture. The young province of Saskatchewan expended during that same year $621,414.98 and the province of Alberta, $909,020. So I am not at all surprised to see Quebec looking to Ottawa and praying that we come to the rescue of agriculture. Ottawa has not waited for that appeal to be made before appropriating liberal sums towards promoting the development of agriculture in our province.
During the session, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture indulged in disparaging references to this Government, introducing Dominion politics into the provincial arena. If we are to listen to the Quebec minister, the

best investment the Dominion Government could make of its revenue and surpluses is in the shape of grants to agriculture. My answer is that this Government is helping on agriculture by the most practical means and for the loftiest motives. They realize that ' the plough when cutting the first furrow laid the foundations of society.'
In the district of Quebec, the work done Dy the Conservative Government has been of great importance. The early completion of the Transcontinental, the improvement of the Quebec harbour, the Saint-Malo works, the equipping of our national port, the dry dock, the Union station, the railway ferry for the Transcontinental trains, all such works will contribute in a large measure to the development of trade and farm industries.
The Quebec Minister of Agriculture, who is unable to find in our so prosperous province the funds required to promote the development of agriculture, never uttered a word of reproof against the hon. 8. Fisher, whose appropriations for agricultural purposes reached $983,379.93. Mr. Fisher's successor is expending $3,950,090 for that purpose, and the Quebec Minister of Agriculture cannot find words harsh enough to express his contempt for the Conservative Government.
The Quebec Minister of Agriculture bitterly complains of the fact that the Dominion Government insists on specifying the use to be made of the moneys so liberally granted to Quebec. Do not lose sight of the fact that under the Liberal rule, the hon. Mr. Fisher did not provide a single cent for the use of the Quebec minister. Nevertheless the latter was satisfied apparently. He could not find words sweet enough to express his admiration for a Government which did not grant a single farthing towards the improvement of agriculture in his province. The Dominion Conservative Government, on the other hand, appropriates a liberal sum for the benefit of the province of Quebec; not only has he the right, but it is his duty to lay down terms in order to attain the object he has in view, so as not to leave completely subject to the dictum of the provincial governments the use to be made of these moneys, which otherwise might be turned to party ends.
The requirements of the Dominion statute seem to me wholly justified. The Act )f 1912 was provisional and authorized an expenditure for purposes of agriculture in general. The Act of 1913 restricts the objects to which the Dominion subsidy may be applied to agricultural instruction.
	,
The Quebec Minister of Agriculture referred to the injury caused through the spread of tuberculosis among swine and cattle. In his opinion, the Dominion Government should apply part of the Dominion grant to the inspection of herds. I have carefully looked into the reports of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, and I cannot find in it a single reference to the spread of tuberculosis. That disease was prevalent under the Liberal rule, and the hon. minister had not the courage to require the protection of his friends in Ottawa.
An easy answer to the Quebec Minister cf Agriculture is that the matter of cattle inspection cannot properly be included in an enactment concerning agricultural instruction. With a revenue of $13,000,000, the Quebec Government might surely protect our cattle against injury from tuberculosis.
But if Quebec has not the courage to grapple with the difficulty, if Quebec has not the courage to take the requisite means towards preventing the spread of bovine tuberculosis, I shall entreat the Dominion Government to undertake that work in the interest of the farmers of my province.
I protest most strenuously against the treatment dealt out to the farming class m the distribution of the Dominion grant; I am referring just now to the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec. The following facts will surprise the farmers of our province and show to what use are put the moneys voted for agriculture.
In giving out the following information, I deem it preferable to leave out the family names of the men referred to. Mr. A. of the village of St. Roch des Aulnaies, county of l'lslet, was paid a thousand dollars by the Quebec Department of Agriculture, as superintendent of fruit-growing stations. That $1,000 did not come out of the Dominion grant, but was provided out of the treasury of the province of Quebec. He also received $100 for his travelling expenses. That appears on page 389 of the Public Accounts of the province of Quebec.
An hon. MEMBER; Why not give out the names?


Eugène Paquet: Personally I have no objection, as they are under my hand. The person I have just referred to is Mr. Auguste Dupuis, of St. Roch des Aulnaies. Mr. Luc J. A. Dupuis, his nephew, of the same village of des Aulnaies, was paid $260 for lectures on agriculture. He has besides an account of $291 for travelling expenses.
Now, let us take up the Dominion grant
which has been granted to the same prov-

inoe of Quebec and with the distributing of which the Quebec Minister of Agriculture has been entrusted. For the fiscal year of 1912-13, I find that the same Auguste Dupuis has benefited by the Dominion grant to the extent of $497.52, for fruit trees, grafting, &c. Mr. Luc Dupuis, residing in the same village of des Aulnaies was paid $479 for lectures and travelling expenses.
On January 14, 1914, Mr. Tellier, leader of the Quebec Opposition, enquired from his seat in the local House what use had been made of the grant of $44,607.22 paid to the province on account of the Dominion grant to agriculture. Among various amounts paid out of that subsidy, I notice $165.65 to Mr. Luc J. A. Dupuis, of the village of des Aulnaies, for salary and expenses as instructor in bee-keeping. Mr. Luc J. A. Dupuis drew $532.70 as inspector of apiaries; Mr. P. A. Dupuis, $312.90 as assistant inspector of apiaries. Mr. L. J. A. Dupuis, the same person mentioned above, received $254.40 for the inspection of sugar bushes. Mr. Auguste Dupuis of the same village of des Aulnaies received $2,400 for fruit trees. Mr. L. J. A. Dupuis was paid $124.30 for inspecting illustration orchards.
According to a report filed at Quebec during the last session, the instructor in beekeeping, the inspector of apiaries, the assistant inspector of apiaries, the inspector of sugar bushes, the inspector of illustration orchards were all selected in the same family, in the same village, and I might almost say in the same household.
Through this political favouritism, the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec runs counter to the most noble efforts of the farmers for the development of agriculture. Politicians have launched out their demands: agriculture is waning fast.
Thanks to the far-seeing efforts of our farmers, thanks to the zeal of the Dominion Government and of several provincial governments, agriculture will progress rapidly and the depletion of the country districts will cease. We will be in a position to let both producers and, consumers come to their own.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on the question of the tobacco industry, especially in the counties of Essex and Kent. There has been a good deal of complaint and dissatisfaction amongst the tobacco growers. It is only a few years ago that the Parliament of Canada so altered the excise regulations that a considerable impetus was given to the tobacco industry. An experimental farm was also established by the
former Government at Harrow in the county of Essex. At one time tobacco growing in these counties was exceedingly profitable, but at the present time, although the crop has been a good and abundant one, the difficulty apparently is in not being able to obtain markets. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) will know whether or not there are similar reports from the other tobacco growing parts of the Dominion, in the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. The difficulty is that, although the industry has a very considerable protection, the consumers apparently are getting no benefit from this protection, and the growers are getting no benefit. The suggestion is that there is an understanding, or combination, among the manufacturers which is keeping the price down to a point which renders tobacco growing unprofitable. The matter was brought to the attention of the Committee on Agriculture last week by my hon. colleague from West Kent (Mr. McCoig), and I understand that the Government had Mr. Barnet, who has charge of the experimental farm at Harrow, attend the meeting. By this time I would have thought that the minister would have had his report. My object in bringing the matter to his attention now is to know whether anything has been or is being done by the Government with the view of affording relief to those engaged in this industry. Some years ago there was a similar situa

tion. It was suggested that there was a combination of tobacco manufacturers, and the former Government appointed a commission. His Honour Judge MacTavish was sent out, he thoroughly investigated the conditions, and the result was that there was a considerable improvement. I do not know whether the Government is able to do anything, but if it can I would strongly urge upon the minister that some step should be taken in order to endeavour to get at the truth of the matter and see where the trouble lies.


Martin Burrell: While I am not thoroughly versed in all the. facts, I,think the situation is pretty much as my hon. friend states it. We have been doing something in regard to the tobacco industry chiefly to help it at the productive end in connection with methods o.f growing, of curing and putting up the leaf. The difficulty that is facing the grower now is absolutely and strictly a commercial question such as might turn up in any line of business. For instance, it turns , up to some extent in the fruit

growing industry. It is the question of the relationship between the buyer and seller. The situation is aggravated by reason of the fact that there are so few buyers that they can practically exercise a monopoly, or at all events be in a position to dictate to the producer the price that he shall take. Whether we can step in there is a question that reqjires consideration. I discussed the matter a little with my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) the other day. I do not know whether it has got to the point that the Government can step in and deal with it as a regular combine. I instructed Mr. Barnet who has charge of this work in Essex, to go to the meeting on Saturday, take a note of everything that was said and report to the department. I have not received his report; if it is yet in. It may net be in, but when we have gone further into the matter, if we find that we can do anything to relieve the situation, we will be glad to do it and I will let my hon. friend know.


Mir. B ELAND:: I do not rise for
the purpose of criticising very much the remarks made by the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet). Agriculture is a subject that, in my humble opinion, should be approached without any partisan spirit. I am only sorry to realize that my hon. friend from L'Islet has found it advisable to discuss this most important subject from a political point of view. When we sum up his whole speech we find it to be an unreasonable attack upon the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec, Mr. Caron. I have no brief to defend in this House the action or the administration of the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, but I believe that it is putting the question very fairly to say that in our province there is only one opinion regarding the administration of Mr. Caron. It is above reproach, and it deserves the favourable commendation of the whole people regardless of party politics. 'I think that my hon. friend from L'Islet remembers some of the bitterness of the political fight that took place in the county of L'Islet and in which, I am sorry to say, Mr. Caron was defeated. However that is, I believe the attack is unwarranted. My hon. friend found it advisable also to criticise the amount that is being voted annually by the Government of Quebec in aid of agriculture. He stated that the amount was half a million dollars or thereabouts. That .may be so but in fixing the 
amount at $500,000, or thereabouts, my hon. friend overlooks the immense amount of money which is being devoted to highways in our province, which is an indirect but great help to the farming community. He overlooks the great steel bridge industry which is being carried on so successfully in the province of Quebec and so advantageously to the farmer.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: Is it not the same in
every other province?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I believe that the province of Quebec spent more money on highways this last year than any province in the Dominion regardless of population, and *that its expenditure exceeded that of the province of Ontario.
My hon. friend in criticising the item under discussion also referred to the high cost of living, and strange to say and to believe, the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) thought that the former Government was responsible for the present high cost of living in Canada, and tne reason he assigned for it was that we brought into this country too many immigrants who were consumers instead of producers. The very opposite is the case. The large majority of the immigrants brought into this country by the late Government as well as by this Government are producers and farmers, and not consumers in cities.
My hon. friend has also spoken of experimental farms. He extolled the beneficent action of the Conservative Government in regard to experimental farms. He referred especially to that farm which is known as Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere; but for some reason unknown to me, perhaps better known to himself, he refrained from telling this House who was the creator of that experimental farm. He could as well have said that it was entirely due to the efforts of my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) and to the late Government.
Another point upon which I would like to touch very slightly is the small amount of increase in population in rural Quebec.
I think that my hon. friend stated that the rural population of the province of Quebec had increased by only 39,000. My hon. friend added that this increase was entirely applicable to villages and not to farming communities proper. My hon. friend then would conclude that the population in the rural districts proper, that is outside of the villages, has decreased. Does he know of many farms that have been abandoned in rural Quebec? Does he not know rather

that new towns, or parishes as we call them, entirely composed of farmers, have been established by dozens in the districts of Quebec alone?


Eugène Paquet: I took the facts from the census.


Mr. BEL  AND@: No, the facts according
to the census are that the rural population has increased by 39,000. My hon. friend says that those are not farmers, that they are village residents. I say that they are farmers, because, in my whole district I do not know of ten farms that have been abandoned by farmers. On the contrary, I know of numbers of new parishes in the district of Quebec alone, entirely composed of farmers.
I really rose for the purpose of asking a few questions of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I would like to know whether he has received a petition from the farmers of the county of Beauce, which I have the honour to represent, asking for the establishment of a branch station in that county or in the district. This matter was brought to the attention of the hon. minister last year. He promised then that he would give his earnest attention to it. I am informed this year that a largely signed petition has been sent to him asking for the establishment of an experimental farm or demonstration station in the district of Beauce. The reason the farmers in that district ask for such an establishment is the fact that they are remote from any experimental station. The nearest to them is, I think Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, which is a long way off and hard to reach, the railway communication not being direct and the public having to go to Levi3 to get on to the Intercolonial line, and thence to Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. The other station is at Cap Rouge, in the county of my hon. friend the Postmaster General; and as my hon. friend knows, it is also not very easy of access. I see in the item which was under discussion this afternoon an increase of $110,000 for the' maintenance of central iarms and establishment and maintaining of additional branch stations. Does the hon. minister contemplate establishing in the near future a branch station somewhere in the district of Beauce? This district is composed of the counties of Dorchester and Beauce, and would also take in the county of Megantic, and perhaps a part of the counties of Lot-biniere and Compton. This is essentially an agricultural community, and I think that no money could be spent more wisely
than by establishing a branch farm in that district. I would suggest to the minister, and I am sure that I will have the support of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) in this instance, that this branch farm be established in the county of Beauce, in that fertile valley called the Chaudiere Valley, where a model farm would be very easily provided and would be very accessible to all the farmers of the surrounding district. I would be pleased it the minister would make a positive declaration that he is going to grant this much-needed branch station in the county of Beauce.


Albert Sévigny: I represent the county
situated next to Beauce. My hon. friend (Mr. Beland) and I very seldom agree; but on this point I must say to the hon. minister it is in the public interest to establish a branch station in that district composed of the counties of Beauce, Dorchester, Rellechasse, Levis, notbini&re and Megantic. My hon. friend from Beauce told us a few minutes ago that the station at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere was established because the member for that county succeeded, when his party was in power, in getting such a station. I am sorry to say that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) had not the same success in obtaining an experimental farm for our district when his party was in power, though I think a station of that kind was more wanted in the district of Beauce than in the county of Kamouraska. I hope to hear an expression on this subject from the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I should much like to have such a station in our district, and it goes without saying that I want it in the finest county of this Dominion, the county of Dorchester, which I represent. It will be in the same district, and so it will be very easy for the people of Beauce to come to my county. They can come with their member, and they may rest assured that we shall always be delighted to give them a good reception.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski):: Mr. Chairman, I was aware that the hon. member for Beauce is an expert at speaking the tongue of Shakespeare, and I congratulate him in this connection, but representing as he does a French-speaking constituency of the province of Quebec, and having to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for L'Islet, he should not, to my mind, have shown such disdain of his mother tongue as to demur answering him

in the language spoken by the great majority of his electors.
After tlhe example set by the hon. member for L'lslet, I take pleasure in congratulating the Dominion Government on its happy thought of encouraging agriculture by all possible means. Thus the very first year we appropriated a million dollars for that purpose. The second year we appropriated another million which was distributed among the various provinces and put at the disposal of the provincial ministers of agriculture in every case. It was not possible to do more, or to show a better disposition, and the most satisfactory results were expected. However, in spite of that material assistance provided by the Dominion Government, I am sorry to find that the amount allotted to the province of Quebec has not *been used quite in accordance with the purpose assigned to it. Far from it, in cases unfortunately too numerous, the grant was used not only towards inducing Liberal voters to vote against us, but even to create positions for opponents whom even we had dismissed. We made our own friends angry and laid ourselves open to reproof on their part, while at the same time we utterly failed to attain the object we were aiming at, which was to spread a knowledge of agriculture without distinction of party affiliations. From the experience acquired during the two last years, I come to the conclusion that, as regards the province of Quebec, it would be preferable to discontinue granting this subsidy and to establish instead experimental farms, rather than put these moneys in the hands of untrustworthy and shameless politicians as are to be found in the narrow circle of those holding power in Quebec.
I have just listened to the speech of the hon. member for L'Islet and his statements are not of a nature to surprise us in the least, knowing as we do the class of men with whom we have to deal in Quebec and who have given such strong evidence of grafting propensities of late. Partisanship is rife, and with their minds imbued with narrow prejudices, office holders are unable to rise above what they conceive to be in the interest of their party.
It is deeply to be regretted that the public funds appropriated to certain purposes by the Conservative party in Ottawa, should be put to such vile and Shameful use by the Quebec Liberal Administration. I may be allowed to give an instance. The county of Rimouski, which I have the honour to represent, has a population of 55,000 souls. Out of the Dominion grant voted for that

province, and which exceeded $109,000, how much do you think the Quebec Government *set aside for the county of Rimouski? The paltry sum of $326.39. That is what the Liberals have done to promote agriculture in the county of Rimouski. So I say that these moneys have been wrongly used, have been applied in the most unfair way, and if the distribution of the moneys is to be continued on those lines, it will be necessary to change our form of grant.
After listening to the particulars given by the hon. member for L'Islet, I agree with him that a revolting spirit of partisanship was exhibited by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture in fixing that amount of grant for his former constituency. Indeed the personal friends of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture have pocketed a total of $2,805.72, and the population of the county of L'lslet is only 16,000, while Rimouski, with a population of 55,000 souls, got only $326.39.
Thus we have, to the great satisfaction of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) a fine school of agriculture in the county of Kamouraska, a school which gives excellent results, while in the counties of Temiscouata, Rimouski, Matane, Bonaven-ture, Gaspe, we find that practically nothing has been done to encourage our farmers and educate them, although the n ed for such .is more strongly felt in that part of the country than in any other. The county of Rimouski is especially in need of encouragement, its geographical situation resulting in a more rigorous climate. Our farmers have to contend against protracted and severe winters, late spr ng and early autumn frosts-frosts even during the summer season. It happens that we are obliged to keep the stock indoors for seven months in the year and over, and so I say the Government should make in our behalf heavier sacrifices than in behalf of more favoured localities. We have an excellent class of farmers, of undaunted courage and who would rejoice at seeing the Government intent on assisting them more efficiently through the establishment of a school of agriculture, let us say in the valley of the Matapedia, where it would be of use to the whole Gaspe peninsula, as well as to Rimouski and Matane.
Therefore I sincerely trust that the hon. minister will earnestly consider this question to which I already referred last year, when the estimates were before the House. As I said a moment ago fihat part

of the country should be the object of especial care on the part of the Government. We can make fine farming districts of the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe, whereas at the present time the only class of people to be found there are fishermen, well worthy of our esteem, no doubt, but whose condition might be improved. As for the Liberal partisans, whose dealings have been severely criticised by the hon. member for L'Islet,
I am not surprised at t'heir conduct. Indifferent as they have shown themselves to be while in power to the real progress of agriculture, they continue, while in opposition, to secretly and stealthily put obstacles in the way of this Government's efforts towards bettering the conditions under which agriculture is carried on in this country.
Accordingly, the Bills which we had passed providing for the improvement of highways and the purchase of branch railways have been rejected by the Senate. Being jealous of the popularity accruing to the Conservative party on account of its far-seeing management of public affairs, and fearing with reason the effect that such wise administration would have, the L b-eral party is seeking to defeat that purpose by petty trtokery. They are not the true friends of the people those who act only through motives of spite and revenge, and the people in time will know who are their true friends.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will my 'hon. friend allow me to ask a question? He has just stated that the Senate has rejected a Bill providing -a grant of money for the improvement of highways. He is well aware that such is not the case.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: He does not know
better.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does the hon. member
contend that the Senate has rejected this Bill?


Mr. PELLETIER:: The Senate amended
it in such a way as to render it utterly unacceptable.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Why did not the Government accept these amendments? .


Herménégilde Boulay: Because the intention
was to distribute the funds for party ends. Let ns rise above petty party considerations when the 'agricultural interests of the country are at stake. When we are called upon to assist the settler, the hardy settler Who undertakes -to clear away the forest, with his axe and courage as bis only weapons, let us cordially respond to his appeal,
without inquiring whether 'he is Conservative or Liberal. Whatever his party .affiliations, the tiller of the soil is the man who supplies Canada with the muscle and brawn, which our population cannot forego. He is the purveyor of the national wealth of Canada, though he gets his full share of the hard labour, of the long hours, of the worry attendant on the expectation of a crop, which may he abundant and which may be wretched, according to the whims of the season. I say it once more, I regret that the true friends of the farmer should be so few; instead of being so few and far between, it seems that every hon. gentleman in this House should vie with his neighbours in finding some means of helping out the settler, whereas some find in their desire to further the ends of their party a sufficient excuse to withhold assistance from the agricultural interests, whatever form it may take.
That encouragement to agriculture is not lacking merely in the province of Quebec, but also in that of New Brunswick. While listening to the mover of the Address, the hon. member for York (Mr. McLeod), I could not help sympathizing personally with him when he referred to the loss of two representatives which awaits his province when the next redistribution of seats is effected. However, I do not think the constitution of the -country should be altered on that account. If New Brunswick has not the number of people requisite to retain its present number of representatives, it is due entirely to two main reasons which are Wholly dependent on its government.
1st. Continuous and speedy emigration of its people towards the western country;
2nd. Want of encouragement to agriculture.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the rules of this House allow the reading of one's speech, and, if so, whefi has the rule 'been changed? I call your attention to that point.


Mr. BLONDIN:: I had noticed that the
hon. gentleman was reading.


Herménégilde Boulay: Holding interests in that province, I concerned myself in latter years with the flow of emigration from the county of Rimouski along the line of the Intercolonial, a movement which has given rise to -compact farming communities made up of settlers who were only too glad to take possession of l-ands deserted by their original owners.
I travelled through the greater part of that province and I found a deplorable -state

of things. There practically exists no encouragement to agriculture. Cheese and butter factories which have done so much for the betterment of agriculture in the province of Quebec are non-existent in New Brunswick, despite the mildness of its climate and the fertility of its soil. Instead of there being a cheese or a butter factory in every parish, there is barely half a dozen all told throughout the province. The county of Rimouski, which I have the honour to represent, forms the northern boundary of New Brunswick. As a result, the climate is much more severe, notwithstanding which there is not a parish in that county but has its butter or cheese factory. Its government has been lacking in enterprise and apparently has offered no inducement to farmers' sons who have deserted by the thousand their fine province and followed the flow of emigration towards the West, a most deplorable state of things. Lands are being sold at a sacrifice to-day in New Brunswick, at half their value, in several counties. While land values have increased considerably throughout Canada, in New Brunswick they have remained at the same point, <and~even in many cases have decreased.


Pius Michaud: May I inquire from the hon. gentleman what part of New Brunswick he travelled through, what counties or parishes he visited?


Herménégilde Boulay: I travelled through
practically the whole of New Brunswick, excepting the fine county of Madawaska. However, I may say to my hon. friend that I expect to pay him a visit next year.


Pius Michaud: My hon. friend will
then have, I hope, a more favourable report to make than the one he is now making.


Herménégilde Boulay: As regards the cost of living this Government cannot be 'held responsible for it; though the former Government may be blamed for part of it, for not having done' what it should have done to promote agriculture, and I am willing to endorse the statement made by the hon. member for Belleehase (Mr. Lavelle) when moving the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne:
Such is my sincere belief, Mr. Speaker, and I am satisfied that this same policy would successfully, and once for all, solve the problem of the high cost of living which has been growing on us for the last decade, and which has its starting point in the fact that agricultural production has not kept pace with the increase or population in business and industrial centres.
I say that within the last ten years the progress of agriculture, as well as of the live stock industry, has not been on a par with the growth

of population. The last census contains interesting statistics in this connection. They go to show that the population of several countries in the older provinces, instead of growing has diminished, and that business and manufacturing towns and cities have grown in proportion. Buie of thumb and slipshod methods have had the upper hand over the suggestions of a reasoned and progressive husbandry, such as would have resulted from a practical and painstaking teaching of agriculture. Accordingly we have witnessed the exodus of farmers' sons towards the cities, and the consequent scarcity of that labour with which farming cannot dispense.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the Government will never be able to extend enough encouragement to agriculture, for it is the source of the national wealth of the people and the country.
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER: I do not rise to offer any extended remarks upon this item, but I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Agriculture upon the very excellent work which the experimental farm has accomplished in the county which I have the honour to represent. At the outset, let me say that credit for the establishment of that farm is due, not only to the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), but also to the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), who does ,not at present occupy a seat in this House, but who, previous to the incoming of this Government, very gracefully accepted the gift of a farm in the vicinity of Kentville, for which the local Legislature, I think, paid some $11,000. The exMinister of Agriculture proceeded to spend some money in the development of that farm, and a fair amount of progress had been made when this Government came into power. That work has been rapidly pushed forward, to the great benefit of the farming communities, not only in the county of Kings, but of the adjacent counties in the western part of Nova Scotia as well. In connection with the operation of that farm, I would bring to the attention of the minister the suggestion of appointing on that farm a plant pathologist. With this addition, together with the other measures the minister has undertaken, we shall have in our midst one of the best experimental farms in Canada
The purpose for which I rose was-not to deal with this particularly, but to say a word with regard to an assertion made just a few moments ago by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland).
I have always listened to that hon. gentleman with most marked attention, and I am bound to say that of all the offerings from the Opposition, on ordinary occasions his sentences commend themselves to my-

self with quite as much force as do the remarks of any hon. member on that *side of the House. When, however, he said that the majority of immigrants into Canada during the last ten, twelve or fifteen years, has consisted of farmers, farm labourers and producers, I think his statement is subject to some slight correction. I may not be able to give that correction in its fullest detail, but there are some figures which I have gathered which I think would be of advantage and interest to the members of the committee, and with the indulgence of the Chairman and hon. members I would like to place them on ' Hansard ' for future reference in connection, particularly, with the high cost of living. It has been argued, and, I think, justly so, that the high cost of living is due to the lack of producers in Canada; that is to say, the lack of farmers or men who till the soil and help to extract [DOT] wealth therefrom. It is a startling fact that since 1901, notwithstanding the organized efforts of both out-going and the present Government, the rural population in Canada has increased only 17.10 per cent, while the urban population has increased 62.25 per cent. The total immigration of Canada has grown from 21,176 in 1897 to 402,432 in 1912-13. In 1897 we had
11,000	immigrants of British origin, 2,000 from the United States, and 8,000 from all other places. In 1912-13, the British-born aggregated 151,000, the newcomers from the United- States 139,000, while from other sources we drew 113,000, making in all over
400,000.	There is no gainsaying the fact that in 1900 the tide of immigration began somewhat with a rush, not, we might say, with the best class of immigrants, but a very large portion of them were desirable for the uplifting of this great Canada.


David Arthur Lafortune: Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the fact that the honoui-able member is out of order, when discussing immigration in connection with this item.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The hon. member for Montcalm is asking whether or not the hon. member is out of order in the remarks which he is now making. It should be sufficient to state that the item under discussion is the administration and enforcement of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act. I may say for the information of the hon. member for Montcalm that there was an understanding at the last sitting of the comimttee that hon. members would be allowed to go on, under the two preceding
items, Patent Record and Experimental Farms. So long as the hon. gentleman keeps to these two items and the one at present under discussion, he is in order.


Mr. A. D. FOSTER:: In bringing this
matter to your attention, Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that I was speaking under the item of Experimental Farms, and inasmuch as all experimental farm work has to do with the increase of production from the soil, it did seem to me that my remarks were somewhat pertinent.


Martin Burrell: Go on.


Arthur de Witt Foster: In ten years, from 1903
to 1913, a total of 973,730 English immigrants came into the Dominion of Canada: these include, of course, Welsh, Scotch and Irish immigrants. From the United States we had 891,129, and from other sources 656,255. Of the latter number, there were of Austro-Hungarians,	164,527;	Chinese, 25,016;
French, 21,085; Austro-Germans, 30,762; Hebrews, 61,384; Italians, 88,008; Japanese, 14,617; Polish, 24,396; Russians, 67,378; Finnish, 17,535; Swedish, 24,220; Norwegians, 17,322; and smaller numbers of Belgians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Roumanians, Swiss, Danes, Icelanders, Turks, Syrians, Hindus. The total immigration in this period was 2,521,144. But here is the interesting uoint. In the last ten years there came to this country 866,916 farmers, including farm labourers, which, you will see, is less than one-third of the total amount of immigration that has come to this country during that period. There were 898,916 general labourers, mechanics, etc., and, in addition to that, 174,896 clerks, traders and miners. The greater part of the increase in Canada has been crowding into the urban centres, as was shown by the first statement I made, that rural population has increased a little over 17 per cent while the urban population has increased over 62 per cent, -so that the greater part of these must have gone to the cities. The fact is made more clear when we remember that ten years ago, in 1901, the cities in this Dominion had a population of some two millions, and they have been receiving an average immigrant influx of nearly 165,000 per annum, or 1,650,000 in 10 years. These are the people whom we have had to employ in Canada, have had to house and feed and find places for, in the cities largely, and it is this class of people who, while eventually we will be able to assimilate them, constitute to-day

one of the great factors in causing the high cost of living in Canada. We must remember that when the United States had 70,000,000 people, their immigration was only
400,000	per year, and the records will ishow that they were hardly able to assimilate them at that rate. We in Canada, with only eight million people, are endeavouring to do what the United States people did with seventy millions or more, namely, assimilate 400,000 people a year of various nationalities. I might go on and give you a comparative statement of the rural and urban population, but, in order not to take up time on this particular item, I shall reserve that until some future occasion.


Mr. MOKPHY:: I desire to say a word or two, not by way of criticism particularly of the minister, but to call his attention to a matter which I think it is my duty to do, owing to what appears to be a great disparity in the expenditure of moneys under this heading. At page 17 of the Agricultural Gazette, which has run the gauntlet of a very fierce fire from hon. gentlemen opposite, they will notice that the number of branch farms and stations is set out by name and place. I have taken the trouble to tabulate them and I find that under this heading there are in the province of Quebec 1,051 acres established for experimental purposes; in British Columbia, 1,578 acres; in Nova Beotia 594 acres; in New Brunswick, 450 acres; in Manitoba, 680 acres; in Saskatchewan, 1,032 acres; in Alberta, 890 acres; in Prince Edward Island, 100 acres and in the province of Ontario just 40 acres. Coming from that province, and although I am not entrusted with any brief on behalf of the province of Ontario, I could not help but feel, as a representative of one of the counties there, that this is a matter which should be brought to	the	attention
specifically of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, coupled with a request that where there is	such a great
disparity and inasmuch as the forty acres that are set apart for that cause in the province of Ontario are entirely devoted to experimentation on tobacco plants, the great basic industries of the province are entirely neglected; while, for example, in the province of Quebec, which has been the subject of great complaint against the minister to-night, I find there are established farms at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, 235 acres; at Cap Eouge, 326 acres; at Farnham, 60 acres; and just recently purchased at Lennoxville, Quebec, 430 acres for a new

experimental farm; making for
10 p.m. the province of Quebec 1,051 acres; while there are 40 acres for tobacco only, in the province'of Ontario. The point I wish to make is that you cannot satisfy our friends from Quebec tonight. They have made a most aggravated attack upon the hon. Minister of Agriculture because this particular farm was not right or that farm was not right, and the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., complained that the school was in the wrong place, that the farm was sixty-five miles away from it, that everything was going to the bowwows. I want the hon. minister to cut out these men who are complaining, and go up to the province of Ontario and give us an expenditure of a few hundred thousand dollars in the newer part of the province to establish farms upon the soils that have yet to be cultivated, treated and understood. He will find there a receptive people who will be thankful to him for the benefits he will give to that province and I know he will never be met with such complaining, carping criticism as has been revealed from these gentlemen on the other side of the House for whom he has done so much.


Mr. KAY:: Would the minister give an
outline of the work- that is being done at Farnham, and also state what the land cost?


Martin Burrell: I do not think I can
give all the details the non. gentleman wants and if he does not mind I shall leave this until my Estimates are again under consideration when I can make a complete statement.
I might say a word in reply to the various gentlemen who have spoken on the experimental farms' vote which has already passed the committee. I could not quite follow some of the criticisms, not alone from our friends in French, which I cannot follow very well, unfortunately, but I could not follow very well the line of criticism followed by some hon. gentlemen opposite, especially the hon. member for North Oxford. 1 gather that his general line of complaint in connection with the whole experimental farm question was that the revenue derived from it was exceedingly small and the expense intolerably large. I would point out to him that no man who has ever given this matter any study at all would expect an experimental farm to pay. It is obvious that if you are going to carry out thirty, forty, or a hundred lines of research of experimental work, perhaps 99 per cent

of which must be discarded after long study, it is impossible to make it pay in a commercial sense. I was also surprised because, although he seemed to deprecate the idea of scientific work, he gave certain testimony to-day by approving of such work as that which is done under the cow-testing record branch which requires scientific training, a knowledge of Babcock testing, a knowledge of systems of feeding and methods of finding out what amount of butter fat there is in milk, all of which is of a scientific character and which we are concerned with in our experimental work both on the farms and elsewhere. A good many gentlemen have spoken of the need of these farms in various portions of the country. The hon. member for Beauce has asked me if I have received a petition from his county. I have, and I wish to inform him that it is one, I think, of forty or fifty. I might almost say one hundred counties from which I have received similar petitions and which probably my predecessor as Minister of Agriculture had also received before me. It is true that we have not gone as fast as some of our friends in the country would wish, but at the present time we are spending approximately on the general experimental farm system three times the amount spent only two years ago. We are therefore making some headway. There is this distinction between what I may call experimental farm work and the class of work to which I think most of the gentlemen have alluded to-night. It is eminently fitting that the federal Government should deal with experimental and research work of a national character, but I have always felt that purely demonstration work is a matter more for provinces and local authorities. I admit that the field is a very big one, that there is need for all activities federal and provincial. I am not in a position to make any definite promises as to any particular section, but I think, myself, that there will have to be some broadening out and expanding so that if the provinces do not take a more forward step we shall have to invade that field as well. Some provinces like my own are already carrying out demonstration work under our Agricultural Instruction Act, but if the provinces do not move fast enough I am not at all sure that we shall not meet tnat condition-we shall think it over most carefully-by tying up small stations of the demonstration type to our experimental farm system. I shall probably be able to make some move in that direction before long. I would not, however, like to make any promise in regard to any special districts to-day nor would I like to adjudicate as between Beauce and Dorchester. It may be true as my hon. friend said that his farm was coming veTy rapidly in 1911. It is a great thing to entertain large and generous hopes.
I think I can now give the hon. member for Edmonton a little more definite information in Tegard to what we are doing against the devastating ravages of the cutworm and the eelworm in southern Alberta. That cutworm destroyed 30,000 to 40,000 acres of wheat in Alberta in 1912. Mr. Strickland, an entomologist whom we had already taken into our employ a little before for that kind of work, has been making a study of it and has done some good work. We cannot say what practical results will be achieved because this is a new species and differentiated from the ordinary cutworm in that it does not feed above ground, consequently the usual methods of control 3uch as poisoned bran, and so on are no good in this case. Mr. Strickland has been making a study of the life history of the insect with a view to devising some control. It is gratifying to know that the insect was far less destructive last year and I think the chances are that next year and following years we may not have the same trouble at all; but we shall continue to make a study of the life history of the insect and the b3st methods of controlling it. We cannot say anything very definite in regard to the eelworm which is not an insect proper but a white microscopic worm, sometimes parasitic and sometimes feeding on vegetation, and in some parts of Europe on cereals. We have not yet arrived at any conclusion in regard to this infestation. We have not even been able to decide whether it was the cause of the killing of the winter wheat. The wneat may have been killed partly through the soil, and partly through climatic conditions. Mr. Strickland will go on studying that matter. We are also in correspondence with men in various parts of the world who have given special attention to that class of pest and any work we can do along that line will be prosecuted in the interests of the country.


Frank Oliver: Has it been possible to
secure information as to similar pests elsewhere in the world?


Martin Burrell: We are endeavouring to get that now. There is not a very full supply of information on this particular class

of organism, but some work has been done in Europe and in the United States where Ur. Howard is only too willing to help us.


Frank Oliver: The main point is that
the department recognize that there is a serious condition and is using every possible means to combat it.


Martin Burrell: Undoubtedly.


David Arthur Lafortune: Mr. [DOT]Chairman, the hon. member for L'Islet has severely criticised the conduct of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Caron) in connection with the distribution of public moneys voted by the Dominion Government for the benefit of the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman referred to what I said when moving the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and made me state that the Dominion Government had not done anything for the farmers. That is not what I said. I stated that there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne showing that the Government intended to extend assistance to the farming class. The hon. gentleman stated that the Quebec Government had wasted, spent right and left, the moneys appropriated by the Dominion Government for the promotion of agriculture; that the Quebec authorities had shown themselves to be poor managers. To that I shall oniy answer: What was the verdict of the farming class themselves in the general provincial elections held on May 15th, 1912? Every Conservative candidate was utterly defeated, after preaching that doctrine of bad management on the part of the Minister of Agriculture of the Province of Quebec. The hon. Mr. Caron is a practical man, an agriculturist of note, and the success he has won since he has entered the Quebec cabinet is evidence of the truth of my contention.
The member for L'Islet has no reason to thus run him down. I would like to see the member for L'Islet filling the position held by Mr. Caron; I wonder if he would work wonders as compared with Mr. Caron. It is an easy matter to find fault, to condemn, to criticise all that is being done, but it is quite another story when it comes to improving on present conditions.
The member for L'Islet would have as believe that the friends of the farming class are the Conservatives. He has stated over and over again that the policy of the Conservative party, since its coming into power at Ottawa, had been worthy of admiration, that the Department of Agriculture had accomplished great things. I am in a measure interested in agricultural pursuits, and I wonder if the member for L'Islet is aware
fMr. Burrell. 1
of what I am going to state. Is he aware that out of the Dominion grant towards promoting agriculture in the various provinces, it was at first understood with the provincial ministers of agriculture that a certain amount would be applied to the drainage cf farm lands?


Eugène Paquet: Will the hon. member
allow me to reply? I stated that the Act of 1912 provided for improvements in general.


David Arthur Lafortune: I wish the hon. gentleman would wait till I am through. He is not here to run the House. Though his friends are in power, we have the right to speak as well as he has himself. So I was saying that the Dominion Minister of Agriculture had authorized the Quebec Minister of Agriculture to apply part of those moneys to furthering' the drainage of farm lands. That held good until lately. But those good friends of the farmers, those natural protectors of the farming class, have just repealed that clause of the Act. They are no longer willing to further the drainage of our lands. That is what I had to say to the member for L'Islet, who boasts of the extraordinary measure of protection farmers receive at the hands of the Department oi Agriculture, when it has just repealed a provision which was of great benefit to them. If the Conservative Government is the friend of the farming class, why do they not take some means of protecting them? Their friendship is as short-lived as the bloom of roses.
Why does not the Government do away with the duty on agricultural implements? Possibly your reply will be that neither has my party done so. I was right in stating that there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne to protect the farmers. Do away with the duty on agricultural implements, and then you may boast of having done something helpful to the farming community. Why not do away with the duties on chemical fertilizers, on German fertilizers, for instance, which are taxed at the rate of $50 a ton? That is what you should do, you who say you are the friends of the farmers. Country folks are not very fond of such friends.
You the friends of the people? Why then not do away with the cattle embargo? Your ministers are taking pleasure trips in every direction at the expense of the State. What steps have they taken towards doing away with the Canadian cattle embargo? There is not a cent voted for the suppression cf that embargo, of that hideous embargo, and you say you are the friends of the farmer! If you are really the friends of the farmer,

why do you not cut down the duties on agricultural implements and on commercial fertilizers, and why do you not do away with the cattle embargo? No you are only mock friends, and I have no use for that kind.
Besides, Canadian tobacco is not sufficiently protected. The duty should be raised live cents a pound. The Government is doing absolutely nothing to further tobaccogrowing. Under the former Government, the duty was raised to 28 cents per pound, in order to protect Canadian tobacco against competition from the foreign leaf, and it was owing to that enactment that tobaccogrowing has been made a success in various counties, such as Montcalm and Essex. It was not through the efforts of the Conservatives that tobacco-growing developed. I deny that. It developed through the efforts of the Liberals. But the measure of protection granted at the time is no longer adequate. The duty should be raised five cents per pound in order to protect our home grown leaf against the competition of the United States leaf. Petition after petition is forwarded, appeal after appeal is being made to you, resolution after resolution is being passed by business men requesting the government to endeavour to make a success of Canada's world-fair. And the Government makes no move.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon.
gentleman has no right to discuss an item previously voted. He should confine himself to experimental stations and patents.


David Arthur Lafortune: When hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have the floor, there is no occasion, Mr. Chairman, for drawing your attention to irregularities.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It was understood that illustration stations and patents would today be the subject-matter of discussion, b it not items previously considered. I hope the hon. gentleman will confine his remarks to the item under consideration. I do not wish to interrupt him, but only to draw his attention to the matter.


David Arthur Lafortune: You do not wish to interrupt me, but you cut me short all the same. That is an odd way of dealing with people. On several occasions, Mr. Chairman, the establishment of agricultural stations throughout the Dominion has been urged, by myself amongst others. I said the Speech from the Throne contained no reference showing that the Government intends to establish any such stations. The experimental farm at Ottawa is a necessity, I agree; but, on the other hand, it is neces-74
sary that there should be a dismemberment of that farm and that stations be estahlishe 1 in various parts of the country. Does tbe Government state that its intention is to comply in the near future with the wishes of the farming community? Hon. gentlemen are deaf. They speak not.


Mr. LAMARCHE:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask a question? Is he in favour of establishing an experimental farm in the county of Dorchester?


David Arthur Lafortune: I want some every where, but let them start one first in Mont calm.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: Is the hon. gentleman anxious for one in Dorchester county?


David Arthur Lafortune: If the hon. gentleman from Nicolet wishes to speak, let him wait until I am through.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. gentleman objects to being interrupted, he should be allowed to go on.


David Arthur Lafortune: I am anxious to have experiment stations established in all large centres, be it Dorchester, Nicolet, Montcalm or any other place. Whatever pertains io agriculture is of interest to me, and I am ready to fight for it. It is a matter of fair play, with which party politics have nothing to do. Besides, I shall have occasion to make further reference to the subject later on.
As I stated previously, the experimental farm at Ottawa has surely its usefulness, and whatever amount is spent through it, I shall not complain. But farmers will reap greater benefit from agricultural stations situated in their vicinity. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that those district experiment stations should be put in a position to distribute larger quantities of seed grain. That should be one of the services rendered by such stations. I regret to find that the farmers of the Province of Quebec do not apply to the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa for larger quantities of that seed grain. The farmers of the Province of Ontario are away ahead of us in that respect. The Government representing itself as the friend, the protector of the farming class, should be in a position to accomplish a little more than formerly. Well, through the establishment of those experiment stations and the distribution of such seed grain, by their means actual headway will be made.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having allowed me to make these few remarks. 1

shall have occasion to revert later on to that subject of agriculture, in connection with some other item. I wished to state and I do state that it is not the Conservative party, but the Liberal party that is the true friend of the farmer. It was the Liberals who protected the farmers more than they had ever been protected in the past.


Mr. JOSEPH GIRARD (Chicoutimi-Saguenay):: Mr. Chairman, I think it incumbent upon me, in spite of the lateness of the hour, to ask permission to say a few words on a subject of such great importance as that just now being considered by this Committee. Agriculture, in general, is unquestionably the most important matter that can be taken up by a body of men such as those congregated in this House. It is assuredly the only one of the various industries of interest to the public in which one may rest assured that the capital invested will never be lost. But, in order to succeed therein there is need for extensive knowledge, a good deal of brain work, and governments the world over make it a point to further its continued progress by all means possible.
I sincerely believe that the former Minister of Agriculture has done for the farming class as much as it was possible to do with the funds at his disposal. But I must admit, that this Government has taken a position unprecedented in the history of Canada as regards the furthering of agricultural pursuits. The current appropriations have been greatly increased, and besides, a special vote has been taken providing a million dollars per annum towards agricultural instruction in general. A new impetus has been given to the work of the cow-testing associations and to the improvement of all kinds of live stock, through the greater facilities afforded in the use of the proper foundation stock. I am glad to be able to congratulate the hon. Mr. Burrell, who is at the head of the department of Agriculture, on the good work he has been doing since he holds the portfolio, and on the satisfactory results he has obtained.
In passing, I may state that my hon. friend the member for Montcalm (Mr. La-fortune) was contending a moment ago that under the Act for agricultural instruction, the experiments in drainage started last year had been discontinued through the unwillingness of the Minister. I have in my hand a public document setting forth the objects for which the $159,000 placed for the current year at the disposal of the Province of Quebec had been expended and I find the following: illustrations m draining, $12,000.
[Mr. L,a fortune.!


David Arthur Lafortune: But that is for last year.


Joseph Girard: I beg your pardon; last
year the grant to the Province of Quebec amounted to $139,000, and this year it amounts to $159,000, and it is in the statement showing the distribution of that $139,000 that I find $12,000 for drainage.
Reference has been made to-night to experiment stations. I may be allowed to say that owing to the startling variations in climate to be observed in passing from one district to the other, that policy of having numerous experiment stations, can never be furthered too actively and energetically, especially in its eastern and northern parts. The eastern part of the Province of Quebec, not to say the whole province, has within the last seven years suffered through a succession of bad crops, of a nature to discourage the most determined. The complaint in certain parts is that the population in the country districts is on the decline and is emigrating to the cities. It is no wonder that, following on a succession of reverses, so trying and vexatious as those I have referred to, some should lose heart and should endeavour to find some other means of securing those comforts of life, which after all are necessary in a measure, and with that in view should resort to emigration. It is mueh to be regretted that in such an age as this, when people seem to have lost their heads and to think that comfort, and even luxury, are the main objects of life, our farming class should *have met with a succession of poor crops. Such an unfortunate concourse of circumstances have necessarily had a depressing effect and resulted in the depletion of the country population, a fact which all deplore.
It is much to be regretted that the Quebec Government, about which there is so much talk, should not have deemed proper, being more particularly entrusted with the welfare of the inhabitants of that province, to get right down to work and try to discover the means of safeguarding the farming community under its care against those changes of temperature or other scourges which Providence has in store, in such a way that they would be left, even under adverse conditions, with a modicum of a crop.
Formerly, in some of the far nothern districts of the Northwest, it was found absolutely impossible to produce grain of good quality in fair quantities. Governments have taken up the question; farmers, meeting with a series of uninterrupted failures, set themselves to working out the problem, and to-day in those localities where it was

not possible to find five per cent of good grain in the year's crop, turn out millions of bushels of No. 1 grain every year.
If study, intelligence and industry have in the West given such marvellous results, I wonder if the same means would not, when taken in the Province of Quebec, produce exactly the same results. The idea did not even occur to the Government of the Province of Quebec that something might be done towards finding a remedy to the ills of agriculture under such circumstances.
An interest has been developed in good roads, which is a very good thing, but good roads lose a good deal of their usefulness when there is no traffic to circulate over them. I say therefore that the Quebec Government have completely erred, shown a lack of enterprise and earnestness, inasmuch as they have caused the farming class to turn their attention to other matters of some interest to them, no doubt, but at the same time caused them to neglect other matters of still greater moment. What will he the use of good roads, if the farmers have no produce to draw over them? To my mind, it would be better for them to have abundant crops as they have in the West, though traffic may be blocked for want of means of transportation, rather than have highways or transportation facilities and no produce for home consumption. That is what has happened in the Province of Quebec during the last decade. So I think it behoove3 me to draw the attention of the Dominion Government and of this House to the ridiculous position in which the district of Quebec, if not the Province of Quebec, is being put, and to induce, if possible, the Minister of Agriculture, when negotiating the next agreement with the Quebec Government, to require the Quebec Minister of Agriculture to take up first and carry on such experiments as I have pointed out.
At a not very remote period, the Province of Quebec could boast of leading the Dominion in the matter of dairying. It was recognized that out of ten cheese or butter factories, nine were good, and only one, inferior. Gn the third of December last, at the convention of the Dairymen's Association of the Province of Quebec, the representative of the Montreal cheese trade, addressing a large audience, comprising, if my memory is good, the provincial Minister of Agriculture and his deputy minister, stated that he was sorry to have to warn the Province of Quebec that at present, out of ten cheese or butter factories in that province, there were nine bad, and only one good. That was rather startling information, of a nature to grate on the feelings of 74J
the people of that province, and more particularly of its government and Minister cf Agriculture, who proclaim so loudly their devotion to the imblie weal.
Farmers generally take an interest in crop-growing, as well as in milk production. Those two items make up 95 per cent of the revenue of the farming class in Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, that being well understood,, what shall we say of the policy of the Government which, after witnessing the drift of things, flatter themselves with finding a. remedy in a good roads policy, even though it entails the mortgaging of municipalities for a period of 41 years, with almost ruinous-consequences to some of them, and then prevents the Dominion Government fronv granting to its province hundreds of thousand dollars, part of which might surely have been applied to partly paying off every year the aforesaid mortgage. Hon. gentlemen will admit, no doubt, that representing as 1 do an agricultural constituency, it is incumbent on me to draw the attention of this House and of the Minister of Agriculture to the way matters are being managed in the Province of Quebec, and to request the men holding power in Ottawa to firmly take in hand the interests of my province and of my county, so that the Dominion subsidy granted by us may be put to a more practical use than heretofore.
I may be allowed to state that the agreement entered into by the Quebec and the Ottawa ministers in the last two years, h is given results far from satisfactory to those members of the Quebec district who support this Government. We are supposed to know the requirements of the province and of oar various counties as well as, if not better than, one or two government men in Quebec who utterly fail to take a broad view of the requirements of agriculture, and for the last ten years have allowed the farming class in Quebec to lose ground in the woeful way I have pointed out; and I am satisfied that the time has come when, perforce, the Government providing the funds to assist the farmers of my province must take upon itself, acting on the information supplied by us, to lay down its terms and see to it that the general interest be safeguarded in preference to those of individuals, the latter having had the upper hand during these last two years, under the arrangements as taken.
Of course, in view of the facts just referred to, experimental research work will be in order in the eastern and northern parts of my province, so as to render as expeditiously as possible' agriculture a paying and attractive venture. Unless that is done the depletion of population which is complained

of, will be growing worse, and the ills whi :h all deplore will continue developing from day to day.
Many references have been made to experiment stations to-night. Every hon. member wants one for his own constituency, though not objecting to others being treated alike. Let me say that the Dominion Government having at present in the Province of Quebec experimental farms organized or about to be organized in the Eastern Townships, where the climate is mild, in the vicinity of Quebec, for the middle region, and at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, for the South shore, that number, considering the transportation facilities which are now everywhere at hand, should afford a fair measure of service to the major part of the province, until the time comes when the Government will be in a position to provide one farm per county, if required, which, I think, would be a very good idea.
But I have the honour to represent here a district which from the geographical viewpoint occupies a very peculiar position. Its climate is different from that of Quebec, it rests on a geological formation different from that at Quebec; there Spring is always later than elsewhere; even the forest growth has a different appearance from that to the south of the Laurentian range. There is to be found there a population of about 40,000 souls which is making a pretty good living, thank God, but under climatic and other conditions to be found no where else in the Province of Quebec. The fight which the farmers have to put up in that district against adverse conditions of every description-even when Providence extends its beneficent hand here as elsewhere-is necessarily much more strenuous. So I say it behooves the various governments with which my constituents have to do, to confer on them that great boon that they have been in need of for sixty years past and that they have been applying for through petitions, delegations and all possible means from the Dominion Government, for the last ten years.
" I appeal to the good faith of all my colleagues from the Province of Quebec: this [DOT] is no question of party politics, it is a simple question of business, common sense and equity. I contend that with the experimental farms at present in existence in the Province of Quebec, the general interests are thoroughly looked after for the time being, and if the Government be disposed, as I understand it, is to grant to them experimental farms, the district where that policy should be carried out in the first place is that ot

Chicoutimi and Lake St. John, which I have the honour to represent,
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the importance for him, if he wishes to actually be of assistance to the Province of Quebec, of making arrangements for carrying on in the course of this year, on the farms at Cap Rouge, and more particularly at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, experiments in the growing of winter grain, which has been the salvation of the West and shou'd be the salvation also of the Province of Quebec. I understand that one of his head officers has been carrying on such expen-ments on his own farm in the district of Quebec. I know that a few fanners have carried on such experiments at home, with invariably satisfactory results. So I say it is urgent that the Minister should himself carry on such experiments, in order to be in a position to lay official data before the public. It is practically a question of life and death for the farming class of Quebec that they be assured every year of fair returns from their seeding, as are secured in the West. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness in allowing me to make these few remarks.


Frank Oliver: There are a lot of matters that will require to be discussed on this experimental farm item. I suppose we will have the privilege of dealing with them when the Minister's Estimates come up again?


Martin Burrell: Yes. There is no vote that passes that we cannot go back upon, except that we do not want to have the whole long debate over again.


Frank Oliver: I asked my hon. friend
a question in regard to Prelude wheat, and I have not got any information in regard to it.


Martin Burrell: I have the memorandum now.


Frank Oliver: I would like to get some information also in regard to the experimental station at Fort Vermilion;


Martin Burrell: I will make a note of
that.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister give
an explanation of the great increase in the expenditure on experimental farms? It has increased from $75,000 in 1911 to $250,000 in 1914. There has been no evidence placed before the House to show that we have received any equivalent value for all that money. It is about three times

the expenditure of three years ago. We are going ahead pretty fast with this expenditure and the farmers want to know what we are getting for it. We have had no statement from the minister to show that we are doing three times as much work now at the experimental farms as we did three years ago. In looking at the Auditor General's Report, I find some items that show very great extravagance on the part of the department. I think that is possibly the explanation of some, at least, of the advances in expenditure. Before we altogether leave the question of experimental farms, the minister ought to make some general statement showing the results we got from all this increase in expenditure.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before the committee
rises I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that on Tuesday evening there was a discussion as to certain inaccuracies appearing in the first number of the Agricultural Gazette. In order that there may be no misunderstanding about this, does the minister admit that there are inaccuracies as to the amount of money expended under the head of agricultural appropriations in the different years set forth in the Gazette, and, if so, will the minister agree to have brought down to the House the statement which he has promised to put into a future number of the Gazette?


Martin Burrell: The criticism that was
made of the Agricultural Gazette took a very wide range the other night and it is very difficult for me to follow, even in the ' Hansard,' some of the questions raised. There was a statement made by the hon. gentleman for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), for instance, that the exhibition work should have been increased by about $600,000. I shall give him the information with regard to this subject when we come to the item of exhibitions, but I might, in answer to my hon. friend, say that his question was: What amount of money has been expended in international or universal exhibitions, and that this $600,000 was used for exhibitions which were not exactly of that character, and that is why the amount was left out. It was not in any sense of the word an evasion of the question. In reference to what my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) said, I hope that he does not doubt for a moment that I will be as good as my word. I do not dispute that there are inaccuracies, but I do dispute that there were intentional inaccuracies. I
do not think that the figures in regard to 1910-11 and 1911-12 were disputed at all. It was a later idea, I believe, to take in the five year period before that. It was done in our accountant's office and not checked up properly in the rush to get out the magazine in the editorial office.
I have drawn their attention to it and asked them to go over all these, figures-in the most careful way so that there will be no mistake in the future. I believe they discovered that some items were omitted from the statement dealing with our own Estimates of the year 1912-13 which should have been included and were not. One hon. member found fault with the Gazette because the statements of the expenditure for 1904-5 and for 1900, under the head of Civil Government, were not contained therein. A part of the explanation there is that before the Civil Service Act became law, what is now civil government was paid out of the ordinary revenue in the various branches as set forth in the vote. I have asked the officers of my department to look into this matter thoroughly, and I made the suggestion that we would publish a corrected statement in the March number-I am sorry that we cannot do so in the February number, but it is now on the press-and that I would be perfectly willing to send a special supplementary statement to everybody that had received the first number of the Gazette, stating that this is the accurate statement and sending it in such shape that every person who has received the Gazette will be able to insert the corrected statement in place of the original one and thus make the whole thing clear. I am most desirous of making the matter perfectly clear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the minister is going very far if he does that, and I did not mean to insinuate that the minister would not be as good as his word. I was going to suggest that the minister might make up a statement and lay it before the House.


Martin Burrell: 1 will be very glad to do so.
- Mr. CARVELL: But if he will send the statement to everybody who receives the Gazette probably it will meet the purpose. It possibly might be a little more satisfactory if he would bring the statement down, because we will then know what it is.


Martin Burrell: I will be very glad to do so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The two principal items in regard to which there seemed to be an


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Martin Burrell: Yes, that should have been included.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They were obviously omitted ?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: It would be much more satisfactory to have the actual expenditure rather than the estimated expenditure. Everybody knows that the estimated amounts are different from the actual expenditure.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is wrong: I am not dealing with the Estimates for this year.


John Howard Sinclair: I quite understand that, but for the years for which we have the expenditure, we would get a more correct idea if we were given the actual expenditure as taken from the Auditor General's Report rather than the estimated amount. If the minister compares the items in the Estimates with the actual expenditures he will see that they differ considerably. If we are going to give official information to the people we ought to give it correctly. It will be a great pity if the idea goes abroad that information issued by the Government is not correct. I am going to show the House some evening when I get the opportunity, that information contained in bulletins issued by the Department of Marine and Fisheries is altogether incorrect. My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) showed the other night that information issued by the Conservation Commission was absolutely incorrect, and I think that when we get information from the Department of Agriculture we should get such information as we can rely upon. This is a serious question. We never thought of questioning the blue books up to a year or two ago, or perhaps until this year. I do not think that it ever entered into our minds that anything that we found in the blue -books would be incorrect; but if we are to get information that we cannot rely upon, that is a different matter altogether.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Government come to any decision regarding the Dominion House in London? Designs have lately been put on the wall at the enfMr. Carvel!.]
trance to this building showing various (plans of this future Dominion House. Lately, delegates have come from London to interview the Government and to sound public opinion in this country as to whether or not we would share in the establishment of that Dominion House. Many will be interested to know if a decision has been arrived at by the Government, and if so whether or not the exhibits of Canada will be transferred to that Dominion House.	.


Robert Rogers: The matter is still under consideration.


Martin Burrell: The Imperial Institute vote is $3,000 less than last year, because we have dispensed with the services of Air. Watson Griffin who used to be there. It simply means paying the annual fee that we have to pay to belong to the institute. We are keeping it up largely out of a vote that is left.
I do not altogether agree with my hon. friend with regard to what the hon. member for Guysborough said. If you were to take a period of years, as far as the expenditures from the various appropriations are concerned, you would find that they would bulk up much the same, and that the greater part of them is spent. This actual table is called the 'Dominion agricultural appropriations or votes', and I think we have given them as accurately as possible.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not questioning the accuracy.


Martin Burrell: If any other course were taken we would have to go into more intricate calculations over a term of years, and I do not think anything would be gained by that. I can assure my hon. friend that we will get those figures accurately. As to what he said about the increase in expenditure, I gave a statement the other night in which I touched on the natural expansion of the work at every farm, and therefore the natural expansion of this item. Under this Government, as undoubtedly under the late Government which my hon. friend supported, there will be certain expenditures that members may think are unnecessary, but we have to take into consideration the expansion, and the expenses are justified by the facts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We discussed during this evening and a day or so ago the question oi the appointment of Mr. Chapais for the

control of the funds voted under the Agricultural Act of last year. As there might be some doubt in the minds of some hon. gentlemen as to the manner in which the federal money was administered by the Hon. Mr. Oaron, the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to put on 'Hansard' the following extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Council of Agriculture of the province of Quebec, held in the Legislative Building (room No. 54) in the city of Quebec at ten a.m. on Wednesday, the 19th day of March, 1913. The Council of Agriculture in Quebec, as in the other provinces, is a non-partisan body, and expresses the views of the most qualified amongst the farmers of the province. The extract is:
Moved by Mr. J. B. Carbonneau, seconded by Mr. A. J. Dawes and Hon. Mr. Garneau, and it is resolved:
Whereas this Council highly approves the manner in which the provincial Government has [DOT]employed the federal subsidy voted for the year 1912-13 in the interest of agriculture;
Whereas such employment has given full satisfaction to the farming class and has contributed to the improvement of agriculture and the development of several important agricultural industries;
Whereas the grants out of such subsidy for drainage, fruit-growing, dairying, poultry-raising, the cultivation of leguminous plants, stockbreeding, the preparation of smoked meats, the cultivation and curing of tobacco, the canning industry and the agricultural schools has had good results and will be productive of still better ones if such subsidies are continued for several years;
Whereas the mode of employment adopted this year under the agreement between the federal and provincial governments is more advantageous for the various needs of the province than if the subsidy were devoted to a single object determined by the federal Parliament;
This Council requests the federal Government to adopt legislation allowing the distribution of the $10,000,000 which it is proposed to give the provinces in the interest of agriculture to be so made as to continue to carry out the agricultural policy adopted at the last federal session.
The secretary of this Council is directed to send a copy of this resolution to Hon. Martin Burrell, Minister of Agriculture in the federal Government.
Oscar Lessard,
Secretary of the Council of Agriculture.
I put this on 'Hansard,' not in any controversial spirit, but just to remove any suspicion that might exist in the minds of some people as to the method in which the moneys given by the Dominion Government to the various provinces have been expended in the province of Quebec.


Martin Burrell: I think that resolution has been put on 'Hansard' before. It was submitted in the nature of a protest against
the new Act, and I answered it very fully at that time by pointing out that while under the first Bill there was absolutely no limit in the way in which the money might be spent as long as they spent it on agriculture, this Parliament limited it to agricultural educational purposes.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. ROGERS, the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Friday, February 27, 1914.