1923-05-30

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU presented the third report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Printing.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Descoteaux be substituted for that of Mr. Gauvreau on the select standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, and for that of Mr. Trahan on the select standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 190, to amend the Companies Act.
He said: The bill comprises twenty-eight sections, all of which, with the exception of two, are to correct ambiguities and make other changes of minor importance. I would direct the attention of hon. members to sections 22 and 23, which make special provision regarding the paying of dividends of mining companies. These, of course, will be thoroughly examined when we go into committee. Otherwise the changes are merely alterations of wording, as I have said, to correct ambiguities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
pharmaceutical preparations
['Yes.']
Hon. Mr. BELAND:: This question has
been on the order paper for a long time, and I might say to my hon. friend that I was under the impression that the Department of Customs or the Department of Trade and Commerce would supply the information sought. I find, however, that these departments are not concerned with the matter referred to in the question. I shall make inquiry, and I think

Questions

perhaps under the regulations of the Health department we can ascertain the country of origin. I promise my hon. friend an answer at the next sitting of the House.
Question stands.



Mr. HANSON:: 1.	When was the Margaree River Salmon Fisheries Association formed, and what are its relations, contractual or otherwise with the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
2.	What were the names of the members of the association in 1921?
3.	Was any change made in the membership of the association in 1922? If so, at whose instance?
4.	Were any persons, members of the association in 1921, deprived of their interests or shares in the Association, or in the proceeds received from the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the year 1922 by reason of any action of the department or any officer thereof, in the year 1922?
5.	Has any claim been made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries by any persons, for a share of the payment agreed to be made to the association by that department, which has been disallowed? If so, who are the persons and what are the reasons for such disallowance?
6.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries at the instance of any member of parliament, changed the membership of such association?
7.	If so, who was such member of parliament?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: The answer to these questions will be contained in the return moved for by Mr. Hocken for Mr. Hanson on the 14th instant.
ST. ANNE-ST. CHARLES TELEGRAPH Mr. HANSON:
1.	What were the revenues from the telegraph line between St. Anne and St. Charles, in the county of Chicoutimi, during the past five years?
2.	What were the revenues of the same line between St. Charles and Peribonka during the same period of time?
3.	What were the expenses for the maintenance and salaries on each of these sections during the same years ?
4.	Does the government know that the length of this line there is a telephone system which serves all the parishes and which is in direct communication with all telegraph offices of the district, and that consequently the existence of this telegraph line has become absolutely useless from all standpoints?
5.	Is it the intention of the government in these circumstances to discontinue immediately the maintenance of these two sections of telegraph, which have no reason for existing from the standpoint of public interest and economy?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	$323.47.
2.	$23.13.
3.	Ste. Anne-St. Charles, $4,201.90; St. Char-les-Peribonka, $4,774.85.
4 and 5. Yes, and as the telephone system supplies all accommodation required in the 
district, negotiations are in progress with the view of disposing of this branch line at an early date.


CRUDE OIL BOUNTIES
Mr. FANSHER:: What are the names of the producers of crude oil, in Lambton county, Ontario, who received a bounty on crude oil, and what amount of bounty did each receive during the last fiscal year for which returns are complete?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: List of producers of crude oil, whose wells are located in the county of Lambton in the province of Ontario, and the amount of bounty paid to each during the fiscal year ending March 31st,
1923:
Anderson, J. II	 $1,060 26
Anderson Bros. &	Thompson .. ..	1,535 70
Armstrong, J. E	 2,145 61
Atkinson, John	 8 89
Anderson, George	 8 78
Atkinson, Wm	 18 70
Barrett, C. H	 691	72
Brock, Thos. A	 916 36
Bradley, R. N	 129 79
Bridges, E. 0	 16 08
Barnes, John	 30 77
Braybroolc, J. F	
161	16Baker, Jas. D	
39	24Bailey, John	
114	11Balls' E. H	
36	86Bowles, Herbert	
156	85Boges, Melville	
134	31Bidwell Oil & Gas	Co	
83	89Big Win Oil Co	
66	57Byers, R. & Sons	
483	76Crocker Parks Oil	Co	
1,417	28
Canadian Oil Producing & Refining
Co	
3.907	22Canada Crude Oil	Producers .. ..	2,427	41Canadian Oil Companies	
19	53Chesher, Geo	
143	93Cann, John	
287	81Carlton, W. G	
373	71Coulter, James	
96	74Corporation Town	Petrolia	
297	91Dempsey, James	
106	77Donald, George	
713	48Dennis, H. S	
231	83Dowler, C. E	
8	07Duncan Bros	
1,101	19Davis, Alex	
60	72Edward, Estate, A. C	
177	34Edward, F. H	
1,788	32Elliott, Henry	
64	40Elliott, C. H	
141	16Elliott, Kenneth	
97	01Fairbanks Estate, J. H	
7,014	30Fowler, John	
54	72Font, Maurice	
197	26
Questions
Finn, W. W	 33
Gregory, Henry	 202
Goudie, John	 355
Gillespie, Wm	 128
Heal, John	 178
Houston Estate, King	 527
Hastie, Wm		101
Hiilis, Jas. J. & Sons	 920
Hardy, Chas	 29
Howlett, Fred	 328
Howell, Harold H	 91
Holmes, D. A	 65
Hamlin, Samuel	 12
Ivinson, T. C	 8
Inland Oil & Gas Co	 198
Jackson, Wm	 279
Jackson, L. H. & R. B. Morningstar 271
Joseph, Mrs. Esther	 331
James, G. E	 633
Johnston, Thos	170
Jewell, Daniel	 555
Kerr Estate, J. J	 3,104
Kerr, Ross	 811
Kelly, J. E	 711
Kettle, Robert	 280
Kirk, Elmer	 40
Lucas, Colonel	 71
Loxton, Thos	 189
Logan, Leslie	 23
Lambton Oil Syndicate	 21
Lewis, Estate, J. J	 459
Logan, Herbert	 26
Lambton Oil Company	 76
Mott & Mitchell	 923
Learn, Chas	 71
Mutual Oil Producing Co	 1,979
Maw, F. N	 40
Miller, W. W	 109
Miller, Silas	 41
Metcalfe, J. N	 148
Miller, Frank J	 202
Mott, E. J	 254
Mills, John	 98
Maitland, Jas. B	 31
Morris, Geo	 251
McGillivray, G. A. & Co	 751
McDonald, F. D	 180
McAlpine, T. A	 26
McLellan, James	 129
McCrie, Wm.'	 17
McKay, John	 65
McManus, Alex	 38
McManus, J. A	 4
McDougall, D. J	 240
McPhedran, John	 11
McLellan, Peter	 40
McFarlane, Wes	 112
McMahon, A. A	 33
McDougal, Alex	 141
McRury, Alex	 90
Morningstar, Leslie	 794
Napper, Fred	
29	01Niblock, R	
40	62Ontario Lands & Oil	Co	
3,496	90Osborne Oil Producers	
366	82Parks, E. M	
574	60Portsmouth, Thos	
62	50Paul, John D	
37	99Peat & Ward	
21 28Powers, Edward	
27	72Rainsberry, Walter	
243	79Rainsberry, N. J	
66	69Rawson, Andrew	
462	31Robinson, John	
92	29Rowe, George	
42	45Ruckle, Harry	
53	18Redwick, W. 0	
22	83Schumacker, B. W	
1,315	21Smith, T. E	
154	00Sprcule, Bros	
372	36Sanson, Mrs. C. E	
77	98Sproule & Johnston	
270	70Stonehouse Bros	
249	04Saulsbury, J. L	
9	27Stamm, David	
32	16Stevenson, Lorenzo	
147	75Shaw, Henry	
503	43Strangway, Howard	
71	07Telsey, Abram	
3,165	08Union Natural Gas Co	
2,144	70Watt, P. J	
493	07Wallen, A. C	
351	95Wallen Estate, John	
268	11Wallen & Wallen Estate	
564	66Woodward, John & Sons	
22	99Woodward, John	
107	04Warwick, Jos	
912	80Woodward, John	
565	22Wilson, Wm	
235	70Wilson, James	
36	18Welsh, Mrs. Thos	
56	98Yerkes, Carlton	
215	83Young, W. E	
20	38


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many ships owned by the Canadian Merchant Marine are on the Great Lakes?
2.	How many of the said ships are being used in the Grain Trade at the present time?
3.	Are any or all of them under lease to other firms or persons?
4.	If so, to whom?
5.	What rate are they charging from (a) Fort William to Bay Ports; (b) Fort William to Port Col-borne; (c) Fort William to Buffalo; and (d) between Port Colborne and Montreal?
6.	What is the highest rate charged this year on each of the above hauls?
7.	What is the lowest rate charged this year on each of the above hauls?
8.	What was the highest rate charged in the year 1922 on each of the above hauls?
9.	What was the lowest rate charged in the year 1922 on each of the said hauls?
71
62
89
46
50
99
94
47
22
40
07
15
50
79
20
46
93
38
91
43
95
83
52
93
70
30
33

i 43

Questions

10.	What was the highest rate charged in the year 1921 on each of the above hauls7
11.	What was the lowest rate charged in the year 1921 on each of the above hauls?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Ten.
2.	Six.
3.	Yes; two.
4.	S.S. T. J. Drummond and J. A. McKee are chartered to the Great Lakes Transportation Company Limited.
5.	(a) Fort William to Bay ports, 1923, 4 cents per bushel, (b) Fort William to Port Colborne, 1923, 4 cents per bushel, (c) Fort Wii'iam to Buffalo, 1923, nothing carried. The Canadian Government Merchant Marine confines its efforts to the carrying of grain between Canadian ports, (d) Between Port Colborne and Montreal, 1923, nothing carried.
6.	(a) and (b), 4 cents per bushel.
7.	(a) and (b), 4 cents per bushel.
8.	(a) and (b), 5 cents per bushel; storage grain 74 cents per bushel.
8. 4J cents per bushel, (a) and (b).
10.	(a) and (b), 4 cents per bushel; (d) 7 cents per bushel.
11.	(a) and (b), 4 cents per bushel; (d), 6i cents per bushel.


ASSINIBOINE RIVEK WORKS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEADER-.
1.	What is the total amount of money expended by the federal government in dyking, excavating, etc., on the Assiniboine river between the cities of Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg?
2.	In what years were these expenditures made?
Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: 1.	833,127.84.
2.	Expenditure 1908-09, $5,211.50; 1913-14, $5,117.80; 1914-15,814,309.74; 1916-17,82,274.45; 1917-18, $1,59S.45; 1919-20, $177.20; 1920-21, $316,25; 1922-23, $4,122.45; total, $33,127.84.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
CIVIL SERVANTS IN OTTAWA Mr. McQUARRIE:
1.	How many civil servants employed full time are there in all departments, resident in the city of Ottawa ?
2.	How many civil servants employed full time are there in all the departments, resident outside the city of Ottawa?
RURAL MAIL CARRIERS Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:
For a return showing the names and addresses, by provinces, of the rural mail carriers.
Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: I would ask the
hon. gentleman not to press this motion. The same principle would apply to it as applied 
to the one moved yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine) which the House thought it not wise to press for the reasons I then gave to the House.


Mr. GOOD:: I do not think the expense
involved in answering this question would be considerable, nor could L quite appreciate the objections that were raised yesterday. I might call attention to question No. 5 on to-day's order paper which also involves bringing down a considerable list of civil servants in Ottawa. However, if the government declines to give the list, I shall have to be content.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


William Charles Good: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not
drop it. I say that if the government declines to give the information I shall have to be content with that.


Hewitt Bostock: Then it is dropped.


William Charles Good: I understand it is voted $own. I did not drop it.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion negatived on division.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. COOTE:: For a copy of all returns made to the minister during the last fiscal year under subsection 2 of section 91 of the Bank Act.


GOVERNMENT GRAIN ELEVATOR SYSTEM
George Gibson Coote: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, memoranda and other documents, passing between the Department of Railways and Canals or the Department of Marine and Fisheries and Messrs. Fennell, Henry and Smith, in regard to the grain elevator system from Fort William to Montreal, during the years 1922 and 1923.


JUDGES' ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend section six of the Judges Act, as enacted by chapter fifty-six
of the statutes of 1920, by providing that the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario shall be as follows-
Per Annum
(a)	The Chief Justice of Ontario	$10,000.00(b)	The Chief Justice of the Second Divisional Court	
10,000.00(c)	Eight Justices	of Appeal, each	
9,000.00(d)	Nine judges of the High Court Division, each	
9,000.00
Business of the House-Legislation
Provided that the judge who at present holds the office of Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division, and the judge who at present holds the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, shall, each respectively, and irrespective of the Division, Appellate or High Court, to which he may be assigned, continue to receive the salary of $10,000.00 which he is now receiving instead of the salary which he would otherwise receive; but that upon a vacancy occurring in the office of Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division, or in the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the salary of such Chief Justice shall cease; and provided moreover that, when the two last mentioned offices shall have been abolished, the Chief Justice who may be appointed to preside over the High Court Division shall receive a salary of $10,000.00 per annum, and the number of salaries hereby authorized for the judges of the High Court Division shall thereupon be reduced to eight.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been apprised of the subject matter of the resolution, has' given his consent thereto and commends it to the consideration of the House.
Mr. CALDWELL:: Explain.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: By an act of the legislature of Ontario at its last session a second divisional court was created. The judges who are to sit in that second divisional court are already judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario. They will be given new commissions, but they will receive the same salaries that they are now receiving. The number of judges is not changed, and the salaries are not increased.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Do I understand that this is just a motion that to-morrow the House will go into committee on the resolution?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: It is now about two weeks since I asked for a statement of the government's remaining legislation. It has not as yet been given. Legislation has been dribbling in day by day-
Mr. BUREAU-In every way.


Arthur Meighen: In almost every way and in almost every form.


Mr. BUREAU:: Not form, but way.


Arthur Meighen: In every way except a good way-	.


Mr. DUFF:: And it is growing better and better.


Arthur Meighen: Well, there is ample room for improvement. We have received no statement yet as to the balance of legislation the government intends. There are certain subjects as to which intimation has been given of an indefinite character. I think we should know it to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I mentioned to my right hon. friend the other day, the legislation to be brought down depends in part on the reports we receive from the committees. I think the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment has legislation, based on the report of the commission that has been investigating matters pertaining to returned soldiers, that he will introduce immediately. Then there will be some legislation introduced based on the report of the Great Lakes inquiry into lake freight rates and possibly other legislation on other reports which may be brought down. I think that, along with the legislation on railway construction that has already been mentioned, includes practically all the important legislation the government will still have to submit.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask, first, what is the nature of the very important legislation that the government intimates they are going to bring down regarding the control of lake freight rates? It seems to me that should be down by this time. We are very close to the end of the session, and the report has been in for several days, or rather I should say for a couple of weeks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no, a couple of days.


Jacques Bureau: Three or four days at the most.


Arthur Meighen: I have had the report for a week.


Jacques Bureau: You are a privileged person, then. There is something wrong about that.


Arthur Meighen: I got the report from the government. Secondly, could the Minister of Railways intimate what is the nature of the proposed legislation regarding railway construction?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): The right hon. gentleman will remember that in the railway statement which I made earlier in the session, I indicated that there would be a construction programme presented to parliament. I think I stated that all the construction likely to take place would probably be paid for out of consoli-
Privilege-Mr. Carroll

dated revenue. I want not to retract but to intimate, that perhaps that part of my statement may be changed. What the government proposes to do, on the recommendation of the board, is to construct a number of branch lines, the great majority of which have been started and not completed. Many of these branch lines have been graded but the rails have not been laid on them yet. However, we hope to have the legislation down in a few days.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GAllVREAU: May I ask the Minister of Finance if there is to be a superannuation bill for the Civil Service this session? If not, will the Calder Act be continued?
Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: There is a notice on the order paper for the continuance of the Calder Act.



DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: May I ask the government that in future, when ministers make motions in this House for the printing of reports, provision be also made for the distribution of those reports. Yesterday I was searching for a report that I thought would be out, and after going from one office to the other I found that the distribution office did not know whether the report would be distributed from there when it was printed, or what number of copies would be available or to whom they would be sent-no provision whatever of that nature had been made. I wondered, therefore, whether it would not be possible in future when motions are made for the printing of reports to provide also for their distribution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will endeavour to meet the wishes of my hon. friend as far as may be deemed advisable.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CARROLL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. It really is not a question of personal privilege but a matter which concerns the entire House, the committees of the House, and the country at large. There are standing committees appointed by the House to look into various subjects which may be submitted to them each session. I want to bring to your at-

tention, Sir, the fact that the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization held a meeting this morning which was called by the Chair. I happened to learn of that fact-I was not informed of it by the chairman who perhaps was not called upon to advise me-and I went into the committee and saw the somewhat unwholesome and unsavory sight of a gentleman making propaganda on a question which will, in the immediate future, come before the members of this House. You will notice, Sir, there is a resolution standing on the order paper in my name-No. 12-which has reference to the question of oleomargarine-and I can see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) bowing his head when he hears of oleomargarine. Sir, the subject of oleomargarine was never referred this session to the committee on Agriculture, and I do not see by what right, or by what authority, that committee should undertake to discuss the matter and allow the solicitors, the paid solicitors, of any industry, whether it be the dairy industry or any other, to appear before them without notice to other persons who may have an interest in that particular question. I went to the committee and raised objection to the proceedings, but I was told, first by the chairman and then by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Caldwell), who is an all-wise man in this sense, that I had no authority there. I would like to point out to the House that in my humble opinion the committee on Agriculture had no more right to sit and discuss that matter than I had to go there-and I had no right.
Mr. Speaker, we pay certain officials, such as stenographers and secretaries of committees, to do certain work, and no chairman and no minister has the right to call a committee, and to use the services of these officers, in order to make propaganda, whether it be on the question of oleomargarine or a much lesser subject. I wish to point out. Sir, as strongly as I can, that the committee on Agriculture are doing something they have no authority to do. The meeting of this committee was called by the chairman three or four days ago, and however decent a man the chairman may be-and I am making no charge against anybody-the unfortunate part is that it was summoned for no other purpose than the making of propaganda. The chairman of that committee, in my humble estimation, and the gentlemen who supported him, exceeded their powers in allowing the solicitor for the dairy institutions of this country to make a speech of a couple of hours duration in connection with a matter-

Privilege-Mr. Carroll


Mr. McBRIDE:: I take exception, to that statement. The gentleman in question made no speech of two hours duration; it occupied less than twenty minutes.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend is one of those who objected when I went to the meeting and said I was trying to make political capital.


Thomas George McBride: Certainly, I did.


William F. Carroll: I was at the committee for at least twenty minutes listening to this gentleman and I am told he continued his -may I say?-his peroration, long after I left. However, the question of time as between my hon. friend and myself is a very small matter. I say that such representations should not have been allowed to be made at all. I maintain that the committee on Agriculture should not allow itself to be used for the making of propaganda for any industry or any set of men in this country, and I charge that was the object in view when the committee was called together. Now, Mr. Speaker, I did intend bringing this matter up in a somewhat different manner. I was of the opinion that it might be considered a matter of national importance, and that I might be allowed to move the adjournment of the House in order to draw attention to it.
However, on consultation with gentlemen who know more about the procedure than I do, I concluded to bring the matter up on a question of privilege, and I wish to say that this is a matter which I think may be discussed. It is a debatable matter, but it does not pertain to the question of personal privilege. For that reason I brought it up in this way. I do not know that I can use language sufficiently strong to impress upon the members of this House the grievance which I, as a member, and the grievance which I think every hon. member of this House should have on a question of this kind.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I rise to a point of
order. I should like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the hon. member is in order in discussing this matter.


William F. Carroll: Is the hon. member not
a little late?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: On a question of privilege. I think that if the hon. member was not allowed to go into it in committee, it is a question of personal privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: I think there is no question with regard to this being a matter affecting the privileges of the members of the
House. I do not wish to give a ruling before I have heard the parties, but from what I gather, the whole question is whether a committee has a right to discuss or deal with a matter which has not been regularly referred to that committee. I wish to hear discussion on that point.


Arthur Meighen: I submit, with all deference, that the hon. member cannot bring this matter before the House in this form. That an hon. member, as a matter of privilege, can rise in the House to debate the conduct of a committee without any report from that committee is totally at variance with what I have understood to be the practice, and certainly no debate can take place on that matter. How can such a matter be debated-how can both sides be heard? The hon. gentleman may rise and complain of his treatment in this House or in the committee, but having made that statement, he has stated his own position, and the matter is through. But the hon. member has gone far beyond that.


Hewitt Bostock: Referring to rule 47, I
find the following:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
Then, paragraph 479 of Beauchesnes', I find the following:
May says, page 241, that the proceedings of the House may be interrupted at any moment, save during the process of a division, by a motion based on a matter of privilege, when a matter has recently arisen which directly concerns the privileges of the House, and in that case the House will entertain the motion forthwith. Bourinot, page 303, quotes an ancient authority as saying whether any question is or is not before the House, and even in the midst of another discussion, if a member should rise to complain of a breach of the privileges of the House, they have always instantly heard him'. It seems that the first duty of parliament is to keep its privileges and no rule or standing order should restrain its conduct when it must vindicate its authority.
In the present instance, I understand, the hon. member (Mr. Carroll) has a motion on the order paper relating to oleomargarine, and he now states that a committee to which this matter has not been specially referred, dealt with that question this morning, thereby anticipating his motion to be debated at a later date before the House. This, in my judgment, is contrary to the rules of the House, and the rules to be followed in the committee. If hon. members will refer to Bourinot they will find that the special committees and standing committees can only deal with matters which are specially referred to them. I am informed that Mr. Todd, who is the chief of the committee clerks, and an
Privilege-Mr. Carroll

old authority, having been in the service of this House for over forty years, decided -and I agree with his decision-not to allow the evidence to be reported under such circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: I have no exception whatever to take to the quotations cited by your honour, nor to Mr. Todd's decision, because both are in conformity with my own view. An hon. member may rise to a question of personal privilege any time if his personal privileges have been interfered with. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carroll) does not so allege. He seeks as a matter of privilege to bring before the House what he claims to be the irregular conduct of the committee. That does not affect the personal privilege of an hon. member at all. Even were he raising a question of privilege, he cannot debate the question, because there can be no reply. I strongly affirm the position taken by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) that the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) is out of order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just to correct a possible misapprehension with regard to what happened this morning-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr. BOIVIN:: That is not a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The hon. member (Mr. Carroll) said he had been denied the privilege of being heard before the committee.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon. member is discussing the point of order which has been raised.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The point of order depends on the question under consideration as a point of order. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) said that, because if the fact that the hon. member had been denied admission to the committee he should be heard. The committee met this morning and practically unanimously decided to hear certain men who might give us information on a question which is to come before this House. Whether we were in order in that decision or not, I do not know. The hon. member who raises the question of privilege objected to the committee dealing with the matter. What the committee objected to was the interrupting of a gentleman who had been called before the committee.


Hewitt Bostock: The question of order has been raised as to the right of the hon. member to rise to a question of privilege on the

facts which have been adduced before the House. In my humble judgment I consider that, whether it is a personal privilege or a matter affecting the privileges of the House, the question is properly before the House.


William F. Carroll: I think I made it very plain when I rose to the question of privilege that it was not a matter of personal privilege. I am not complaining in that respect. I do not mind that. Perhaps I deserved everything that was said to me in the committee when I went there. But I want to assure my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton and the chairman that I am not complaining ot that. My complaint is on a matter which I would think might perhaps come before the House in other ways. I am finding no fault with the committee. My reason for raising this point is that I think the committee is hearing evidence on something which is not referred to them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt in the world that the committee on Agriculture might, if they so desired, revise the Bank Act, they may revise the Criminal Code, they may do anything in the world, so long as they do not report their findings to the House. I have said-and I reiterate-that they have no right to use the public offices of this building to discuss matters which were not referred to them. That is my chief objection. They may do anything in the world as long as they do not usurp the function for which they were appointed. I have said that I hope I have brought fairly to the attention of the House a matter which, in my estimation, is one, not only of privilege, but of national public importance.


Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I trust I may be allowed to reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll). The question of privilege which the hon. member raised, as he stated at first, was that he had been refused a hearing before the committee on Agriculture.


William F. Carroll: I made no such statement.


William Frederic Kay: I wish to say that I myself sent a personal messenger to the hon. member this morning asking him to come to the committee. I have been a member of the committee on Agriculture since coming into the House some twelve years ago. The practice has been almost invariable, that that committee should hear discussions on matters relating to agriculture delivered by prominent agriculturists or by officials of the Department of Agriculture, and to my knowledge those matters had never been referred by the House to that committee. I yesterday received a letter from the secre-

Privilege-Mr. Carroll
tary of the National Dairy Council of Canada saying that a number of representatives of the dairying interests from the different provinces were in Ottawa and had had an interview with the cabinet, and requesting me as chairman of the committee on Agriculture and Colonization to call the committee together in order to allow them to address the committee. Having in view the procedure which has been followed in that committee for many years, I acquiesced, after, I may say, consulting with Mr. Todd as to the propriety of doing so, and I called the committee together. The notice of the meeting is on the notice board in the lobby, and each member of the committee received the usual notice, at the bottom of which was the order of the day which stated that the committee was called for the purpose of hearing representatives of the National Dairy Council on the question of oleomargarine. On that committee there are not only members who are in favour but members who are against oleomargarine so that I think there was no discrimination against anybody. When the committee met this morning, the question was put to them, and they decided unanimously, at least not by vote but by great enthusiasm, that they desired to hear the representatives who were present before them. I may say that sixty-five members of the committee were present. Not on a question of privilege, but on behalf of the committee and the members of it, I must respectfully draw to your attention, Sir, the exceedingly unparliamentary and almost unmannerly behaviour of the hon. member for South Cape Breton when he entered the committee room this morning.


William F. Carroll: I object to the use of unparliamentary language by my hon. friend.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think the expression "unmannerly" should be used, and I would ask the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) to withdraw that expression.


William Frederic Kay: I will Withdraw it at your request, Sir, and I will stand by the word "unparliamentary." The hon. member for South Cape Breton entered the committee room while a speaker was holding the floor, and without addressing the Chair, without addressing the committee in particular, without asking permission to say a few words, the hon. member very abruptly or roughly interrupted the speaker and complained that he had not been advised of the meeting, which statement was false.


William F. Carroll: I object to the use of the word "false" by the hon. member.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think the hon.
gentleman meant to use the word "false."


William Frederic Kay: I will say "inaccurate statement."


William F. Carroll: I would ask that the hon. member be requested to withdraw the word "false."


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
gentleman has withdrawn the word.


William Frederic Kay: I withdraw the word "false" at your request, Mr. Speaker, and I will say "inaccurate," because I sent the clerk of the committee to notify the hon. member of the meeting. His remark was false so far as I was concerned. Whether he received the notice or not I do not know; anyway he came to the meeting shortly afterwards. The hon. member proceeded to protest because he said that it was unfair that one side of the question of oleomargarine should be discussed without the opposite side being notified. He did not take the ground, when he entered the room, that the committee was discussing a question without having authority to do so He took the ground simply that it was unfair that one side of the question should be heard without the other side being notified, and he demanded that the committee rise and adjourn until the other side could be present. I pointed out to the hon. member that as an old member of this House, as chairman of an important committee, he should well know the rules which govern committees and which state that a member of the House who is not a member of a committee has no right to interrupt the proceedings of that committee without first obtaining permission from the Chair and from the committee. After that the hon. member put in a scribbled note, which I found hard to make out. I do not know what it meant. Then he, in a very gruff manner, said that he refused to stay, and he withdrew. I think my course in calling the committee together to hear these gentlemen was quite in accordance with the precedent which had been followed for many years in that committee. As we met merely to hear discussions of interest to the agricultural interests of the country, I think we were not very much out of order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, as one of the co-respondents named by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond, possibly it will be in order for me to say a word.


Jacques Bureau: Is that in reply, closing the
debate?

Privilege-Mr. Carroll


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I was a little disappointed that the hon. member for South Cape Breton did not include the cabinet in his objection to getting information on matters that are liable to come before the House. He objected to our committee hearing people who might give us information on a subject that is of vital importance, a matter that, possibly, as members of this House we shall be called upon to decide in the very near future. I think I speak for many members of the- committee when I say that we felt we had not sufficient information on the subject to decide it as we should, and we were pleased to hear members of the Dairy Council and anyone else who might appear. A motion was passed, before the committee adjourned this morning, that an opportunity should be given anyone who might wish to do so to prevent the case in favour of oleomargarine. Now, if a committee of this House is going to be denied the privilege of obtaining information on any important question in regard to which certain evidence is considered essential, I presume that the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) would also object to the cabinet meeting these people and hearing their views on the subject. The cabinet, of course, is far more responsible than any group of members of parliament, but I submit nevertheless that the members of this House are undoubtedly charged with some responsibility. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I'though it only proper that I should submit these remarks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some time earlier in the session I gave an undertaking to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) that an opportunity would be afforded him before the session was over to debate the resolution which appears in his name on the order paper. Probably this is an opportune time for me to ask the House if it would agree that the hon. member should be allowed to take up his resolution. If it is the wish of the House that this be done, the resolution might be made a special order for consideration to-morrow. In that event, before the House proceeds to the Orders of the Day to-morrow I shall move that the resolution be taken up.


Hewitt Bostock: In support of the opinion expressed a moment ago with regard to the duties of select and standing committees of this House, I may refer to a motion made on Monday, February 12, 1923. The right hon. the Prime Minister on that day moved:

That the select standing committees of this House shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred by the House.
It is obvious therefore that only such questions as are referred to the committees may be discussed by them. I am bound to say, of course, in justification of the course followed by the standing committee on Agriculture, that unless exception is taken, as has been taken this afternoon, to the investigation of any matter outside of the scope of the subject submitted to a committee for its consideration, a very wide latitude is generally accorded such a committee as that on agriculture. Strictly speaking, and adhering to the letter of parliamentary procedure and constitutional practice, certainly no committee can deal with a question unless that question is specially referred to it. For this view I have ample authority. I add this rider, however, that very wide latitude is given an important committee such as the committee on Agriculture, when no exception is taken by any hon. member that a resolution standing in his name, which it is intended he shall bring before the House, is being anticipated and prejudged by a discussion or by any evidence brought before that committee. I understand that the incident is closed.


Arthur Meighen: I rise, Mr. Speaker,
merely to put myself on record in this matter, because it may be wise at a later date that I should have done so. I submit that the conduct of a committee cannot come before the Speaker of this House for a ruling merely on a complaint of an hon. member of the House; and further, that the conduct of the committee in question has never been before you, Sir, for any ruling. There is a method of bringing the conduct of any committee before parliament, but that method has not been adopted in this instance, merely, on a question of personal privilege. Hon. members have certain rights, and to say that those rights in this case have been exceeded, and exceeded to a considerable extent, is to my mind to express a very obvious truth. That, however, was not what I rose to say. I rose simply to observe that the conduct of the committee was not properly before the House, nor was it, either properly or improperly, before the Chair.


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, I have May and Bourinot in my favour. I wish to assure the House that I have the highest opinion of the ability of the right hon. member (Mr. Meighen) and of his knowledge of the rules.

Privilege-Mr. Carroll
I would however refer the House to Beau-chesne's under Rule 47, paragraph 479, which reads in part:
May says, p. 241, that "the proceedings of the House may be interrupted at any moment, save during the process of a division, by a motion based on a matter of privilege, when a matter has recently arisen which directly concerns the privileges of the House, and in that case, the House will entertain the motion forthwith."
I consider that the grievance, founded or unfounded, which an hon. member may have against the proceedings of a committee constitutes the subject matter of a question of privilege.


Arthur Meighen: With all deference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to submit that you have not grasped my point. I do not take any exception at all to the quotation from May; what I say is that the mere rising to a question of privilege on the part of an hon. member, even though the subject matter of the question may have arisen in a committee, does not bring before the Speaker of the House for decision the question of the conduct of that committee. It may be quite true that the conduct of the committee was wrong, but I submit with all respect that that question is not before you, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling.


Hewitt Bostock: A question of privilege is in order at any time during a debate when an hon. member declares that the privileges of the House are being infringed upon. The question . is not restricted to the individual privileges but to the collective privileges of the House.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understood the Prime Minister to ask the consent of the House to have the resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton South with regard to oleomargarine brought up for discussion to-morrow. As a member of the special committee which is inquiring into agricultural conditions, I wish to enter my protest to that resolution coming up before the report of that special committee is submitted to the House. We have taken evidence on the question of the manufacture of oleomar-
4 p.m. garine in Canada, and as the report of the committee has not yet been brought down and probably will not be brought down for a few days, I think that a discussion of the hon. member's resolution would only be anticipating that report.


Hewitt Bostock: I understood that the
House agreed a moment ago to the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the hon. member's resolution be taken up to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that the suggestion of the Prime Minister never reached the House in the form of a motion. He merely mentioned the matter and the House proceeded to another subject immediately.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No question was put
concerning the Prime Minister's suggestion.


Hewitt Bostock: I understood that the
House had acquiesced in the Prime Minister's proposal; if it did not, then it is important that a definite understanding should be reached in the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To avoid a
formal motion, I should be glad if my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell) could see his way to waiving any objection that he may have towards bringing up the resolution to-morrow.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is a well-known fact,
I think, that evidence given before a special committee of the House cannot be discussed in the House before that committee has reported. I am sorry that the chairman of the committee is not in his place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the question that forms the subject matter of the resolution which it is proposed to consider tomorrow was* not referred to the committee.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: All questions of any
description whatever affecting agricultural conditions in Canada generally were, I take it, referred to the committee.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the hon. member
suggest that we cannot legislate until that committee has reported?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not suggesting
anything of the kind, but I do say that the particular question which we have been discussing was undoubtedly included in the comprehensive reference to the special committee that has been considering agricultural conditions generally throughout the country. The question which it is proposed to take up tomorrow certainly affects agriculture, and we have taken evidence upon it. I say that the report of the committee is not yet before the House, so that any discussion of that question would necessarily anticipate that report. I stand by my objection.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Perhaps the hon.
member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) will mention something that has not been discussed before that special committee.



MANITOBA GRAND JURIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield):: A few
days ago, I think it was on May 14, the right

Supply-Customs and Excise
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) put a question to the government with respect to a certain resolution that had been passed by the legislature of Manitoba. The subject matter of that resolution, the Prime Minister will remember, related to the abolition of the grand jury system in that province. I should like to ask the government if it is their intention at this session to bring in legislation in conformity with that demand. I have been in touch with the members from the province of Manitoba; they are exceedingly anxious that the government submit such legislation this session if at all possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the intention of the government to bring in such legislation.

The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

[Stage Direction]
Civil Government-Customs and Excise-Salaries and Contingencies, $625,375.
Jacques Bureau: This is the same as last year, except that there are two officers less. Item agreed to.
Customs and Excise-
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,-and temporary buildings and
rentals	 $5,581,800 00
Salaries and travelling expenses of Inspectors of Ports and of other officers on inspection, preventive service, and in connection with the Board of Customs; the latter including salaries of $1,500 for the Chairman, $1,000 each for three members and $500 for the Secretary.. 761,379 00 IMiscellaneous-Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and legal forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds, and uniforms for	Customs officers	 550,000	00
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive
service	
276,950	00Amounts to be paid to Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service	
10,000	00


Mr. STEVENS:: Has a decision been
arrived at by the department authorizing the shipment of goods from ports in eastern Canada via the Panama canal to ports in IMr. Hoey.]
western Canada, even though the vessel carrying such goods should call at an intervening port? When the minister answers that question I have another to put to him.


Jacques Bureau: I suppose this is the same question that has been asked before, involving the appointment of a customs officer in New York.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. Let me make myself clear before the minister answers; I do not want to be discourteous to him. There are three questions; I will put them all and the minister can, if he will, answer them at the same time. There is the question of shipping goods-I will specify, so as to make the point clear-say, steel from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Vancouver, all-water route, by the same vessel; and suppose that vessel calls at an American port en route. Then, there is the question of shipping Canadian goods from Sydney to New York by water, with transfer from a coastal to an ocean-going vessel, thence through the Panama canal to Vancouver, but the goods always being the same. Then there is the third case, the shipping of Canadian goods from eastern Canada, say, from Hamilton, by rail to New York, loading them on a vessel and sending them on in that way to the Pacific coast. Will the minister say just what is the situation in regard to permitting the shipment of goods in these three different ways?


Jacques Bureau: Number one; a British ship loads rails at Sydney and goes via the Panama canal to Vancouver. There is no breaking of bulk; the cargo remains the same. In that case there is no objection. That is the first question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Even if call is made at other ports?


Jacques Bureau: Even so-if the bulk is there; if the cargo remains in the ship and is not broken, there is no objection. Number two: shipment is made in a British bottom from Sydney to New York, with breaking of bulk and transfer to another ship. In that case, it would be necessary to have a Canadian customs officer to supervise the trans-shipment, to check the goods and send copies of the manifests to the officers of the department in Vancouver. Number three: shipment from Toronto, Hamilton, or Montreal by rail to New York and transfer there to a ship. Here the answer is the same as in the second case, because you break bulk, and that would have to be done under the supervision of a Canadian customs officer, who would also mark and initial the necessary papers. Now, about

Supply-Customs and Excise
the appointment of a customs officer at New York, here is a letter that was addressed to me on the 18th of May-and my hon. friends will see that everybody is not of the same mind so far as that goes. It says:
Minister of Customs,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
We understand that representations have been made on behalf of Canadian shippers and importers for the appointment of a customs officer at New York, in order to encourage exports to British Columbia via American ports. We have pleasure in advising you that we have arranged to load the steamer Margaret Coughlan from Montreal to Vancouver, via the Panama canal, about the middle of July, and are in communication with the Canadian Manufacturers Association, and a large number of firms in eastern and western Canada, and are quoting them competitive rates in order to secure traffic for an all-Canadian steamship route between the East and the West.
For your further information, we may state that the above steamer is loading a full cargo of lumber from British Columbia to Montreal, and is also- accepting shipments of canned salmon for this port.
That is, the port of Montreal, from which this letter is dated.
Under the above circumstances, we do not think that there is any justification for an appointment of the customs officers in New York, as if we can obtain any reasonable amount of support for a direct steamship service, we expect to make the line permanent. In any case, we do not think it to the interest of Canada to encourage shipments via American ports, in view of a direct service being opened up. We may say that we have been requested to make this communication to you by'the owners of the above steamers, and also our agents in British Columbia.
Yours very truly,
Thos. Harling & Son.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is that letter from?


Jacques Bureau: It is from Thomas Harling & Son, Montreal. I do not know the gentlemen.


William Stevens Fielding: It is a well known shipping concern.


Jacques Bureau: We may well hesitate in this matter when we consider that, taking as a starting point Hamilton, Montreal, or Toronto, the most our Canadian railways would get on the rail haul when shipment is made via the Panama canal would be about 20 per cent of the charges involved. In the case of Toronto, the freight by rail to the seaboard would be about 17 or 18 per cent of the whole. No decision has yet been reached by the department; we are hearing the pros and cons in the matter. I understand it may take some time before there is a definite and permanent line established. It takes goodwill and the encouragement of all people concerned on this side of the border to keep these people going.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was a statement made by Mr. M. A. Macdonald in a coast paper
only a day or two ago to the effect that he had been in Ottawa last week and that the federal government had definitely arranged to place this officer at New York for the purpose of the trans-shipment of goods. He announced this as the official representative of the government party in Vancouver. He had just spent, I remember, a very pleasant visit here of a week or two in consultation with the hon. minister, and I wanted to get from the minister exactly what had been done so that the public would know.


Jacques Bureau: If Mr. Macdonald has made any such statement it was not a statement that came from me, nor was it based on anything I might have promised. I said in the House here, and I repeat now, that the matter is still under consideration. I think it was my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) who had a question on the order paper a few days ago inquiring as to the cost of maintaining an officer in New York, and I replied that we could not answer the question then because we were investigating the whole matter. No definite decision has been arrived at yet. I do not say there will not be an officer stationed at New York, but I do not affirm that there will be, either.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before we leave this question, the trans-shipment of steel products from, say, Sydney to another vessel at New York for the purpose of transport through the Panama canal would not be affected by the letter which the minister has just read to the committee. That does not affect the rail haul at all. That is all-water haul from a Canadian port in the east to a Canadian port in the west. The only thing is that it is carried in coastal vessels from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to New York, and there trans-shipped to an ocean-going vessel for carriage through the Panama canal to Vancouver. Will the minister not give consideration to - that, and grant the privilege?


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend did not give the whole case. He says it would not affect the rail haul to the border. But it would affect it in this way. If a Canadian ship leaves Montreal and lands the goods in Vancouver, and a Canadian ship leaves Sydney and lands the goods in New York, all the Canadian bottom will get will be the transportation of the goods from Sydney to New York whereas if you encourage a Canadian line it will get the transport from Montreal to Vancouver, which makes quite a difference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a line of steamships registered in Canada, the Dollar Steam-

Supply-Customs and Excise
ship Company, running from Singapore to New York via Vancouver. It runs a regular line of freighters from Singapore to Shanghai and Vancouver, touching at Mexico, passing through the Panama Canal and going on to New York. They do not run up to Sydney because they are large vessels of 10,000 tons, and they cannot get full cargoes but they do get cargoes to New York. They will pick up a part cargo at New York from Sydney and carry it on their return trip to Vancouver; so it is a British bottom that carries the goods all the way through.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend must not lose sight of the fact that they break cargo, and every time the goods are trans-shipped it must be under the supervision of an officer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly. That is what we want.


Jacques Bureau: Whether it is a British or a foreign bottom, whether by water or by rail.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is exactly what we want, and what I am trying to induce the minister to agree to. We want the appointment of an officer at New York for that purpose.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Can the minister inform us to-day what would be the probable cost of maintaining an officer at New York? I think it is desirable, unless the cost is prohibitive, that that should be done. I do not think the need is obviated by the fact that one steamship company is establishing a line between Montreal and Vancouver, though I am., very glad to hear of that, and I hope that another line will be started. I should like to know what the minister thinks would be the cost.


Jacques Bureau: I have not formed any opinion yet. Our investigation has not gone far enough to enable us to give any data that would satisfy my hon. friend. I have not satisfied myself yet, and I do not like to give figures at random.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it a small amount or a very large amount?


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend must form his own opinion. He knows what it costs to live in New York, and that you cannot take a common labourer to fill a job of that sort. It requires a man who would command a certain salary, and there are the expenses, of moving down there, living expenses and so forth. My hon. friend is able to form an opinion just as well as I can.


Mr. CLARK:: This question has been discussed in the House on several occasions. It came up in the discussion on railway rates. My recollection is that the minister gave as his reason for not stationing a customs officer at New York that it would take away business from the railway companies, more particularly from our own railways. He also mentioned to-day the fact that there was not unanimity on this question, and quoted from a letter from Montreal. There may not be unanimity in Montreal on the question, but I can assure him that there is unanimity in the province of British Columbia, and unanimity on the part of Canadian manufacturers and of all people who are doing business with western ports. The fact is that to-day the business that is going via the Panama canal to the port of New York is business which under no circumstances would go across the continent on our railways. Our business men in British Columbia are to-day being forced to go to the American market to buy manufactured articles which they could buy in Montreal and Toronto just as cheaply as in the American market, but they cannot buy them in Montreal or Toronto owing to the freight rates on these articles being prohibitive. If they pay the freight rate over the railways, by the time these manufactured articles are landed in British Columbia the cost is so great that our people are much better off by buying the article in the United States or Great Britain, shipping it via the Panama canal and paying the duty. They get the articles much cheaper in that way than by buying from the Canadian manufacturer. I advocate the establishment of a customs officer at New York more particularly to enable us to do business with the eastern manufacturers in Canada to the exclusion of the manufacturers in the United States and Great Britain, and also to enable the British Columbia manufacturers, canners and so forth, to ship into eastern Canada markets by water the products which they cannot ship there to-day owing to the prohibitive freight rates on the railways.


Jacques Bureau: I understand my hon.
friend to say that there was unanimity in British Columbia on this question of having an agent, a customs officer appointed at New York.


John Arthur Clark: I might qualify that-unanimity with the exception possibly of a person such as my hon. friend cited who is interested in establishing a steamship line. I am in favour of the establishment of a steamship line myself and will do everything I can to

Supply-Customs and Excise
support it. In fact, I will go this far and suggest that if you cannot get a private enterprise to establish such a line you might use some of the ships of the government merchant marine for the purpose of establishing a direct service between Vancouver and Montreal in the summer and between Vancouver and Halifax in the winter time.


Jacques Bureau: This question has been discussed for a long while and so far no action has been taken upon it. I must tell my hon. friend that I did not say we would not appoint an agent in New York-


John Arthur Clark: I did not say that.


Jacques Bureau: -any more than I affirmed that we would. The question is being considered. Now the difficulty under which we are labouring is this: The National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway come to you and say, "If you do this you will hurt us. The British Columbia people ask for special rates and at the same time they want to take freight away from us. The railway officials represent that whenever 100 loaded cars are shipped from Vancouver to the East it means that 60 empty cars have to be brought back from the East to the West.


John Arthur Clark: Did I understand the minister to say-


Jacques Bureau: That if you want 100 cars to be shipped loaded from the West to the East you have got to carry 60 cars empty from the East to the West.


John Arthur Clark: I may inform the minister that same statement was made to me by a very high official of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Jacques Bureau: It was made to me by officials of the Canadian National Railway,


John Arthur Clark: It is an official of the Canadian Pacific Railway that I am referring to. So I went to the Bureau of Statistics and found that the total going into British Columbia from the East and coming from British Columbia to the East is almost equal.


Jacques Bureau: In what years?


John Arthur Clark: Any year you like.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no, last year there was a difference caused by the shipments of grain.


John Arthur Clark: I looked the matter up over a period of about three years and the statement is true that the tonnage coming from the prairie provinces eastward is very
much greater than the tonnage going westward. But that is not true of all British Columbia; the tonnage is almost equal going in both directions.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I would like to add my word of support to the remarks which the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made on this matter. It seems to be an absurd policy to ignore the economic effect of the construction and operation of the Panama canal and yet that is virtually what we are doing so long as we keep away from the establishment of this customs office. So long as we have these iniquitous tariff duties let us make the tariff as ineffective as we possibly can so as to get our goods from one Canadian port to another without penalizing the man who sells goods or the one who purchases them.
I sincerely hope the minister will take this matter into favourable consideration and that before the year is out it will be possible for the canners of salmon in British Columbia to ship to Montreal or other ports on the Atlantic seaboard and correspondingly possible for the shippers on the Atlantic to ship to the Pacific seaboard via the Panama canal without any such consequences as are now complained of.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I just want to add one word and I think I can help the minister out of the dilemma he is in somewhat because there are regulations in the Customs Act which give the power to do this without any question. For example take subsection (q) of section 286 of the Customs Act.


Jacques Bureau: I have got it here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The section prescribes that:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, and in the manner hereinafter provided, in addition to the other purposes and matters in this act mentioned, make regulations for or relating to the following purposes and matters:-	_ #
Subsection (q) Prescribing the rules and conditions under which goods imported in bond or duty-paid, and products or manufactures of Canada, may be transported from one port or place in Canada to another port or place therein, over any territory or waters outside the limits of Canada: Provided that the goods so transported shall, upon arrival in Canada from any place beyond the limits of Canada, be treated with regard to the liability to, or exemption from, duty, as if the transportation had taken place entirely within the limits of Canada;
Now, that is the old regulation.


Jacques Bureau: That is the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the law, and the regulations have similar provisions as well.

Supply-Customs and Excise
Now, I just want to say two things in reply to the observations made by the minister. First, in reply to the suggestion that this demand was one of long standing and had never been acceded to in the past. I do not want to do more than refer to the fact that that is not argument, although it is used as such by the members of the cabinet.


Jacques Bureau: No, I did not put it in argument. I simply mentioned it to show the difficulty we were working under.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly, but I want to explain that it is said the previous government had done nothing and therefore we should not blame the present government. I do not want to blame the present government but I am asking that consideration be given to this fact: The reasons why nothing was done up to about two or three years ago were these. The Panama canal was closed in 1915 owing to a big land slide. During the following years from 1915 to 1920 the tonnage of the world was occupied on the Atlantic and. we had very little tonnage on the Pacific in connection with purely war purposes	so that there was	no	possibility, no physical possibility of giving effect to this during those years. Since the year 1920 down to the present time there has been a general release of tonnage all over the world so that there has been ample tonnage available, and it is during that period that this question has been pressed. That, I think, answers the contention as to inactivity in the past.
Now then one other point as regards railway tonnage. I want to say to the railways that they are not getting the tonnage. That is the point, they are not getting it to-day. We are forced to purchase very largely in the states of Washington and California many things that we would buy in eastern Ontario because the long freight haul by railway adds to the cost on the Pacific plus the duty. The lesult is that Canadians in the West are buying American goods because they get them cheaper. They pay the duty and get them cheaper because of the excessive freight haul; whereas if they could get the privilege of trans-shipping at New York we would buy the eastern manufactured goods, ship them via New York and, with the lower water haul charges, we would get them cheaper than we could import them from the United States. I want to impress upon the minister and these railways that if they would give this point consideration they would find out that what I say is perfectly true and accurate.

Then, as regards the haul by railway. There is an awful lot of goods hauled by railway from the eastern states and sold in western Canada-extreme western Canada, Alberta and British Columbia. That traffic goes over American roads; it does not travel over Canadian roads to-day. Some of it does but the great bulk of it is going over the American railways, so that if this privilege were established at New York it would not interfere, as I say, to any great extent with tonnage. What you would do is stimulate business in eastern Canada and business in western Canada, and anything that will stimulate business must ultimately benefit the transportation systems of the country.


Mr. SHAW:: I should like to ask the minister a couple of questions. First, I should like to know the particulars of the increase in the first item, and second, the necessity for that short and very elegant phrase "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act"?


Jacques Bureau: The increase in the first item is due to these causes. There are statutory increases which amount to $131,175, there is an increase due to reclassification which amounts to $18,215, some 114 additional officers have been appointed necessitating $96,130, and there has been an increase in contingencies caused by an augmentation in overtime pay amounting to $20,765. There are decreases due to promotions and appointments to vacancies at less salary amounting to $18,595, making a net increase $247,690.
As to the expression "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act" the object of that is to enable our men to go on trains and boats on Sundays. Under the Civil Service Act we could not pay them for that work. They are paid by salary and we could not give them any extra remuneration for their overtime. When a train comes in from the United States at ten or eleven o'clock at night, our inspectors go aboard to examine *the passengers' baggage. That is the reason we have to do that, apart from the Civil Service Commission. I explained to my hon. friend that the wages paid on Sunday by the department are reimbursed by the various railways and steamship companies that use our service, but they do not appear against the expenditure, because they go to revenue. The expenditure seems greater than it really is. We pay money which we get back, but it is not credited to a special account, and thus a lesser expenditure is shown, because the moneys go to revenue generally. There is an increase in the number of officials in the various ports, Montreal, Toronto, Q.ue-

Supply-Customs and Excise
bee, and so on, on account of the increase in work, both in customs and excise. There have been various complaints, and I see by the papers that a lot of smuggling is going on. It is impossible to stop smuggling entirely but we determined that we would reduce it to a minimum. The same condition exists in regard to bootlegging and the various excise taxes that have been imposed lately.


Mr. CHURCH:: I observe that part of this item is for temporary buildings and rentals. At the request of many of the business men of South Toronto and other parts of that city, I wish to call the attention of the minister to the very inadequate plant for a city of the size of Toronto. This year $50,000,000 net has been collected by the government in customs at the port of Toronto-more than seven times the total vote of $7,000,000 now before the committee. An agreement was made a few years ago, when the old customs house was tom down. At present we have not a customs house suitable for a city of over half a million people. Business is done in that customs house for a population of three quarters of a million, because the business done there includes business coming from the suburban districts, where there is a population of 200,000. We collected from that population of nearly three quarters of a million $50,000,000, in spite of the business being done in those old dilapidated buildings. They tore down the old customs house at the corner of Front and Yonge streets.
A lot was sold by the city of Toronto to the government at a cut rate to encourage the government to give the city the plant they required for the business. If yea go into those dilapidated customs buildings throughout the city you will find business men trying to do some business. The minister has a good staff there and they are doing good work. At the same time if new buildings were erected the increased volume of business would produce a revenue which would more than pay the fixed charges on the cost of the building. The city of Toronto sold a large lot on Front street to the government at a cut rate. They did not consider the commercial value of that lot because it was worth three or four times what the government paid for it. We gave them that lot because they guaranteed a proper building capable of accommodating the business in Toronto. It was promised that a suitable building would be erected on the land in one year. Six or seven years have gone by and nothing has been done. The city of Toronto does not seem to get anything anyway. With
them it is simply a case of "pay, pay, pay." One of my colleagues from Toronto said that the city got nothing, did not expect anything and would not get it if they did expect it. But you have to consider the business people of that district in the counties of York, Peel and Ontario. They are getting volumes of goods at that port of entry. Toronto stands as the great gateway of Canada. The local business is just $50,000,000 net. But other business is being done there, many villages and towns contribute to it, which would make dt more a matter of $70,000,000 than $50,000,000. I hope this tu'-penny-ha'penny, short-sighted policy of housing an important port like Toronto in a lot of small buildings which were used for other purposes and abandoned should be discontinued as far as Toronto is concerned.
We are in a similar position regarding post offices. From our post office at the Union station the receipts are nearly five and a half million dollars. I know that the present minister has been very active and has been trying to get increased facilities for the port of Toronto. He has been doing good work considering the poor plant he has to work with but the officials there cannot continue much longer. The condition of affairs for the wholesalers and retailers is intolerable. They are willing to pay for service. The erection of a new building is necessary, and the volume of business which is to be done there will be a paying proposition for the government, as it will pay the fixed charges on the cost of erection. I hope the minister will take this matter up and see if something cannot be done to meet the many protests made by the business men of Toronto. The present plant is utterly inefficient. We have not a plant there at all. The old plant was torn down and we have a number of rented buildings along the water front. The business men are willing to pay for it and we are not asking anything from the government. There will be more business for the government, it will be conducted in a better way and the public will be better satisfied. I think this condition of affairs is local to Toronto. Here we have a city of 600,000 population without any form of customs house except two or three little bits of rented buildings throughout the city. The minister has been very attentive and listens to any complaints the business men make as to the insufficiency of the plant. I hope he will give this matter his active sympathy before the next session of parliament. Could the minister tell me what arrangements are going to be made to tide over the temporary situation in

Supply-Customs and Excise
regard to rented buildings? Is it proposed during the next twelve months to give Toronto a proper customs house, instead of having the customs officials located in rented buildings?


Jacques Bureau: I cannot give any assurance that anything will be done this year. I sympathize with the hon. member's views, and I admit that Toronto has not the facilities it ought to have to transact its business.


Mr. MEWBURN:: Nor Hamilton.


Jacques Bureau: I have not been there, but I have been in Toronto three or four times. I understand they have a better customs house in Hamilton. I admit that it is very difficult for the officers to give 100 per cent efficiency in the quarters where they are located, especially in the long room, and in the examining warehouse. There is the other disadvantage of being compelled to lose time going from one place to the other. You have your express office on the water front and your customs in the railway station, and an office on Wellington street. I am not familiar with the location of all the offices. The examining office is near the Canadian Pacific Railway freight sheds. This is an impediment and a handicap, not only for the people of Toronto, but for the customs officers. They cannot work properly in those quarters, and I am as anxious as my hon. friend to see a proper customs house built in Toronto, but I have been asking myself many a time why the old customs house was torn down.


Thomas Langton Church: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: I have seen only part of
it where the express business is done, and it seems to me, from what is left of it, that it was a first class building, and why it should have been destroyed before the government were ready to put up another building I do not know. This year, however, there is nothing in the estimates. I am in sympathy with the proposition to build a customs house in Toronto. Toronto gave us $45,000,000 revenue. Montreal is in the same position as Toronto. Montreal has the long room in the examining warehouse, and has no proper place for the officers. They are handicapped. They cannot give us full efficiency, but we do not blame them, because they are working with artificial light and in badly ventilated quarters. But I took the premises as I found them, and until the country has enough money to build new premises or to improve on the ones we have now, I do not think I can give any encouragement, at least for this year, to my hon. friend.


Thomas Langton Church: I appreciate the line of
argument of the minister; but when during the last fiscal year approximately fifty million dollars was made by the department out of the city of Toronto, surely a portion of that sum should be given back to the people who are paying that money, the business men of Toronto, by giving them increased plant to take care of the increasing business. At the present time a large portion of that sum is being utilized in other parts of the country, and surely the city which does the business and is paying in this huge sum to the department, should receive back some share of it in increased facilities. I think about one-third or, perhaps, forty per cent of that fifty million dollars was pure profit, and I do not see how the business is going to be conducted unless increased facilities are afforded. It will take two or three years to build a new customs house, and by that time the receipts will have increased well on to seventy-five million dollars. I would invite the minister to visit Toronto-we are always glad to see him-in order to see if something cannot be done. I understand the minister is doing the best he can; but at the same time the business men are protesting; they are paying for this, and a large proportion of the fifty million dollars is profit and is being used to give increased facilities in other parts of the country.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The hon. member says that he is at a loss to know why the old customs house disappeared. I do not know why he is at a loss. A proper customs house was to have been built; arrangements were made for it; the work was under way; the property was cleared, when the war came on and we stopped expenditures. There is no mystery about the matter at all. Can my hon. friend state how much money he is paying in Toronto now for rents? I do not know whether the other property is rented or is owned by the government. If it is on governmental property, that has a value; it is something that could be made use of and revenue could be brought in from it. The chances are, however, that some rent is still going out. If the minister were to take the value of other properties, whether rented or not, which could be put to other uses, easily sold, for instance, at the present time; if he were to consider the cost those properties mean and on top of that consider the extra cost he admits this means in carrying on business in Toronto, I am sure he would realize that, as a matter of good business, this place should be built at once.

Supply-Customs and Excise


Jacques Bureau: Sure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then that
question is beyond all debate.


Jacques Bureau: Find the money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend talks about finding money. That port certainly is producing a great deal of money, and the money from that port is going to buy buildings elsewhere.


Jacques Bureau: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us see.
Does my hon. friend not think it would be better to have a customs warehouse where he can properly carry on business, something that will help business and help the country, than to buy a corner of King and Yonge streets for over a million dollars, and then put on top of that a building costing two or three million dollars for railway purposes? Does my hon. friend not think it is a good deal better to apply the funds which are got out of customs earnings in the port of Toronto, to giving decent facilities there than, to buy a large hotel in Quebec-I mean France-to look after railway business there? These things are being done.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad my hon.
friend is uniting both Quebec and France.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I corrected myself. You see my hon. friend's mere presence is enough to remind me of his beautiful province of Quebec and to make it an uppermost subject in my mind. Why should this customs warehouse not be constructed; why should not this expenditure be made when business absolutely requires it, when my hon. friend says that it ought to be done but that the trouble is money. Is this not a little more important than a palatial ticket office at the comer of King and Yonge streets? Is it not more important than having this building in Paris at the present time? What real railway business does the minister think we are going to get out of that building in Paris, which would compare in importance with a proper plant at Toronto for his department?


Mr. HOCKEN:: We had a Minister of Public Works for a few months representing this party, or rather Union government. He was Minister of Public Works for a few months on his way from the cool shades of opposition to the chairmanshij? of the Railway Commission. During the short period that he occupied that position he tore down the very excellent building which we had in Toronto,
a building not adequate to the necessities of the case, an old building, but nevertheless infinitely better than anything we have now or anything you can get in the shape of a warehouse. The minister is occupying now for customs purposes a warehouse on Wellington street, and an old baking powder factory for his examining warehouse.


Jacques Bureau: Was that what it was?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, Magic baking powder was made where the warehouse is to-day.


Jacques Bureau: The magic has gone and the powder also.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was through the warehouse a short time ago, and it is entirely inadequate for its purposes. If the government could see things from the right perspective, we would certainly have had a new customs house in Toronto before we started building a hotel in Paris for the National Railways. The latter may contribute some little amount to the revenues of the National Railways, but even that is doubtful. It is a veiy speculative enterprise; but the customs needs of Toronto are pressing upon the people there, and every month and every year that we are without these facilities, the increasing business will make that necessity still more pressing. Ordinary business prudence leads a manufacturer to add to his building if he has not sufficient space, wherein to carry on his business. It is always an expensive matter to conduct business in inadequate premises, and that is what the minister tells us is being done to-day.


Jacques Bureau: That is so.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have an idea that a very large part of the interest cost of a new customs warehouse is being spent now through the congestion that is inevitable under present circumstances. If this government had been considering the welfare of its own services, the Minister of Public Works would have brought down an item this year for a new customs house in Toronto. We could stand the post office for another year -or two, but certainly a new customs house for Toronto is one of the crying necessities of the business of this country. Moreover, we did a very large business last year and the customs receipts are very large; but with every year that passes, the customs receipts of Toronto will be greater, and if the customs business of Toronto expands in the present limited quarters that are now available, the cost of administering the department will be constantly increasing. I do not suppose it is of any

Supply-Customs and Excise
avail to say these things but I think the government is to be condemned for treating the city of Toronto and its customs necessities in the way that it has.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) asked how much we paid in rents in Toronto. I do not know; that is a matter that comes under the Department of Public Works. The hon. member (Mr. Hocken) says that it is a shame to treat Toronto in the way it has been treated. Let me tell him that I do not build custom houses; I simply ask that they be put up, and when there is no money forthcoming they are not built. The city of Toronto has produced this year S45,000,000 and the city of Montreal $78,000,000; but I would point out that the custom house in Montreal is in no better shape than that in Toronto, being indeed, if anything, rather worse, because they are using the examining warehouse as a long room.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is another reason for condemning the government.


Jacques Bureau: That is a question I am not discussing. But I want to assure my hon. friend that we are not aiming at Toronto, as he seems to think.
Mr. HOCKEN; I did not say that.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member said that it was shameful the way we treated Toronto.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say it is a shameful way to treat any city.


Jacques Bureau: I simply want to explain that what my hon. friend calls "shameful treatment" has been due entirely to lack of funds. However, I will not discuss the point further, because it is a question that will come up in connection with the Public Works estimates. I am with the hon. member in wishing to see to the comfort of the officials. I will stand by every official of the Department of Customs and Excise in an endeavour to see that he gives efficient service, and undoubtedly these people are handicapped when they have to work in quarters such as they have in Toronto and Montreal. We have no right to have a man work in artificial light from nine in the morning to five in the afternoon, or ask him to do his work in an unventilated place. I have protested against it, and when my hon. friend asks to have a custom house built in Toronto, or any other hon. member begs for a custom house in Montreal, I will stand by him.


Thomas Langton Church: The city of Toronto in 1914 sold to the government a lot for $110,000.

To-day that lot is worth well on to half a million. The government has had the benefit of the increment in those nine years. The lot was sold for $110,000, but it was worth more than that at the time it was sold to the government, and a member of the government of that day, the Hon. Mr. Reid, promised to have a building erected on it within twelve months. There is no building on the lot to-day, and I think that every effort should be made to put one up because it would increase the value of the property to the government.


Jacques Bureau: I have not taken any pledge to carry out the promises of my predecessors, nor do I intend to.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Do the officers of the Excise department who go through the country looking for private stills come under this item?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I do not want to have it understood for a moment that I am pleading for the bootleggers or those who operate private stills; I hope the minister will put them all in gaol, because they make rotten stuff.


Jacques Bureau: There would be few left in certain places if I did that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In my county, however, some of the officers came to a place called Vita and caught two men with stills. They brought them before Magistrate Willfong in Vita on New Year's Day for trial. The men asked for a postponement of the trial in order that they might obtain counsel. I believe that the officers requested the magistrate not to consider a postponement, but to go on with the trial, and this he did. He found the men guilty and sentenced them to nine and twelve months respectively, and they left their families in that district fairly destitute. I repeat, I am not pleading for the bootlegger, but I think the officers of the department should give every man a fair trial, and when he asks for a postponement in order to obtain counsel that request should be considered. I do not think, in any event, that it is right to try a man in this country on New Year's Day, because that is the day we celebrate.


Jacques Bureau: I do not know what the facts are, and my hon. friend evidently is not quite conversant with them. Were the officers federal or provincial officers?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: They were Inland
Revenue officers.

Supply-Customs and Excise


Jacques Bureau: There is no longer an Inland Revenue department, but be that as it may, there are some provincial officers who are sworn in as preventive officers empowered to look for stills. I lived in Manitoba a few years, and so far as I know, New Year's was always a dies non; you could not try cases on that day. Now, you cannot put sense into a man's head if he is incapable of it; a man is bom with a certain amount of brains and you cannot add to his mental stature. But I should think that a magistrate would exercise common sense and postpone a trial if it appeared that injustice would be done by proceeding with it. I blame the magistrate more than I do the officers in this case, because he is a man of higher education who should not be carried away by too great zeal in
5 p.m. the execution of his duties. If what my hon. friend says has happened, I am sorry. But when things of this kind do occur they should be reported to the department ; otherwise people have no right to complain afterwards. I am prepared to stand by my officers when they properly execute their duties, and when they do not I am willing to reprimand, suspend or dismiss them as the necessity of the case might demand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the minister had any representations with regard to the matter of the New York agent? Has he heard anything from Walkerville and the manufacturers at that point?


Jacques Bureau: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has had no complaints?


Jacques Bureau: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Representations have come from points as far as Windsor that they are losing business because they cannot make use of the Panama canal. I do not know whether or not that is correct, but from what is stated it would seem to be. If these representations are true, and goods can be shipped from a point as far west as Windsor to New York and then trans-shipped by the Panama canal to Vancouver cheaper than they can be sent on the rail haul, then it strikes me that this is a matter that should be looked into by the minister. The business people represent that it is impossible to do business at present and that they are losing business. They say that it is absolutely necessary to have a customs officer appointed in New York. I sympathize a great deal with what my hon. friend says about the railway situation, but I doubt very much
Whether the railways are making anything at all in view of the statements I have heard from the railway officials themselves. Before the committee last year we had evidence of the railroaders as to the cost of hauling freight to Vancouver, and I doubt very much whether there is any money in the railway business to-day so far as that haul is concerned. It is claimed that the freight cost has been cut to the lowest possible point and that there is practically nothing in the business now. If that is true, and I see no reason to dispute what the railroaders themselves say, would it not be better for them to get a profitable haul even though it may be shorter? In other words, are not the railways losing money by trying, at the present high rate, to carry these commodities right over the continent in competition with the water rates? We all want to help the National Railways; there is no question about that; but I greatly doubt whether my hon. friend is helping them. It does seem to me that if the representations made before that committee are correct, there would be more money for the railways through this shorter haul.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend proceeds on the assumption that I have refused the appointment of a customs officer in New York, but I have not done so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister pointed out earlier in the session that the reason why it had not been done was because it would be a loss in respect to the long railway haul.


Jacques Bureau: That was the representation made to me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like him to look into it very carefully to see whether or not there is anything in that allegation.


Jacques Bureau: I am doing that. There is something in what my hon. friend says, that if we double or treble the traffic to the frontier there will be that much more rail business done. But the representations that have been referred to have not come to me or to the department; there may have been something in the press about it, but there have been no official representations. All the information is being got together, and after we have made a thorough investigation and got all the necessary data, the matter will be submitted to council. I do not like to go ahead without being sure of my ground, but when all the information has been obtained a decision will be taken. I have no personal views on the matter, one way or the other; it is just

Supply-Customs and Excise
a question of what will be in the best interests of the country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister will agree that the most important consideration involved is the maintenance of interprovincial trade. To pass to another part of this item, I notice there is provision for 114 new employees. Are they all appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Jacques Bureau: Every one of them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that no use is being made of the wording of this item except so far as it applies to overtime.


Jacques Bureau: Only the overtime-unfortunately.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very fortunately, for the service.


Mr. SPENCE:: The minister said a little while ago that he was not obliged to carry out the promises of his predecessor, but I say that he should carry out those promises when he sees the necessity for doing so. There should be continuity in government business just as there should be in any other business.


Jacques Bureau: I said I was not bound by
the pledges of my predecessors.


David Spence: But the minister know's the necessity for it. I would ask him whether, if it were a matter of his own business, he would continue to do business the way the government are doing it. We are not getting sixty per cent of efficiency from his officers; in Toronto the citizens who are doing business with the customs house are getting a minimum of service at a maximum of cost. We are running from Yonge street clear out to the comer of John and King streets; nobody seems to know where to go to get any customs business done. There is a site available for the erection of a proper customs building, but it is lying idle while large sums are being paid out for rent. The present quarters of the customs officers in Toronto are unsanitary and unsatisfactory in every way. Is that good business? I say it is not. The government should do away with the rotten old buildings they are using in Toronto and get a serviceable, sanitary building where the citizens can carry on their business in a proper manner; but instead of that, money is being spent in the rental of quarters in which the public cannot get service. I say it is an absolute waste of money. I have been around that customs house for thirty-five years and I know the inconveniences that the people are subject to. It is a crime the way the people have to stand for hours

on the sidewalk trying to get into these old buildings in order to get their business done. You could now do without hundreds of the men now employed if you had a proper building.


Jacques Bureau: I think my hon. friend did not understand me when I spoke a moment ago.


David Spence: I understand you thoroughly, sir.


Jacques Bureau: I said I was in favour of building a customs house. What more does the hon. member want me to do? I do not build the customs houses; I do not rent them or furnish them; I do not hang lamps in them. I am in sympathy with my hon. friend, and I do not see what he is getting excited about. I would like to see Toronto have a better customs house, because I would get better service from my officials.


David Spence: That is what might be called passing the buck. We all realize that it is the Public Works department that puts up the buildings. That is what the Post Office Department says when a post office is asked for. Now, if the minister makes a real-demand on the Department of Public Works for a building, he may get something done. The minister is the man who should be the judge; he should know what he wants, and he should have sufficient prestige with his government to see that he gets it. If I were in his position I would see that I did get it, or I would not be there.


Jacques Bureau: That suggestion might apply both ways. The friends of my hon. friend were in office not long since; there was a Minister of Public Works and he made a promise in the matter. The former building that was torn down may have been a little cramped, but it was a beautiful building, if I remember it rightly. Now, I am willing to have a new building, but we cannot build these things with wind. We have to have the money, and as soon as we get the money I am satisfied that the Minister of Public Works will be only too glad to get rid of my demands and petitions for customs houses


Thomas Langton Church: A contract should be a contract, even if it was made by the government. I realize that the putting up of these buildings is not done by the minister's department, but I am speaking of the government as a whole. Here is a contract made for the sale of lands in 1914, the parties to it being the city of Toronto on the one hand and the federal government on the other. The area involved

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
was a large tract of land on the south side of Front street, the purchase price being 8110,000-away less than the commercial value of the land. The government were to put up a build ng there, and as I understand the contract it could be enforced in the Exchequer Court of Canada. But two bodies serving the public do not want to quarrel; they should work together to get a government building that will facilitate the public business. The city is interested in having a good government building there, and they are spending a lot of money in that district; they have put down a new pavement, they have given a new car service, and so on. I hope that during the recess something will be done in this matter, because twenty-six or twenty-seven public bodies have asked the Toronto representatives to urge upon the government the necessity for action. When the department is doing business to the extent of 850,000,000 a year, surely it should do something to save the time of the business men. Millions of dollars worth of time has been wasted every year through the inconvenience the public have suffered in trying to get service from the customs house in Toronto. I say that l hope the government will take the matter up in the recess and see whether something cannot be done.


David Spence: I do not wish it to be understood that I am criticising the ability of the Minister of Customs, because I know that he is full of ability and "pep." I assure him that I am not a bit excited about it. I know the conditions around the customs house and the post office; I have spent my life there, and I have a right to speak of conditions as I find them. I believe in calling a spade a spade, and I do think that the government are deserving of criticism for their lack of interest in Toronto. It is a persecution of Toronto; that is what it is all the time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Agriculture-dairying, $230,000.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I think the committee will remember that this item was allowed to stand over at the request of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy). I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his seat, but I was discussing the matter with him yesterday and he said that on the budget or on some other occasion I had dealt pretty fully with the question that he was desirous of taking up. He suggested among other things that he would like to know if the report of Mr. Ruddick and Mr. Wilson who went to Australia and New Zealand to examine into the dairy industry there would be ready for the House this session. Before coming to that,. Mr. Chairman, I might deal with some of the activities that we intend to undertake this year partly as a result of the investigations of Mr. Ruddick and partly also as a result of the grading system that was provided for some years ago, but which only came into force on the 1st of April last. Under the Dairy Industry Act of 1921 provision was made for the grading of all cheese and butter for export. That has been let stand over from time to time so that the public would get familiarized with the idea of grading these dairy products. The system was accepted generally throughout the country, but naturally a new departure like this would meet with some opposition. This has gradually disappeared, more especially as the Ontario government was introducing at the same time the principle of purchasing milk for cheese factories on a basis of grade and a basis of butter fat. The two coming together helped each other, though to some extent where there was difficulty it seemed to accentuate the trouble. However, the du ficulty has been largely localized, and no r that grading has been in force for nearly two months the opposition has disappeared altogether. Just what results will come out of that so far as a more acceptable reception of our butter on the British market is concerned, time alone will tell. We have not had sufficient experience yet to indicate what the results will be, but I have no thought of anything else but that there will be a very decided improvement. The moment you can get quality paid for on a basis of quality there will be some encouragement to the farmers and cheesemakers to produce quality.
The intention is to extend the activities of the Dairy branch in several particulars, one of them as a result of Mr. Ruddick's interim report, and that is with respect to the pasteurizing of milk for the manufacture of cheese. Formerly in Canada pasteurization was confined largely if not entirely to cream for the manufacture of butter, and it was also practised with regard to the whey product in order to ensure against tuberculosis the animals that used whey from cheese factories. We have found, however, that one of the reasons why Australia and New Zealand have been able to surpass Canada in the manufacture of cheese has been the fact that they have also pasteurized the milk that has gone into the manufacture of cheese. There is no question that the pasteurization of cream makes butter very much better. It gives it better
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

keeping qualities, and raises the quality generally. The Australians and New Zealanders have found out that pasteurization has the same effect when applied to milk in the manufacture of cheese. That is one of the things to which we attribute the general excellence of the cheese they have placed on the market, and why they have not only come up to Canadian cheese, but I fear surpassed it in quality. I do not use the word fear in any other sense except that we are not where we were, and it is our business to get back to where we were at the top of the list.
There is a combined cheese and butter factory at the town of Finch between thirty and forty miles south of here. It was erected some seven or eight years ago for demonstration purposes. It was felt by a good many that in order that dairying should accomplish what it ought to accomplish, it should include winter dairying. Cheese factories were confined for the summer months to the manufacture of cheese, and it was thought that a plant that permitted the manufacure of cheese in the summer and butter in the winter would be a more suitable one for the coming dairy day than any other single kind could possibly be, and this factory at Finch was constructed with that idea in mind. It is the intention to enlarge the operations of that factory by a small extension for the purpose of providing for the pasteurization of milk for the manufacture of cheese, and then we will be able to experiment and find out just how much pasteurization will improve the quality and see how far that one change will help us to regain our lost position in relation to the reception of our products in the British market.
We also intend to extend the testing system. In some provinces we have arranged for the testing locally by the provinces on the ground that they can do it more cheaply being right on the spot than we could do it from a common centre like Ottawa.
A growing industry like dairying always has some new activities and new expenses associated with it, necessitating a larger vote. We believe that there is no more complete food for human consumption than milk. It is nearer to being a perfect food than any other product, and we are endeavouring to develop a larger use of milk among our population both young and old. We have a lady, Miss Campbell, who has developed that work in an educational way, and in a very acceptable way, in various parts of the country, and she has an assistant at the present time. Possibly I might leave the matter now to the

committee to ask any questions they may have in mind rather than dealing with the subject generally.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is Australia using the tuberculin test in the same way as Canada ?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand not.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is depending on pasteurization?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand so.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Will anything be expended out of this appropriation for the establishment of a butter factory, say, in a new district where the people are anxious to go into the business? Could any of this vote be used for that purpose, and if so, in what way?


William Richard Motherwell: No. It is quite possible that in the near future we may construct another combined factory like the one at Finch, but that will not be decided upon until we know more definitely the results at the Finch factory. I think it is only a matter of time when we shall really want something like that in different parts of Canada. The construction of local factories such as my hon. friend refers to is a matter for the provincial government. I think my hon. friend is familiar with one in his constituency at a point called Fiske. The construction of that was assisted by the provincial department of agriculture in Saskatchewan, but any arrangement for assistance-with that exception,-has been invariably entered into by the provincial government.


Donald Sutherland: When this question was before the committee several months ago I think there w'as a misunderstanding in regard to a number of items that were being discussed. I would ask the minister if this is the only item left in the estimates undisposed of?


William Richard Motherwell: This is the last item in the Main, Estimates. We have all of the estimates of civil government yet.


Donald Sutherland: I may possibly be out of order in referring to any matter outside of this item but I should certainly like to ask the minister if any of these other items will be opened up for discussion. On the previous occasion referred to there was a misunderstanding and Hansard does not contain what is set forth in the Votes and Proceedings as to what actually took place. There is no reference whatever in Hansard to the item for the enforcement of the Agricultural Instruction Act. No reference whatever is made to that

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
item in Hansard and personally I did not hear the matter discussed in committee.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no Agricultural Instruction Act, but there is an agricultural instruction grant. The item is No. 50 "Administration of the agricultural instruction grant, $20,000". That has been passed. I may point out that if my hon. friend desires to discuss any question that has been passed my understanding is, he can do that on items of the estimates for civil government. If the committee desires to take up any question on any of these items I have no objection. I understand the usual practice is to do it on the civil government estimates when considerable latitude is allowed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we had better have a clear understanding in that connection. I would like the chairman to endorse the minister's suggestion.


The CHAIRMAN:: I cannot make any
ruling in such a case as that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then perhaps we should have the discussion, now.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the subject is in order it can be discussed.


Donald Sutherland: I may say this matter was before the committee on a previous occasion. I attempted to deal with it then but was called to order by the Chair who informed the committee that the item came under the heading of civil government. As a matter of fact it relates to item No. 50 and Hansard does not show that that item was passed or that it was even discussed. No reference whatever is made to the item in, Hansard, so far as I can see, although it appears in the Votes and Proceedings as having been passed.


George Newcombe Gordon: What appears in Hansard does not govern in these matters. I have some recollection of what the hon. member mentions now. The item was passed by the committee, as the records of the House indicate, and was reported, as is customary, to the Speaker.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I should point out that wherever the item is the same or less than it was before it is carried without discussion. Take, for example, the item of cold storage $6,000. The discussion in connection with that subject took place on the bill relating to that question, and there was no discussion in Committee of Supply. The item of $15,000 for the International Institute went through without discussion, also the item of $20,000 for the administration of the agricultural instruction grant.


Arthur Meighen: If the item is called
it appears in Hansard. The Votes and Proceedings must be made from Hansard. I have seen cases where that has not been done, where the Votes and Proceedings do not follow Hansard, and I must say it does look very curious to me. The officers of the House gain their information of what is done in the House from Hansard. That is what Hansard is for.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not want my right hon. friend to look across at me. I am not responsible for Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: I do not intend to
frighten the minister at all.


William Richard Motherwell: It will take more than my right hon. friend to frighten me.


Arthur Meighen: What I am saying is
that we have to be governed by the records of the House, not by something that is made up from other records. I have not searched myself but unless item No. 50 "Administration of the agricultural instruction grant" appears in Hansard there is no authority for any officer of this House to insert in any report the statement that it was brought before the committee at all.


George Newcombe Gordon: I may say in answer
to the right hon. gentleman that the Clerk Assistant, under the rules of the House, is the clerk of the committee. Every resolution that is passed is taken down by him and sent to Mr. R. P. King, who prepares the Votes and Proceedings. That is the record which governs with respect to all proceedings in committee. My right hon. friend himself called attention to an omission in Hansard in connection with the Hoppe leases, although the occurrence took place and was reported. The Clerk Assistant, as I say, notes the passage of every item, every paragraph of a bill, certifies to its passage and a report is then made to the Chair.


Arthur Meighen: It is correct that the
Assistant Clerk reports what is done but the Assistant Clerk has no right to report a thing unless it has actually taken place and is heard in this House. Now, if a statement is heard in the House it is heard by Hansard. In the case of the Hoppe leases there was no such statement ever heard as appears in the Votes and Proceedings. I never heard it made myself, I have no recollection of hearing it made. Hansard never heaH it.

32S6

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Nevertheless it appears in the Votes and Proceedings. I certainly do not impugn the Assistant Clerk. There is no officer of this House in whom I have greater confidence both as to ability and integrity. But it is quite possible for him to assume that a thing was carried when it was not actually carried. When a matter does not appear in Hansard as having been passed, it is only justice to this House that it should be called again and that discussion should not be shut off simply because of what is contained in another record.


George Newcombe Gordon: The proceedings of
the House in committee are not only reported, but the Clerk makes a record of them and that record goes into the Votes and Proceedings which are open to every member. There have been complaints. I think the right hon. gentleman himself complained some time ago about Hansard incorrectly reporting him and giving him the credit for an address which he had never uttered, an address which was actually made by another member. The fact is that Hansard is not taken as the record in dealing with resolutions and items which come before the House. What is accepted is the report of the official who is appointed for that purpose under the rules of the House. The record he keeps is the one which is accepted and appears in the Votes and Proceedings.


Arthur Meighen: If we accept the Chairman's statement then there is no record in Hansard at all, and a subject which should come up can be refused consideration. How it will be possible to rule otherwise I do not know. If with no record at all of the Hoppe discussion, no record whatever of the motion being made, and no recollection of it being made by any person in this House, we are going to be debarred from legitimate discussion here the sooner we know it the better.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should just like to
draw the right hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that there is a record of the proceedings of the House signed by me and delivered to the Clerk, and the Clerk also signs the record. Thus there are two persons who are able to say definitely and absolutely that such an item has passed this House. It then appears in the Votes and Proceedings. When my right hon. friend suggested that no one has any recollection of what has taken place that is an error, because there are two officers of this House who have definite and absolute

knowledge and have recorded it over their own signature.


Donald Sutherland: There is evidently a misunderstanding regarding the matter. I have a copy of unrevised Hansard of February 23, and the index showing the contents gives the different items passed, and this particular item is not mentioned. In attempting to discuss it before the item could possibly have come up I was called to order by the Chairman. I was then discussing this item referred to, which is omitted from unrevised Hansard, and the Chairman said that it came under the heading of civil government, and a little later on, when the item for agricultural construction was before the committee Mr. Spencer is quoted as asking-
Is the salary of the Commissioner of Agriculture ineluded in this item?
To which the minister replied, "No."


William Richard Motherwell: That was the $900,-
000.


Donald Sutherland: Yes. And a little further on he again asked a question, and the minister again replied, "No." And I asked the question as to where it appeared, and the minister remarked that it was in the previous vote that had just been passed.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Donald Sutherland: I was present and put the question to the minister; I certainly did not hear the vote being called or being passed by the committee, and I was following it closely, as I think the Hansard will show. It passed without my knowledge if it did pass, and it does not show in unrevised Hansard. It is a most significant thing, and I think, in view of the circumstances, the minister might very well permit that item to be discussed under the item which is now before the committee.


Arthur Meighen: I have the references here, if the minister would like to see them.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: On the 23rd February the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), seeking to discuss the salaries and the duties of the Commissioner of Agriculture, addressed the House. When he finished-page 594-the Chairman ruled as follows :
I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that what he is discussing comes under Civil Government. If he seeks to criticize the actions of some of the officers who come under this vote, he will of course be quite in order.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Then, on page 608, I find the following:
Mr. Spencer: The minister has not answered my question :n regard to the salary of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Is that included in this item?
Mr. Motherwell: No.
Mr. Sutherland: Where does the salary paid the Commissioner of Agriculture come in? I cannot find it under the head of Civil Government.
We were informed by the Chairman that that was the proper place to discuss it, and where it properly came. Then the Minister of Agriculture said:
It was in the previous vote that has just been passed.
That is the way hon. members of the House have been treated.


William Richard Motherwell: I was calling the attention of the House to the fact that the vote had gone through.


Arthur Meighen: We were informed by the Chairman before it went through that it came under civil government, and we were subsequently informed by the Chairman that it did not come under civil government.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. member say that was before item No. 50 was passed?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. At page 608 the Chairman's ruling appears. I do not know whether it was item 50 or not, but the item that included it, according to the minister, had just been passed. Either the Chairman was right and it had been passed, or the hon. member should have been allowed to discuss it.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have the scroll of the assistant clerk of February 23, 1923, which indicates that No. 50 was passed in its consecutive. order, after items 44, 46, 47 and 49 had been passed. The Votes and Proceedings of February 23, page 112, indicate that the vote, according to the scroll of the assistant clerk had been passed, which was notice to every member of the committee, whether reported in Hansard or not.


William Richard Motherwell: Might I draw attention to what I did intimate on that occasion. Objection was taken, as indicated by unrevised Hansard, by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) at the bottom of page 609, the first column, where I replied to the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). I spoke as follows:
Mr. Chairman, such an appeal I am sure is irresistible. Besides, this is getting too quiet! But I want to assure the committee that I did not try to "put anything over" when they called out "earned". I am not going to stand in the way of discussing any vote.
I think the appeal I referred to was by the hon. member for South Oxford. And that is what I say now.
210i


Arthur Meighen: While the minister said that the plea was irresistible, he refused to move the House to return to the item, knowing that if he refused it could not be brought up again. He was inconsistent inside of two minutes. At pages 594 and 608 this committee was informed that the proper place to discuss the item was under civil government. This committee the same day was informed by the Minister of Agriculture that the item had been passed just immediately before.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does civil government stand?


Arthur Meighen: The minister says it is passed.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that when the estimates for civil government are under discussion, the salary of any employee of the government, whether included in the item or not, or anything pertaining to his appointment, may be discussed. I have been inquiring about that since then.


George Newcombe Gordon: The Chairman must accept the word of the minister as to whether an item comes under civil government unless it is clearly within his own knowledge. I assumed, quite naturally, that this matter did come within the item of civil government. I understand from the minister that the item of civil government has not yet passed, and the item is still open for debate.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The fact is that the minister stated that it did come under civil government. This is included in another vote which passed after the chairman had given us the assurance that it came under civil government, and consequently we did not proceed to discuss it. We took his ruling that it came under civil government,, and subsequently the minister said we could have discussed it all right under the previous item which had just been passed, we having kept quiet abiding by the ruling of the chair.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member is making a mountain out of a mole hill. There is no disposition whatever to shut off discussion. If the committee wants to discuss it the present time is just as good as any other as far as I am concerned, but let us dc all things decently and in order. I thought at the time I made the statement that that was the proper procedure. I understood there was sufficient latitude under civil government, whether the name was there or not, to include any civil servant under any outside vote you desired to take him under, even

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
though the vote might have been passed. I am not an authority on these matters, but that is my understanding.


George Perry Graham: You are usually right.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: I was not present when the item was called, but I am very much interested in this vote, and I know that the minister has great zeal for the advancement of dairying; so much so that he sent one or two of the officials of his department to New Zealand within the last two months. Has the report from those officials been made to him, and will he have it printed and circulated, so that the members may have it?


William Richard Motherwell: I have an interim report that merely gives a survey of the ground covered, and does not come to any conclusions. It was a preliminary report that I asked for prior to the budget debate. The report which will include certain recommendations is being prepared, and I hope will be ready possibly in the course of a week. I would not like to state that absolutely. You never can tell. Sometimes it takes longer to do these things than we anticipate. But just as soon as possible it will be submitted to the House, and if an order is passed it will be printed and distributed.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has the
minister any plans for the future looking towards putting into effect any recommendations that his officials may make?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. I was sorry
that my hon. friend was out. One of them was with respect to the extension of the activities of the Finch factory, which is a combined factory for cheese and butter. We are enlarging that with the idea of providing for the pasteurization of milk for the manufacture of cheese. In the research in Australia and New Zealand, it was found that in those countries invariably the milk was pasteurized, and to that fact was attributed in some measure the high quality of their cheese. We are going to try that out in the Finch factory this summer, and then we shall be in a better position to know to what extent we can advise the construction of other large factories where it is deemed advisable throughout the country, especially in eastern Canada. We are satisfied that one of the reasons why the quality of our cheese has fallen behind is that it is made in a large number of small factories where the out-turn is so small and so varied, and where sometimes conditions are so primitive, that it is impossible to do justice to this industry.

We want to get a little more information about the Finch factory and pasteurization before we are able to say specifically just what kind of a standard factory would be suitable to conditions in Canada. I do not know whether we can get a standard or not, but we may get an approximate standard that can be varied to suit different localities.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is the accommodation at Finch insufficient to take care of the milk that is being offered?


William Richard Motherwell: For the milk that is being offered now it is sufficient, but we have not accommodation for the pasteurization. That takes a little room itself and a pasteurization plant would have to be erected. Not very much of an extension will be required, but an extension will have to be made. After that we hope to enlarge the activities of the factory and to take on any milk that presents itself, to the full capacity of the factory.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If the accommodation is sufficient to look after the quantity of milk that is1 offered, will the minister explain why milk is being refused?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not quite
understand my hon. friend. It is sufficient to take on the patrons that are delivering milk, but it is not quite sufficient for all applicants. That is one of the reasons why we are enlarging it. I signed a statement yesterday or the day before intimating to the people in that vicinity that after we got this enlargement made, and beginning with the first of the new year, allcomers' milk would be accepted up to the full capacity of the factory, and regardless of where the milk came from. The factory is not sufficiently large to take care of allcomers, and to decide who was to be given preference and accommodated has been a rather awkward situation to deal with. There is only one policy to pursue, regardless of who is hurt and who is not. This is a demonstration factory to show that it is possible to make a high-class product at a low cost when the out-turn is large, and you cannot do that without hurting some of the little factories in the vicinity. It is about time that some of them were hurt-not wilfully, of course, but in a progressive movement of this nature some of the older institutions have to go by the board.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I approve
the minister's plans and I only hope he will carry out his good intentions.


William Richard Motherwell: I intend to do so.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I know that in another branch of the department the minister is carrying on some work, and I must commend him for that also. That is in respect to grading of our dairy products for export. What progress is the minister making along that line?


William Richard Motherwell: I will state that very hurriedly because I have already gone over it. As my hon. friend knows, in the introduction of other reforms some objection is always raised. Possibly if we were to introduce a resolution that we were all to go to heaven to-night, somebody would object to it. No matter how admittedly good the grading system is, we had quite a number of, I will say, conscientious objectors to that system. My own view is that we should have had this about a quarter of a century ago, but these reforms sometimes come very slowly. Outside of a few localities the objection has not been serious, especially since the system has been put into actual practice and the benefits of it shown. I think the objection was largely raised because some people wanted to continue the old local activities of grading right near home, in the factory or in the car. There is a general antipathy to seeing your produce, instead of being handled in your own factories, sent down to a large factory at Montreal. You lose sight of it once it goes round the bend on the railway. Once the step is made the difficulty disappears; you wake up the next morning and you do not find very much difference. We hope, of course, to find a difference in the increased recognition of the product on the markets as a result of the grading. When the cheesemaker and the man who provides the raw material find they are paid on the basis of quality, they will have some inducement to furnish quality. I am glad that this commends itself to a practical dairyman like my hon. friend, and that he approves the Finch factory, which is a splendid plant, constructed some seven years ago, I think. I hope that under my administration we shall be able to carry out the expectations of the department in that regard. The factory at Finch is capable of splendid work, and the demonstration will be of exceeding value to the dairy industry of Ontario and, indeed, of the whole of Canada.


Donald Sutherland: I noticed a short time ago that the Civil Service Commission sent out notices stating that ten dairy produce graders were required. Are these employed in connection with this work, and if so, at what points, in Ontario, at least, is the grading being carried on, in addition to Montreal?


William Richard Motherwell: When the Dairy Grading Act was passed a couple of years ago, it was decided not to put it into force. At the same time a number of dairy produce graders were appointed, and they started on voluntary grading of dairy produce at the new cold storage plant as soon as it was opened in Montreal. All the co-operative selling agencies as a rule patronize that cold storage plant at Montreal, and during the last year or year and a-half produce contributed voluntarily by the owners has been graded by these dairy graders. By introducing the system gradually in a voluntary way, we have been enabled to extend the usefulness of it and to demonstrate its usefulness to those who have been objecting. The work at Montreal has been substantially extended since 1st April, and in addition to that there are a number of graders in the vicinity of Belleville where there is a cold storage where cheese can be taken care of locally until they desire to export it. They operate from three or four places, taking Belleville as the centre. Wherever there is cold storage accommodation, where the cheese or butter can be kept at a proper temperature, the grading is done. It is not done at the factories because that would be impossible, for it would require an army of graders; it would be impossible to engage a grader for each of some eight hundred cheese factories in Ontario; that is out of the question. Besides, it is considered that such a system would not be satisfactory.


Donald Sutherland: Does the minister mean to say that it would require a grader for each factory? Surely a grader could attend to twenty-five, thirty or forty factories. The conditions that would attend the grading at the factories were so obvious to many that, I fancy, the chief objection lay in that direction.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend does, not advocate that, surely.


Donald Sutherland: If the grading" were5 done at the factory the defects in the cheese could be pointed out to the maker. I know that the objection has been very strong in the past when the inspection has been made by the purchaser, at the factory. So far as western Ontario is concerned I do not think there was any serious complaint against the old system, but in eastern Ontario there was vigorous protest against adopting it. The minister says that the grading has been carried on at the cold storage plant at Montreal and also at Belleville. What about western Ontario and other points? The minister might also tell us what has been the success of the

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
plant at Montreal. A very large cold storage plant has been constructed there, and the expense of operating it is very heavy, I should think. Can the minister tell us what the result has been so far, in the way of operating costs? And also what is being done in western Ontario? I should like to know, further, at what points grading is done.


William Richard Motherwell: The cold storage plant at Montreal is under the administration of the Harbour board. I had occasion to visit it last fall, when I went through it. It had been open less than a year and was three quarters filled and was doing good business. I suppose that it is now so well patronized as to be full all the time. That, however, is something I cannot speak about definitely; nor do I know what the revenues or the costs have been. As I say, it does not come under my department but under the Harbour board. I must say I admired the institution, and I believe it will fill a long-felt want; I should not be surprised if it were filled to capacity by this time. I gather from what my hon. friend says that he is half-disposed to favour the grading in the cheese factories. As a practical creamery man he must surely know that this would be impracticable. I do not need to enter into the reasons, one outstanding one being that, even taking one grader to two or three factories, you could not engage a large enough staff of them to cover all the factories. And in any case, the grading can be better done in the way proposed. So far as western Ontario is concerned, London is one of the centres, and the work is being done as requirements demand.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
I	After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Newcombe Gordon: When the committee
rose at six o'clock, item 42, page 21 of the Estimates, was under consideration. Shall the resolution carry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not in the chamber when the committee rose. Will the minister state briefly what this item covers?


William Richard Motherwell: As British Columbia is rapidly becoming a dairy province and has acquired some fame by producing a cow that has made a world record, perhaps a few moments devoted to an explanation of this item may not be out of place, even if I have to indulge in a little repetition. In a general way, dairying is becoming of more importance
[Mr Sutherland.]
to agriculture throughout Canada as time goes on. Some years ago it was looked upon as confined entirely to eastern Canada, but as the western provinces have found some form of diversification necessary they have seriously taken up dairying, even in the prairie provinces, where it had not been looked upon with very much favour. In British Columbia, because of the high cost of dairy products, the people have been encouraged to go into it to the full capacity of their pasture and of their feed. This involves additional expense in, the way of educational work, cow testing, the new system of grading, and so on. That, in a general way, is what the vote is for: more money and a larger staff are required for the purposes of administration.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I assume that under this item the expenses of Mr. Duncan Marshall will be paid in connection with his trip to the Old Country. Just what are his duties there at the present time?


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend will be satisfied, I suggest that as soon as we pass this vote and take up civil government, there will be an opportunity to discuss Mr. Marshall from any aspect that may be deemed in the public interest. He is not paid out of this vote; it would be irregular to enter upon that discussion now, and I think that these proprieties ought to be observed. If that would be agreeable to the committee as a whole, I am sure it will be agreeable to me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is unnecessarily alarmed; he is exceedingly sensitive. I was going to make a very ipnocent inquiry, and I think about two minutes would have satisfied me. I have no bone to pick, nor have I any particular criticism to offer; I was a humble seeker of a little further information. But the minister bristles up; he seems to sense a serious attack of something of the kind. Why, I am the last person ip the world, he ought to know, to precipitate anything of that kind. But either Mr. Marshall or someone else is in the Old Country picking up some thoroughbred stock with the idea of improving Canadian herds. I myself am interested in farming; I would like to know just what the department is doing, and certainly that comes under this item of dairying. I am not particularly interested ip Mr. Marshall's salary; in fact, I think I know what it is; it is reported to be $6,000. So that the minster need not worry about the civil government item so far as I am concerned.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is probably thinking of Mr. Archibald, who went

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
over there during the winter months and brought back some valuable pure-bred cattle, hogs and sheep. That comes under the experimental farm vote. Now, sin,ce my hon. friend is in an amiable frame of mind, and I am myself, if the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) feels similarly disposed, I do not care whether it is on this vote or on another that Duncan Marshall is discussed.
I may add, however, that we discussed the subject for something like three-quarters of an hour before six o'clock, and I did not know whether my hon. friend was merely continuing it until the arrival of reinforcements.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Again my hon. friend is frightfully sensitive on this subject. I have not spoken to any of my colleagues about the matter. It just shows how correct we must be -how our minds must run along the same channel.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I myself want to fit in with that desirable state of mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be very difficult for the minister to fit into the groove he would find here. But it just shows there must be something in the back of his mind, a sort of subconscious sense of guilt which he does not like to admit. There must be a feeling on his part that he did not do exactly the right thing in appointing Mr. Marshall; that perhaps it was his personal desire as well as the interest of Mr. Marshall, that dictated the appointment. The circumstance arouses suspicion even in my mind, which I am sure my hon. friend will admit is usually free from such things. Still, the minister has not answered my question about what Mr. Marshall is doing in the Old Country. That is all I want to know.


William Richard Motherwell: If I am in order, Mr. Chairman, in replying to such an eminently respectable question put in such a very nice spirit, I shall be delighted to do so. Mr. Marshall has just completed negotiations with respect to the removal of the embargo on breeding cattle, and at the request of the Duke of Devonshire that question has been suspended until the meeting of the Imperial Conference in London this fall He has been instructed to superintend in the meantime the arrival of a shipment of chilled beef which is being sent by this department from Montreal, and to compare the values of cattle slaughtered on this side and sent over in the form of chilled beef as against cattle slaughtered immediately on arrival in England, and as against another bunch that will be sent over and sold for
Stockers; that is, he is going to compare values in three different sales, cattle slaughtered on arrival, cattle slaughtered on this side and sent over in the form of chilled beef, and cattle sold for stockers. Mr. Marshall has been asked to remain there and superintend this shipment, to inspect it, and note the condition in which it arrives and how it is received on the market, because it is an entirely new work so far as we are concerned. Something of a similar nature was conducted by the Harris Abattoir Company this year, but what we know ourselves we will know, and we thought it advisable at this time to conduct such an experiment entirely under the supervision of our own experimental farm system, with a representative in Great Britain to report on all the details. That is what he is doing at the present time. The cattle will arrive there in about a week. Previously he had been reporting on the arrivals of the stockers. There has been some difficulty in Great Britain with regard to the classification of our cattle, the British government taking the ground that a lot of these animals ought not to be classified as stockers but as fat cattle, and that they should be slaughtered immediately on arrival. There has also been some difficulty as to what ports are eligible for the slaughter of these cattle on arrival, whether it should be Birkenhead or Glasgow, or both. These are matters that Mr. Marshall is looking after at the present time with the British authorities pending the arrival of this shipment. After that is over he is returning to Canada as there is nothing further to be done in regard to the embargo until the Imperial Conference this fall.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does not the minister think it would be advisable to keep a permanent official in England to superintend our shipments of cattle and of chilled beef with a view to protecting the Canadian shipper and his market in Great Britain? I do not think we should take what they say in England. We should have some competent official permanently stationed there who would inspect all cattle on arrival, and I would like to know if the Minister of Agriculture has such a step in contemplation.


George Newcombe Gordon: The debate is getting much out of order on this particular item.


William Richard Motherwell: If I am not too much out of order, Mr. Chairman, I may say that I have such a step in contemplation, and I propose to recommend to my colleagues the appointment of just such an individual to be located in Great Britain for

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
the purpose of reporting back constantly and correctly on the condition in which our various agricultural products arrive on that market. We have been working on that for some time, but it takes some time to get an appointment through. I started some months ago and I cannot say when we will succeed in terminating our efforts with an appointment, but it has got to a certain stage. It is nobody's fault in particular that the appointment has not gone through more rapidly, except the law under which appointments are made. I have to comply with that law, and we are going as rapidly as the terms of that law will permit. I think my hon friend's suggestion is a very good one, and I may say for the information of the committee that we have not got Mr. Duncan Marshall in mind particularly, and it would not do any good if we had, because the appointment is made by the Civil Service Commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In that case there is not much chance of his appointment, I presume.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know about that. I think I have more faith in the Civil Service Commission than my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was going on what my hon. friend himself just intimated, that there was not much chance.


William Richard Motherwell: There is only one primary complaint I have against the Civil Service Commission-and as a matter of fact it is not against them at all, but against the act by which they are governed and must be governed, the act by which we are all governed-and that is the desperate, interminable time it takes to get an appointment through. We only pass through this world once, and we want to live while we are living. We do not want to make these appointments in eternity but to make them in time to have the men to do the work.


Donald Sutherland: We must all admire the minister's ability to get around the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission when he desires to have his own way.


William Richard Motherwell: We are all like that.


Donald Sutherland: The activities of Mr. Duncan Marshall, the Acting Commissioner of Agriculture, were disoussed a year ago when this particular item for the dairy industry was before the committee, and some inquiries were made as to his qualifications for the mission which it was then anticipated he would be appointed to fulfil, that

of a trip to South America to develop the live stock industry as between Canada and South America. Consequently the activities of Mr. Marshall since that time and down to the present have been in the public eye more or less. At that time I believe he was passing the winter at a seaside resort in Florida, and some inquiries were made upon that occasion with regard to his activities there. I believe the minister intimated that he had been loaned for the time being to the Minister of the Interior to promote immigration to this country, and he was delivering some very effective addresses in Florida during the winter. Early in the present session I made inquiries as to the result of his operations there, and I was informed that no apparent results had been secured, or at least that there had been no immigration from Florida to Canada so far as was known. Mr. Duncan Marshall was in the public eye at that time by reason of the fact that his appointment had been made not by the Civil Service Commission but by order in council. Immediately upon the prorogation of parliament, in fact, the very day that parliament prorogued, Mr. Marshall landed in the constituency that I represent and on that day he addressed a gathering of the Liberals of that constituency, and had a very enjoyable time, I have no doubt. I have no fault to find with Mr. Marshall appearing at a gathering of the Liberals of South Oxford or of any other constituency, but so long as he is being paid by the people of this country to perform certain duties I think it is well that he should attend to those duties and not devote his time to political matters.
There was some misunderstanding when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were before the House upwards of three months ago. From that time down to the present no opportunity has been afforded to discuss this question. Before six o'clock the minister stated that he was quite agreeable to having the item discussed under which Mr. Marshall's salary would be paid. There is no record of that item in Hansard. It apparently slipped by the committee on that occasion without the knowledge of the committee.


George Newcombe Gordon: I cannot permit the hon. member to say that. It appears in the Votes and Proceedings and with two officers of the House certifying to it over their signatures. It did not slip past the committee.


Donald Sutherland: With all due respect to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the committee by quoting what was quoted before six o'clock, but I

Supply-A griculture-Dairying
was sitting in the House here and other members were in the House and made similar inquiries to the ones I made, and they at least did not know that the item had been passed by the committee, and Hansard does not show that it was passed by the committee. There is no reference to the item in Hansard. The minister recognizing this stated on that occasion that he had no objection to the matter being re-opened and discussed on any item, and immediately before six o'clock he again very graciously consented to the matter being discussed, so I presume that we are at perfect liberty to discuss it on this occasion. Now, Sir, I wish to make a few remarks with regard to Mr. Marshall's operations since that time.


George Newcombe Gordon: I rule that Mr. Marshall's operations are not relative to this item. They may be in order in connection with estimates for civil government but they are not relevant to this item. Mr. Marshall is not an officer who is in any way connected with the vote under this item and any discussion with respect to his movements is therefore irrelevant.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask the minister
if Mr. Marshall is Commissioner of Agriculture generally or only commissioner as respects certain branches of agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: He is not Commissioner of Agriculture at all. He is a commissioner to inquire into certain agricultural matters but he is not. Commissioner of Agriculture.


Arthur Meighen: What are the agricultural matters that he has to inquire into?


William Richard Motherwell: One of them was the Agricultural Instruction Grant. That was primarily the purpose of the appointment, he investigated that subject very fully and made a report on it which was tabled some time ago. The next subject was this: The Fordney tariff was on the point of consummation and it created almost an embargo, as we thought at that time, against our cattle. However, our animals were able to climb over it, high as it was. But at that time, as I say we were confronted, as we thought not only with an American embargo, but we were deprived of the British market, and it was thought that by having a competent stock man like Duncan Marshall available for any of that class of work-either to go to South America or anywhere else-he might be able to help us in solving temporarily at least, these problems until some more permanent solution was found. That is what we had in mind. It was about the blackest outlook that
wr had for our cattle for the last thirty years, and I could not find then, nor am I able to find yet, a more competent man for that kind of work than Duncan Marshall. Now, as to that I may be mistaken; we all have our opinions about the competency or fitness of men. The fact that he and Dr. Grisdale, accompaning two of my colleagues to England last autumn, succeeded in terminating the embargo should at least be some indication of the value of his work in connection with this line of activity.


Mr. MANION:: Did the minister notice that Mr. Drury, as reported in this morning's press, claimed that Manning Doherty terminated the embargo?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is something like the claims that are set up in connection with the winning of the war. As my hon. friend knows a good many countries claim the credit for winning the war. I have said on several occasions here that as far as I was concerned I was willing to distribute any credit that was coming among the public men who were identified with the movement for the elimination of this embargo, and there is some credit coming to Manning Doherty and also to the right hon. leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Drury claimed all the credit, I notice.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Drury possibly requires all the arguments he can muster.


Robert James Manion: Oh probably; I will agree with that.


William Richard Motherwell: I have a very warm feeling for Mr. Manning Doherty and may- [DOT] be there was necessity for provincial activity at that time. A quick, short stroke sometimes does the trick.


Arthur Meighen: The minister got lost in
his own verbosity-


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you.


Arthur Meighen: -and did not answer my question. I understand Mr. Marshall was appointed by an order in council. I asked what the objects of the appointment were as stated in that order. I do not presume the Tordney tariff was referred to in it; I doubt very much if the cattle embargo was. I would like a list of the objects of his appointment as set out in the order to find out whether, for example, it includes the handling of dairy stock down in South America.


William Richard Motherwell: He did not go
there. I tabled that order in council; I do not carry it around with me all the time. I

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
remember the primary object was to have a thorough inquiry and investigation into the workings of the Agricultural Instruction Act, which it was thought at that time would possibly be renewed. There had been suggestions made from time to time as to the best way to amend it and this investigation was the primary object of Mr. Marshall's appointment. Since then he has been busy at various things that have occurred from time to time; and the last activity he has been connected with is the embargo. I have already indicated to the committee the purposes in retaining him there. Possibly it will be another two or three weeks before he will return.


Arthur Meighen: Did he go to South
America in connection with dairying?


William Richard Motherwell: No, Mr. Dryden
went there.


Arthur Meighen: What did he go there
for?


Donald Sutherland: Is there any possibility of Mr. Duncan Marshall being back in Ontario before the elections take place?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, he is not
operating on a time fuse and I do not know. The provincial elections take place on the 25th June, do they not? Well, Mr. Marshall's activities are not timed by the Ontario elections. It was left to my hon. friend to think of that. I may say in answer to the leader of the Opposition that Duncan Marshall did not go to South America. It was Mr. Dryden who went there. It was a long journey on which to send two men. Mr. Marshall was spoken of in that capacity but he was required elsewhere at the time. Mr. Dryden went at the request of some breeders in Ontario who know him well. I understand Mr. Dryden has some knowledge of South American conditions, and has some acquaintances there, and it was thought that he would be a veiy good man for that purpose. His report has also been tabled.


Donald Sutherland: As to the work for
which Mr. Marshall and Mr. Dryden were employed, I believe the committee were led to understand that in addition to the beef breeds the pure-bred dairy stock were also to be taken under consideration. As the minister does not appear to have the order in council under which Mr. Marshall was appointed, I may as well read it. I think that notwithstanding the efforts that have been made to prevent a discussion it will be 
clearly shown that the administration of the Agricultural Instruction Act is largely connected with dairying in Ontario. This is the order in council in question:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 1st February, 1922, from the Minister of Agriculture, submitting that the Agricultural Instruction Act under which the sum of $1,100,000 annually has been granted to the Provincial Departments of Agriculture for the purpose of aiding agricultural instruction in the provinces expires March 31st, 1923.
The minister states that in view of the extraordinary and exceptional conditions in the agricultural world it is highly desirable that an investigation be made into the advisability of the continuation, discontinuation or emendation of the provisions of this act; the amounts to be paid, and the methods of calculating such amounts in the event of its extension; and the scope of the work of the provinces to be undertaken with the assistance of funds provided thereunder.
It is considered advisable that a commissioner be appointed under section 38c of the Civil Service Act as amended by chapter 22 of the Statutes of 1921, to conduct the investigation indicated above, and to inquire into such other agricultural problems as may be desirable and necessary.
The minister, therefore, recommends that Mr. Duncan Marshall, of Olds, Alberta, be appointed as a commissioner for the above purpose, and to perform such other duties of a cognate nature as may be delegated to him.
The minister further recommends that Mr. Marshall be paid a salary at the rate of $6,000 per annum, said salary to be paid from the appropriation provided for the administration of the Agricultural Instruction Act and that this appointment date from January 15, 1922.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for approval.
With reference to this the former leader of the party to my left in the session of 1922 questioned the minister. He said:
Am I to gather from my hon. friend's remarks that this question is not a permanent one?
Mr. Motherwell: It is a temporary appointment.
Mr. Crerar: How long is it expected to last?
Mr. Motherwell: About six months, probably.
Upwards of a year has elapsed since that time and we have had for some time the report of the commissioner who was appointed on that occasion, and his subsequent activities clearly indicate, I think, that he is not acting on behalf of the dairying interests while he is in the Old Country. In fact many of the agricultural journals of this country show Mr. Marshall to be engaged in the very opposite direction. You can scarcely pick up an agricultural paper without finding articles by Mr. Marshall in which he is referring to the conditions which prevail in the Old Country. A few days ago I picked up an agricultural journal in our province, dated May 12, and I found an article appearing there-I do not know how many pages it covers-by Mr. Marshall, with reference to the landing of the first Canadian cattle since the embargo was raised.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


George Newcombe Gordon: I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that it has been stated-and he himself has just stated-that Mr. Marshall is not engaged in dairying; his salary does not come under this item, and the discussion is not relevant to this item, No. 42.


Donald Sutherland: I do not wish to be persistent, but I thought from the statement of the minister that a general discussion was to be allowed with regard to this matter. However, if the chairman rules to the contrary, and if we are going to have an opportunity under civil government to discuss this item, I do not wish to persist, but I do desire to point out that when these matters regarding dairy produce were being discussed a year ago, and when they were being discussed upwards of three months ago, this question was brought up, and we fully expected to have an opportunity of discussing these matters on the Main Estimates. We are now given to understand that it is desired to have the Main Estimates go through. I was informed on a former occasion that these things did not come under the head of civil government, after being led to believe that they were under civil government. After the vote was passed, I was informed that they did not come under the head of civil government, but that they were covered in the item which had been passed, which does not appear in Hansard.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think the hon. member will remember that it was stated that, while the vote for Mr. Marshall's salary came under an item that was passed, still the matter could be debated under the item of civil government, because it related to some of the members of the staff of the Agriculture department.


Mr. IRVINE:: If Mr. Marshall's salary and expenses do not come under this item, would the chairman tell the committee definitely under which items they do come?


George Newcombe Gordon: Well, the vote may be discussed, I understand, under the item of civil government. Mr. Marshall was a temporary official, but notwithstanding the fact that civil government relates to permanent officials, the debate may take place with regard to temporary officials.


William Irvine: I would like to know about
it.


William Richard Motherwell: It comes under item No. 50.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, passed on the 23rd February.


William Irvine: If it has been passed, do I understand we have the privilege now to discuss Duncan Marshall under this item?


George Newcombe Gordon: Under civil government, comparing it with salaries of other officials, yes, but not under this item.


William Irvine: When will the item under which Duncan Marshall may be discussed come up?


William Richard Motherwell: In a minute.


Mr. BRETHEN:: I have here a booklet, "Dairy Produce Act and Regulations Administered by the Dairy and Cold Storage Branch." On page 9, I read:
The owner of the cheese or butter shall arrange in a suitable place and open all boxes or packages for inspection.
This has to do with the grading of cheese and butter. I would like an explanation of that regulation, in view of these conditions. In our district we have at least two cheese factories from which butter is shipped direct to Scotland; nobody sends to Montreal or any of these grading points, and it would certainly be inconvenient for the owner, or any employee connected with that factory to go to the point of grading. What shall be done under those circumstances?


William Richard Motherwell: It will depend upon who the consignee is. Very little of this produce is sent on what we call consignment. It has to be purchased first and the consignee sends it to whatever cold storage plant is most convenient to him for the purpose of grading. He cannot grade it without exposing it. This provision, as my hon. friend knows, is just in its second month; I have been asking my staff as to how it is working, and I understand it is working quite smoothly. If my hon. friend knows of any hitch in the matter, I should be very pleased to hear about it. No doubt in the introducing of an entirely new law like this some little difficulties will arise, but we will be very pleased to iron them out. What is the particular difficulty he has in mind?


George Arthur Brethen: I quite understand that in the working out of a new regulation like this there will be some difficulty. The cheese factories referred to are in Peterborough county and my attention was drawn to this by the owner of one of these factories. I undertsand there is an arrangement by which the season's make is sold direct to a dealer in Scotland at a price in advance of the local price.

Supply-A griculture-Dairying


William Richard Motherwell: No consignee can send cheese or butter without having it previously graded. One of the terms of the act provides that both must be graded. When I was in the cold storage plant last autumn in Montreal the graders were at work there. Obviously each parcel has to be exposed before the graders can get at it, with their stick or auger, and it is closed up after the grading is done.


George Arthur Brethen: In view of the section which says that the owner or some person appointed by him shall open the boxes, how would you regulate such a condition as I have referred to?


William Richard Motherwell: You will have some person there representing you. Suppose you want to send a consignment to Montreal, you must send it to some person who can perform the service for you. This paragraph says that the owner of the cheese or butter shall arrange in a suitable place, and so on. It may be in Montreal, Belleville, London or some other place. It is the privilege of the party owning the cheese to have it examined wherever he likes. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) seemed to be under the impression that we stipulated where the parcels of dairy produce would be examined. That is a matter for the owners of the produce to determine, they notify the government, and wherever the produce is sent we do the grading. If it happens to be in Montreal, we have a staff at Montreal to attend to it, because there is a great deal of produce going there. In other places the graders move about wherever cheese or butter is being sent. We have had that system in vogue in Saskatchewan for many years. Wherever there is a cold storage the produce can be graded. It is necessary to have a cold storage, because you cannot keep butter or cheese to-day without a cold storage plant. We had no difficulty under our system; we were notified by the owners of the butter in the West when they wanted it graded, and we would send a man to do the grading wherever the produce was located, Saskatoon, Battleford, Prince Albert, or Melfort-wherever it was desired. It is the same here. If you cannot go yourself, there is a man who will handle these matters with regard to inspection and then close them up.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I would like to know if the minister has in mind any new dairy policy that he intends to bring down at an early date, with a view to improving dairy conditions, increasing our output and getting a better share

of the British market in the near future. In 1880, we exported about nineteen million pounds of butter. During the same year the little country of Denmark with three million people exported about twenty-seven million pounds of butter. In 1921, our export had shrunk to nine million pounds and the Danish output had increased to a hundred and ninety-nine million pounds. As all hon. members know, we produce all our grain and concentrates within our own country. Our conditions for producing this grain are, perhaps, second to none, while the Danes import a great deal of concentrates from other countries, particularly from the United States and Canada. Apparently there must be something wrong with the dairy industry in this country with a population of nine million people and millions of acres of land as compared with the very small country of Denmark with a population of only three million. Perhaps some of our oleo friends will say that this is due to our having oleo manufactured in this country since 1918. As a matter of fact, the Danes introduced oleomargarine factories in 1882, and they have been manufacturing oleomargarine in that country ever since that time, with the result that during the past year they ate forty-eight pounds of oleomargaine per capita of their population, while we were carefully protected against oleomargarine prior to 1918. Therefore, that cannot be the cause of the backwardness of the dairy industry in Canada. Is it due to the quality of the product? The Danish cow produces 160 pounds of butter fat per annum as compared with about 125 pounds produced by the Canadian cow. I understand that our products are not received with as great favour as the Danish products in the British market on account of lack of flavour, keeping quality and colour. Is that due to poor grading on this side or to better grading in Denmark? These all appear to be questions that should receive the careful attention of the government at an early date, because this is one branch of agriculture that should be developed to its greatest possibilities. We, I understand, are supplying only a very small proportion of the butter consumed in Great Britain and imported from outside points. Has the minister any new policy in view to meet this situation?


William Richard Motherwell: Only the importance of the work and the interest that my hon. friend has taken in it, both combined, tempt me to go over some of the same ground that I have gone over now two or three times; but as I said before, possibly it will bear repeating. I have discussed already at some length.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
at the request of various hon. gentlemen as they have arrived in the committee, certain phases of this subject, but there are a number of matters to which my hon. friend has referred that have not yet been taken up. So I am sure he will excuse me if I confine my remarks to those new problems to which he so properly refers.
One of the works we intend to take up is the establishment of a research laboratory. 1 do not think I have referred to that before during this session. Some hon. members will remember the excess acidity and bacteria that were found in some of our cheese in the British market. This created quite a stir there, and the cheese was traced back to the factory in which it was made. We were not, however, able to locate the bacteria. That teaches us that we have a great deal to learn about acidity and bacteria in cheese. In that cheese there was evidently some bacteria that was noxious to public health because it caused sickness, and a few incidents like that might seriously affect the standing of our cheese. Fortunately this did not occur because there was only one incident of this kind. We have $20,000 set down for the establishment of that laboratorjr. Nobody in this House knows better than the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) the importance of research work, either along the lines of veterinary practice, or, as I intimated, in connection with this creamery work.
In order that we may be able to report quickly back to the Department of Agriculture the condition particularly of our dairy products as they arrive in Great Britain, it is proposed, if my colleagues and also the Civil Service Commission are agreeable, to appoint a representative in Great Britain for the purpose of looking after the condition of our dairy products on their arrival there, to see that they get proper recognition and proper advertising, and to report back any defects so that we may remedy them at the earliest possible moment. During the war a certain amount of carelessness was discoverable, not only in Canada but in all other countries, with respect to the condition of farm produce. Because of the urgent demand, everything in the form of fats went. A hog was a hog. To some extent the same conditions applied to butter. During those years the quality of our labour deteriorated, and this had its effect on the quality of our produce. Now we have to pull up. New Zealand and Australia are making remarkable strides towards improvement. The size of their factories, their large turnover, their large herds, render them capable of getting
good managers and paying them good salaries, thus enabling them to produce a high class quality. They are able to make this business more or less of a specialty, just as we in this country make a specialty of growing wheat, although that is no reason why we should not diversify our interests. They make a specialty of dairy products; they put their whole thought into the business ; they are prepared to submit to almost any kind of governmental supervision or restriction in order that they may get the best results possible. Because of that they have surpassed us in quality, and as regards dairy produce we have encountered competition that we have never before experienced in the history of Canada. We must do our utmost in order to meet that competition. We must develop that Finch factory with which my hon. friend is familiar, enlarge it and make accommodation in it for pasteurizing milk, for that is one of the reasons why they are able to make such high class cheese in Australia and New Zealand. We are extending that factory for that purpose, and at the end of another year we shall be able to know just what will be the value of a larger factory to the dairy industry of Canada as it has proved so advantageous to the dairy industries in our sister dominions.
Another matter is the importance of testing out our cows, the development of the testing system, weeding out the scrubs-that is what this means-weeding out what we familiarly call the boarders. The average man with a bunch, say, of ten or twelve cows, if half of them are poor, will find that it takes the good ones to carry the poor ones, and at the end of the year he will be about where he began. It is only by the use of the scales that you really can realize the difference between a good testing cow and a poor one. That work will be carried on with greater activity than ever, because the very first requisite to successful dairying is to get the proper kind of cows. If you do not do that, all your subsequent activities are of little avail.
I think I have covered most of the questions which my hon. friend raised. There is one more matter to which I might refer, and which I am sure the committee will be interested in. The butter we are making now in eastern Canada is largely produced for home consumption; it is salted to suit home consumption, and that does not suit the taste of the British market. Out in the West we have started a system of grading and manufacturing largely with the object of suiting the British Columbia taste. The British Columbia taste is very much the British taste, and so the farmers and dairymen in the West

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
have been trained to produce a butter that will also meet the requirements of the British market. The three prairie provinces have taken the initial step in the exporting of products direct to the United Kingdom. The butter is graded out there, and an arrangement has been made between the Dominion and the provincial graders whereby the provincial grading is accepted. I believe it is a good grading, because it was established on the same basis as the Dominion grading; and the creameries being larger units with a more uniform turnout, they found last year that the shipments from the West brought five shillings per long hundred more than any eastern butter. By making large export shipments from the West, where we have adopted that grading system, we can relieve the pressure on eastern butter, a great deal of which was shipped formerly, and can send the butter from the West direct to the British market. In this way we can hold our home market for eastern butter and thus maintain our reputation at a high standard. I do not know that it is anybody's fault that butter has fallen away in eastern Canada. The fact is attributable, I believe, partly to war conditions and partly to the circumstance that the quality demanded for home consumption is different from that of the British market.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that the British market demands butter that contains less salt than butter intended for Canadian consumption?


William Richard Motherwell: Surely; and the bulk of the New Zealand butter is shipped without any salt at all, or at least with very little.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is not that the main reason why eastern Canadian butter is not in demand in the British market?


William Richard Motherwell: That is partly the reason.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is not because of the poor quality of eastern Canadian butter, but because it contains too much salt for the British taste.


William Richard Motherwell: It is due in part also to a dividing of interests between butter and cheese; my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell), I think, knows what the reason is. It is due to the fact that a lot of cream is over ripe or over fermented, whichever you like, before it gets to many of the central creameries in Ontario, and that tends to injure the whole reputation of the country. We have a cool climate in the West, and while sometimes coolers are not an advantage

in midwinter, nevertheless our cool nights are a decided advantage to dairying in that part of the country. Besides that, there is the fact that we have nothing to unlearn. Not long ago we were starting at the bottom of the ladder in dairying and, without anything to unlearn, we adopted proper grading methods at the very outset. It is far easier to start right than to get right after you have been forty years wrong; and that is the condition of affairs in the West. I say that, of course, absolutely without any disparagement of eastern Canada. The dairymen in that part of the country have been satisfying the requirements they have had to meet, and that is all that any dairyman can be expected to do. The export was small while the home demand was large, and there is no kick from the consumers in eastern Canada. But there is an old saying, that what is one man's meat is another man's poison, and butter that suits the taste of eastern Canada is not suitable to the British market.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Now you are on safer ground.


William Richard Motherwell: Possibly; but we were trained in the West to fill the market of British Columbia in competition with New Zealand, and the taste of British Columbia in this matter is that of the British market. The result is that the British Columbia market is now very largely filled by local supplies, except at certain times of the year. Our aim is to ship co-operatively direct right through to the British market with a view to getting the highest possible return for our produce; and, at least for the time being, until the dairymen can get more assistance, for the further purpose of stemming the downward tendency of our butter in comparison with other countries.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What proportion of our export butter is pasteurized?


William Richard Motherwell: Nearly all the
prairie butter is pasteurized, and that makes a great difference in its keeping qualities. We began out there without any pasteurization. I went up to the manager of the Cooperative Creameries of British Columbia shortly after our activities began, and visited the wholesale dealers in Vancouver, to find out what kind of butter they had. I wanted to know whether the taste of the people was in any way finical, or whether it was just like that of ordinary people. But whatever it was, the idea was to produce an article that would satisfy it. There is no use undertaking to educate people to a different taste; if you can meet their demand that is the

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
wisest thing to do. I discovered that what they wanted was a mildly salted butter, and that is what they have been supplied
9 p.m. with. Our produce dealers have all been strongly advised to establish pasteurizing plants in connection with every creamery in the province, and that policy has been put into force. I do not know whether it has been completed yet or not, but in every factory of any size I believe that such a plant has been established, because it is absolutely necessary to preserve the keeping properties of butter. Furthermore, it is necessary in the manufacture of cheese.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Has the cheapness of salt, as compared with the price of butter, anything to do with the super-salting of our butter?


William Richard Motherwell: Just a trifle.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I rather object to that, because I do not think that the fact that our butter is not in larger demand in the British market is due so much to the poor quality as to the fact that we put a good deal of salt into it.


William Richard Motherwell: The salt does not cost nearly as much as butter and it does not do any harm to salt it, with weight in view. But under our new act I do not think that anyone will be able to put more than 4 per cent of salt into his butter, so that there will be a limitation in that direction anyhow. On that point, however, I think there is a great difference in the kind of salt that is used. It is very important that the best salt be put into butter, and we have found that the Australians have undoubtedly discovered the right kind of salt that is necessary. That, however, is a commercial question which I think it would be well for us to refrain from discussing.


John Millar: In a discussion that occurred some time ago we heard a good deal about hogs contracting cholera from feeding on whey. I want to ask the minister this question: If whey will give disease to hogs, does it follow that the cheese or the butter manufactured from the same milk would be affected?


William Richard Motherwell: That is an open question. So far as tuberculosis is concerned, it might, but I do not know about cholera.


John Millar: I have in mind any disease at all.


William Richard Motherwell: The whey in factories has been pasteurized right along to kill all germs in it so that there might be eliminated any risk of contagion to the animals that fed on it. That is one of the arguments why you might as well pasteurize milk in the first instance as to pasteurize the whey afterwards.


John Millar: The minister does not catch the point. If the whey is affected, does it follow that the cheese or butter manufactured from the milk itself is likely to be affected too?


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member means, I suppose, if it is unpasteurized?


John Millar: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, well, as regards unpasteurized milk, I do not care whether it is from an accredited herd or not, there is always a certain amount of danger to be feared, because you cannot keep continually testing it, and there is a time in the interval between tests when tuberculosis will manifest itself. When the milk is tested, of course, the risk is reduced to the minimum. We sometimes hear of certified milk being advertised. I do not think there is any such thing unless accreditation is supplemented by pasteurization. If you have unpasteurized milk in the case of cheese, or unpasteurized cream in the case of butter, there is danger of the tuberculosis being passed on to the butter. As a matter of fact it is bacterial action in the butter after it is made that conduces to its non-keeping properties. There is no question that there is a certain element of danger of communication of the tuberculosis; the only absolutely safe way, in the case of either milk or cream, is to keep the herds as clean as possible by testing, and to supplement that by pasteurization. The very best authorities in the world hold that view.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is no question about the possibility of butter from tubercular cows, particularly cows with infected udders, being infected with tuberculosis. It seems to be an entirely wrong policy to pasteurize the whey or the buttermilk and feed it to the hogs, and not to employ pasteurization in the case of the butter consumed by the people. That is one important feature of the dairying industry that might be carefully looked into with a view to making progress along these lines. The result would be not only to improve the keeping qualities of our dairy products, but also to protect human beings from the ravages of tuberculosis. It has been shown in our packing houses that in recent years the percentage of hogs infected with tuberculosis has increased from about 10 to 22 per cent in a very short time. It is a fact also that hogs affected with tuberculosis have come to

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
the packing houses in largest numbers from those districts where dairying is carried on and where they are raised on the dairy by-products showing clearly that tuberculosis is transmitted by these products without any difficulty whatever. By carrying on pasteurization we are taking a decided step toward the eradication of tuberculosis, particularly in the hogs of this country.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister made a remark with regard to certified milk. What
guarantee does certified milk carry?


William Richard Motherwell: It certifies that the cows from which the milk is drawn are free from tuberculosis.


Arthur Edward Ross: I understood the
minister to say that that was worth nothing if the milk was not pasteurized.


William Richard Motherwell: No; I said there
was no absolute certainty about it, for this reason: The period between tests is usually about six months. We will say there is a herd of five cows; they are all tested and there is no reaction. Six months elapse, and upon testing there is found to be one reactor. From the day in that six months' period when that animal became a reactor, up to the time of the second test, milk has been taken from a tubercular cow. There is not very much chance during that period of clinical symptoms developing, and there is not much chance of infection, but there is some; therefore, I do not think we are safe in looking upon any raw milk as absolutely sure; the only way to make sure is to pasteurize it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the minister assure us that pasteurization is a guarantee against tuberculosis?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, if it is properly done. Pasteurization, like anything else, can be improperly done.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the minister mean that it is a 100 per cent guarantee? If so, at what temperature is the pasteurization carried on?


William Richard Motherwell: At an average, in this country, of about 150 degrees Fahrenheit. That is looked upon as the correct temperature, provided you maintain it long enough; if it is just flashed on carelessly and then flashed off, there will not be time to permit permeation of the whole of the product. The temperature should be maintained for at least twenty minutes; half an hour is safer. Our representatives who were recently in New Zealand brought back the information that in that, country they pasteurize at a much higher

temperature than we use-165 degrees or more. If they are right, then we can make assurance doubly sure by getting up to the maximum temperature that can be attained without destroying the food properties of the article. I understand that a temperature of even as high as 200 degrees can be employed.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the highest temperature that can be applied without seriously flavouring the product?


William Richard Motherwell: I think that is one of the things in connection with which our research men will bring out some further information. But the fact is that in New Zealand they run from 30 to 40 degrees higher than we do, and turn out a much better product. The fact that New Zealand and Australia stand first in the world in the matter of butter is an indication that the flavour of the product is not injured by the high temperature employed in pasteurization.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is it the opinion of the
minister's experts that the New Zealand butter for export is of better quality, and better flavour, than good Canadian butter?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, they are quite satisfied that New Zealand has the "edge" on Canada so far as the quality of butter is concerned.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Out in British Columbia we do not admit that. We think the fresh Canadian product, made in our creamery where the cream is carefully graded, is much better in flavour than the New Zealand butter, -and we are constantly in competition with the New Zealand product on the coast.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course, tastes
can be cultivated. The British market prefers butter made of sweet cream, and not too highly salted; that is their conception of what is good butter. Now, in New Zealand they pasture their cattle outside the whole year round, and everyone knows that it is easier to make good butter out of stabling season than during stabling season, so that they have an advantage in that respect. After all, it is uniformity the year round that is required, and a constant supply on the market. The question has been asked out in the prairies: "If we all go into dairying, if we all go into butter making, is it going to be the old story that as soon as we have something to sell the prices drop?" I assure the committee that not only do you require a good article on the British market in competition with the world, but you require to have that article on the market the year round. The

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
customer does not want to go to a retailer to-day, ask for Canadian butter and get it, and then find the next day that he cannot be supplied. The people want to know what they are getting and they want to be able to get it when they want it. If we have butter on that market part of the year and none the rest of the year, we shall never get a proper grip on the market. Last year we supplied 2J per cent of the butter imports of the British people; we send them two and half pounds out of every hundred that they import. Under these circumstances the more butter we make in the lifetime of this generation the better position we will occupy on the British market because of the continuity of supply that we shall keep there.


George Arthur Brethen: With reference to a statement of the minister a few moments ago regarding the gratifying of the British palate in the matter of butter, I heard a statement with regard to Canadian pork by a noted authority who had just returned from Britain. He said that the reason for the preference for Irish and Danish bacon was also largely a matter of salting. I would like the minister to investigate that.


William Richard Motherwell: That is correct. They are so close to Britain that they can send their products over with very mild salting, and very often with no salting at all. In addition, they do not use saltpetre.


Arthur Edward Ross: In regard to what the minister has said with regard to the tuberculin test, I should like to ask him what good he thinks this large amount of money that is being spent on the test at the present time is doing to the agricultural portion' of this country and to the people at large.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is doing incalculable good. If there was no check on the disease it would get worse and worse all the time. It is not in the incipient stages that there is very much danger, but only when it reaches the stage when there is a reaction to the test that there is risk to the human family from the milk. Take Great Britain herself, I think her cattle run about forty per cent tubercular. Their proportion is very much higher than ours at all events. Any country that neglects the testing will certainly soon find her animals pretty well honey-combed with tuberculosis, especially where there is so much stabling to be done as in Canada. It is a stable disease just as tuberculosis in the human family is a house disease. While I do not think the last word has been said with respect to the best test
obtainable, for I think science will yet discover something better than the tuberculin test, it is the best thing in sight at the present time, and until we get a better I think we should continue using it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I quite agree with the minister that there is an object to be gained, but this hit-and-miss game we are playing at the present time is to my mind of very little use to the country at large. There is no endeavour to make it complete in any one part of the country, and there is consequently no advantage to the man who submits his herds to the tuberculin test, because his milk is mixed with the milk of other men who have not had the test made, and in that way the public has no guarantee that the milk is free from disease. There are only a few people in this country who have been able to get the benefit of these tuberculin tests, and I can see but little good to be derived from the amount of money spent on the test so long as it is not made general. I quite agree that if it was made general we could gain something, but as it is now we are not gaining anything. You might just as well not make the test as let the milk from cows that have been tested be mixed with that of cows that have not been tested, because there is no guarantee at all as to the purity of the milk. There is no protection against tuberculosis in such a system, and the campaign at present being carried on is to my mind of little use tc this country.


William Richard Motherwell: I think we are a little beside the mark. Possibly my hon. friend was not in when we were dealing with the vote under the Health of Animals branch. I draw his attention to it in order that we may get some information along the lines he has suggested. We have applied the tuberculin test in three municipalities in Manitoba. We have tested every bovine animal in those three municipalities, and have found that they run about five per cent tubercular. The idea is to get some information as to what it is going to cost. It is going to mean a big cost and when the public is prepared for a campaign of that nature, by undertaking this work we shall have the information as to what it is going to cost. I have pointed out that possibly we shall be able to get public sentiment sufficiently active that the federal and provincial authorities and possibly the larger municipalities will join hands in a campaign such as my hon. friend suggests, but it is going to cost something, and it is well to know the cost before we start out



Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Arthur Edward Ross: I was in when that discussion was on. I Should like to know how soon a campaign of that nature will be conducted.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know. It will depend on public sentiment.


Arthur Edward Ross: It should be more than public sentiment.


Donald Sutherland: I appreciate the difficulty in proceeding with the testing of all the herds in the country at one time. As the minister states, it would be a very expensive work. It seems remarkable that there should be an effort made to eradicate disease from the pure-bred herds while the dairy herds that are supplying milk for human consumption are not receiving the same attention. In the two or three municipalities referred to in the province of Manitoba you may be able to show what can be done by taking a whole section and subjecting it to this test, but there are undoubtedly great difficulties to be met with by reason of the fact that people are constantly buying and selling and there is a mixture of the healthy animals with those that are not free from the disease.
To my mind one of the greatest dangers that we have to-day is the great increase in tuberculosis in the swine of this country. It is really startling to those who are engaged in the business to realize the prevalence of tuberculosis among swine, and I believe it is very largely the result of their consuming dairy products. If anything can be done by pasteurization of the products to remove this menace I think it should be done.
With regard to New Zealand the minister has stated that the high quality of New Zealand butter is so apparent that it is noticeable to every one. I notice that dairy cattle in New Zealand run out the year round or are practically grazing the year round, and consequently I do not suppose they would be subject to anything like the same degree of tuberculosis as Canadian cattle, which are stabled for six and often eight months in the year, and very often in unsanitary stables which must be conducive to breeding this disease. While you may eradicate the disease from a herd, in order to keep the herd free from disease, it is absolutely essential that sanitary conditions should prevail in the stables, otherwise the disease will break out again and conditions will be nearly as bad as before. It is such a big problem under present conditions that I realize how difficult it is for the minister to proceed with the work as rapidly as he would like, but I think that 
the herds which are supplying milk for human consumption should receive a little more attention than they are receiving at the present time.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: 
Donald Sutherland: Could the minister inform the House as to the percentage of those animals which do not show disease after having been condemned for slaughter. There must be a record kept of the animals that are free from the disease, and it would be interesting to show the accuracy of the test. There is a suspicion in the minds of a great many people that the test is not a very reliable one. If it were generally understood that the test was-I will not say infallible, but as nearly so as possible, it would remove a suspicion in the minds of many people.


William Richard Motherwell: Reports indicate
that the amount of infection runs from the undiscoverable lesion up to the state where the inside of the animal is covered with tubercules the size of a pea. There may also be tubercules in the liver. They are found largely in the viscera. Under healthy conditions the tubercule becomes encysted; it is surrounded with a fleshy growth. It is sealed in there, and nature, under the most healthy conditions, takes care of it. That tubercule will be sufficient to make the animal re-act although it may be in perfect looking health. I do not want to dilate too much on the system but it is the best we have got yet. I think the percentage where the disease is not at all apparent to the naked eye is somewhere between 6 and 8 per cent- 1 think about 8 per cent. It may be there to an extent sufficient to cause a reaction and yet not sufficient to form into actual pustules or little tubercules.


George Arthur Brethen: Could the minister tell us how many herds were under the accredited herd system three years ago and how many now?


William Richard Motherwell: There are about 700 herds all over Canada now. I read out the number for each province.


George Arthur Brethen: Is that fully accredited?


William Richard Motherwell: Those are the fully accerdited herds, and then there are about 500 in the various stages.


George Arthur Brethen: Could you tell us how many there were two or three years ago?


William Richard Motherwell: None three years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil	government-Agriculture-salaries,	$717,925;
contingencies, $135,000.
Arthur Meighen: I have taken occasion to look into the question of the power of the government to make the appointment of Mr. Duncan Marshall since I was informed tonight by the minister as to the methods they devised to do it in order to get around the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Now I commence with this assertion: The government's appointment of Mr. Duncan Marshall is plainly, obviously and brazenly illegal. They had no power to appoint him whatsoever. I have before me the order in council under which the appointment to-day exists. It was passed on the 7th of February, 1922, not long after the government came into office, just long enough, I presume for the importunities of Mr. Marshall to have reached their full height. The minister recites in his recommendation to council that parliament has set aside $1,100,000 for the purposes of the Agricultural Instruction Act. Then he proceeds to indicate the plan by which that sum can be invaded and turned over, in part, to Mr. Duncan Marshall. Let me quote the language of the order in council :
The minister states that in view of the extraordinary and exceptional conditions in the agricultural world-
I presume that instability in Europe that required the Minister of Finance's statement as to the vital necessity of stability in our tariff to hold it steady-
-it is highly desirable that an investigation Ibe made into the advisability of the continuation, discontinuation, or emendation of the provisions of this act; $he amounts to be paid, and the methods of calculating such amounts in the event of its extension; and the scope of the work of the provinces to be undertaken with the. assistance of funds provided thereunder.
It is considered advisable that a commissioner her appointed under section 38c of the Civil Service Act as amended by chapter 22 of the statutes of 1921, to conduct the investigation indicated above, and to inquire into such other agricultural problems as may be desirable and necessary.
The minister therefore recommends that Mr. Duncan Marshall, of Olds, Alberta, be appointed as a commissioner for the above purpose and to perform such other duties of a cognate nature as may be delegated to him.
The minister further recommends that Mr. Marshall be paid a salary at the rate of $6,000 per annum, said salary to be paid from the appropriation provided for the administration of the Agricultural Instruction Act, and that this appointment date from January 15, 1922.

Su-p-ply-Agriculture-Salaries
His appointment was to date a little more than five weeks before he was appointed. He had evidently set to work-if you call it work-five weeks before the government hit upon this scheme. I cannot congratulate the government upon either the ingenuity or the plausibility of the scheme they adopted to turn some of the public funds to Mr. Marshall. Here are funds that parliament voted for the carrying out of the Agricultural Instruction Act. After parliament votes that money for that purpose, and that alone, the government comes along and turns $6,000 a year, as well as expenses, away from the object for which parliament voted the money, and says that it is doing it under the authority of section 38 (c) of the Civil Service Act. That section of the Civil Service Act gives no authority to anybody to do anything-none whatsoever-and does not pretend to. This government had not one atom, not one line, not one letter, not one figment more authority after section 38 (c) was passed than it had before. What did that section say? It reads:
Nothing in this act-
That is the Civil Service Act.
-shall affect-
What?
*-shall aff jet the powers of the Governor in Council with respect to the appointment of any commissioner or other member of any royal or other commission or board, or any deputy head.
Nothing shall affect the powers that now exist to appoint a member of a royal commission. If there had been an act before to enable the government to appoint Duncan Marshall under the Agricultural Instruction vote, to be paid any way in the world, those powers were not affected by tills act, they were neither added to nor subtracted from, but the power never existed before-never did exist. The government had power under the Inquiries Act to appoint somebody for a specific inquiry within the terms of that act, and this section says that wherever the government has had the power before, this act does not take it from them and give it to the Civil Service Commissign. Under this section the government has no added power whatever. It does not purport to give it any added power. The thing is so simple that I really cannot understand the government exercising-I do not know how to describe it-venturing to use this section, or pretending to use this section, to appoint one of their favourites to office. Whatever powers the government had before in respect of the 
appointment of a royal commission or any member of it were not affected by the Civil Service Act amendment of 1921, but if the government did not have the power before it did not get it under this section. Let me put it in another way. If there was doubt in the mind of anyone that the provisions of the Civil Service Act, as they existed, put into the hands of the Civil Service Commission powers that formerly were the government's powers, to appoint a commissioner under the Inquiries Act, or any other act, this section made it clear that there Was no change. The government still has the power and not the Civil Service Commission. But nobody could suggest, to say nothing about arguing, that any appointment could be made under that section. It cannot be made. The government must make its appointment under some other act, and, if at the time that section was passed it had power, under another act, it could use that power and appoint a man. But it did not do that, and why? If it had it under the Inquiries Act, it had it for the purposes of the Inquiries Act, and subject to the restrictions therein embodied. I do not know of any other act under which it could have done it. It could have made an appointment under the Inquiries Act of a royal commission, but it could not do it under this act. I venture to say that, Dnucan Marshall's appointment being based on the provisions of this order in council, he is being paid illegally every dollar he receives, and I say that no matter what the Auditor General has done and without the slightest doubt in my mind. I hope I have made myself clear. If there was power in the government under any act to appoint a commissioner at the time this section was passed, that power the government still has* and the Civil Service Commission did not get that power, but it had to appoint him under the act that existed, and, of course, subject to the provisions of that act. If it had appointed him under the act that existed, he would not be there now. But these hon. gentlemen want to get round that and to make him a salaried officer, so that they affect to do it under the act which gave them no power whatever. That is the extent to which the government has gone to reward a political favourite. I would like the minister, or anybody, to bring down the submission of this order in council, if it ever was submitted, to the Justice department and the ruling of the Justice department upon it. I frequently asked for those things

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
and never got one yet. I venture to say the hon. gentlemen cannot get a ruling from the Justice department that there is any power whatever in the government, under the Civil Service Act of 1921, to appoint any commissioner at all.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad that we have got to this-I shall not say fight-but to this question. I am not versed in the law, Mr. Chairman, but I assume that when a party is taken into the employ of the government, and paid regularly, it must be in accordance with some law. I know that the Auditor General is there for a purpose. He is not a figure head; I do not know anybody who could put very much past him, and I certainly am not trying to put anything past him, and there has never been a question of doubt as to the legality of Mr. Marshall's appointment. When the advisability of his appointment was first taken up, I did not know what the custom was. This Civil Service Commission was new to me. I was familiar with one commission in the West, and, I might say I believe in the Civil Service Commission. I believe it is necessary to have one, but I knew something of this from hearsay and from reading in the papers, and after I had made inquiries from my deputy and others as to the propriety of calling upon the Civil Service Commission I did so in connection with this, the first appointment I was interested in. I had an interview with them in their board room and I told them something of the situation. I do not know whether hon. members are familiar with all the intricacies of getting an appointment of this nature made. Wc first have to establish the position and then send to the Civil Service Commission for its classification. After they arrive at that stage, they send it back, with the signatures of two members of the commission on it, to the minister who is interested, and it is intimated that if the minister agrees with it, he can sign it. That again goes to the government, and after the government put their O.K. on it, it goes back to the department and then to the Civil Service Commission again in order that they may advertise the position. We discussed every phase of this appointment, and everything was agreed upon with the Civil Service Commission, I may say to my right hon. friend. Even the salary was agreed upon, the amount of salary that such a position was worth and that was necessary to secure an appointee who would be capable of carrying on the work satisfactorily. The question of
salary had to be decided upon in connection with the classification, before advertising could be done. At that time I was not familiar with how long the advertising would take It was arranged with the commission, first that such an appointment was necessary, second that the classification should be worth 86,000 per annum, and that was arranged satisfactorily with the commission. Then I found out that it was going to take an interminable time to get the appointment put through, and also that the advertising would take from two to three, and sometimes four weeks to complete. After the advertising there is the usual rating and examination, and I wanted the appointment filled then, not a* some indefinite date in the future. I had been told by my deputy that he had experienced delays. He has not very much complaint to make against the Civil Service Commission; the only complaint he makes is in connection with the time it takes to make these appointments, and time means everything, especially in connection with farming operations. What farmer would be anxious to buy a seed drill in the middle of harvest or the fall when he wanted it in the spring? That was exactly the position I was in. I did not want this appointment filled after I was dead; I wanted it filled then. I did not want the appointee to go out cutting wood next winter.


Arthur Meighen: The minister does not mean that he wanted the position filled after Mr. Duncan Marshall was dead.


William Richard Motherwell: Let my right hon. friend sit down. I may say further that I do not lay any particular blame at the door of the Civil Service Commission. My judgment was borne out in my subsequent experience as to the length of time required, and again I am blaming, not the commission, but the act that determines the actions of the commission and of the rest of us. As the committee is aware, the regulations with respect to hog grading came into force last October. It took ten solid months from the initial step until we got those ten hog graders appointed. The hogs could have been killed, eaten and gone out of sight altogether in those ten months and a new bunch of hogs could have appeared on the scene, been fattened and made ready for the knife while you were getting your graders appointed. I had made an arrangement with Mr. Arkell; I had told him that I would like to see the ten new members of my family. They were assembled at Toronto, and I met them there. This was the first work of this kind ever un-

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
dertaken on this continent or anywhere else that I knew of, to grade live hogs for the market, and consequently I wanted to see these new appointees. I did not know one of them from Adam; I had never seen them before; I met them in Toronto; I had an hour's talk with them, and I gave them some instructions in regard to their duties. As I say, it took just ten months from the beginning of the operation to get them appointed, and the hogs they graded were not born at the time I started operations. That is what we have to go through in connection with getting appointments made. I do not want to exaggerate this, or I could tell the committee very much worse instances than that, even in my short experience. It is no wonder that anyone who wants to administer a department properly chafes under such conditions. Let me say again that the blame lies, not with the commission, but with the act by which they have to be governed, and these are some of the results. Having regard to that, having regard to the further fact that the necessity for the appointment was agreed upon by the commission and the salary was agreed upon, I say that the only thing left was the time it would take to get the appointment put through. Is there anybody in the country who will say that Mr. Duncan Marshall is not a proper and qualified man for the position? If he cannot, there is no point to all this discussion. If anyone has a recommendation to make on behalf of someone who will better fill the duties that have devolved upon Mr. Marshall, I shall be delighted to have his name and to give his qualifications my best consideration, because I want the very best men obtainable in the Department of Agriculture. Hon. members from Saskatchewan will, I think, admit that when I was administering the department there, I let nothing stand in the way of getting the best obtainable men in my department, and any success obtained there was obtained through that policy. My desire is to pursue the same policy here; but what is the use of making appointments for a particular purpose, if frequently you cannot get them made until the expiry of the time when you really desire them most? Right at this time we want a most important position filled immediately. This will be worth more to us in the next few weeks than if two or three months elapse before the appointment is made. We have, however, to go through the routine; the hands of the Civil Service Commission are tied, and they have to go through it too. That is one of the reasons why this appointment was not made by the Civil Service Commission. Why was it not? The
IMr. Motherwell.]
leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) says that it was made illegally. If it was, I must be a wonderful individual who can jam a political friend through all these devious ways and get him appointed in spite of the law. I would be some mover if I could do that. There is a proviso-my right hon. friend has read it himself-by which a commissioner can be appointed. The conditions stipulated are all justified; they are all true.
Just for fear that this might be overlooked, I may say that a few remarks have been made about the qualifications of Mr. Marshall. If there is in Canada any man better qualified for the work he is doing, I want to find him and I will look upon it as a favour if any person will send in the names of men who are better qualified, either as platform men or as live stock authorities, because we want a man of just such qualifications as those of Mr. Marshall. I have in my hand an Old Country paper, the Live Stock Journal, which discusses the embargo situation. This is not what I say about Mr. Duncan Marshall at all, because I might be prejudiced in his favour. This is a journal that has no object	in being
prejudiced; it is	printed in	the Old
Country, in London, and it is recognized as one of the leading live stock authorities. Under date of May 4-and this was just at the time when there was a good deal of anxiety over there about getting the balance of the embargo off our breeding cattle-this is what it says, at a time by the way when some of the very extreme friends of Mr. Duncan Marshall were trying to make out that he was not exercising his duties properly just at that time. I am not going to read it all unless I am requested to do so, because it is a two-column article. Anyone can call for the paper, and I am not excluding anything derogatory to Mr. Marshall because there is not a line in it of that nature. The article reads in part:
There is a distinct grievance against Canada in seeking to raise this new point of the admission of breeding cattle. It is to be feared that Dr. J. H. Grisdale, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and the Hon. Duncan Marshall, Canada's Live Stock Commissioner-
By the way, that is still a new title, which he has not received any more than Commissioner of Agriculture.
-know their business too well for the "amateurs" whom our system of government place at the head of our various departments.
You see, they are playing politics here just as the Opposition do in this House even on a question of agriculture.
In any case it is thought that they have managed to steal a big march-and an unfair march-on British breeders. Home industries appear to be held as of no account. Surely those who are responsible for this new

Supply-A gricul ture-Salarie >
move have not paused to think of what the result is to be of the dumping of vast numbers of breeding cattle in this country to which-the irony of it all! - every country has to come for stock to help to improve their own cattle.
That is one paragraph. Then the editorial quotes some remarks made by Dr. Grisdale in his report .as published in the Canada Gazette :
We quote from Dr. Grisdale's report:-"Inasmuch as it was quite apparent to Mr. Marshall and myself, the advisory part of the Canadian delegation, that there was likely to be a very strong demand for grade females, particularly for milk production, the Canadian representatives were most urgent in their demand for better terms in connection with admission of stock of this kind. Finally, it was stated that the very most the Imperial government could concede was that Canadian breeding stock should be admitted, provided they had passed the tuberculin test within thirty days of embarkation, and that they should be subject to the same conditions of inspection as the stockers (stores) and spayed heifers, but that the three-day quarantine should not apply."
Then the editorial commented:
Truly, it is lamentable with what ease British agricultural interests can be sacrified, and are sacrificed, to suit others! Little wonder Dr. Grisdale states in his report that "there was evident on the part of both the Imperial representatives and the officials taking part in the conference the very greatest desire to meet the wishes of the Canadian representatives ... I cannot speak too strongly of the evidently sincere desire on the part of the Imperial delegates and officials to meet the recommendations of the Canadians, or modify their own proposed conditions in such a way as to comply, as far as possible, with the changes suggested by the Canadian delegation."
One wonders what further modifications could have been made, or what changes could possibly have been suggested by the Canadian representatives which were not granted by the Imperial representatives, whose compliant dispositions are so warmly commended by Dr. Grisdale. The tuberculin test and a sixpenny inspection, but no quarantine either before or after shipment! Did British magnanimity ever surpass this. And to think it was all done in the interests of an industry to maintain which has necessitated special parliamentary legislation!
Now, here is the highest possible commendation of the two expert delegates that went over with two of my colleagues in connection with this matter, and the fact that those four gentlemen were able to consummate this long drawn out controversy is surely some testimony to the fitness of Mr. Duncan Marshall for this work. I am still open to receive any suggestions as to where we can get a better man.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not even touched the subject; he got within distance of it once, but the rest of the time he was telling us what a wonderful platform speaker Mr. Duncan Marshall was.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say anything about that


Arthur Meighen: The minister read something from some foreign paper.


Ernest Lapointe: Foreign?


Arthur Meighen: An English paper, as I understand.


Ernest Lapointe: Is a British journal a foreign paper?


Arthur Meighen: It is pretty foreign from here, yes; not foreign in interest or sentiment, although I think the Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) at one time so described it.


Ernest Lapointe: I never did; that is another mistake.


Arthur Meighen: But all this is utterly foreign to the subject. I may inform the minister (Mr. Motherwell) that, aside entirely from the qualifications or disqualifications of Mr. Duncan Marshall, there is a law in this country, notwithstanding that he gets up and in his own style says, "Surely I can not break the law; I must be a great man if I can break the law." It does not take a great man to break the law; there are other law breakers besides the minister. But we expect better of governments, who are the authorities for the enforcement of law in, the country. There is no Auditor General now; this government has deliberately avoided the appointment of an Auditor General for months. While I do not know the condition the Auditor General was in when this matter went through, I am aware that the Auditor General who then was living had been a very sick man for a long time. Consequently this matter has not had the supervision of the proper official that it should have had, and apparently the minister took care not to get an opinion of the Justice department upon it. Anyone reading section 38 would know that it gave no powers to anybody; it simply declared that any powers that heretofore existed to appoint a commissioner were not taken away and given to the Civil Service Commission,. If the minister is right, then all that the government has to do to appoint anyone to any job at all is to call him a commissioner. He may be an accountant; he may be a hog grader; he may be a wanderer to Tampa, Florida, for
10 p.m. immigrants; he may be anything at all. But if you call him a commissioner then the Civil Service Act is repealed and the minister can appoint him. That is precisely what he has done, but that is not the law of the country; and it is an affront to the intelligence of any person to suggest that it is. Mr. Duncan Marshall has drawn
330S

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
every dollar illegally that he is in possession of to-day out of that vote of $1,100,000, and to-night I call the attention of those who are taking the place of the Auditor General of this country to the cheques that are passing to Mr. Duncan Marshall, and ask that the law be followed by the government in office.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I was justified in quoting from this editorial because my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) made the statement that this $6,000, had been diverted from the public treasury to be handed out to a political favourite. He makes the statement, in the first place, that the money was illegally paid; and secondly, that it was given to one whose only qualification, at least inferentially, was that he was a political favourite. I wanted to show that the gentleman, was a qualified man, and what I have read is I think ample testimony to that fact. I think therefore that I was justified in reading the editorial, which is a very much better authority on these questions than my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the question I am raising.


William Richard Motherwell: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon; I have here a note which I took of what he said. He declared that the money was given as a reward to a political favourite. But if the political favourite has the qualifications that eminently fit him for the position to which he has been appointed, is it a sufficient ground for his being disqualified because he happens to be on a certain side of politics?


Donald Sutherland: Whether I am right or wrong, I understand that this man is not Commissioner of Agriculture, although he has been so styled. Now, I have here the Scottish Farmer, an agricultural journal printed in Glasgow, and this particular copy is of the issue of January 27 of the present year. Referring to a sale of pure-bred cattle which had taken place in Scotland some time previously, the article states:
Lawton's champion Shorton bull was not exported by the man from Stranraer, but by the other Marshall -the Hon. Duncan, the man from the Northwest.
It is well known that four months after parliament prorogued Mr. Marshall and Mr. Dryden were in the Old Country attending auction sales of pure-bred shorthorn cattle; that purchases were made by Mr. Dryden, and that the animals were brought to this country. A question was asked when Mr. Marshall's appointment was under discussion in the House a year ago with regard to his 
action as a breeder of beef cattle. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) asked:
Is not Mr. Duncan Marshall himself a large grower of beef cattle, and will he be prohibited from doing business on his own account while travelling as a representative of the government? He might have an eye for the main chance, and the minister might say whether there will be an express prohibition against his doing business in his own behalf.
The minister stated:
I understand from the newspaper reports that Mr. Marshall has sold out his live stock and has rented his place. He is therefore completely at liberty to represent the government.
Now, he has evidently been very active in attending the auction sales of pure-bred shorthorn cattle in Scotland and elsewhere since he went over to the Old Country. I believe he has made several trips across the Atlantic since the House prorogued in June last and it is rather significant that we have not been able to deal with the matter up to the present time. In view of the statement made by the minister regarding the appointment and the difficulties experienced in connection with the Civil Service Commission, I took occasion some time ago to place some questions on the order paper as to the salary of these two commissioners, who, we were informed, were expected to go to South America to develop a live stock trade between the countries there and Canada. In answer to that question it was stated that Mr. Marshall's salary and expenses to date amounted to $8,952.08, and that Mr. Dryden had received an advance for expenses of $2,000. I would like to know from the minister when Mr. Dryden's services began and when they ended, and whether he was in the employ of the government when he and Mr. Duncan Marshall, according to Mr. Duncan Marshall's own newspaper reports were attending these sales of pure-bred shorthorn cattle in the old land. And according to the report of the Scottish Farmer, Mr. Marshall was not only attending these sales but was making purchases thereat. Is that a proper position for the Commissioner of Agriculture, representing the Department of Agriculture, to take? Was it a proper course for a man drawing a salary, appointed illegally, as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has stated, to go into the constituency that I represent and attend a political meeting immediately after the prorogation of parliament last year? Mr. Marshall has been a prominent man in this country for a great many years. I remember when he was a candidate for election nearly twenty years ago in an Ontario constituency, on which occa-
33C9

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
sion he was defeated by a very substantial majority. He went out to western Canada, and if my memory is correct he was defeated in the provincial election there in 1921. He was also, I believe, a candidate in the federal election of the same year and was again defeated by a very large majority, something in the neighbourhood of 2,500; so that the people who know Mr. Duncan Marshall very well have apparently not as high an opinion of him as the Minister of Agriculture would lead this House and the country to believe. I am not going to sit quietly by and see an official paid by the people of this country attend a political gathering when he ought to be attending to the duties for the fulfilment of which he was appointed. I think the minister has not been as careful in supervising his officials as he should have been, if this is the practice in the Department of Agriculture.
I touched upon some matters before six o'clock that I do not wish to repeat, but I want to point out, in connection with Mr. Marshall's attendance at this political meeting to which I have referred, that the press report had the following to say respecting the remarks of the president of the Liberal Association of the constituency on that occasion:
W. C. Brown, of Tillsonburg, South Oxford, representative on the Ontario Liberal executive, occupied the chair in the absence of M. G. Dean, president of the South Oxford Reform Association, he having suffered an automobile breakdown which delayed him. Mr. Brown, in a brief and eulogistic address, introduced the speaker of the day, Hon. Duncan Marshall, who was asked by Premier King to appear at the picnic on his behalf, as he himself was unable to come.
So he came there with a pretty high recommendation. The Toronto Globe of June 29 reports the meeting and refers to the Commissioner of Agriculture as having addressed the Oxford Grits at a picnic on June 28. There is a special despatch to the Globe to this effect. Now, he is advertised as the Commissioner of Agriculture attending a gathering of that kind, as is intimated by a member of the Liberal executive for the province of Ontario, at the request of the Prime Minister of this country. We are told to-day that he is drawing money illegally in connection with the position he now occupies. Early in the session a year ago, when we were discussing his appointment, we were told that he was putting in his time at a seaside resort in Florida and that he was expected to proceed to South America. He proceeded across the Atlantic, and he has been doing the work I have indicated. He has also been continually writing articles to the press in which he refers to himself as "Hon. Duncan Marshall" well knowing that he is not entitled to that prefix. The Canadian Countryman of May 12 contains a couple of pages from the pen of "Hon. Duncan Marshall." Among other things are photographs taken of the landing of the first cattle from Canada after the embargo was removed. You remember that the press despatch we received on that occasion stated that the first boat was going to land at Glasgow but that it was delayed and landed at some other port. They had the stage all set with a red tape across the gangway and the Hon. Duncan Marshall was going to lead the first Canadian steer and have him breast the tape to show the Hon. Manning Doherty that he was the man who had broken down the embargo. But unfortunately for Mr. Marshall the steer had too much respect for himself to allow any such impression to go abroad; he breasted the tape and he dragged Hon. Duncan, who became entangled in the rope, according to the reports we received. The photograph here has the caption:
Wm. Henderson and Hon. Duncan Marshall dressed in white market coats, beside the steer as he steps off the gang plank on to Scottish soil.
Mr. Duncan Marshall must have got on his feet in order to enable the man with the camera to take a snap, for it is quite apparent he has been through a trying experience because he is bare-headed, while Mr. Henderson is not. Surely this farce has gone far enough, when an active politician can come here, as he did, immediately following the election and make demands upon the government and get those demands granted. He receives a salary of upwards of two thousand dollars more than he could have received had he been appointed by the Civil Service Commission. That is quite a consideration. The salary to be paid to the Commissioner of Agriculture under the Civil Service Act is $4,000 a year, yet being appointed as he was Mr. Marshall draws the salary of $6,000 a year and expenses. I would ask the committee if they consider that is a proper course for the government to pursue? The fact of Mr. Marshall's receiving the handsome salary he draws to-day may have had something to do with the government's desire to evade the Civil Service Act in making the appointment, because otherwise he would not be receiving that, salary. Now if there is need for economy in this country, and there is every need, if Mr. Marshall can render good and valuable service to this country I have no objection to his doing so but, I do object to him acting in the capacity in which he has been acting since his appointment. He should devote his attention to the work for which he was supposed to be

Su-pply-Agriculture-Salaries
appointed, and not devote his time to polities nor associate himself with the purchasing of live stock in the Old Country, which is what he did if what this newspaper report indicates is correct.
I have another paper here of a little earlier date which shows that a large number of cattle had been purchased at a sale by one of those commissioners and imported into this country. These are serious statements to have made against a man occupying any position in the civil service of this country. I hope that the minister will look into this matter and not be misled by the glaring reports which are evidently emanating from the pen of the gentleman himself, because I cannot imagine for a moment that these articles in the magazines and the press of this country are appearing without some remuneration being given for them. As to the correctness of that I have nothing whatever to say.
As to Mr. Duncan Marshall's ability I know nothing. I have never met him but I do know something of his record as a politician in this country, and I know from the fact that he was defeated in his own constituency in the provincial election in 1921, and defeated again in the same year for this parliament by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,S00 votes, he was not held in the very highest esteem in the province of Alberta.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
whether these statements of my hon. friend deserve very much attention or not, but inasmuch as they have been made and there has been a good deal of sniping on this question all winter, possibly I had better pay a little attention to them.
Mr. Duncan Marshall when he was over there with Mr. Dryden did not purchase any cattle for himself or anybody else. I presume it is correct that he attended some sales, which would be a most natural thing for any live stock man to do. I cannot imagine the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) going over to the Old Country and not attending any popular sale, of live stock that was being held. It is one of the most interesting events of the day, a sale of pure-bred cattle or of live stock of almost any kind, and it is just the thing I would expect him to attend. Is that a crime, Mr. Chairman? If it is, I guess Mr. Marshall has committed it. But it is no crime, and it is nonsense to make a complaint about it. Mr. Marshall did not buy cattle for himself or anybody else.
As to the letter to the Canadian Countryman, I saw a number of Mr. Marshall's letters, and among others one that he wrote to the Toronto Globe on the question of hog and

bacon grading, and I never saw a better put letter on, that question. He reported just where Canadian bacon fell short of Danish bacon, went into the question in minute detail, and I made the remark at the time having in mind one of my hon. friend's observations, that article alone was worth his entire salary for the year. I believe that still, and if he wrote an account for the British and Canadian journals of the landing of the first cargo of Canadian cattle in Great Britain after they had been debarred for thirty-one years, do you not think that was a very good way to let the people of Canada know just what happened in connection with that notable and historic event? Why, only the other day the whole Agricultural committee of this House, every one of whom had the privilege of inviting two friends, went down to the old historic city of Quebec and saw the first cargo of Canadian cattle shipped from that port via the Canadian National Railway all through. That was an historic event and one that we should commemorate. They did not write it up perhaps as picturesquely as Mr. Marshall might have done, but they gave it due publicity, and I think we should have been derelict in our duty if we had not been there.
My deputy and myself and one or two others went down to Montreal and saw the first cargo of Canadian cattle loaded there for shipment via St. John. Our presence was required there because there was a hitch as to whether they could be shipped via the Canadian Pacific, which went through United States territory part of the way, and we decided that it was not advisable to ship via the Canadian Pacific, which passes through part of Maine. W'e did not want any hitch over some technicality, but apart from that we were desirous of being there to celebrate that notable event. I do not know why we should make one law for ourselves and another for Mr. Duncan Marshall. We do not want him to hide his light under a bushel.


Donald Sutherland: No danger.


William Richard Motherwell: I am sure my hon. friend has read Mr. Marshall's articles with a great deal of pleasure. Mr. Marshall, it appears, has committed the heinous offence of being defeated twice in politics. Well, Mr. Chairman, if that were a hanging matter a lot of us would be missing here, and if my hon. friend from South Oxford lives long enough it may be he will suffer a defeat himself, and then he will be a little more charitable to those of us who have experienced it not once but several times. That is what we call small potatoes and mighty few in a hill-to make a statement of that kind about a man who had

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
the misfortune to be defeated twice in the same year. My hon. friend should rather have felt charitably and sympathetically disposed towards a once fellow public man. But they have to talk about something, Mr. Chairman, and they have not got much on this yet.
As to Mr. Marshall being down in Florida, I thought I dealt with that last winter. That was an exhibition where the Department of the Interior had an exhibit, and that exhibit was run all through the Conservative regime, and I think through the preceding Liberal regime. The leader of the Opposition was very hilarious over the exhibition in Florida [DOT] to which we sent an exhibit. I do not think he knew that that same exhibit was being run there while he was Prime Minister of this country. At an exhibition of that kind where you get a large concourse of people in great big auditoriums, it is an advantage to a country to have a man with Mr. Marshall's capacity for filling a building and occupying a platform acceptably. I have been at some of these gatherings with him, and I do not know anybody who can better captivate an American audience than he can. I attended the International Dry Farming Conference at Colorado Springs and Billings with Mr. Marshall, and I can tell my hon. friends that he was the lion of the day with the guests; there is no question about that, and what is more, we have direct information that a number of immigrants came to Canada as a result of Mr. Marshall's address at that meeting in Florida. I saw in the Department of the Interior whole sheets of clippings from American papers reporting that meeting, and if we had had to pay for that advertising space in cash it would have cost us $10,000. That was the speech he made at a place where we have been holding exhibits for ten or twelve years, and yet all kinds of ridicule were heaped upon Mr. Marshall for this globe trotting as if it was the first time we ever had an exhibition in Florida. I do not think the leader of the Opposition knew anything about where our exhibitions were being held. He never dreamed of one being held in Florida or he would never have made the foolish remarks he did with respect to Mr. Marshall's speech there.
The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) says he does not know anything about Mr. Marshall's qualifications. Well, should not that be the chief consideration? Should it have been my first duty to have inquired how many times he was defeated at the elections before I opened negotiations with him, or should I have suggested, as is done in some cases "If you will apply to the
Civil Service Commission you will at least have a chance of getting through?" Should I have sent in a blank form to be filled in and returned to Mr. Foran, the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, or should I have inquired into Mr. Marshall's qualifications to fill the post? I think that his qualifications were the first consideration, and no one has yet challenged his fitness to do the work that has been allotted to him since his appointment-not one challenge has been made. Therefore I think this talk on the part of my hon. friends, while it may be quite justifiable from their standpoint, is done for the purpose of raising a little hurrah so that they may get it featured in a spectacular way in the press in the hope of making the public believe that there is something doing on their part by reason of their stand on this question. That is all this talk is for; there is no challenge as to Mr. Marshall's fitness. It seems to me that if we placed a gentleman at this work who did not know the A.B.C. about politics and was otherwise disqualified the mere fact that he was never in politics would certainly not overshadow his ineligibility. I say again, the first essential consideration is service on the part of Mr. Marshall for the money he gets. I submit that Mr. Marshall is earning his salary as fully and efficiently as any hon. member in this House or any other official in the public service.


William Irvine: The Minister of Agriculture has said that he has been unable to see any point made in this contention with regard to the appointment of Mr. Duncan Marshall. If I were in the position of Minister of Agriculture I think I should be inclined to take the same attitude. It is better not to see the point; that is convenient for the minister. The leader of the Opposition has made a charge that the appointment of Mr. Duncan Marshall to this1 unmentionable position-no one seems to be able to name it-was illegal, and that the salary he has been receiving ever since has been illegally given. Not only has the leader of the Opposition made that charge but, I think, he has very successfully proven his case. The only answer the Minister of Agriculture has been able to make to that point was the reading of an article from swine English paper. Personally I fail to see the connection between the editorial he read and the charge made by the leader of the Opposition. It is said in this editorial, among other things, that Mr. Marshall was a live stock commissioner. The 'minister himself denied that. That means that the article was wrong in the first place with regard to the position and suggested, to me at least, that it may have

*
Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
oeen wrong in many other things with which it dealt. Another thing the article said was that the mission of Mr. Marshall to England was to "steal an unfair march" on the British people. I do not think that is a very high recommendation for Mr. Marshall, if it was a high recommendation that the minister sought to convey through the reading of the editorial. But I am not so much interested in the legal phase of this question, although I can see that a very important principle is involved in it. As to the capacity of Mr. Marshall to do the work, I assume that he ought to be able to do it because the job in this case was made for the man, and the government surely ought to have been able to make a job that would fit the man so that he would be able to do it well. I can quite understand how that could be done. I believe it might be possible for the minister to even create a job that I might be able to fill although he might not be disposed to agree with me on that.


William Richard Motherwell: No chance.


William Irvine: But that is not a recommendation for Mr. Marshall. I wish now to enter a brief and emphatic protest against this appointment. I should have done this last year, but I refrained for two reasons. In the first place we were given the assurance that the appointment of Mr. Marshall was temporary, that it would not last more than six months. I, of course* took that assurance seriously; I thought it was true. A year later I find it is not. In the second place I did not protest last year because I happened to be the opponent of Mr. Marshall in the last election, and I know it is difficult for some people to disassociate any attack that I might make in regard to his appointment from political propaganda. I do not suppose that I will be able to avoid that implication by some hon. members even now. But even at the risk of that I want to make a protest against this appointment because it violates principles, and principles which the government have from time to time avowed they were the protagonists of. It has not been made clear, by the Minister of Agriculture, not even to this date, what services Mr. Marshall is giving this country for the salary of $6,000 and, I presume, many times more than $6,000 in expenses. I do not know what his expenses will amount to. I would not be surprised if, since he took his office they might run to as high as $30,000. That we do not know; we have to wait until the minister tries to find out just exactly how much Mr. Marshall has cost the country. But he was appointed at this salary and was 
given this office shortly after the last election.
1 think the minister said to-night in reply to someone, that it was "far easier to start right" than it was to get right after forty 3'ears of doing wrong. I am sorry that the minister did not himself start right in this regard, because he may have considerable trouble now in getting right. I do not know if it will take him forty years to do it. But Mr. Marshall, as you all know, was a candidate in the last election. He was on the platform with the right hon. the Prime Minister, and the chairman on that occasion when announcing Mr. Marshall referred to him as the next Minister of Agriculture. Of course in * the campaign, Mr. Marshall who is an ex- " cellent propagandist, made very good use of that prophecy. I do not know whether it could be called a promise. Certainly it was a promise from the chairman's viewpoint and I suppose the chairman had some authority for making the statement. Well, Mr. Marshall, like any other man, might have been defeated in the election. I am certainly not holding that against him in any way. I presume most of us have been defeated and very likely will be defeated again.


George Perry Graham: Some of the best men have been defeated.


William Irvine: That is not the point.
Seemingly Mr. Marshall was very disappointed that he was not made Minister of Agriculture and so after his defeat he speedily hied himself to Ottawa, and I presume got into close contact with the present Minister of Agriculture; I would not be surprised if Mr. Marshall nearly succeeded in convincing the Minister of Agriculture that he (Mr. Marshall) would be a better Minister of Agriculture than the present one, and that if he did not get the appointment , or some similar appointment, there might be trouble. I, of course, have no means of knowing the exact conversation which took place or how things went, but of the fact of his appointment alone in this regard are we sure. He was appointed to this job, I understand, as a kind of consolation prize. The Minister of Agriculture, I think, will admit that Mr. Marshall and he are bosom friends and that they drink out of the same cup, so to speak. That is all right. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think perhaps he would not be so ready to admit to us that their relationship to which I have referred had much to do with this appointment. Mr. Marshall at that time was appointed Commissioner of Agriculture. That position was considered by the former government as being unnecessary-at least, I unden

Supply-Agriculture- Salaries
stand that they did not appoint any one to fill the position, and I believe abandoned the office. Although there has been a great deal of criticism of the late government- and I have no hesitation in saying that I have done my share of the criticizing-yet I think we will have to admit that there were two things at least-there may be more -for which we have to give that government credit. In the first place it took a very decided stand against patronage, and in the second place, I believe that it was fairly efficient in its administration, however wrong it may have been in its policy, from some people's point of view. That government, abolishing patronage, and trying to be efficient, said to themselves "We will not waste the public funds by appointing a man to this position". So the office was there, but they did not fill it because they considered it was unnecessary. When the present government came into power and Mr. Marshall was defeated, he happened to be a bosom friend of the Minister of Agriculture, and patronage was brought back by the appointment of Mr. Marshall to this position. It was an appointment over the head of the Civil Service Commission. The present government while in opposition criticized fearlessly and mercilessly the order in council method which it was alleged was adopted by the former government. Yet when something of this nature occurs the present government do not hesitate to utilize this valuable instrument, the order in council, as a means of gaining their end. Now, by an order in council they appointed Duncan Marshall to a position which was not necessary at a salary of $6,000 per year, and with a probable expense account of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000. That went on, I understand, for some time. He held the position as Commissioner of Agriculture. Then, feeling that they could not long justify this appointment as Commissioner of Agriculture, the government merely dropped the agricultural part of it, and called him a commissioner. But as commissioner, I do not know what commission he has. I believe that one of the phases of Mr. Marshall's commissionership is to make recommendations as to redistribution. I believe that Mr. Marshall came to his old friends in Calgary, looked over the ground, set down the stakes of political gerrymandering divisions, made out his plans, and sent them to some representative of the present government. I do not know whether that is part of the commissionership or not, but if it is I have no doubt the gentleman is earning his
salary, and earning it just about as well as anybody in this House.


William Richard Motherwell: Will my hon. friend supply us with some evidence that Mr. Marshall was doing anything in connection with redistribution?


William Irvine: As the hon. minister himself said to-day in answer to a question that he did not carry the order in council in his pocket, so I do not happen to carry this evidence in my pocket, but if the hon. minister will give me time to do it, I think I can produce the evidence.


William Richard Motherwell: No time like the present.


William Irvine: That is unfortunately true in this particular regard, but if the minister i->
very anxious to get the evidence and will give me ten days' time, I think I can procure at least enough evidence to justify the statement which I have just made.
The main point I want to make is that this country cannot afford to have two Ministers of Agriculture. If it takes two Liberal statesmen to make one minister then I suggest that they get one salary between them. 1 think that is a fair proposition. But if one of them is to be discharged I will leave it to the hon. minister himself to say which one of them should be Minister of Agriculture. They are the Siamese twins of agricultural administration, and I would move that they be operated upon and separated. I understand that with such close affiliation, death usually results from an operation. Even if this operation should cause the political death of these gentlemen, Canada might possibly get along. I have no intention, of course, of causing them political death, but I do insist on their separation, because we cannot afford to pay two cab'net ministers for the one service, and if Mr. Duncan Marshall has the ability which the present Minister of Agriculture attributes to him-and I have no doubt he has a great deal of ability-then let him be minister. If he can do it better than the present minister, by all means let us bring him here. I insist however that we cannot afford to have two Ministers of Agriculture, unless they decide to get along on the one salary. If it requires them both to make one Minister of Agriculture let them divide the salary between them, that would be the only alternative to discharging one of them.
With reference to the great qualifications of Mr. Marshall and as to what he has been doing in Britain I have no remarks to make. As I say, the job having been created for him,

Supply-Agriculture-Salmes
no doubt he will be able to perform the work. If he cannot handle that job, he will never be able to fill the position. In view then of the fact, first of all, that this appointment was illegal, as was shown by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and secondly in view of the fact that this is a continuation of patronage which we have been struggling to get away from, and thirdly because it is not necessary and is a waste of public money, I move that this item be reduced by the amount of $5,999. I am leaving one dollar there to send over a cablegram to Mr. Marshall with one word in it-"Fired."


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There is, in my opinion, a serious aspect to this question, which the Minister of Agiiculture (Mr. Motherwell) seems to misapprehend or, for his own purposes, seeks to evade. The case as presented by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) is, to my mind, a serious case and one in respect to which the committee is entitled to some explanation from the government. If the Minister of Agriculture does not see fit to give the explanation or is unable to give it, then I must appeal to the law officers of the Crown or the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), sitting in this House at this time, to explain to the committee how it comes about that a man is appointed to the service of the Crown upon what appears, on an examination of the statutes, to be in direct opposition to the letter and spirit of the law, why also that man for the past sixteen or seventeen months has been drawing his salary through the ordinary channels through which salaries are paid, and I presume that the cheques representing that salary have likewise passed through the Auditor General's office. If the statement of the law and the facts are as my right hon. friend has stated them, the committee is entitled to a very clear and definite statement by the government how this matter came about. We find an order in council passed on the 7th February, 1922. The new government, the present government, took office, if I remember rightly, on the last day of the preceding year, so that about five weeks had elapsed before the order in council in question was passed. The order provides for the appointment of a commissioner in these terms:
It is considered advisable that a commissioner be appointed under section 38C of the Civil Service Act as amended by chapter 22 of the statutes of 1921, to conduct the investigation indicated above and to inquire into such other agricultural problems as may [DOT] be desirable and necessary.
Then the order enacts:
That Mr. Duncan Marshall of Olds, Alberta, be appointed as a commissioner for the above purpose. . . [Mr. Irvine. 1
and further that Mr, Marshall be paid a salary at the rate of $6,000 per annum, said salary to be paid from the appropriation provided for the administration of the Agricultural Instruction Act and that this appoint-men date from the 15th January, 1922.
The appointment has been made under a statute definitely and clearly stated in the order. It is section 38C of the act of 1921 amending the Civil Service Act. First let me point out to the committee that under the Civil Service Act there is no power to appoint a commissioner. That is clear and definite. Is there under the amendment? This is the amendment cited, section 38C:
Nothing in this act shall affect the powers of the Governor in Council with respect to the appointment of any commissioner or other member of any royal or other commission or board, or any deputy head.
Meaning in plain, clear language that any power which existed in the Governor in Council to appoint commissioners should be retained by the Governor in Council notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. The language is clear and express. What power is there in the Governor in Council to appoint a commissioner? What power ever was there? There is no such power under the Civil Service Act. There was power under the Inquiries Act and it is the only power whereby a commissioner can be appointed or a royal commission can be issued. If a commissioner is appointed under that act, that act prescribes the procedure, limits the authority, directs how the investigation shall be conducted. But he is not appointed under that act at all; he is appointed expressly under section 38C of an amendment to the Civil Service Act which confers no right upon the government nor the Governor in Council to appoint a commissioner for any purpose whatever. Mark this also, Mr. Chairman. If the commissioner is appointed under the Inquiries Act, he is paid under that act and according to the terms of that act; but under the order in council in question it is said that he is appointed under section 38C which I have read, and he is to be paid, in violation of the vote of this parliament, from money appropriated for investigations in regard to agriculture. This parliament expressly voted a certain sum of money, $1,100,000, for a specific purpose. The appointment and payment of a commissioner was not one of those purposes, and there is no power under this order in council legally to pay Mr. Duncan Marshall one dollar of salary. How the matter has slipped through the Auditor General's office, I cannot imagine. How it has slipped through the Justice department, I cannot imagine. I appeal to the Miriister of Justice to make

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
this matter clear to the committee. What we say is that there has been a misapplication of the agricultural grant in this case; there has been a misappropriation of this money. There has been, under the order in council, a payment of salary that is not warranted under the laws of this country. That is the serious objection that I take, and the minister has not attempted to answer that objection. He deals with Mr. Marshall's qualifications. They may be well and good; they may be in every respect satisfactory. That is not the point which the leader of the Opposition made, nor which the opposition is trying to make. The point we are making is that his appointment is illegal, the payment of his salary is illegal, the use of that money granted for agricultural instruction in payment of Mr. Marshall's salary is a misappropriation of that fund. It is not justifiable; it is illegal, and it should not be paid. Of course, if it has been paid and paid illegally, it can be recovered, and the government will have to take the necessary action in that respect.
The only other criticism in regard to Mr. Marshall which weighed with me was that the government has clearly allowed this commissioner to break another very well recognized law of this country, passed by a resolution of this parliament, that paid servants of the Crown shall not be electioneering agents. The evidence is produced here tonight from the columns of the Toronto Globe that in June of last year, when Duncan Marshall was a paid servant of this government at the rate of $6,000 per annum, he went, as he himself announced to the audience, as the representative of the Prime Minister of this country, to a Liberal gathering in the constituency of South Oxford, and made a political speech in direct contravention of the spirit and letter of the resolution of this parliament that public servants shall not do so. That charge has not been answered; that - charge has been absolutely avoided by the Minister of Agriculture. We have had no word from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), whose name is brought into prominence in connection with this matter. These are the two objections we take, and take most pointedly. In regard to one we demand a reasonable explanation. We want to know why the appointment was made, what justification there was for it in law, and why the Auditor General allowed those cheques to be paid if he allowed that.
The next point that should be cleared up is why this servant of the Crown has been enabled to go to political gatherings in South Oxford to represent the Prime Minister of the
country, as stated in the extract read from the Toronto Globe, without a rebuke from the government,-a government that talked of appointing a royal commission shortly after election to inquire into the political activities of certain civil servants. Here is a glaring case of a civil servant, whether he be called Commissioner of Agriculture or anything else, who is attending political meetings on behalf of the government. We ask the government now to act on the information they have and displace Mr. Duncan Marshall if he is guilty of the offence charged.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman would not expect me, I am sure, to deal with the legal aspect of the question. I do know however that the Civil Service Act makes provision for the appointment of a commissioner, and he was appointed. That is all I can say. As regards the duration of the commission, it was anticipated at the time that it would be quite temporary, probably, as I said, six months. But many things have occurred in connection with the Agricultural Instruction Act since that time. The life of the act has expired since then and the question has arisen as to whether the grant itself should be discontinued. It was found that the grant under the Highways Act would also expire next year, but many persons thought that it would be a good idea to defer the discontinuance of the grant until the highways question was under consideration so that both matters could be dealt with together. What with one thing and another, time has passed and Mr. Duncan Marshall has been kept on, but he has given good and faithful service to the Dominion of Canada. My hon. friend (Mr. Irvine) made the straight statement that the job was made for the man. Was that right? I wonder whether he knows that the job had been in ' existence for years and years.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Was it vacant before?


William Richard Motherwell: It is at least ten years since the Agricultural Instruction Act was passed, and the position of commissioner was provided for under the terms of the act. The first appointee was the late Mr. C. C. James, whose salary for ten years was $5,000. So far as the salary paid Mr. Duncan Marshall goes, I do not think that any hon. member would suggest for a moment that $6,000 to-day is any more than $5,000 was at that time. So much for that. As to the duration of the commission, I am not going to justify the extension of the period past six months except on the ground that I have stated. I might point out, though, that there have been com-

Supply-A gric ul ture-Salaries
missions in Canada which have lasted very much longer than that; I have in mind the Lake of the Woods Commission and the International Waterways Commission; the terms of which were indefinite. There is no finality, shall I say, in regard to the duration of any commission, so far as I know.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: But considerable stability, I suppose.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, so long as any commission lasts I trust it will be stable. With reference to the assertion that Mr. Duncan Marshall went to political meetings, I must confess that I have no knowledge of the matter, although the question has been up in this House before. I am confident, however, that if he went to a political meeting he certainly did not make a political speech. I know that whatever speech he might make would be an agricultural address, and until I have evidence to the contrary I shall refuse to believe that he made any speech of a political character, either in Oxford or anywhere else. The onus of proof so far as this question is concerned rests with those who make the charge.
The intimation has also been made that patronage has been brought to bear upon this appointment. Now, what is patronage? As far as I can understand the term, it implies that some useless man is appointed to a position because he happens to be a friend of the government in office. Does that definition hold in this connection? Has anyone challenged the fitness of Mr. Duncan Marshall for this particular position? The term "patronage" has always been associated with the appointment of a misfit, but there has not been a single tittle of evidence to support the suggestion that such is the case in connection with this . appointment. Unquestionably, there has been no patronage in the matter.


William Irvine: Is the minister giving a definition of patronage to suit the occasion, as he made the job to suit the individual who got it?


William Richard Motherwell: By no means. My hon. friend's experience in politics does not go as far back as that of some of the rest of us, and I know very well that the term "patronage" got its significance in the way I have described. Another absolutely unsupported statement is that Mr. Marshall was interested in the redistribution of Alberta. That is wholly without foundation and is therefore valueless as a charge. It is stated, next, that there are two ministers of agriculture. I do not think there are. As a matter of fact, if

I	had the making of appointments there would be more ex-ministers of agriculture in my department; but inasmuch as I have not I have to take what I can get. The member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine) has moved that the salary of Mr. Duncan Marshall be reduced to one dollar. Mr. Marshall's salary is not under consideration; there is no item before the House concerning it; therefore I am afraid my hon. friend's motion is out of order.


Donald Sutherland: With reference to the remarks of the minister that no one has challenged Mr. Marshall's ability to perform the work deputed to him, that may be quite true, but we really do not know the extent of the work which he has undertaken. As to the question of patronage and the minister's suggestion that the onus of proof is with those who make the charge, I might point out the significance of a certain incident that occurred in the riding I represent. The position of postmaster became vacant through the death of the incumbent, and the gentleman who acted as chairman at the meeting and to whom I have
referred-he was a member of the
II	p.m. executive of the Liberal Association
for Ontario-was in Ottawa and as a matter of fact, I believe, went back with Mr. Duncan Marshall. This political gathering was held at the point where the vacancy had occurred some time before. A good deal of pressure had been brought to bear to have appointed the man who had been acting as deputy, and after Mr. Marshall's visit to the constituency an active politician was appointed postmaster at this place. He had not been identified with the post office at all, but was a man of sixty-six who had been a farmer all his life; and to aggravate these circumstances, his sight was bad, as was also his hearing. Indeed, I am informed that it was found necessary to enlarge the numbers on the boxes so that he could distinguish them. All this occurred immediately after Mr. Marshall's visit to the constituency where he ad- . dressed a gathering of Grits, as the Globe states. Possibly he has been carrying out the instructions of the minister, who no doubt wants a real handy man, an experienced politician who can handle the situation as it should be handled.
I brought this matter up on the Orders of the Day with reference to the question of a commissioner. I understand from a reading of the act that it is not within the power of the government to appoint a commissioner.
I read in the press early in the session a report that a commissioner had been appointed from the constituency I represent to investigate
331*

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
charges of government officials taking part in political matters. When I noticed that in the press, I called the attention of the government to it and asked if the commissioner was being appointed to investigate the case of Dunoan Marshall, and I was informed that that was not the case. Now, this commissioner has evidently been appointed to investigate cases of this nature. I have nothing personally to say against the man Who was appointed to this postmastership; he is a good citizen and all that, but he had been an active politician all his life. The person who had acted as deputy and had performed the work for several years was turned down and the recommendation of the party executive in the constituency was carried out in defiance of the Oivil Service Act. I would ask the minister if he does not consider that is worthy of investigation; or has Mr. Duncan Marshall looked into it and decided that it is not necessary to make any further inquiry? Mr. Brown, chairman of the meeting I have referred to, had been in Ottawa a few days previously, and he informed the audience that Mr. Marshall was there by request of the Prime Minister, who was unable to go there himself.
The minister made some rather sneering remarks regarding the history in connection with the shipment of live cattle from this country. Anyone who knows anything about agriculture in Canada knows that cattle have been shipped from ports in this country across the water for years back. All the embargo affected was store cattle being shipped to inland points and fed there; they could be kept for a certain length of time at the port of landing, and that actually was done. So far as fat cattle are concerned, I do not think the embargo amounted to very much, and in view of the difficulties experienced and the conditions which now prevail I am just a little doubtful whether its removal will be of much benefit to those who desire to ship store cattle. The minister seems to have the idea that we should have sworn testimony here to show that Mr. Duncan Marshall was taking an active part in politics. Well, I have quoted the Toronto Globe; I can quote other papers. I have given the reports that were in the press, and I point to the fact that in the village in which he spoke there was a vacancy in the postmastership and that an appointment was made almost immediately after he was there. The man who was appointed was given the position in defiance of the Civil Service Act; he was sixty-six years of age; he had no special qualifications for the work-and this is going on all over the country. It is all very well to sneer at the
Civil Service Commission. If you can get around the Civil Service Commission, as the minister evidently has done with regard to Mr. Duncan Marshall and with regard to the postmastership to which I have referred, I do not know where the end is to be.


William Richard Motherwell: I have nothing to do with the post office.


Donald Sutherland: Apparently the minister has not much to do with a good many things that Mr. Duncan Marshall is doing; I quite agree with that. The very fact that Mr. Marshall was on the ground here almost immediately, and that during the campaign he was referred to by the speakers in that place as the coming minister of agriculture, is rather significant. It is well known that some of those who have been associated with him were here in Ottawa and were urging on the government that Mr. Marshall should have been appointed minister of agriculture, even before my hon. friend the present minister was appointed.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Chairman, I am not presuming to discuss all aspects of this question; in fact, I have not heard all the discussion. But I think it is only due to Mr. Marshall that I should bear testimony to the very valuable service he rendered in London in his capacity as Commissioner of Agriculture in connection with the conference regarding the cattle embargo. Mr. Marshall was, I do not hesitate to say, one of the most capable men present, and there were numerous officials of the British government there. I am sure that my colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) will join with me in saying we appreciated the good service he rendered. He knew his job thoroughly; he was constant in attention to the work, and in every respect he was a most admirable official to advise the government and the commissioners. If there has been any success attending the conference I desire to say that I believe it was in large measure due to the energetic work of Mr. Marshall.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says he did not hear the discussion.


William Stevens Fielding: Not the first part of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I can understand that, because the objections so far made have not been made against Mr. Marshall's personal character or his qualifications; they have been directed against the absolute disregard of law, against illegal payments and illegal actions by the Auditor General and by this government. It is idle to expect the Minister of Agriculture to know anything

331S

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
about law; he does not, and he was quite right when he said he could not discuss the matter from that point of view. I am going to ask the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) what is the possible justification in law for this appointment. So far no answer has been made one way or the other. He is the hon. gentleman who can tell us whether there is any answer; we do not think there is. Surely we should hear from him.


Lomer Gouin: My hon. friend wishes me to express my opinion with regard to his view that the appointment of Mr. ' Marshall was illegal. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, who had to appoint a commissioner, went to the Civil Service Commissioners, and consulted with them. After such consultation we came to the cabinet and recommended that Mr. Marshall be appointed commissioner, which he had the right to do. That recommendation was accepted. As to the appointment, I do not suppose there can be any discussion; the irregularity, according to my hon. friend, would be in the payment to Mr. Marshall of a salary which was not authorized. This question, I understand, was considered by the Auditor General, who is very careful in such matters and who knows the law. He decided that the appointment was regular and that the salary could be paid out of the item which had been voted by parliament for agricultural purposes, I cannot but accept the opinion of the Auditor General. If this is not satisfactory to my hon. friend, I would have no objection to considering the matter further than I have done after listening to the discussion, but I have not heard any argument which would convince me that anything irregular was done in this matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether any authority is given to the government under Section 38C of the act to appoint a commissioner by Order in Council? My hon. friend has the act before him, I think.


Lomer Gouin: No, I have not the act before me, but from the reading I have heard of it I think the Governor in Council has that right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, then, we will have to debate it. I really thought there was nothing to debate; I thought it was perfectly clear that the act meant just what it said. Now, I am going to read it again-and I am referring to the section that is referred to by the order itself. I am not imputing to the government the use of a section which they had not considered; I am dealing with

the order exactly as the government itself adopted it, and the section I refer to is this: It is considered advisable that a commissioner be appointed under section 38C of the Civil Service Act as amended by chapter 22 of the Statutes of 1921.
And that act reads as follows:
Nothing in this act shall affect the powers of the Governor in Council with respect to the appointment of any commissioner or other member of any rojral or other commission or board or any deputy head.
I would ask my hon. friend if he thinks that gives power to the government which the government did not have, and I think with this section in front of him he will agree with me that all that that does is to reserve to the government such rights as the government had before the Civil Service Act was passed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: May I ask
the hon. gentleman if Mr. Marshall was appointed a commissioner under the authority of the Governor in Council. I have not heard the debate, but I would just like to know that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Just a commissioner?


Henry Lumley Drayton: A commissioner.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think I can tell my hon. friend the purpose of that section because I had something to do with it. That clause was drafted expressly to declare that the Civil Service Commission should not have the appointment of members constituting a commission. I remember the thing very distinctly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is quite
right. In other words, it was to reserve to the government powers that the government before had. They parted with general powers of appointment, but they reserved the appointment of commissioners.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It precluded
the appointment of a commissioner or of a commission by the Civil Service Commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, it reserved the right to the government, and I think the Minister of Justice when he has that section before him will agree with the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean).
I would ask another question, now that we have that cleared out of the way. What were the other powers of the government? Do either of these hon. gentlemen suggest that the government has inherent power to appoint com-

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
missioners? On the contrary, do not both agree that the power to appoint commissioners is given the government by acts of this House? Is there any doubt about that? Can there be any question about that? I pause for objection if objection there be. I do not think there can be one. We all know it is not so. We all know that the only right that the government has to appoint commissioners is fixed by the legislation of this House. I will come to that statute in a moment, but digressing for one minute, the hon. Minister of Agriculture says: This is no new job. He says: There was to be a Commissioner of Agriculture before. He is quite right. There is no doubt that the late Mr. James did act as a commissioner in connection with agricultural matters, but not the kind of commissioner that Mr. Duncan Marshall is at all one way or the other. Mr. James was a commissioner working here in the office and advising with the minister and the deputy head, looking after business, and appointed so far as the Civil Service Commission is concerned. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, if his memory is good, is going to agree with this too, that he found he could not get the right under the act to appoint such a commissioner. That was merely a name given to certain definite duties in the office. It was not a commissioner. Commissioner James was never a commissioner under this section, never a commissioner under the Inquiries Act. He was an officer of the Department of Agriculture, a regular officer, regularly maintained, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice found he could not make that appointment because if that appointment were to be made it had to be made through the regular Civil Service Commission routine. So much for that, and again I do not hear any objection. We might just as well clear away the deadwood as we go.
Now I take up the act which gives the government the right to appoint commissioners, and that act is the Inquiries Act, chapter 104 of the revised statutes. There are two parts to that act. There is the Public Inquiries Act, and then there is the Departmental Inquiries Act, and I will take it that in so far as Mr. Duncan Marshall is concerned, although it is immaterial one way or the other, that the section which would apply to his case would be the second part. Now I want to point out to the committee that the powers of such a commissioner are conferred by that statute, and they are defined, and I want to submit that the fact
212J
absolutely is that Mr. Marshall has never done one single thing that is called for by that Inquiries Act, not one thing. Why, the subterfuge is too plain, it is too simple. That Inquiries Act was for the purpose of making just what we all understand inquiries to be. It is for the taking of evidence, the examination of witnesses and books and the like, and the making of a report; that is what it is. It is not supposed to cover the case of a man that gets a job at an annual salary in the Department of Agriculture or any other department. Is there any possible question as to that? Because if there is, I wish we could get it now? Is there any possible question as to what the Inquiries Act means, that is, that under that Inquiries Act commissioners may be appointed to inquire into specific matters placed in their hands, examine witnesses and books and report upon the subject matter of that inquiry? I ask my friend is there any other act under which this man could be appointed legally? Is there anything else? If there be, let us discuss it again.
I am going to take another matter up with my friend the Minister of Justice. I am going to ask him whether it is in the power of the government to take moneys voted by this parliament for one purpose and apply them to another. Is there any question as to that? I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who is very familiar with the subject:	Does this government
claim it is within their power to take moneys voted by this parliament for a specific purpose and apply those moneys to another purpose?


William Stevens Fielding: If there was any doubt about the matter I would ask my friend the Minister of Justice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course, I know my hon. friend is even an older politician than he is a Minister of Finance, but I know he has been Minister of Finance long enough to know that that is not right, that it is illegal, that it is thwarting the will of parliament, that it is an unauthorized use of public money. Does my hon. friend object to that statement as being too strong? I pause again for an answer.


Lomer Gouin: I will answer my hon. friend when he has finished his remarks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I will
take it for granted-


Lomer Gouin: No, do not take it for granted.

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries


Henry Lumley Drayton: -that we have a right to rely on the votes of this House being something that binds the government and binds the Treasury, and that the moneys voted cannot be misapplied. I am going to rely upon that. Now I point this out, that in so far as the bit we have been able to learn of Mr. Duncan Marshall's activities, none of them can by any stretch of imagination be said to be properly connected with the vote out of which he is paid. Why as to this educational business, the minister has the order in council before him and he will correct me if I am wrong. The aid towards agricultural instruction that is given to the provinces is the thing referred to, imprimis. What on earth have Mr. Marshall's activities in England to do with that question? That is, that in connection with instruction by the provinces aid will be given by the federal authorities. How can it be said that has nothing to do with the question? Of course, my hon. friend knows it cannot be said. It is true the order in council goes on to say the commissioner may look after other matters that may be referred to him. But how can those other matters have anything to do with that vote of $1,100,000. What possible justification is there for the switching of public moneys to meet political contingencies?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, I ask what justification there is for it. I sympathize with the Minister of Agriculture. He had a fight on his hands out in the West, and at one of his meetings he promised the people of Regina that he was going to be the next Minister of Agriculture. At Calgary his great protagonist, Duncan Marshall, was also running his "I am to be the next Minister of Agriculture" campaign. Something had to be done. Hon. gentlemen say they do not know which of these two gentlemen, both of whom were to be Minister of Agriculture, got here first. Well, the Hon. Mr. Motherwell made good his pledges to the people in that one regard; he got the job. Mr. Duncan Marshall consequently could not make his pledge good. Something had to be done for him and something was done. That is the whole reason we have the statutes flouted and public funds misapplied. Perhaps it is not fair to ask the Minister of Justice to finally pass upon this question at the present time, but I think the House has the right to ask that the Minister of Justice, who advises in these matters, shall look into this' question and that it shall stand until he has had a chance of so doing.


Lomer Gouin: I have nothing to discuss with respect to Mr. Marshall and I do not intend to enter upon any such discussion; I only wish to answer the question that was put to me by my hon. friend. He wished me to express my opinion upon the legality of the appointment of Mr. Marshall and the payment of his salary. Well, I have before me the order in council which appointed him and this is what it says:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 1st February, 1922, from the Minister of Agriculture, submitting that the Agricultural Instruction Act under which the sum of $1,100,000 annually has been granted to the Provincial Departments of Agriculture for the purpose of aiding agricultural instruction in the provinces expires March 31st, 1923.
The minister states that in view of the extraordinary and exceptional conditions in the agricultural world it is highly desirable that an investigation be made into the advisability of the continuation, discontinuation or emendation of the provisions of this Act; the amounts to be paid, and the methods of calculating such amounts in the event of its extension; and the scope of the work of the provinces to be undertaken w'.th the assistance of funds provided thereunder.
It is considered advisable that a commissioner be appointed under section 38C of the Civil Service Act as amended by chapter 22 of the Statutes of 1921, to conduct the investigation indicated above, and to inquire into such other agricultural problems as may be desirable and necessary.
The minister, therefore recommends that Mr. Duncan Marshall, of Olds, Alberta, be appointed as a commissioner for the above purpose, and to perform such other duties of a cognate nature as may be delegated to him.
The min:ster further recommends that Mr. Marshall be paid a salary at the rate of $6,000 per annum, said salary to be paid from the appropriation provided for the administration of the Agricultural Instruction Act and that this appointment date from January 15, 1922.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for approval.
If I refer to chapter 22, of 11 and 12 George V, I find that section 38C reads as follows:
Nothing in this act shall affect the powers of the Governor in Council with respect to the appointment of any commissioner-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Quite right.


Lomer Gouin: Well, Mr. Marshall was made a commissioner to study the problem of agriculture, and it was provided that he should be paid out of a fund voted for agriculture. My hon. friend wants me to give my opinion on the legality of the appointment and the payment of the salary. After reading that order in council, reading that section 38 C, and referring to chapter 104 of the revised statutes I say without any hesitation that the appointment is perfectly legal and the payment of the salary to Mr. Marshall regular.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister-I want to be fair to him-answer this question? Will

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
he tell me what power is given.-I emphasize the word "given"-what power is given by section 38 C that he has just read?


Lomer Gouin: The power to appoint a commissioner.


Arthur Meighen: To investigate?


Sir LOMER GOWN:: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Lomer Gouin: I read it so.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister will read it he will see that he is wrong.


Lomer Gouin: I have read it.


Arthur Meighen: There is no question at all about it, there is a reservation but there is no power given. I hope the minister is, with unprejudiced mind listening to what I say. There is no power whatever given by that section, and the minister could not, I will venture to say, bring the authorities of his office to say there is. There is a power reserved to the government, the intention of the act and the wording of the act being that the power is to reside there and is not by this act transferred to the commission. Now let me emphasize this again, and I hope the minister will grasp it. There is no power whatever given to appoint anybody or to do anything. How could the word "affect" be used if there is a power given?
Nothing in this act shall affect the powers of the Governor in Council with respect to the appointment of any commissioner.
Assuming that there were powers, which there were, this act does not affect those powers. Consequently the Governor in Council is thrown back upon the powers that there were. He is not given any more powers and he must exercise the powers that there were because no further powers are given. If the minister would just reserve this and take a little time to think it out there is no question but that the matter is not even debatable because no powers are given at all. The Governor in Council has to take all the powers there were, and those powers are reserved to the Governor in Council. The act makes quite clear that they are not affected and not transferred to the commission. What powers were there before? There were powers under the Inquiries Act. The government might have exercised those powers, but in the exercise of them they could not have made this appointment. They could not under the Inquiries Act have appointed a commissioner and paid him out of the Agricultural Instruction vote. They had to pay him out of
the vote applicable to the purpose. That is where there is a misappropriation of funds. The miscellaneous vote of parliament is applicable for a purpose. They did not want to go to that vote. Perhaps there were no moneys there. The only way they could appoint a commissioner was under the Inquiries Act, under the powers given them prior to the passing of section 38 C of the Civil Service Act. Further, had they appointed under the Inquiries Act, the inquirer would have had the powers given by that act and no other. All the restraints and restrictions of that act would have applied. That is the only kind of a commissioner they could have appointed. The powers to appoint that commissioner were reserved by section 38 C, but no new powers were given. If the minister had had time to go into it, and had given full consideration to the actual meaning of the English words,
I think he never would have expressed his opinion as a lawyer that they had the power. I suggest that he consult the officers of the department and bring an official opinion to this House. I confidently say that he cannot set them to give an opinion that any powers whatever are given to the government by section 38 C of the act.


Lomer Gouin: The hon. member
did not ask me to give him the opinion of the officers of my department. He asked me for my opinion and I gave him an answer, taking section 38 C, the Inquiries Act and the order in council in conjunction-I gave my opinion candidly.


Arthur Meighen: That what?


Lomer Gouin: That we had the
right to make that appointment, and the payments we made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister means that his opinion is that a commissioner could be appointed under the Inquiries Act for the purpose of carrying out the object of that act, buit he will not find'-any one of those objects have any connection! with this man's work. He will find he has note called one witness and he will find that he has made absolutely no report, as called for by that section.


Lomer Gouin: That is another
question, but if you read section 2 of chapter 104 of the revised statutes, you will find that the Governor in Council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof. I do not know what Mr. Marshall has done or
Supply-Agriculture-Salaries

omitted to do, but as to the legal point which has been raised, I consider that the appointment was' regular and that the payment was also regular.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But I think the minister is referring to just exactly what he read, namely the kind of inquiry called for under the Inquiries Act.


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree with
that; there is no question about it, but this is not under this act. There was the power under that to have the inquiry as called for by the act, and that has not been done and is not being done. It was never thought of. The job was, thought of and the job is still going on. The minister has not answered what, to my mind, is the most vital thing. Here we have an order in council which, I agree with him, can only be supported under chapter 104. What right or what power is there in the case of a commissioner appointed under that section, to charge the expenses and cost to this agricultural vote?


Lomer Gouin: Because it was an
investigation in regard to agricultural matters.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may possibly be, although I do not think so, that under the Audit Act, which has to do with our appropriations, we could charge to' a specific vote the cost of an inquiry which had to do absolutely with that one particular vote. But that is not the case here at all. We have here a concrete vote of $1,100,000 in connection with the Agricultural Instruction Act. It is not pretended that Mr. Duncan Marshall was engaged in England in connection with that matter. It is not pretended that he went down to Florida in connection with that. It is not pretended by the minister in charge of this department that there is a word of truth in the suggestion that he was acting as a commissioner to find out something in connection with the Agricultural Instruction Act. He went to Florida for the purpose of getting immigrants to come to Canada.


Lomer Gouin: That is a matter of fact. I was not questioned on the facts. It was on a point of law and it is on that question that I have given my opinion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps I should not press my hon. friend any further on the point.


Ernest Lapointe: Before the vote is taken, may I point out that the salary of Mr. Mar-

shall is not taken out of this item, but out of another item?


Arthur Meighen: It has just as much right to be taken out of this as out of the other one.


Ernest Lapointe: It has not.


Arthur Meighen: The matter as to where the government may choose an item to misappropriate money is not a matter of concern to this House. The government has no right to take it out of either vote-none whatever.


Jacques Bureau: There are two items; one is for a grant to the provinces of Canada for the purpose of assisting and encouraging agricultural instruction, grants to be made on a proportionate basis. That is item No. 51.


George Newcombe Gordon: Item 14 on page 8 of the estimates is the one under consideration.
Amendment (Mr. Irvine) negatived: Yeas 39; nays 82.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister is confident of his opinion, will he undertake to grant a fiat that this matter may be tested?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Lomer Gouin: A fiat for what?


Arthur Meighen: A fiat to test the validity of the payment to Duncan Marshall under this appointment by order in council.


Jacques Bureau: That is childish. Take your medicine.


Arthur Meighen: We will get the medicine first, and then we shall see who takes it. Will the minister undertake so to do?


Lomer Gouin: I will not undertake that to-night. If I have a petition to that effect, I will consider it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister should have considered the matter before he gave his opinion to-night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.

Questions
Thursday, May 31, 1923