1923-02-20

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: With the consent of the House I desire to move that the Auditor General's Report for the year 1921-1922 be referred to the standing committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Winnipeg Unemployment

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received this day a letter from Mrs. Stewart conveying to the House her sincere thanks for the sympathy expressed in her deep sorrow.



MEMORIAL TO THE LATE COLONEL BAKER. M.P.

Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) moved:: That the following members of parliament, to wit: Messrs. Ross (Kingston), Boivin, Kay and Mewbum be appointed a special committee to act with a like committee of the Senate in further considering and determining the form of the memorial to be erected in the Parliament Buildings to the late Lieut.-Col. Baker, M.P., who lost his life on the field of battle, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours accordingly.


Hewitt Bostock: By Rule 40 this would
require two days' notice, but I suppose it is moved by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of J. A. Clark be taken from the list of members comprising the standing committee on Mines and Minerals and that that of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen be inserted in lieu thereof, and that the name of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen be taken from the Banking and Commerce Committee and that of J. A. Clark be inserted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to amend the Companies Act.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Explain.
Mr. GERMAN:: If hon. gentlemen would
take the trouble to read the bill, it would not be necessary for me to explain it. It is to amend the Mining Companies Act in order to allow mining companies to pay dividends out of capital. At first blush that would seem to be not quite a proper thing to do, but the matter has been inqvdred into and the law officers of the Crown have decided that this is quite a proper act to pass. It has been thought that companies whose property has depreciated through the taking of wealth out of the ground should be allowed under certain circumstances, which are safeguarded in this bill, to pay dividends out of capital. Prior to doing that, they must satisfy the althori-ties that they have ample assets to pay all their liabilities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
28i



UNEMPLOYMENT IN WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. McMURRAY (North Winnipeg) :: I wish to make inquiry of the government concerning the unemployment situation in the city of Winnipeg. I am in receipt, as I believe also are the other representatives of Winnipeg constituencies, of a communication from the mayor of Winnipeg enclosing a letter written by him on the 15th of February to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), together with a copy of a resolution passed by the city council. It purports to state that an order in council- No. 220-was passed by the government, in which the government undertook, under an arrangement made last year at the Unemployment conference, to make provision for one-third of the relief that would be granted to the city under certain circumstances and after investigation. This order in council,
I believe, dealt only with the case of ex-service men. The resolution in question, which I understand was sent to the Minister of Labour showed, that in Winnipeg at the present time the unemployment relief office is looking after 6,181 unemployed, which would mean that 1,500 would be taken care of under the assistance granted by the government. I am instructed to make inquiry of the government what attitude they purpose taking in connection with this demand for further assistance from the city of Winnipeg.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, during the month of December representations came from the Prime Ministers of Manitoba and British Columbia, to ascertain what the purpose of the federal government was to be this winter relative to the conditions ol unemployment that were alleged to exist-After very careful consideration of the unemployment problem as it seemed to exist generally in Canada, it was determined by the government that it would be unnecessary-to adopt any general unemployment relief scheme such as had been in effect during the two preceding winters, and on December 22, a telegram was sent to the Prime Ministers' of Manitoba and British Columbia indicating the view of this government on the subject. From that telegram the following, which evidences the position of the government, is taken:
Information reaching the federal government does not lead to the view that any situation exists at the present time which is at all comparable to that prevailing during the two last preceding winters.
Winnipeg Unemployment

The situation, therefore, as it appears to the federal authorities, is not one which justifies action on their part in assuming at present any portion of the obligations falling customarily to the municipal and provincial authorities.
That information was conveyed to the mayors of a number of cities east and west that had also inquired what the attitude of the federal government was to be during the present winter. During the past thirty days, certain deputations waited upon the government, and representations were made indicating that in certain municipalities in Canada there was a condition of unemployment particularly affecting returned men, that the municipal and provincial authorities had taken no action to alleviate, the result being that in those municipalities relief bodies had been formed composed of returned soldier organizations, charitable organizations, and other welfare societies, with, in some cases, representatives from the municipal authorities on these bodies. It was believed that in such cases it might be advisable for the federal government to assist such organizations formed in that way. The result was that Order in Council No. 220 was passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. This order provides that in the case of unemployed ex-service men requiring relief, and not being in a position to secure proper assistance from municipal or provincial authorities but obtaining aid only from the organizations to which I have just referred, the federal government would participate to the extent of paying one-third of the disbursements incurred since January 1, 1923. That, in brief, is the position that has been taken up to the present time, and there does not appear to be any necessity whatever for changing the general policy as applicable to the entire Dominion. I am not clear at the moment whether Winnipeg, under Order in Council No. 220, will be able to participate in any way whatsoever, or to secure any assistance from the federal government.


Mr. STEVENS:: What is the date of that order in council?


James Murdock: The order is dated 5th February.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is retroactive to 1st January, is it?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Would the minister place the order in council on the Table to-day. This is the first information that I personally have had about it.


James Murdock: I will be very glad to do that.
[Mr. Murdock.l


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It will be remembered that on this question of unemployment the premier last year accepted, and the House passed, a resolution to this.effect:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the widespread unemployment-


Hewitt Bostock: Order,


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask with regard to the resolution in question whether the government proposes, during this session, to bring down any measure which will implement the opinion expressed by this House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not heard the resolution, I do not know just what its terms are.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I can make my position clearer if I read the resolution which was passed by the House on 24th April, last year:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the widespread unemployment with which the municipalities and provinces find themselves unable to cope, it is desirable that the federal government should devise some means of dealing effectively with the situation.
My question is, does the government propose to bring down at this session of the House some measure which will implement the resolution which was passed by this House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to my hon. friend I may say that the present view of the government, in regard to the matter to which he has just referred, is that it cannot be met in the most effective way by legislation. There have been conferences between the federal government and the provinces which, I hope, will have the result of implementing, in large measure, what is mentioned in the resolution, but the government does not contemplate legislation at the present session.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved the second reading of bill No. 15, to re-adjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee on the following proposed resolution.
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that a certain convention of commerce dated the fifteenth day of December, in the year one thousand

France-Canada Convention
nine hundred and twenty-two, entered into at Paris by Plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and by the President of the French Republic be approved, and to give effect to the provisions of the said convention.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Stevens Fielding: The best customer for the surplus products of Canada is the Mother Country, and I have no doubt it will continue to be so. Next to the Mother Country in the volume of our trade is the great republic to the south of us. I have no doubt that, even in the face of the adverse tariff conditions existing to-day, we shall still do a large volume of trade with that country. In comparison with the large figures of the United States and Great Britain our trade with other countries is not great, and I confess that in the present state of European affairs I do not look for any large development of our trade with any European country. Nevertheless, it will be felt, I am sure, by the House, that we should have a watchful eye upon the trade condiLons' of these countries, and make an effort to obtain the best available terms for the products of Canada, even though the trade to be anticipated may not be very large. In the earlier years of our Dominion our trade with France, as well as the trade with other countries, was carried on under the operation of old British treaties. Some of those treaties are still in operation. Thirty years ago it was deemed desirable that we should have a special arrangement with France. Indeed it is an interesting fact that the only foreign country with which up to the present time we have made a commercial treaty is France. We are now making a treaty with Italy, but up to the present time our only trade treaty with a foreign country is with France. Our first treaty was made in 1893. In every treaty that has been made with France, the British ambassador at Paris has been associated with the Canadian representatives. I am safe in saying that the British ambassador has always recognized the fact that the business was Canadian and has left the negotiation of the treaty to a Canadian representative. I have no doubt that was the case in the early treaty with which I had no connection, in the days of Lord Dufferin. But I can testify that has been the case in the years in which I have had some knowledge of such transactions. In the treaty with which I had something to do, as far back as 1907 and 1908, we had the association of the British ambassador of that day, Sir Francis Bertie, afterwwards Lord Bertie, now dead. In the recent negotiations we had the pleasure of being associated with the British Ambassador
at Paris, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst. I want to testify that in the case of both these negotiations the Canadian representative at all times received from the ambassadors the most cordial sympathy and co-operation. The first treaty was signed in 1893 by Sir Charles Tup-per. I am not mentioning the British ambassador, because he was associated in each case. In 1907 a treaty was negotiated by the present Mr. Justice Brodeur and myself. In 1908 a supplementary treaty was' negotiated by myself, to make good a defect that had been found in the earlier treaty. In 1921 a treaty was signed by Sir George Foster as Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the treaty which I now present to the House the signers were my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) and myself. I again say that in all the negotiations the British ambassador was associated with the Canadian representative, and in all cases the British ambassador gave his cordial co-operation. The negotiation was conducted and controlled entirely by Canada's representatives.
The two treaties of 1907 and 1908 remained in force for a number of years and a considerable volume of trade was developed under them. On 10th September, 1918, France gave a general notice to terminate her commercial treaties. In that case I am sure there was no particular intention to legislate against Canada or against any other country. It was the aim of the French government to have freedom of negotiation in regard to commercial affairs, in view of the new situations that were arising. Notice was given to Canada in consequence of that general determination of the French government. Later the French government agreed to continue the treaty for a further time, changing the period of notice required for its termination. In the treaties previously existing, which they were proposing to terminate, the condition was that they should be terminable on a year's notice. The French government agreed to continue them for a short time, on the condition that they should be subject to a three months' notice. This arrangement was confirmed by an act of the parliament of Canada in 1919. Subsequently, in 1920, the Canadian government gave notice to terminate the treaty. I find that the order in council of that day was passed on the recommendation of the then Acting Minister for External Affairs, Hon. Mr. Rowell. The records do not show any particular reason for giving this notice to terminate the treaty. The notice had been previously given by France. Then France had suspended this notice and agreed to continue the treaty for a while. In
France-Canada Convention

the end the Canadian government, for reasons which I have no doubt were satisfactory, but which are not set forth in the order in council, decided to give notice. The notice to which I refer was given in 1920. Then, in 1921, a new convention was signed by Sir George Foster and was confirmed by legislation a little later. In that new convention provision was made that a number of things for which we had had the minimum tariff before were no longer to take the minimum tariff, but a system of percentages of reduction was introduced. It was also provided in that treaty that it could be terminated at any time on four months' notice. A reading of the treaty plainly shows that it was regarded as only a temporary arrangement, and the expectation was that at an early date Canada would enter into a negotiation for a more comprehensive treaty. The French government applied in the year 1921, through their consul in Montreal, for a negotiation on that subject. It was at a time when the late government was no doubt busy with other things; at all events it was not found convenient to take up negotiations at that time. That was the situation when the present government came into power. The French Consul General at Montreal came to see us shortly after that, and we had some preliminary negotiation and it was then agreed that the matter should be further considered by a conference at Paris. It was under these circumstances that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and myself went over to Paris during the recent summer. The treaty which appears before the House contains a number of schedules. The first schedules A. B. and C. touch the question of what France offers Canada. Schedule C. refers to what shall take place in the case of the island of St. Pierre; and then the later schedules D. E. and F. touch what Canada shall give to France.
It would be very desirable if we could get an exchange of minimum tariffs; but for reasons which were strong in the minds of the French government, that could not be accomplished. We shall find in schedule D that France is to receive a fixed rate on a number of articles, those rates being in most cases a little below the Canadian intermediate tariff. On some items where the preferential and the intermediate rates were the same, there is a reduction of duty which will apply, of course, both to the preferential and to the intermediate. This does not, however, affect British manufacturers seriously, because as regards the items referred to the British do not seriously compete. The principal item on which 
we give them a fixed rate of duty is wine. On wines of a lower strength we give them the same rates as were in the old treaty of 1907-OS; but on the stronger wines, on which they received reduced rates in 1907-08, we do not give them any reduction. The rates of duty on that class of wine have since been made higher, and on the stronger wines we do not give anything below the present rate.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I think, if my
hon. friend will allow me, there is a reduction of 10 per cent on the heavier wines. They are included in schedule E as getting a reduction of 10 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: Our rate of duty is 55
cents per gallon, and we do not reduce it. My hon. friend will, I think, find that is correct; but on wines of lower strength they get the same rates as were in the old treaty.
Schedule E comprises quite a long list of French products on which a reduction is made in the form of a discount of 10 per cent on the amount of duty under the intermediate tariff. That is not to be construed as a reduction of 10 per cent in the rate of duty; it is 10 per cent on the amount of the duty. For example, if the duty is 830, and the customer has to pay to the custom house $30, he will receive a discount of 10 per cent, which practically reduces the rate of duty to $27, instead of $30. I might give other examples of that, but that is unnecessary. In schedule F we have three tariff items, touching chiefly woollen clothing and fabrics. While the items are not numerous, they are rather comprehensive in their character, including a large volume of imports. On those three items, it is proposed to apply the same principle, but to increase the rate of discount from 10 to 15 per cent. This would work out in this way. If a duty under the intermediate tariff is 30 per cent, or $30 on $100, a reduction of 15 per cent on the $30 is made. The duty to be paid is thus reduced from $30 to $25.50. Where not otherwise specified, French products are to receive the benefit of the intermediate tariff. Provision is made that in schedules E and F the proportionate difference between the intermediate and general tariffs shall be maintained. The provisions of the old agreement for the encouragement of direct trade are substantially renewed. Then, there are other provisions such as are usually found in commercial treaties, provision under which the parties mutually guarantee to one another equitable conditions.
The loss of revenue in this matter is worthy of consideration. We have to remember that

France-Canada Convention
whatever conditions we grant to France, we shall also grant to a number of nations which enjoy what is called the "favoured nation" principle. On a rough estimate, taking into consideration the business on the basis of last year's operations, our trade with France and with the nations affected by the "favoured nation " arrangement, I estimate that there will be a reduction of duties under the treaty amounting to about $850,000. The favoured nations which are included in this, that is to say the nations which are entitled to what is called the most favoured nation treatment, are Argentina, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela. Whatever we grant to France under this arrangement must, of course, be granted to those countries, and I have included the trade from those countries in my estimate of the reduction of taxation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that
my hon. friend's treaty with Italy will add to the "favoured nation" clause.


William Stevens Fielding: I will say that we have
in this estimate included Italy, Italy is not at present a favoured nation, but Italy will come in, and the trade with Italy is included in this rough estimate.
Let us turn to what, in the minds of many, is a more important question, as to what are the terms on which our products are to be taken into France. As I have said, it would be convenient in many ways if we could have simply the French minimum tariff; but the French government will not grant the whole French minimum tariff, nor the "favoured nation" principle generally, to anybody. They treat these things as instruments for negotiation. The French minimum tariff is a moderate tariff; the French general tariff is much higher. By a system of what is called coefficients, the French multiplied the rates of tariff, and the result is that the general tariff is very high. Practically speaking, if the general tariff had to be applied to us, I am afraid it would in most lines of trade be prohibitive. If then, we cannot get the whole minimum tariff of France-and that is the declared policy of France in dealing with all nations- our object must be to get as large a list of items under the minimum tariff as we can. Another point we ought to have in view is that our great competitor in the French market will be our friends to the south, the United States. They are producing many of the same things that we are producing, and if we are to meet competition in the markets of Europe, we must consider the position of the United States. They have at this moment
some advantage over us and I shall have occasion to refer to that later. But one of the strong points that we had to keep in mind was to see that whatever might be the rates of duties levied against our products, we should take pains to get at least as good terms as those given to our chief competitor, the United States. That is a strong feature of our aim, and I am glad to say that in that respect we have fully accomplished our purpose.
We have a large list of items which are given under the minimum tariff, and it will be found that these include most of our important products. In addition to getting the minimum tariff, we get what is very important, a guarantee that as respects all the articles in that list, we shall receive what is called the "most favoured nation" treatment; that is, France will not grant to any country better terms than she grants to Canada as respects articles named in that list.
Then we have another long schedule of goods which are not admitted to the minimum tariff, but which are made the subject of special rates of reduction. The list is somewhat long. .Both that list and the minimum tariff list contain a number of items which, perhaps, on first reading, hon. gentlemen might think were of no importance; but it is well to remember that Canada's industries are developing and that we are producing to-day some things which we did not produce a few years ago. There is every reason to expect that with the development of our trade and our industrial life we shall be able to produce some things which we shall want to export in the future to a larger degree than we have done in the past. That is why many items are included in these schedules which on the first reading may possibly be regarded as not of great importance. On the minimum list we get the best that is going to-day, and we get a guarantee that as respects the wide world no country shall obtain better terms in connection with any one of the items mentioned in the list. That, we think, is an important point. When you come to the next schedule, which is not the minimum tariff, but where you get a certain percentage of reduction, we receive, we are pleased to know, an assurance that in regard to that long list we shall obtain the best terms that are enjoyed by our neighbour, the United States. So that as regards neither the first nor the second list have we any reason to fear the competition of our brethren to the south of us. There is a friendly rivalry between us and we have taken pains to see that we have been given a guarantee that whatever the rates may be, we shall fare as well as the neighbouring republic. In
France-Canada Convention

that respect we can claim we served the purposes we had in view.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister not sweeping in his statement as to Schedule A? Is France not free to grant lower tariffs than she grants to us, not only to her protectorates *-which, of course, we cannot object to- but also to enemy and adjacent countries?


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps my right hon. friend has been reading Article II.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: That article reads:
The grant of the minimum tariff for the products enumerated in schedule A means the treatment of the most favoured 'nation as respects such products, but does not entitle Canada to claim the benefit of any preferential advantage which France may grant to her Protectorates or the benefit of any tariff resulting from economic agreements which France may enter into with border states, or the benefits of any tariff which France may grant for products the importation of which is designed to facilitate financial settlements with those countries that were at war with France during the years 1914-1918.
The first part of that artjcle is a simple assurance, which we readily accept, that we are not to ask the benefit of any preference which France grants her colonies. And we do not permit her to receive the benefit of any preference we see fit to grant any part of the British Empire. The second part of the article, to which my right hon. friend presumably refers, has reference not to the ordinary trade and commerce of the country, but to a peculiar condition that exists to-day in Europe. France is expecting reparations and is taking strong means in her endeavour to obtain them. She may have to make arrangements with Germany by which she will receive German products for the rehabilitating of the devastated regions of her country. That is outside the ordinary channels of trade and commerce, and we thought the request of the French government in that respect was not an unreasonable one. Nor do I think that there is any likelihood of any serious competition arising under that clause. At all events, that is the explanation. Since France expects to receive from Germany many things which do not come within the ordinary scope of trade and commerce but are intended for use in rebuilding the devastated regions, the French government considered that they should not be treated as a matter of ordinary trade, and we were of the opinion that that position was not unreasonable.


Arthur Meighen: What is the significance of the reservation as to border states? What states would that include?


William Stevens Fielding: There is in almost all treaties some provision for a small area on the border line which is not brought under the operation of the customs. My right hon. friend will find something of the kind in the last treaty. There is a zone on each side of the line in which there is practically free trade between the two countries concerned, and my hon. friend will find a provision of the kind, I am sure, in the last treaty.


Arthur Meighen: With all deference to my hon. friend, who I am sure knows more about it than I do, I hardly think that that could be the significance of this reservation. This article reserves the right to France to enter into treaties with border states, such as Switzerland, Spain, Italy, and Belgium.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend will find that a similar provision is incorporated in most commercial treaties. The explanation is as I have stated, and I know that we had some such arrangement in the last treaty. However, I shall have to look further into that point. Next, we have a provision that if at any time France may grant to the United States larger percentages than are accorded Canada-it is provided that they must give ns the same treatment to-day -then Canada's percentages shall have to be increased to the same extent. These, I think, cover most of the provisions of the treaty.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: How do the United States get their preferential treatment to-day?


William Stevens Fielding: The United States some years ago were lucky enough to make some arrangement with France whereby the provisions of the tariff of 1910 were to be continued, and the United States were to enjoy certain rates. That condition remains today, but I have my doubts whether it will continue very long. At all events, it is a fact to-day that the United States enjoy advantages which other countries do not, advantages which we in Canada have reason to regret have been granted.


William Findlay Maclean: But how did they obtain those advantages-by legislation of their own?


William Stevens Fielding: By treaty and negotiation .with the French government. They were able to stipulate that while other countries would have to pay increased tariffs the United States would not. However, my impression is that that is a condition of affairs which is not likely to last.

France-Caiuida C onvention


William Findlay Maclean: How would it be abrogated?


William Stevens Fielding: The arrangement could
only cease by the French government giving notice of its termination. That is not a matter within our control. But so long as that arrangement exists we shall get the benefit which so far we have been deprived of. I think it might be well for me to read a few items giving the rates which apply to the United States and to Canada to-day.


Arthur Meighen: Before the minister does so, would he say whether or not it is correct that the United States enjoy these rates without having given any concession, and that they do not to-day give any concession to France in their tariff?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think they
give any concession, but our main point is that they do get these rates and we do not. My recollection is that they do not give any concession, and I think the arrangement is so unsatisfactory to the French government that in all probability it will not long continue. But so long as it does continue, the inequality and discrimination which have existed in the past as against us will no longer obtain. Here are h few items by way of illustration. On tissues of pure cotton, plain, twilled and drills, per 100 kilogrammes, the rate to-day which Canada pays is 1,364 francs, while the United States enjoys a rate of 440 francs. We shall obtain that rate when this treaty goes into force. On general machinery Canada to-day pays 128 francs and the United States 48. Under the new treaty we shall get the lower rate. On detached parts of machines, etc., the Canadian rate is 344 francs, while the rate which the United States receives, and which we shall obtain after the treaty goes into force, is 107.50 francs. On component parts of copper, pure or alloyed, moulded, wrought, etc., Canada to-day pays 360 francs and the United States 90. We shall hereafter pay that lower rate. Another item on which Canada to-day pays 504 francs under the treaty will be subject to the reduced rate of 126 francs, which is the American rate.


William Findlay Maclean: Is any preference given the United States to-day by France on the importation of a Canadian product like nickel?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not tell my hon. friend offhand how nickel is affected. The articles I have mentioned are clearly those in which there is discrimination. I shall be glad to go into the nickel question and let my hon. friend know later.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend has covered nickel in this treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. On component parts of machines and shafting, not specified, of two or more metals, etc., we are paying now a rate of 350 francs, the American rate is 140 francs, and we will get the benefit of this reduced rate. On another item of the same class we are paying a rate of 306.25 francs, against the American rate of 122.50, and we will get this lower rate. On another item we are paying at the rate of 262.50 against the American rate of 105, which rate we shall of course get the benefit of. On another item we are paying 175 francs, and we shall get the benefit of the American rate of 70 francs.
On screws, eyebolts, strap hinges, etc., we are paying 784 francs, against the American rate of 294 francs, which reduction we shall get the benefit of. On another item in the same class we are paying 616 francs, while the American rate is 252 francs; we will get the American rate. On another item of the same class we are paying 476 francs, and we shall get the benefit of the American rate of 189 francs. On another item of the same class we are paying 392 francs and shall get the benefit of the reduction to the American rate of 147 francs. On another item of the same class we are payring 1064 francs, and will get the benefit of the American rate of 399 francs.-On another item of the same class where we are now paying 840 francs we will pay the reduced American rate of 315 francs. On another item of the same class on which we are paying 616 francs we will get the reduced rate of 231 francs. On still another item of the same class on which we are paying 560 francs we shall get the benefit of the American rate of 210 francs.
On all these things which I am enumerating the Americans have the advantage to-day, and in some cases that advantage to them and disadvantage to us seriously affects our manufacturing interests.
On household wares and all articles of iron, steel, etc.,-quite a large list-Canada is paying 184.45 francs, the American rate is 59.50 francs. We will get the benefit of that rate. In another case in the same list we are paying 195.30 against the American rate of 63 francs, which of course we get the benefit of. On another item of the same group our rate is 217 francs against the American rate of 70 francs, and we get the advantage of this reduction too. On porcelain we are paying 76 francs, while the Americans are paying 23.75 francs. We will have that reduced rate. On another item in the same

France-Canada Convention
class we are paying 256 francs while the Americans pay only 80 francs. We will get the benefit of that reduced rate. On another item in the same class we are paying 192 francs and will get the benefit of the reduced American rate of 57.60 francs. On still another item we are paying to-day 320 francs against the American rate of 96 francs-* another reduction we will get the benefit of.
Upon skins and hides prepared, varnished, we are paying to-day 2500 francs and we shall get the benefit of the American rate of 625 francs.
On other kinds of nails we are paying to-day 196 francs while the American rate is 66-50. We will get the benefit of this rate.
All the above-mentioned goods originating in and coming from Canada will
4 p.m. enjoy the same tariff rates as like goods the produce of the United States. I think hon. gentlemen will admit that in that respect the treaty removes a very great disadvantage.
I do not wish to magnify the importance of the treaty. As I have already said, the volume of trade we have with France is not very extensive, but whatever it is, it has been the policy of this country for the past thirty years to make special efforts for better trade relations with France, and in that spirit we have approached the negotiations. Of course, it takes two to make a bargain, and more than once in the course of the negotiations we doubted if we would succeed. However, the French government, although looking out for number one, met us in a good spirit. While each side would no doubt like to have something better, I think that we are able to state to parliament that on the whole the arrangement is a fair and reasonable one, and in so far as any treaty can do will help to promote trade between France and Canada.


Arthur Meighen: The minister recited quite a number of items without giving their names and compared the old duty with the new, that is, the American duty that we get to-day with the duty we have been paying heretofore. Will he say that in respect of all these items Canada actually produces them for export?


William Stevens Fielding: We are advised by the manufacturers' representatives that all the items I have read are of importance to their interests. As I have already said, in looking over the list you will see many articles which to-day are not important in our export trade. But the development of our manufacturing interests is going on very rapidly to-day, and many of these items which hon. gentlemen may think of little or no importance to-day

have been included in the treaty at the special wish of the manufacturing interests of Canada. They felt that in view of that rapid development it is wise to make provision for the best terms available in order that we may reap the advantage when we do begin to export those items.


Mr. GOULD:: Presuming the French government will withdraw these concessions from the United States, do our concessions likewise terminate at that time, or do we revert to our present tariff?


William Stevens Fielding: I have no authority to say that the French government will withdraw these concessions from the United States, but I can imagine it might be possible. If my hon. friend will read Article 5 he will find it is in these words:
All products originating in and coming from Canada other than those mentioned in schedules A and B to this convention shall be subject in France to the rates of the general tariff of 1910 as long as by virtue of the French decree of March 28th, 1921, such tariff shall continue to be applicable to the products of the United States of America other than those specified in schedule A and schedule B to the French law of March 29th 1910.
If the United States of America should at any time cease to enjoy the benefit of the French decree of March 28th,	1921, products of Canada other than those
enumerated in schedules A and B to this convention shall enjoy a reduction of twenty-five per cent on the difference between the French g nsral tariff and minimum tariff, whatever the rates of these tariffs may be.
So long as France continues the arrange ment we get the same rates. If the rates art withdrawn that will be a matter then foi negotiation between the United States and France, but in any case we get the reduction specified in Article 5.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: In Schedule D under the heading of wines, I notice that the rate of duty is 15 cents a gallon for wines of certain alcoholic strength. I would point out to the minister that wines of that strength manufactured in my constituency bear an excise of 30 cents a gallon, so that the wine manufacturers and grape growers are at an absolute disadvantage of 15 cents a gallon as against the imported article laid down in Montreal or any other part of Canada. Is it the minister's intention to do away with the excise, or is our native industry to be left at this big disadvantage?


William Stevens Fielding: That raises quite a different question, I can say to my hon. friend. This rate is established under our agreement with the French government, but what rate we shall otherwise establish for any article affected by. this treaty is entirely an open matter for the government and parliament.

France-Canada Convention
I am not unmindful of the point raised by my hon. friend, but that would have to be dealt with by a separate act. It could not come into the treaty itself.


James Dew Chaplin: I naturally understand that the two things will go together. It is a very important matter. While in a general way I am in favour of this treaty, because certainly some of the things that the minister has accomplished have taken away some of the disadvantages that other people are under, at the same time it seems to me very unreasonable to place a district such as that where I come from under such a disadvantage. For the minister's information I may say that since the grape growers became aware of this treaty they had a meeting in the county of Lincoln only recently, and the president of their organization advised the farmers of the county of Lincoln not to plant any more vineyards. The despatch says:
At the annual meeting of the shareholders of the Niagara District Grape Growers, Limited, President Welstead in his address referred to the proposed treaty with France under which French wines will be admitted to Canada at fifteen cents per gallon duty, at which rate wines from that country can be unloaded at Montreal cheaper than wine can be manufactured in Ontario. The president also stressed the importance of not adding to new vineyards as there is now sufficient acreage grown to care for the demand.


William Stevens Fielding: I can only suggest to my hon. friend that he might accept the philosophy that is commonly ascribed to a former prime minister of Great Britain- wait and see. This treaty deals with an agreement with the French government. I might remind my hon. friend that any changes we make in our ordinary Canadian tariff would come most properly at the time of the budget, and before this treaty can be ratified and confirmed the budget will be down. I hope my hon. friend will reserve his conclusion until he hears that.


James Dew Chaplin: I just wished to point out this matter to the committee. I am not finding fault without good reason. I am quite aware, as the minister has told us on other occasions, that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, but I do not want the farmers of my county to have all their eggs broken.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the people who have been advising against the growing of grapes must have been intending to encourage the prohibition movement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid I shall have to make a few general remarks on the subject of this treaty and to take, somewhat sharply, issue with my hon. friend on ' some of the matters he has covered. In the first place I entirely agree with him in the general sentiment that he expresses as to the advisability of maintaining the closest commercial relationship with France; I think that is something on which we are all agreed. As he pointed out, this action, which was taken in the first instance by a Conservative administration, has been followed by every administration since. We want to deal with France.
I also agree with my hon. friend in what he says as to the unfortunate position of Canada, and agree entirely with what he says as to the unfairness of that position. Why, in some items as a result of the concessions given by France to the United States, the duties are such that it is quite impossible for Canada to compete at all with the United States. My hon. friend went on to say that a great deal might be said as to the unfairness of that, and I entirely agree with him. Our position was that that treatment was entirely unfair, but I am quite sure also that it was not a matter of fixed and definite policy on the part of France. It was something that was done in the general hurry, and we felt quite confident that if the matter had received that share of fair and open consideration which it deserved, those direct discriminations would be removed. They were very bad; business could not be carried on under them. _ There is one thing I want to add to what my hon. friend has said historically. He says that he does not exactly know why Canada in 1920 acted under the three months' notice clause. Of course, the House will recollect that France denounced the treaty, and then said that it might stand-that she wanted to take a general survey of the situation, and that the treaty might stand subject to three months' notice at any time. We gave the three months' notice because the treaty was not doing France any good and was doing us a great deal of harm. We gave notice because under the favoured nation clause Japan, Switzerland and other countries in whose markets we had no direct advantage were reaping the benefits of the treaty. The sale of silks and the like had been largely transferred from France to Japan, which country was doing a great business in silks. Switzerland was also doing a great business in embroideries. The country needed the revenue. And so the notice was given. But after giving the notice the matter was immediately taken up with France for the purpose of arriving at some fair and proper basis under which the business of both countries could be materially advanced.
France-Canada Convention

I want to go further, I want to say that even at the last session of this House, so convinced were we that something ought to be done that from my place in the House I urged that the government send the Minister of Finance over to France for the purpose of making an agreement. I am sorry I ever said a word, very sorry. When I urged that, I thought that one of those planks in the platform of 1919 would not be overlooked. I had thought that luxuries were going to be taxed, that there would be a general large increase on luxuries, and that a cut would be made in favour of France. But I was wrong, absolutely wrong. It used to be a Liberal doctrine, not practised, I admit, that luxuries should be taxed, and heavily taxed. That was endorsed, in 1919, but again the party is in office and it is not practised. Hon. gentlemen will remember that when the former leader of my friends to my left left the government in connection with the budget in 1919 he made the declaration that his interest in connection with customs and excise was to cut down the cost of living, to make cheap the necessities of life, and he wanted a heavy increase on luxuries-make them as high as you can. Why, this country during the war period, just at a time when every single cent of revenue was required, when we put a 7\ per cent increase on all articles coming through the customs, with one or two exceptions-anthracite coal, I think, was an exception-had to except luxuries, which instead of paying 7i per cent extra should have paid a tremendously increased percentage at that period; and she had to do that simply because of the French treaty negotiated by my hon friend in the year 1908.
This treaty, so far as we are concerned, does absolute violence to the principles both of the Progressive and Liberal parties, for it is a treaty cutting down the duties on luxuries. Now I am just going to give }'ou one or two items. Take the first schedule, and what do we find?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friends may laugh but it is hard to get away from facts. We used to have denunciations of this kind of thing ad nauseam from hon. gentlemen opposite in other days, but-


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: If this treaty facilitates the sale of Canadian products in France surely that is a matter of interest to those to whom my hon. friend is directing his remarks?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman. There is some good in everything, there is a little good even here;
I will come to that later. I was not addressing myself to the question of the sale of these articles. I was just pointing out that there was one way in which this thing could have been done easily and properly:	All those
rates could have been very properly increased against other nations and then cut down in favour of France. It is the preference that sh : wants.
Mr. MACDONALD How would you make a treaty?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend asks how I would make a treaty. Well, I do not know-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -how my hon. friend would make a treaty. I do not exactly know how the United States made their arrangements. I do not exactly know how it is that they have got all of these tremendous advantages that Canada wTas denied. But seeing that the hon. gentleman knows so

France-Canada Convention
much about the matter perhaps he can tell how it is that the United States gets so much advantage, while Canada gets so little.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: When was the
treaty negotiated between the - United States and France?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no doubt that if the hon. gentleman had properly followed the remarks of the Minister of Finance he would have known all about it. I think the decree that was referred to by the Minister of Finance was the decree of March, 1921 which gave these special privileges to-


Joseph Archambault: Who was in
power then?


Henry Lumley Drayton: In France?


Joseph Archambault: No, in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon.
friend really think we were a party to it? If he does not what sense is there in asking such a question?
Now I want to deal with another aspect of this luxury question. After all, this is an agricultural country. We can raise fruits, fcr example. Last year our imports of fresh dried and prepared fruits was over $29,000,000, and a special low rate affecting these is given by schedule D, I think item 105. We grow vegetables in Canada, and we have canning factories in this country, and last year our imports of canned vegetables amounted to $6,400,000. AYell item 86, schedule D, gives a fixed rate of H cents especially to France. We have fishery products in Canada. We import fishery products to the extent of over $3,000,000: and item 120, schedule D, gives special fixed rates, lower than in the case of of her countries, to France. Of animals and their products the importations amounted to over $46,000,000; and item 8, of schedule 1 gives a rate of 29 per cent on:
Canned meats, canned poultry and game; extracts of meats and fluid beef, and soups of all kinds.
Of silks and silk products the importations last year amounted to only $21,000,000; in 1920 they reached a total of over $34,000,000. And hon. gentlemen know the special rates that are given. AVe have the same thing in connection with ribbons and the like. Of books and periodicals we imported, I think, twelve millions. Then novels and works of fiction, advertisement printing matter also get special rates. Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend ever wants to adopt any fiscal policy which is going to help production in Canada this treaty is going to make it somewhat more difficult for him to deal with the question.
Now, the Minister of Finance tells the committee that the minimum tariff which he gets from France covers most of our important items. I want to go over a list of those items and see whether we can agree with the hon. gentleman. I am going to take what he thought were important items when the treaty of 1908 was brought in. There are two lists under the treaty-there is the minimum tariff list, and then there is the other list which gives the percentage of reduction in the general tariff of France. Now, these are the items which are taken from the minimum list, and put into another list where they do not get anything like the same advantage:	Oxen,
cows, bulls, steers and heifers, poultry, fresh meat, pork and beef. I ask my hon. friend if those imports are not important. I think that he will say they are. Going further down the list we find: Salted meats, pork, beef and other meats, animal fats, tallow, condensed milk, milk condensed with the addition of sugar, milk food with the addition of sugar, salt, butter and honey. AVhy, Mr. Chairman, all those things are matters of most vital importance to the agriculturists of this country. They are all matters for which my hon. friend got the greatest assistance in his last treaty. They now take second place. Fishing industries are similarly looked after Take the item 47-fish, preserved by pickling or otherwise prepared are also put down. Then item 74: malt and groats, grits (coarse flour) pearled or clean grain; then pulse and potatoes, lupuline, clover seeds and so on-a long list of agricultural articles which in the old treaty came under the minimum tariff, having the right to go into France at the lowest possible rates but which are taken from that list and put in the higher list. I hope my hon. friend will show us why all these products are so treated. Then my hon. friend says that the minimum tariff is absolute as against the world. That has already been discussed, and I think it is pretty clear that it is not absolute as against the world, because the United States can get better terms, and Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and others-and Germany, of course, can get better terms. Then he says that if the United States can get better terms-well we are to get the same. My hon. friend did not say that while the United States gets everything for nothing from France, Canada has to give value-if the States get anything more, well, Canada can have it, but must pay for it. That is the whole extent of that particular concession as you will find in reading the provisions of Article 5.
But the great, objection I see to the whole of this treaty is that France does not agree

France-Canada Convention
to maintain any specific rates at all.	She
gives no specific rates on any article.	She
preserves her tariff autonomously. France does more than that. France does not say that a minimum tariff shall be preserved at all, or that the general tariff shall be preserved as it now is, and of course it is perfectly clear that the only benefit we get under this treaty is the difference that there is between the minimum tariff and the general tariff. There is no obligation on France at all. On the other hand, my hon. friend gives specific rates of duty. He ties his hands and he ties the country's hands. Further, not only is he content that there shall be this maximum list that France can always get, but he goes further and covenants on behalf of Canada that the percentage of difference between the intermediate and the general tariff shall be maintained, so that the benefit that France gets can never be taken from France under that treaty, because this is positive, and her favourable percentage is preserved. We get no positive list, and we have no covenant that the present tariff rates are to be preserved. In any percentage that we get we have no covenant that it is to stay there for any time at all. Now, I put it to hon. members in this way: Let us forget the present position of things in Canada and let us suppose that everything is right-and, of course, the condition of things that we have to-day merely emphasises it-and that we have lots of money and lots to give away. As a matter of principle, where ought the heavy taxes to be? Ought they to 'be on wool, or ought they to be on silk? Ought they to be on lace or ought they to be on boots? Can there be any question as to these things? And if we are interested, as I think we all are, in getting such an adjustment of the tariff as will keep things going properly in Canada, we will make it bear the least heavily on those who can least afford to pay, those who are least interested in luxuries and the like. What do hon. gentlemen think of the treaty, brought down to-day, which deals with two items-I will just take, two though there are lots of others-the items of laces and the item of wool, and makes a reduction of the intermediate on wool? Oh, yes, it makes a reduction there of 15 per cent, and it cuts down the intermediate tariff on wool from 35 to per cent, and yet fixes a duty of 15 per cent on laces. Now, that is the manner in which one of the most important questions which we have to consider and can consider in connection with our national prosperity is treated.

On the other question I agree with my hon. friend that he has removed the disabilities from a large list of articles. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt that in some instances we have a very real interest in the question. I have no doubt some of these items will prove of some account-largely so.	I think there is an awful
lot of padding in the list, but there are some real items. I am going to ask my hon. friend to let us know just what this treaty means in dollars and cents. In the first instance I think the House ought to have information as to the bank rate, as to what the French rates are, having regard to these different items. We have not got that. I also think that we should have information- and I have no doubt the minister has such information, because no doubt he has looked into this matter before making the treaty- as to the amount of business done under the different items, so that the House will be in a position to consider their relative importance.


William Stevens Fielding: The requests of my hon. friend appear to be reasonable. And so far as may be possible, I shall be happy to obtain the information. As regards one or two other points on which my hon. friend has spoken, I should like to make a few remarks. First, he tells us that we are reducing the taxes on luxuries, and he mentions a long list. Does my hon. friend not know that the French are producers largely of luxuries? Does he not know that the products of France include wines, silks, embroideries, perfumery, and if we go to France and say: "We shall have nothing to do with you on the basis of luxuries," they will tell us: "You had better go home,"-for you cannot make a treaty with France unless you make some concession to her on the things that she has to sell.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any reason why my hon. .friend could not have put into force the doctrine of his party in 1919,-greatly increased the customs rate on those luxuries and then given the French the proper preference?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not want to discuss questions of past policies; my hon. friend and I would hardly agree on those matters. I want to make this treaty understood by the House, and to get it through as I think it should be put through. But I point out to my hon. friend that France produces these luxuries, and if we go to France and say: "We will not make a treaty with you and make any concession on those things," France will tell us to go home. If my hon. friend admits

France-Canada Convention
that we want to make a treaty with France, he must admit that we must be prepared to give France a concession on the things that she produces. Is that not reasonable? My hon. friend says that we have reduced the duties on luxuries. He complains that we have reduced the duties on laces. In the next breath he condemns us because we have reduced the duty on woollen goods.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, my hon. friend complained that we are going to reduce the duty on woollen goods.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was pointing out the small contemptible reduction from 39 to 29J per cent on wool as against a rate of 15 per cent on laces.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend think that we should have reduced the duty on woollen goods to a lower figure?


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I think is that my hon. friend should have increased his general rate on luxuries to a very high figure, and then given France just as much preference on it.


William Stevens Fielding: We are not dealing with the general rate at all; we are dealing with a treaty with France. I understand that my hon. friend is complaining that we reduce the rate on luxuries, and I say that unless you make some concession on those luxuries which France produces, you cannot make a treaty. My hon. friend knows that is a fact, and that in past negotiations that is what has occurred. I should like him to face this question squarely-if he complains that we have not reduced the duty on wool enough, does he think we should reduce the duty on wool to a lower rate?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not mind answering my hon. friend's question at all. I remember a time when he reduced the duty on wool under the British preference, but he found that he was destroying Canadian industry, and accordingly he increased those duties again. He went into that question; he ought to know. But I still say that my hon. friend could have got just the same results if he had raised the duties on these luxuries.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is not an answer.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid my hon. friend's answer is not convincing; but if he wants a discussion on the question of destroying industries of this country; if he wants a comparison between the condition of Canada under a Liberal administration and the condition when the Conservatives were in power, if
he will spend an evening some time, we will take up the subject, although the comparison may not be to his liking as regards the story of destroying the industries of the country.
I do not want to go into the past; but my hon. friend almost tempts me. Has he forgotten the picture presented by Sir Charles Tupper when he spoke of the sorrowful wail of the manufacturers of Toronto and Montreal rising up to protest against the tariff? He is repeating these to-day about destroying the industries of the country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really must ask my hon. friend not to put words into my mouth. What I said to my hon. friend is this-and I want him to correct me at once if I am wrong-under his original British preference he put in a rate in connection with wool in favour of Great Britain, which rate he himself increased afterwards because he found that the woollen industry in this country was being hurt.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend means that if I find a defect in the tariff I am willing to correct it, I plead guilty at once.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And cover it up.


William Stevens Fielding: And cover it up, all right. My hon. friend then pointed out that under the former treaty some articles were under the minimum tariff, and he said: "But you do not have them under the minimum tariff to-day." That is true, but the world has moved since 1907. Many things have occurred since then to change the policy of the French government, and they will not make as generous a treaty to-day as they did in 1907. We have to meet the French government on their ground or come away and not meet them at all. When my horn friend admits that we ought to cultivate trade with France, he must admit what follows-that unless we make a concession on the things in which France is interested it is nonsense to talk about making a treaty. In 1921, my hon. friends opposite made a treaty with France and curiously enough, j-ou find my hon. friend contending to-day that things which were in the minimum tariff in 1907 ought to be in the minimum tariff to-day, but under the treaty of 1921-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Temporary for four months.


William Stevens Fielding: One of the headings in that treaty is "goods that are no more under the operation of the minimum tariff." He had to recognize the changed condition of France and transfer articles from the minimum tariff

France-Canada Convention
to a higher rate. The world has moved since 1907. My hon. friend admitted the movement in 1921, but he evidently thinks that it stopped in 1921. The French policy in that respect has changed, and we have to face that changed condition. Our own tariff is in some respects changed, and we could not go to France to-day and say: "Everything we had in 1907, we are prepared to take to-day." The world has moved. In that respect my hon. friend had to admit that the minimum tariff could not be maintained in regard to some things, and we have had to make the same admission.
My hon. friend has mentioned silks, laces, works of art, perfumery. I want to emphasize the fact that you cannot make a treaty with France unless you are willing to make some concession on those articles that she manufactures. If my hon. friend takes the ground that there should be no concession on those things, he takes the ground that there should be no treaty. My hon. friend says that the United States gets something for nothing. How long they will get those concessions, I do not know, and we are not responsible for what the United States get. "Oh," he says, "we have to pay for them." How are we to pay for them? By reducing the taxes of the Canadian people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On luxuries.


William Stevens Fielding: By reducing the duty on articles which the Canadian people want to receive. I do not mind making a reduction of that kind when the revenue will stand it, and when it will not hurt our own industries. That is in line with the long-declared policy of our government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to asi my hon. friend a question and if he has not the information to-day, he can give it to us later. Can he say what countries under the "most favoured nation" clause will secure the privileges that are set forth in schedule D, for instance, regarding items 178, 82, 220 and so forth?


William Stevens Fielding: Whatever rates we give to France in any respect under this treaty, we are prepared to give to the "favoured nation" countries. I read a list of them a little while ago. They are Argentina, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela. Russia was in, but I leave her out now, and we may practically put in Italy because she will be in this under the new treaty.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the minister leave Russia out?


William Stevens Fielding: All treaties with Russia ended, and I do not know what is to be the future of our negotiations with Russia. She is no longer under treaty with us.


James Dew Chaplin: 
William Stevens Fielding: On all matters relating to any change in the tariff I can only say that any suggestion offered will receive our careful consideration and will be dealt with one way or the other at the proper time.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not asking the minister to give a decision now; I am only calling his attention to the matter. He has his adviser with him and this is a matter that should be taken into consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: I promise at once, unqualifiedly, that it will be taken into consideration. In regard to item 581 my hon. friend seems to think that we are doing something to hurt a Canadian industry. But I am

France-Caruida Convention
advised that the class of goods mentioned in that item is not made in Canada at all.


James Dew Chaplin: I think the minister is mistaken, because I can give him information in regard to a company in the province of Quebec which has a capital of over $1,000,000, and which is weaving raw silks. That company has been in operation about a year, and the industry in my own city has been operating now between twelve and fifteen months.


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure my hon. friend that the matter was carefully thought out, and he will find that my statement is substantially correct, that in this particular case the article is not made in Canada and the item will not affect any Canadian industry. At all events, that is the information which I have received, and I am almost sure it will be found correct.


James Dew Chaplin: I could furnish the minister with facts that would absolutely and teetotally falsify his information.


William Stevens Fielding: On item 581?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, item 581, which I have referred to.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall of course be glad to receive any such information, but still I think my information is substantially correct.


James Dew Chaplin: I certainly cannot accept that statement of the minister, because I can furnish the name of the firm in Quebec which is making the woven silk, and of the firm in my own city which finishes and dyes the woven goods.


William Stevens Fielding: I can only ask the hon. gentleman to await further investigation.


Arthur Meighen: I could not help but wish, when the minister (Mr. Fielding) was displaying such manly vigour in his address, that he had displayed some of the same preparatory to making the treaty, and indeed in the negotiations. I want to make, not a lengthy nor a detailed statement by any means, but a summary analysis of the treaty. The minister has come back again with a reference which he said was made by Sir Charles Tupper in 1897, having to do with the tariff which was brought down that year. I do not know that I have ever heard the minister make a speech in parliament in which he has not made this same reference, never making it correctly, never stating the whole of the facts, and always seeking to leave the impression that the tariff which actually went into effect was preceded by predictions on the part of Sir Charles Tupper such as he mentions this afternoon. The fact of the matter
is that the minister, when he made his tariff in 1897, suffered from the same paucity of information that he suffered from in making this treaty with France. When he mads his tariff in 1897 he appeared to be totally unaware-indeed, he was unaware, as the answers to questions in the Commons clearly showed- that the concessions he was then giving in the British preference he was bound to give, under treaty obligations, to very numerous countries in the world, and those concessions were of tremendously greater importance than what he was doing in the way of strict British preference. The consequence of what was brought to his attention in the course of the debate was that the minister later, months later, went back and succeeded in having a provision made whereby the weight of these favoured nation obligations was not only reduced in the main, but mostly wiped away, and the tariff as respects which the predictions were made really never came into permanent operation or anything like permanent operation.
The minister tells about industries flourishing under his government. Did they flourish under the tariff promised in the Liberal convention of 1893? Or did they flourish under the tariff of 1879, by denouncing which the hon. gentleman got into power?
I venture to say now that though there will be instances, due to the oversight of the minister, of manufacturers suffering under this treaty, the man taken care of best is the manufacturer of this country, while it is the rest of the country that is allowed to suffer. And I venture also to append this, that if any of the concessions given France now bear down on those who actually were behind the minister in the contest of 1921, it is the consequence of an oversight and was never intended on his part. He comes to the House and says he has secured a better entrance for Canadian products into France. Canada suffered because of a discrimination which France had imposed against us; Canada came under the incidence of a greatly increased French tariff. The United States had a treaty with France, the effect of which was accentuated by the French decree of March, 1921, and became entitled to a lower tariff than we. Of course, they being our great competitors, that put us under a disadvantage. All this is quite correct.
The United States got those concessions apparently without any quid pro quo on their part. They enjoy them to-day without any quid pro quo. I do not think the United States are entitled at the hands of France to better treatment than is accorded this Dominion, and if the case had been fairly and

France-Canada Convention

strongly presented to the French government, I do not think that government would have persisted in maintaining a situation under which our chief competitors got tremendous advantages over us. I believe^France recognizes that every act of friendship this country has ever had opportunity to display has been shown to that republic. I believe France recognizes that the United States have at no time in their history shown more affiliation for France than we have. I think she recognizes that the friendship of this country is important to her, and I see no reason in the world why on a mere argument of justice and right we should not have prevailed on the French government to give us the same tariff as is given to the United States. That being done, then what we were after would have been secured.
Now, the minister according to his claim- and I think he is right so far as I have been able to examine the treaty-has placed this country, in respect to some of our exports to France, in the same position as the United States. But he has given in return for that concessions which not only tie our hands in framing our Canadian schedules, but which throw out of line vast sections of our tariff, making it compulsory on this country to impose heavy duties upon necessaries that we must import, and at the same time putting at a very low level indeed the duties on luxuries that ought to be taxed away above the levels of necessaries.
The minister says in explanation: I had to put low duties upon luxuries because those are what France sells. I know those are what France sells. That is where the minister went wrongly about his task. He had his tariff in a position where he was not able to bargain at all. France had her tariff in a position where we had to go to her and say: We want to be put on a level with the United States, and if you insist we pay, we will do so. And we have certainly done it. We have placed the duties on silks, velvets, brandies, champagnes, laces, toilet goods, perfumes, and similar, luxuries at a level away below the duties on woollens, cottons and all those other essential imports on which the duty ought to be the lowest consistent with the continuance of the industry of producing them in this country. Not only has he done that, but he has put the grape farm producers of this country-not a few, but thousands of them-in a position where they cannot compete. But he intimates in the House to-day that when the budget comes down he may, by reducing the excise on wines, restore them to a position where they will be on an equality with their com-

petitors in France. There is another concession he has to make, and he is not around the circle then. He will have to keep on reducing the revenues of this country on the very things we ought to get revenue from, reducing them item after item in order to pay for securing what the United States got for nothing. There should first have been a revision of the tariff, when France raised her duties as she did. The revision of our tariff which last session we were in a position to make because we knew then definitely the position of the American government and the position of the French government,-that revision should then have been undertaken, a revision that would have enabled the minister to go to France and maintain at a high level the taxes on luxuries and still give a preference to France that would have at least secured all he has secured by means of this treaty.
Not only that, the concessions he has given mean vastly more than what he fully discloses to the House. I venture to suggest
5 p.m. that under this treaty he has given just about as much concession to Japan, if not indeed more than he has given to France, and he gets nothing from Japan at all. He has given a concession to Japan on silks and other importations, of which we get large amounts from Japan, which will be very serious for our revenue, and which on other goods will be serious as well in respect of Japanese competition.
I will give another instance where the minister went unarmed and returns even now without any appreciation of the bargain hi has made. It will be observed that in respect of articles on which we get the French minimum tariff, France has reserved a right to give to French dominions and protectorates a better tariff than we get. No objection, of course, can be made to that. I would expect the minister to grant that reservation. That is all right. We do likewise in this country in lespect to Great Britain and any other nation of the Empire that gives us like concessions.. But the treaty goes on to make a reservation in respect of any economic arrangement France may enter into with "border states,'' and the minister seems to feel that that makes no difference. Why, he says, that only refers to a small strip along the border which for trading purposes is considered virtually as part of France, and he says a similar reservation was embodied in the previous treaty. Yes, what he has described was embodied in the previous treaty. But what was embodied in the previous treaty is not here. The previous treaty provided-I have it before me-that

France-Canada Convention
there should be a reservation on the part of France in respect to goods granted the minimum tariff applicable not to border states, but applicable only to fifteen kilometres on each side of the boundary. The minister has not incorporated that restriction in this treaty. All the border states may make treaties with France and secure a minimum away below our minimum or France may give them lower duties without any treaty at all. Such reservation applies to Spain, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland-all those countries are excepted.
France reserves the right to make treaties with all her border states giving them duties below the minimum that we get on this narrow list of articles; she reserves the right to make treaties with her own protectorates on a lower basis; and she reserves the right as well to make treaties with the countries with which she has been at war, for purposes, it is true, of securing goods by way of reparation But although such may be the purposes, the effect is just the same so far as we-are concerned. All those countries may have lower tariffs with France than we get under the very best of this treaty. Such is the prize which the minister comes back with. It is for this that we fix our duties on thirty-one lists of articles of luxury at a very low minimum, the lowest, I think I may safely say, that we have ever had in this country, We have fixed them permanently there as long as this treaty lasts. Whereas those lists in the old treaty contained only twelve classes of luxuries, their number is raised to thirty-one by this treaty, against which we do not get admitted to the French minimum tariff a list anything like as effective as we got under the old treaty.
There is besides the extensions of these concessions which naturally this country has to make arising out of our favoured nation treaties with the nations named by the hon. minister. Now that is what the minister comes back with, and it is not very satisfactory, L think to this country. At best, even with all these reservations, he has noth ing save what the United States, our chief competitor got for nothing, and he has given in-return away beyond what we gave for far greater results in years gone by.


William Stevens Fielding: There are two or three points my right hon. friend has made that I should like to make a brief comment on. Sir Charles Tupper is dead and gone, and nothing is further from my thought than to make any reflection on that distinguished statesman. But when my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance declares that our government had ruined the industries of the country- .
29i


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never said that.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will look at Hansard he will see that he did. When he said that, I could not help recalling that incident about Sir Charles Tupper. My right hon. friend is mistaken in his statement of what happened at that time as to the attitude of Sir Charles Tupper. The question of the treaties was not in issue at that time. Sir Charles Tupper's own explanation, I may say to my hon. friend, when he was challenged with that, was that I had afterwards made changes in the tariff in the same session. That was true. In a previous case changes had been made and credited as clerical errors. When I make changes I admit that I make them. I do not accuse the clerks and say that they were clerical errors. I was able to say that after the changes had been made and the tariff had been enacted, he attacked the tariff all the same. So my hon. friend is not quite correct in that. But Sir Charles Tupper is dead and gone, and it is of no use to discuss that.
By the terms of this treaty concessions will go to Japan, it is true. Does my hon. friend object to that?


Arthur Meighen: I do object to that. I say it adds very seriously to the concessions on our part.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend knows that before we went for the treaty at all any concession that is granted to France or any other nation goes to Japan. He knows that: then what is he complaining about?


Arthur Meighen: Because the minister did nor arm himself before he went. I am showing this country what these concessions mean.


William Stevens Fielding: Because the minister did not arm himself first of all, he says, and I am glad he mentioned that. He says we should have first jumped the general tariff up.


Arthur Meighen: On luxuries.


William Stevens Fielding: What difference would it make then? If we reduced the duty on luxuries coming from France we would have had to reduce them, aeording to his own admission, on luxuries coming from other countries. My hon. friend's argument is that we should have raised the tariff high in Canada. The hon. gentleman had an opportunity of jumping up the tariff if he wanted to. He spent a couple of years in talking about it and promising to.
France-Canada Convention

do it, but he did not do it. He went out of office leaving that duty to be performed by somebody else. He said yesterday that it is easy to be brave in opposition. He is brave in opposition on a question of the tariff, but when he had the handling of the tariff he did not do what he proposed to do, and he should bear that in mind.
My hon. friend also speaks of what we are giving in reducing our duties. My hon. friend's idea is that the reduction of duty is a great evil. Our idea is that it is a benefit to the consumers of this country. When we can buy access to foreign markets by reducing the taxation on the Canadian people I am always willing to purchase access on terms of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: Then why not reduce them a lot more?


William Stevens Fielding: Wait and see. Another thought. My hon. friend says we ought to have put ourselves in this position. He had many years during which to put the tariff in this position.


Arthur Meighen: No. The condition that brought this upon us resulted from the French decree of March, 1921.	.


William Stevens Fielding: I have never seen any evidence that my hon. friend made any protest against that French decree. I would not say he did not.


Arthur Meighen: There was not only protest, but action, all that could be done before revision. Would the minister suggest for one minute that after that date while our protest was being continued we should have revised the tariff before the end of that session?


William Stevens Fielding: I might have an opportunity to find out what he did after the 21st of March. The radical difference between my hon. friend and myself is this: he treats these reductions as an evil. I again repeat, every change of that nature which reduces the taxation of the people is a benefit and is to be regarded by the people as a benefit, and not as an evil, as my hon. friend suggests.


Arthur Meighen: Why not then take it all off?


William Stevens Fielding: We may do it by degrees.


Arthur Meighen: Why by degrees?
Mr. F'lELDING: My hon. friend will find that day by day, in every way, we are getting better and better. We must be patient.

While I do not present this treaty as a piece of perfection, I believe under all the circumstances it is as fair and as good as we can get, and one which I believe will work beneficially to both Canada and France.


William Manley German: Coming back to what was said by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), regarding the duty on wine, though it may seem like going from the sublime to the ridiculous after the discussion to which we have just listened, I would call the minister's attention to the fact that the wine industry in the Niagara district is a highly important one. There were about
500,000	gallons of native wine produced in the Niagara district last year. About two-thirds of that is sold outside the province of Ontario and one-third within the province. That is a very considerable industry, and I trust that it will not be injured by anything that may be done under this treaty. The grape growing industry for wine is a very important one in the Niagara district. As was stated by the hon. member for Lincoln, the native wine produced there is the light grade, which would come into competition with the French wines which we now admit at 15 and 20 cents a gallon. The excise duty is 30 cents a gallon on our native production in the province of Ontario. Though it cannot be done in this treaty, of course, I would ask the Minister of Finance very seriously to consider whether there should not be a substantial reduction made in the excise duty on native wine so as to allow the manufacturers of the Niagara district to compete successfully with the foreign producers, because I am assured by them that with this treaty in force and an excise duty of 30 cents a gallon on the native produce, the native industry will be put out of business. I would ask the minister to consider this matter very seriously so that when we come to him later, as we shall do, to procure some concession in that direction, he will be prepared to grant it.


William Stevens Fielding: I can only repeat what I said to my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), that the matter is receiving fair consideration .


Mr. DUFF:: Under the new treaty what will be the rate of duty on canned salmon and canned lobster from Canada to France?


William Stevens Fielding: Canned lobster is under the minimum tariff. Canned salmon will pay a duty of 35 francs per hundred kilograms, while the American rate is 50 francs. The situation will not be quite as good as it is to-day, but we shall have a rate of 15 francs less per 100 kilograms than the United States.

France-Canada Convention


William Duff: Do I understand that the duty on canned salmon, which is a very important industry in this country, would be greater under the new treaty than it is now?


William Stevens Fielding: Slightly.


William Duff: And that on canned lobster the duty will be the same as under the old treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: That is correct.


Mr.   DOTE@: I am very sorry to hear that.


William Stevens Fielding: About the lobster?


William Duff: About the canned salmon.


James Dew Chaplin: The suggestion is made by one of the members from Toronto that it might be of considerable advantage to the members of the House and to exporters of goods to France if it were possible to have printed the French duties on articles that we now have entering that country. As it is now, the French tariff is almost impossible to read. It would be a great convenience to have that information.


William Stevens Fielding: I will endeavour to meet my hon. friend's request before the matter is finally through parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister give a comparison of the French duty on canned salmon referred to by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), that is the Canadian rate as against the rate on United States, Japanese or Russian canned salmon? Have you the information?


William Stevens Fielding: I stated a moment ago- perhaps my hon. friend did not catch it-in answer to the question of the hon. member .or Lunenburg that under the treaty our rate will be 35 francs per hundred kilograms. The American rate at present is 50 francs per hundred kilograms.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister could not say, I suppose, what the rate is on Japanese salmon? My reason for asking is that the Canadian packers of canned salmon are finding the competition of the Japanese packer perhaps the keenest they have; and furthermore, a great deal of this Japanese salmon is packed in blank tins and then is sold as Canadian salmon on the British and French markets, which is very unfair.


Mr FIELDING:: My hon. friend will see at once that the terms and conditions upon which things shall be admitted into Great Britain and into France must be governed by their own local regulations. With regard to Japanese salmon going into that market I
could not tell my hon. friend definitely but I do not think Japan has any special treaty with France on the subject. However, I would not like to be definite on that point.


Arthur Meighen: Having in mind the
pledge to which the minister was a party, to increase the British preference to 50 per cent, will he be prepared to admit that as respects most of the articles, if not all-I have the list here showing the effect-covered by this treaty he has almost wiped out the British preference?


William Stevens Fielding: The British preference is not dealt with by this treaty; the British preference will be whatever this parliament sees fit to make it. Another point: I wish my hon. friend would not so often resort to his undoubted powers of invention to bolster up his case, as he does when he makes the statement which he made as that I promised to increase the British preference to one half. My hon. friend, notwithstanding his powers of invention, knows very well that I never made such a promise.


Arthur Meighen: I attributed to the hon. gentleman the commitment of his platform- to which I am informed on the authority of the publication that came out, all present agreed-in which it is stated that the Liberal party would increase the British preference to 50 per cent. Now, the minister says this treaty does not deal with the British preference. It does deal with the British preference. Every time a French duty is reduced it gets down that much nearer to the existing British duty, to the existing preferential duty. The difference between this duty and the British duty is affected, and that is the preference. It is the difference that is the preference and as respects the greater part-I have not gone over all the items but I have gone over many, and I can give the figures to the House-the duty on competing articles with Britain is down so nearly to the British preferential level that the British preference is practically wiped away.


William Stevens Fielding: I have already stated this treaty does not deal with the British preference at all. The British preference will be whatever the government and parliament of Canada see fit to make it. Every reduction that is made on a product of any foreign country in that way reduces the British preference. Does my hon. friend therefore say we should have made no treaty which would have resulted in a reduction? Does he say that?


Arthur Meighen: No, I say the minister or his party should not have made a commitment
France-Canadn Convention

which they must have known was impossible and which they now admit to the House was impossible.


William Stevens Fielding: Again the right hon. gentleman is drawing on his powers of invention.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


William Stevens Fielding: We had a discussion of that kind on another occasion when I told the right hon. gentleman that I never made any promise or entered into any engagement to make the British preference one-half. I stated that before in the right hon. gentleman's presence, he knows that I did so, and he should not indulge in fabrications of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: The minister stated that he did not vote for it?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if that is any good.


Arthur Meighen: The Liberal leader and the Liberal party voted for it even if my hon. friend did not do so.
MV. FIELDING: I am content to be judged by the House and by the country. The country has passed judgment on these things but my hon. friend does not approve of its judgment.


Arthur Meighen: The country passed judgment before it knew the minister did not vote for the convention tariff resolution. He kept that quiet until .he was safely in office and then surprised the country by giving it the information. But though the minister did not vote for the resolution he was a member of the convention which passed it, and a member of the party which published it on the very eve of the election and which commissioned every speaker throughout this Dominion to promise that policy to the electorate. Now he comes here and says "I :paid no attention to it whatever"; and when I charge him with being a party to it, because die was at the convention, he says I am a ^fabricator.


William Stevens Fielding: I was not at the convention when it was passed and I never voted for it. I never concealed from anybody in this House that I did not approve of it, and the right hon. gentleman knows that quite well.


Arthur Meighen: I beg the minister's
pardon, I never even suspected that he did not vote for it; I understood he was the chairman of the committee which prepared Hie resoluion. I must say that in the past I Lave suspected that he did not believe in it. I had the strongest suspicions of that and I let the whole country know-
(Mr. Meighen.]


William Stevens Fielding: Did you?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly I did. I let the whole country know that I did not believe that one who had been finance minister for one week would think such a course was practicable. I understood he voted for the resolution until he told the House he did not. I accepted that statement, but I say that he should have told the country he was opposed to the resolution and differentiated himself from the party that committed itself to it. I say that the minister was obligated by that resolution, he was a party to it by his silence and obtained power under that obligation, that is what I said; it is more than what I said and every word of it is true and all Canada knows it is true.


William Duff: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: Of course it is carried. My argument would carry in any audience.


William Duff: It did not carry in December, 1921.


Arthur Meighen: That argument?


William Duff: Your argument.


Arthur Meighen: That argument is based on facts which this country did not know in December, 1921.


William Duff: Yes they did. They knew all about you too.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen opposite are now boasting of the success with which they deceived the electors of Canada.


William Duff: You ought to get over your grouch.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend asks me to get over my grouch. I have no doubt at all that the hon. member for Lunenburg would adopt a similar ruse if he thought he could secure the election again in his county.


William Duff: Yes, come down and run against me.


Arthur Meighen: He will adopt some method-


William Duff: Yes, any method at all.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly my hon. friend will adopt any method at all.


Mr. McMASTER:: As so much criticism has been directed against this treaty, I do not like to have it pass without a warm word of personal commendation to the ministers who were able, when Europe was in the condition in which it is, to go there and get from one of the greatest powers a treaty which will help the fortunes of the

France-Cnnada Convention
producers of natural products of this country.
What is the matter with Canadian business to-day? We are going through hard times. What is the reason for it? As I see it, the prosperity of Canada depends upon the prosperity of the producers of the natural products of the country-the products of the farm, the forest, the sea and the mine. Now the products of the farm, especially, are greatly reduced in price and why? Because the purchasing power of the customers of the producers of natural products has been reduced because Europe, having passed through the most awful war in history, is unable to purchase from us what she has been able to purchase in the past. Now, in order to help Europe to purchase from us we have to be prepared to purchase from Europe. International trade is, after all, not a question of selling goods for money as it is in private stores-it is a question of barter. Great Britain understood that almost a hundred years ago. She followed the axiom that those who wished to sell must be prepared to buy. Anything which helps to foster trade between Europe and this country is worthy of our support, and anything the government has done or can do along those lines should receive our strong approval. I do not think an occasion of this kind should pass without some word being spoken as to the- soundness of the treaty as a whole. There may have to be some changes in the excise law to correct possible inequalities in regard to some of our producers, but that is not the question before the House to-day. I wish to express, for what it is worth, my strong approval and to thank the ministers for what they have done for this country.


Mr. ANDERSON:: I should like to ask
the minister with regard to a few items in schedule A, dealing with the products of the farm, wheat, oats, barley, rye, maize and buck wheat and their by-products. They are to receive the benefit of the minimum tariff. On looking up the tariff of France for 1921 I do not find there is any minimum tariff. There is only one tariff which is the maximum. I was wondering if the tariff had been changed.


William Stevens Fielding: There are some cases
in our own tariff where the item is the same in both columns, and it is so in that case. The general and minimum are the same, but whatever the minimum may be from time to time, we get the advantage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could the hon. gentleman tell me the difference between the duty under the old tariff on poultry, for example, and the new treaty? It is item No.
14 in schedule B, which used to be under the minimum tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: In the old treaty it was under the minimum tariff. It is not now under the minimum tariff but is in the second schedule, where certain percentages are provided.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. minister does not give the figures and I am in a difficulty to know whether we are hurt and how much. The question was the duty under the old tariff on item 14. What is the duty to-day?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not off-hand give you that information, but I will at a later stage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
hon. minister could give the information on all these agricultural items?


William Stevens Fielding: As far as possible, I will give the information.


Arthur Meighen: Can the hon. minister
tell us the duty on wheat going into France previously per bushel?


William Stevens Fielding: Seven francs per hundred kilograms.


Arthur Meighen: Could the hon. minister get the information per bushel?


William Stevens Fielding: The franc is worth about 6 cents. That would make it 42 cents.


Arthur Meighen: A bushel?


William Stevens Fielding: The franc is worth 6 or 6| cents, and of course it varies from day to day. Those duties are paid in francs. It was pointed out with some truth that while the minimum tariff of France is a moderate one, when you pay it in the depreciated currency it works out to a low rate.


Arthur Meighen: And that would be 42 cents for how much?


William Stevens Fielding: Two hundred and twenty pounds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could the minister tell us what change was made in that item? What was the rate on wheat before the treaty?
Mr. FIELDING.: I think there was no change in it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am pretty sure there was no change, and there was no advantage obtained there. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that in the case of a number of items no change takes place at all. What about oats?
Supply-Experimental Farms


William Stevens Fielding: The same. If we get the minimum what more can we get?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am just pointing out that there are not these vast gains referred to by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) for the producers from the soil. They are left where they are very largely.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, with this difference: that the old treaties are at an end, and if we do not negotiate a new treaty we come under the old rates which are higher.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In some cases.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. minister does not propose to carry the treaty in committee without taking it up item by item? -


William Stevens Fielding: No. I will introduce the bill and it will come before the committee in due course.


Arthur Meighen: I am not going to suggest holding up the resolution now, but when the bill is presented the treaty will be taken up clause by clause?


William Stevens Fielding: If anybody wishes it. It ' is the schedule to the bill.


Arthur Meighen: It is the treaty which is important and not the bill.
Resolution reported, read a second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 23 respecting a certain Convention of Commerce between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. FIELDING moved the recond reading of the bill.
He said:	The bill will then go into
committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we had better follow the usual course. There is a lot of information which should be prepared.


William Stevens Fielding: Very well; next sitting of the House.



AGRICULTURE-EXPERIMENTAL FARMS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Experimental farms, $1,525,000.
fSir Henry Drayton.]
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is rather a large increase. I should think the minister would really like to tell us why he is spending so much money and what he is doing with it.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: In reading the discussions in Hansard for a number of years before I had the honour to come before this House, I noticed there was always a long and interesting discussion surrounding the appropriation with respect to experimental farms. Last year, it will be recalled that we had the same experience, and I remember that there were a number of features around which the discussion centred. For instance, what was to be the future of our experimental farm system? Had it any new objective? Were we going to establish any new experimental farms? There were a number of other questions of that nature. I think the discussion at this time might be facilitated and, perhaps, expedited if I made a brief statement with respect to our objective as regards the future of these farms.
Since the House prorogued last summer, I took the opportunity of visiting a large number of these institutions between here and the Pacific coast and also within the province of Quebec. Time would not permit my extending that visitation to the Maritime provinces; but outside of that I visited nearly all the experimental farms. The policy that I partially announced last year was, that before we spend very much more money in the establishment of new experimental farms, the government would be well advised to take care of the existing farms. During the last eight years, four of them being the war period and four since, our experimental farms, of necessity, had more or less to, mark time. That was due to no one's fault; but as a matter of fact, while that is so, the very policy of standing still meant, in some respects, as regards some of the farms, a going back. No growing institution can stand still; it must either go forward or go back. Having regard to that fact and having visited many of the farms, I am more than ever convinced that our policy should be to put the present twenty-two branch farms, including the central farm, in a state of good repair and efficiency before we extend this system to a larger number of farms, particularly in view of the fact that we have not at our disposal sufficient money to do both at the same time.
As regards some of the older farms concerning which there was a good deal of discussion last session, particularly with respect to those on the prairie and the initial four farms,

Supply-Experimental Farms
that is the Nappan farm, the Brandon farm, the Indian Head farm and the Agassiz farm in British Columbia, which four farms with the central farm constituted the original unit, some of these farms, as well as some additional ones, have largely exhausted their experimental work in connection with cultural methods. When I say largely, I do not mean entirely. For instance, the farms at Indian Head and Brandon have pretty well demonstrated to those areas on the prairies just what kind of cultural methods are necessary to get the best results. Forty years ago, the prairies were a secret to most people as regards the best methods of cultivation in order to get the best results. We have blundered on from year to year until many of us have found out something about that great country. The experiments and experience of individual farmers plus the experiments and experience of those experimental farms have blazed the way towards reasonably good cultural methods.
So, to-day, in the light of present conditions, in the light of world demand for high class products, especially live stock products, it is well at this time to extend the activities of those farms more than ever before in the direction of live stock production. In the history of Canadian agriculture, there was never a time when the export demand for live stock products was more difficult and hard to please than it is at the present time. We are competing with highly developed and specialized countries in the production of practically all our meat and dairy products. There is one staple article upon which I think Canada has the edge upon the rest of the world, and that is the production of hard wheat. That we get by nature, due to no particular ability on the part of ourselves, but to the soil and climatic conditions of the West. With respect, however, to live stock and live stock products, we have to compete with specialized countries such as Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina and other countries. Consequently, at this time, the activities of, especially, the older experimental farms should be extended in the direction of more attention to live stock. I think the time has come when we should make these farms largely live stock breeding depots, so that the adjoining territory may be more conveniently supplied with breeding stock from those centres. Possibly, at times, one might be able to establish regular sales of live stock at those centres to which breeders could come in order to secure their requirements.
In visiting the farms in British Columbia, I found, of course, an entirely different condition of affairs. While they are interested in live stock, they are primarily interested in dairying, poultry raising and fruit growing. I did not visit the farm at Invermere, although it was my intention to do so. It is not very easy to get at, and a good deal of time is required to give it the attention it should receive. Possibly at some subsequent date I may be able to visit that farm. But I visited the farm at Summerland on Okanagan lake, and there I found the question of irrigation was one of the uppermost problems. They had difficulty in regard to the supply of water. They were endeavouring to irrigate without the necessary available supply of water, and that question confronted, not only that experimental farm, but many private farms throughout that district. Then there were the questions of fruit growing, of cover crop, of extending the area to be devoted to farming, of what manurial agency should be supplied to the land there, of raising the necessary live stock. I found that one of the problems, a problem which may sound strange to prairie farmers, was to get the necessary quantity of straw to supply bedding to their live stock, two carloads of which they usually fattened during the winter months. Straw cost them from sixteen dollars a ton laid down at Summer-land, and to buy manure from the live stock yards at Calgary would cost them six or seven dollars a ton, so there they were confronted with the difficulty of growing live stock on an experimental farm in that irrigation area. Notwithstanding that, however, they have found it profitable to fatten live stock every winter. Even at the expense of buying dear straw, they found that more economical than not to have any live stock and to have to buy manure from the stockyards at Calgary.
Going further to the West, visiting one of the old initial farms, the Agassiz farm, we found conditions there, from an artistic and a horticultural standpoint, particularly interesting. It was like an old-established farm in some of the more beautiful parts in old England. The shrubbery and trees resembled old country plantations because of their variety and luxuriance.
We found that dairying and poultry raising were given exceptional attention there, and I ran across the cow that subsequently proved to be the world-beater in the matter of producing butter fat. This particular Holstein cow was about half way through her twelve months' period of test, and at that

Supply-Experimental Farms
time, while not making a record with respect to milk production, she promised to be a record maker and breaker with respect to butter fat. The end of the twelve months' period with respect to that cow showed a test for the twelve months of 1345 pounds of butter fat, which is equivalent to 1683 pounds of butter. This is the largest amount of butter fat and butter produced by any single cow we know of in the entire world. This shows what British Columbia can do in dairying; because it would be impossible for any cow to make such a favourable record if the natural conditions were not propitious.
Last year I tentatively intimated that I should like to carry out what seemed to be the policy of my predecessor in regard to the location of an experimental farm on the Canadian National line somewhere between Prince Rupert and Fort George. We found a number of localities suitable for such institutions; and in my opinion, when that part of the country is supplied in this respect, it should really have two farms to meet the situation. However, there may be a difference of opinion with regard to that. After returning to Ottawa and getting down to the preparation of these estimates, however, I found that for another year or two we would have to abandon the prospect of establishing a new farm in that district, although when we do establish one I think that is where it should be located. It is not a very good practice to make too many forecasts, because we have such financial limitations to face. But some day we shall be extending the number of our experimental farms, and I have no doubt that this locality will receive one. My predecessor T of the same opinion, as, I understand, are all the members of the departmental staff.
Coming back by way of Edmonton I visited the Lacombe and Lethbridge farms, which are doing excellent work. At Lethbridge they are also taking up the question of irrigation. This is a comparatively old farm and is well established being in the heart of southern Alberta. It is situated in one of the driest places possible in the West, but notwithstanding that fact, and independent of irrigation, it has shown splendid results this year. With irrigation, of course, the results arc greater still. On all of these farms a great deal of attention is being paid to live stock, particularly dairy cattle. Not only at Lethbridge and at Lacombe, but throughout that part of the country, the inquiries that come from the public would indicate that the farmers generally are in quest not only of live stock but of better live stock. Every superintendent I interviewed reported that when a man was making an inquiry for a brood 
sow he would always specify an animal of the bacon type. This shows that the farmers realize that if they are to compete in the British market they must produce as good an article as little Denmark and Ireland.
I visited one of the newer farms at Scott and also the farm at Swift Current. Swift Current is the last acquisition to the chain of experimental farms and was established two years ago. It also is located in the very centre of the driest part of Saskatchewan, and despite that fact it is showing excellent results. It has been demonstrated there that with very small precipitation, and with proper cultivation, you can grow crops in spite of the drought. By means of the silo and the culti-\ation of inter-tilled crops, like com and sunflowers, they can produce fodder in any year. It would have to be drier than it has been in the past before you could beat that country in the production of fodder suitable for ensilage purposes. Speaking of fodders, this has been the problem which during the dry years has confronted most seriously the live stock men in southern and southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. We have had a vote in the estimates in the last three or four years providing for free transportation of fodder to and from different parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Under the method of growing tilled forage crops, such as I have described, there should be no necessity for ever resorting to that practice in the future, because we can grow these commodities right at home wherever the land is of such a character that it will retain the moisture when conserved. There are a few areas here and there of gravelly or sandy subsoil to which this does not apply. But throughout that country as a whole, in spite of any drought, there is no reason why these fodder crops cannot be grown. And I do not see how the country out there can get much drier than it is. Some years we do not have more than two inches of rain during the growing season, aid it would have to be drier than that before we should be unable to grow fodder for large quantities of stock.
The farm at Scott is in the centre of a peculiar type of soil. Quite adjacent to it the land is exceedingly heavy, while around Scott it is not so heavy and in some parts is comparatively light, although not so light as not to be able to produce profitable crops. And yet we do not get the same results from the summer fallowing system there that we obtain on any other farm in the prairie region. The results are not as good. It is obvious, therefore, that there are many things to be discovered of a cultural character in regard to that farm, and experimental work along that

Supply-Experimental Farms
line will continue there until we can extract from the soil some of the secrets which it hides.
With respect to the farm at Indian Head, with which I am more familiar than any other part of the country, that having been my market town for many years, I may say that the shelter belts, due to the invasion of tree insects, look rather dilapidated at the present time, especially from the railway. Notwithstanding that, however, this farm has announced a first class herd of dual purpose shorthorn cattle, which is creating a great deal of interest in that former wheat territory. The shelter belts are being renovated, different trees being replanted. I have almost concluded that planting box elder or native maple in the shelter belts in the open plains of the West is a mistake. True, it is still to be found in some places; but there are other trees that will do much better and are less open to insect attacks. Around Brandon we had something of the same experience. When you get further east, .around Winnipeg, the box elder makes a reasonably good tree; but we have several trees that make better shelter belts. At least, so far as the experimental farm system is concerned, we will not plant many more box elders. We are devoting our attention to replanting the shelter belts where necessary. But we shall not have to plant them so extensive-, ly as formerly, because we are giving more attention on the farms to live stock, so that we shall not need so many shelter belts to overcome the soil drifting tendencies which we have had to contend with.
Coming to Jirandon, another of our original farms, I found part of it had been destroyed by the freshets of a year ago. The overflow of the Assinboine river, which occurs at irregular intervals, inundated a very considerable part of the farm and seriously interfered with experimental and general crop production. A tree belt had to be removed, partly because of invasion of insect pests and partly because it was too thick. It demonstrated to us that in planting shelter belts we should select a more permanent tree than the box elder. I did not have an opportunity to visit the Morden farm. In the vicinity is the farm of the late Mr. A. P. Stephenson, in his day probably one of the foremost horticulturists in the West. The Morden farm, although established only eight or ten years ago, is making satisfactory progress. I should like also on my way east to'have inspected the Kapuskasing farm. I passed through there on a Sunday and had not time to wait over. The train stopped, however, sufficiently long for me to see from the railway the work done, although of course in a very cursory fashion.
I could see that where formerly was coniferous wooded land-which as a rule is not very productive land in eastern Canada-luxurious crops either growing or in the stook gave evidence of a fertile soil, and I gathered that the country around Kapuskasing has a great agricultural future.
Coming to this province, I have not had an opportunity of visiting our tobacco farms in western Ontario, but I was able to visit four of our experimental farms in Quebec. That province has often been spoken of as not quite so progressive as some of the other provinces. That just depends, of course, on what we call progressive. I had no thought of using the word in a political sense, Mr. Chairman. I found a very large measure of contentment in that province, and the neat farms nestling close to each other, with their whitewashed outer buildings and cosy homesteads indicated substantial prosperity.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: Before we rose for dinner I was endeavouring to describe the workings of the various experimental farms throughout Canada, and I shall continue, beginning with Cap Rouge, which is about twelve and one-half miles from Quebec.
1 have already drawn some comparisons between agriculture in the province of Quebec and some of the other provinces of Canada. Nothwithstanding the small farms in Quebec, at no place that I visited did I see greater evidence of contentment, happiness and thrift than in that province. I do not know whether this can be attributed to the fact that Quebec is noted for small farms and large families, while out in the West we are noted for large farms and small families; but possibly the happy medium between these two would be better than cither extreme. We cannot apply the small farm system to the western prairies, but possibly we might modify the size of our farms and make them more of a self-contained unit, such as we find the farms in old Ontario to-day. I am familiar with the conditions during my youth, and I am also familiar with the glory and the great temptation to go into extensive farming operations. On the large farm, if you hit it right, you can make a lot of money, but on the other hand, if you do not hit it right, you can go broke very quickly especially during these days of deflation.
4tj0


Mr. LEADER:: I have listened with interest to the very optimistic address of the minister, but I regret that the first appropriation for which he is asking shows an increase of $200,000. When a government pledged to economy comes back from the elections and at the first shot over the box asks us to vote for this particular purpose $200,000 more than we did last year I do not believe it is right. 1 say in all seriousness to the minister that in my opinion he should be satisfied with the appropriation that was granted last year. This is no time for experiments. I am opposed to unnecessary expenditure at any time, and most decidely I am opposed to it now.


Mr. MARTELL:: Do you not want the Hudson Bay railway? Is not that an experiment?


Harry Leader: We are not discussing the Hudson Bay railway.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If my hon. friend will permit me, does he not say it is no time for experiments. In that case I ask him and those associated with him why they are trying to experiment with the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. HOEY:: Did the Liberal government consider the Hudson Bay railway an experiment in the first instance?


Harry Leader: I was discussing what is before the committee. I do not think this is the time for making such experiments. I am not in a position to say whether these experiments would appeal to the taxpayers of
4G2

Supply-Experimental Farms
Canada or not, but I can say that the money to be voted for this purpose has to be extracted from the overburdened taxpayer and therefore I am opposed to it. I said that I was opposed to unnecessary expenditure. I am certainly not opposed to what I think is legitimate and necessary expenditure. There is such a thing as false economy. Further down in the estimates there is something for which I am going to ask an increase. I believe the expenditure in question is legitimate, and that an increase is necessary to successfully carry on the work which it has reference to. Any good cause must be prosecuted if we wish to obtain good results. I do not feel like voting for this increase in the present estimates, in fact I would advise the minister to cut off the increase of $200,000, and be satisfied with the vote he got last year in view of the conditions which prevail in this country at the present time.	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend has any plan calculated to put these farms in better shape without involving the expenditure of money I am open to receive suggestions from him. There is no royal road to farming, even in the case of experimental farms. Such work involves expenditure for men and for other purposes. The question is, are we going to leave the farms in the condition in which some of them are, or are we going to put them in a fair condition of efficiency so that they may function in the way that the originators of this scheme intended they should function, and undoubtedly they require to function today as they never did before. You would only put Canada on its feet through the medium of the development of its natural resources, particularly farming. These must be developed or else we might as well close up. This is not a question on which we should differ very much from the party standpoint, for this reason: all parties and governments have stood behind this system since its inception. It was started by the Conservative government under Sir John A. Macdonald and carried on by successive governments until to-day, and the testimony not only of those who know the most about these farms, but those who have studied systems elsewhere, both on this continent and in Europe, is that we have got a better system of experimental farms than any other place on this continent. I have had an opportunity of investigating them in Europe also, and while I would not make as sweeping a statement as that, I am convinced they will compare favourably. What are we going to do? Are we going to run them in a cheap way? Some 
of them are sick sisters, it is true. These are the ones we want to build up, and if there is any mesmeric way of getting at the result except spending some money, then I am open to suggestions from any source whatever. I recall that my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) was desperately anxious about a certain vote last year, when I was trying to get the compensation for animals slaughtered on account of tuberculosis reduced somewhat in proportion to the reduced value of the animals. My hon. friend made such strong recommendations, that in a moment of weakness I yielded to him and restored a portion of the original amount. Now, this question all depends on how it affects one's self. I am going to bring down a bill reducing the amount to wrhere I suggested it should be last year, as compensation for pure-bred cattle, and I will give my hon. friend an opportunity of displaying his ideas of economy when that bill is presented. In the meantime my best thoilfeht is that $200,000 cannot be spent better than in putting our experimental farms in first class shape.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Will the minister indicate just how the pioney should be spent? Perhaps he gave that information before I came into the chamber, but I should like to know' just where that money is to be spent. Is it to be spent at all the experimental farms, or are there certain farms that are going to benefit to this extent?


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend mean the individual farms? Does he want to know how much we propose to spend on Morden, Brandon, Indian Head, and so on? I think we cannot give the individual expenditure in detail in regard to each farm.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I had in mind the increased expenditure.


William Richard Motherwell: I will give my hon. friend an idea of the line along which these increases will be made. We have, in animal husbandry, an increase of $3,000 for equipment, for a sheep farm and for increased hog testing work. Then, for bacteriology, we have an appropriation of $5,500. This is a new line of work not before provided for. This is for the central farm at Ottawa. I may say, with respect to this question of bacteriology, that it is a matter a very great number of people do not take much interest in, but at the same time certain bacteria have developed in our cheeses this year, and we find that it was on the point of poisoning some of our customers in the Old Country-at least, so it was reported. On investigating this matter we have been able to trace this cheese

Supply-Experimental Farms
back to the respective creameries, but we have not been able to isolate, as we call it, the bacteria. What we want to discover is what particular acid or what particular bacteria is working in some of these factories and affecting some of their cheeses, because this will tend to destroy our markets overseas. If we had two or three more instances like that which occurred last year in regard to our cheese in the British market, we would soon take worse than second place to New Zealand in the cheese market. There is an increase of SI,500 for the expansion of experimental work in plant pathology at the central laboratory. That has to do with the investigation of plant diseases, rust and such like.
Then with regard to cereals there i3 an increase of $2,000 for conducting milling and baking tests and work with imported seeds. New varieties of grain cannot be put upon the market or even recommended to the public until we know something of their milling properties.
Then for extension and publicity there is an increase of $3,000 for preparatory work in connection with the Overseas Exhibition to be held in London in 1924. In the superintendent's division there is an increase of $2,000 for much needed construction of roads and sidewalks. In field husbandry, there is an increase of $2,000 to take care of the expansion of experimental work. For forage plants there is an increase of $2,000 for new lines of work in connection with the breeding of forage crops. When one remembers what has been accomplished in the development of forage plants, in making use of plants that ten years ago were looked upon as not only useless but actually harmful, it will be seen that it is a good experiment. Take the case of sweet clover and take the use that has been made in recent years of the sunflower, which I mentioned this afternoon; the development of these and the experimentation with them has resulted in possibilities in forage, especially in the West, that were never dreamed of five or six years ago.
Then in horticulture there is an increase of $7,000 for expansion of experimental work in pomology, in canning, and preserving and in the breeding of new varieties of fruits. Let any man go into our fruit areas and tell me if the government is not justified in extending a helping hand to this particular industry. It is more necessary in this than any other branch of farming that I know of, because of the fact that it deals which what I call a perishable commodity, which is not capable of being warehoused for an indefinite period like grain.


Mr. FORKE:: Is not marketing and distribution the great trouble with the fruit industry to-day?


William Richard Motherwell: No question about that. I will come to that in a moment. We have to-day a large number of cattle that are being, not stall-fed but winter-fed, most of them loose in the yard. We have about twenty carloads in all. My hon. friend knows that there has been a great deal of expectation roused in the farmers' breasts with respect to the removal of the embargo, with the result that we have three or four cattle all over Ontario being fattened and fed this winter for one that was fed last year. Ocean freight rates, even after their recent reduction, are such that a great many people think an experiment should be made in the shipping of chilled meat to the British market. We intend to take these cattle that are fed at our experimental farms and start an experiment in shipping chilled beef, putting, say, two carloads on the market each year for eight or ten consecutive weeks. We may not be able to have enough to complete an experiment sufficiently long to establish the value of our chilled meat on the British market. Some of our breeders have been conducting these experiments, but they have lost money by it, partly due to the fact that they have not had this product on the market long enough to beat down the Old Country prejudice against chilled meat. We hope to take those animals that have been fed on our farms, grain-finish them in order to give them the best bloom and offset any prejudice they might occasion as a result of the chilling process, try out the experiment of sending so many carloads of chilled meat and so many carloads of live animals to .the British market, and compare results. That is one of the propositions we have in mind, and it is under way as regards preparing our cattle for that market.


Robert Forke: I do not wish to interrupt
the minister or to hamper him in any way; but did he ever see chilled meat on the market in Great Britain?


William Richard Motherwell: I have never been there, but my deputy has recently come from there.


Robert Forke: If he had, he would understand what is the trouble with chilled meat. . People call it "shiny." It looks shiny; it does not look well, and the British people will not eat shiny meat.


William Richard Motherwell: It does not what
we call, "stand up;" it has not on it the bloom

Supply-Experimental Farms
that fresh meat has. Notwithstanding that, the Argentine Republic send meat there, not only chilled, but a large portion of it actually frozen. That meat has to "de-frost," ?nd it, of course, does not look as attractive as fresh meat. There are certain exudations from it when the frost goes out of it. But something that has to be experimented with is to have the meat "de-frost" without its having that messy appearance that is so much objected to. This is, however, an experiment in preparing chilled meat, and the success or failure of chilled meat shipments to the old country in comparison with shipments of live cattle, can be determined only by trying out the experiment.


Mr. SHAW:: Is it not a fact that private
capital is now engaged in experimenting in placing chilled meat on the market? If that is so, why should it be necessary for the department to engage in similar experiments where private enterprise is now leading the way?


William Richard Motherwell: The answer to that is this, that a great many people have so exercised the public mind against abattoirs that the public will not accept the result of experiments from that source. I have no reason to doubt the bona fides of that experiment, but I take the ground that it was not continued long enough to indicate what the ultimate result would be-success or failure. If you put any article on the British market, intermittently, you will not get successful results. An article must be available all the time before you can get the full value of the experiment. When you put a new article like Canadian chilled meat on the British market this week and none next week, that does, not do the article justice. Furthermore, my information is that private enterprise thinks it has gone about as far as it can afford to go at this time, because it is losing money, and if anybody should experiment, it should be the government so that all parties might benefit thereby. The abattoirs take the ground that they have gone as far along the line of experimentation as they might well be expected to go. That is the reason why the government is experimenting at this stage, and with our own cattle, these experiments can be conducted at the minimum cost. The cattle are there now, owned and fed by the government.


Mr. MacKELYIE:: I do not think the
minister quite concluded his explanation in regard to questions asked about details of the increased expenditure. I do not feel myself in a position to criticize the increased

appropriation, and, indeed, if it is properly expended, I regard it as one very capable of justification.
I was interested this afternoon in hearing the minister's account of his tour of inspection, when he mentioned that he had visited the experimental farm in my constituency at Summerland. I can assure him that his visit there was greatly appreciated. In my opinion, we have as superintendent of that farm, in the person of Mr. Helmer, a most capable and efficient officer. I know he is a man who gives a great deal of attention to research work at all times, and the exhibits from that farm which he puts up at the annual provincial or local exhibitions are of very great interest. The farm is limited in area and his opportunities of increasing his usefulness are considerably restricted on that account. In this contemplated addition to the appropriation, is anything included for addition or expansion in that Summerland farm?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
refers to the Indian land adjoining that farm?


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: We are purchasing that. I do not know whether the contract has actually gone through yet, but it has been agreed to. We are also providing for what is very much more needed, and that is a new water supply. You cannot irrigate, I find, without water and plenty of it. The arrangement that was made before did not meet the situation, so that we are securing not only more land, but more water for that farm, two things very much required.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Has any request come to the department for a pre-cooling plant there for fruit?


William Richard Motherwell: Not that I am aware of.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I am sure we have all followed, with a good deal of interest, the statement which has been given to the House to-day by the minister in regard to the experimental farms throughout the country. I am inclined, however, to think that when his statement is published throughout Canada, there will be a feeling of disappointment as a result of his explanation regarding this increase of $200,000 which we find in the estimates. There is no denying the fact that the experimental work which has been done on our experimental farms has resulted in great benefit to the country. I would not say that the money has been always wisely expended ; but I must rise to express my surprise

Supply-Experimental Farms
at and my disapproval of the proposed increase of $200,000 in this item, if the increase is, as the minister has explained, to establish live stock depots at those farms for the breeding of live stock to supply adjacent districts. This was the main feature of the minister's remarks to the House on this item. The live stock breeders in this country have experienced a rather trying period during the last few years. The deflation which has taken place in the case of live stock is such that, I think they will view with alarm the fact that experimental farms of this country are going to be used now to operate in competition with Canadian breeders of live stock. Many of our live stock breeders have expended much money in the development of the live stock business in Canada, and after all is said and done, I think every reasonable person will acknowledge that Canada owes more to those importers and breeders than it does to the experimental farms as regards the improvement of live stock. That is only natural. I do not believe it is possible for a government to manage a business as well as a private individual can manage it himself, when he is vitally interested in the success of that business; nor do I think it comes within the province of a government to enter upon a field of industry which rightly belongs to the people themselves. I must protest against this proposed plan of making live stock breeding depots of experimental farms to enter into competition with the breeders of live stock in this country.
If, as my hon. friend says, the usefulness of many of the farms has passed, then close them by all means. Let us practise economy to-day if we can possibly do so, and do not let us continue the work on these farms just because they are in existence. With regard to the Central Experimental farm at Ottawa, I think we must all view with alarm the enormous expenditures that are there being made, not for experimental purposes, but in order largely to maintain the farm as a show place for visitors. I think that the amount which has been spent during the past few years, which runs into millions of dollars, for the labour alone that has been employed on the farm, is not justifiable, especially under present conditions. However, I have risen principally to protest against the government using the money of the people to establish experimental farms to undertake the breeding of live stock to supply the wants of the people, which I contend is a business that rightly belongs to the farmers of the country. I do not think that this move on the part of the government is fair or
has any tendency to encourage agriculture in Canada. Furthermore, the government should not go into this business until they know that they can carry it on as well as private individuals can. And it is generally conceded that no government, I care not of what complexion, is competent to carry on work of that kind as well as it can be done privately. Nor do I think it comes within the province of this government, under the conditions that prevail to-day, to paralyze the live stock industry of the country further by an increase of $200,000 in an item which I think is altogether too large considering the results that have been obtained from the experimental farms.
I was amused to hear the minister tell the committee that in his tour of inspection he had seen, I believe from the platform of the train, the experimental farm located four or five hundred miles from here in the bush in northern Ontario, at Ivapuskasing. The day being Sunday, he could not take a further view of the farm than he was able to get from the station. If you go to the furthest point west in the province of Ontario you will find only a small station for experimental purposes in the growing of tobacco, and I do not know whether the minister proposes to discontinue the growing of tobacco there in order to set up a live stock industry. I should be surprised if he did, because that station, for some reason or other, has been practically self-sustaining and has not entailed any great expense upon the Dominion. Perhaps, however, it will probably be closed, because the minister has intimated that, when any station or farm becomes self-sustaining it has ceased to be useful and it is time to close it. I have protested for several years against the treatment which has been meted out to Ontario in regard to experimental farms. That province has to do the work in this direction itself, while at the same time it contributes largely to the upkeep of the work that is carried on in the other provinces. The live stock industry has been encouraged in the other provinces to a degree, which the province of Ontario has not enjoyed. The minister also states that his department is now going to try to dispel the British prejudice against chilled beef, and that an effort will be made to ship that commodity over to the Old Land to convince the Englishman that it is better than the beef to which he has been accustomed. In view of the removal of the embargo against Canadian cattle, and the fact that ocean rates are now about one-third what they were some time ago, the prospects for the live stock industry are no doubt much brighter than they

Supply-Experimental Farms

have been for some years, and I am surprised that the government at this stage finds it necessary to enter upon any large expenditure in the endeavour to remove this prejudice from the minds of the British people. That argument was not advanced a year ago when the grading of hogs formed a part of the government's programme. But it was agreed we should have to supply the article which the British public demand. I think the minister will have on his hands a bigger contract than he thinks in convincing the Old Country citizen that chilled beef is as good as the meat he has been using, and which we are now in a position to place on the British market. I fear therefore that this money will be largely wasted if any attempt is made to carry out the plan which the minister contemplates. I want again to point out the glaring injustice which will be done to the live stock industry and the breeders in this country if the government attempts to enter upon the breeding of animals with the view of supplying the market in the various parts of this Dominion. This is something that ought to be left to the people themselves, and I will venture to state that the government have not been asked by those engaged in the industry to seek an increased vote for this purpose.


William Richard Motherwell: I expected that au objection might be raised to these farms devoting more attention to live stock. These farms have been gradually drifting into live stock activities, especially on the prairies during the last two or three years, and we merely want to accelerate that tendency to meet the altered conditions that face us to-day in agriculture. W'hen the government enters into a business like live stock, or say, seed growing or forestry, experience has shown in the past that instead of hurting it has stimulated private enterprise. Take the nursery farms that have been established throughout the country. When they were first mooted it was thought by the nursery men that they would simply invade the average private man's domain and tend to destroy his business. Now it is found that the activities of the Forestry branch have had the effect of increasing private business. The government sends into a district that has not hitherto taken any interest in the matter a consignment of fruits, etc. The neighbours look on and see the industry develop and immediately they send in orders, if not to the government, to some nursery man, who accordingly finds his business increased. The same is true with regard to seed. The seed merchants of Canada were at first very diffident about the government taking any part in the distribution of seed. Now 
they come here and assist us in organizing and extending our activities, knowing that every new convert we get to better seed means more business to them individually. And the same can be said in the matter of live stock. Every district that is induced to put in a club breeding animal establishes a centre that becomes an example to the neighbourhood, and the result is that in a short time orders are placed with private breeders for pure-bred stock. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) that while I expected the argument which he has so well advanced, experience in the past has nevertheless shown that similar fears have been groundless in regard to other activities. Not only this government, but the provincial governments in the three prairie provinces have been engaged actively in the distribution of live stock for the last ten or twelve years, and I do not know that a single objection has been raised by any stock breeders out there. Why, I really am at a loss to know what to advance to meet my hon. friend's arguments. Those arguments were common stock fifty years ago. But are we going to revert to that day, and must I take up the time of this committee to meet those ancient arguments?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: I have done my best to show that my hon. friend's fears are unfounded. With respect to the experimental farms, my heart did bleed freely last year when he described in such harrowing detail the abuses that had been heaped on good old Ontario. Although she had a majority in the preceding government, yet even during their term of office those abuses were afflicting the province. We have three experimental farms in Ontario-the Central Experimental, which I think is equivalent to two or three average branch farms, the Kapuskasing and the Harrow. The Harrow farm has been conducted for about ten years under lease, but recently we purchased the freehold. That farm has been so successful in developing many acceptable varieties of tobacco leaf that to-day our tobacco makers are using a large proportion of our domestic leaf to mix with their imported tobacco-something that they would have considered wholly impracticable twenty years ago. Our purchase of this farm is a good indication that we do not propose to abandon it. Nor did I say that we were going to convert all our farms into live stock breeding stations. I took the ground that in the fruit areas our activities would be along lines suitable to those localities. My remarks in regard to live stock breeding stations were confined to the Maritime and the prairie

Supply-[DOT]Experimental Farms
provinces, and if anyone with any knowledge of live stock will say on his reputation that this industry does not require developing in those provinces, I am open to receive instructors from him. I say again that our live stock industry has receded from the highest point of efficiency and excellence which it occupied even eight years ago, and as compared with thirty years ago our exportable beef to-day is far below the standard of those years. There is a reason for that which I do not need to enter into here. I hope I have allayed my hon. friend's anxiety, but from my experience last year I have my doubts. I will do my best to remove any objections that may be raised in respect to this policy. The only objection, as I have intimated, came from a gentleman who was not an expert on live stock matters, and he took the same attitude as my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland); and while the reasons with which he supported his objection looked quite plausible, I have not heard further from him. I wrote him fully in reply and from his silence I must conclude that I have converted him. I hope to have the same experience with my hon. friend.


Mr. HARRIS:: 
Mr. WARNER:: Mr. Chairman, I feel at some disadvantage in following the eloquent member for East York (Mr. Harris). However, I think I understand something about the purpose of these experimental farms. Some hon. gentlemen seem to be under the impression that our experimental farms should be run at a profit. I have never regarded them from that point of view. The purpose of these farms is to experiment along a great many lines that the individual farmer is not able to attempt. These experimental farms are not established as money-making concerns. I do not know whether the hon. minister has convinced the committee or not, but as a stock man all my life I know that to-day the live stock business in our western country is in a bad condition. We have got to help the live stock business back into a prosperous condition in order to make Canada prosperous. I do not know the policy of these farms all the way through, but I do not feel that it is necessary for these farms to compete in a way that is injurious to our live stock interests. I do not imagine that is going to happen. As a stock man I have seen the time when I very much appreciated the opportunity to go to the demonstration or experimental farm in Alberta and get young bulls. I have done that, and I did not feel that those farms were putting me out of business or competing with me when I did so. I have got better bulls than I could get anywhere else right from those farms, and I got bulls that were bred along the lines
Supply-Experimental Farms

that I wanted. I feel that if the experimental farms continue to do that, it will much more than offset any danger of competition with the stock man. There are many stock men in this country who are discouraged to-day, and Canada cannot afford to have the stock business go down hill. It should be our effort to keep the business up to where it ought to be.
I hold no brief for the government as to the expenditure of this money, but I do feel there is a chance for them to use the increase this year to good advantage on the experimental farms. I should like to impress upon the House that these farms are making money for the individual farmer. I thought I knew the business pretty thoroughly myself, but I have had a good many pointers from the experimental and demonstration farms. I could not afford to do that experimenting myself, but I took advantage of their experiments and applied what I learned to my own farm, to my profit. That is the light in which I look at the experimental farms.
I am not going to enter into any dispute as to whether or not the government will use this money rightly, but I am not here to oppose the government in something which I think it is possible for them to make of service to our country. Agriculture has never had the encouragement and money expended upon it that it should have had, in proportion to the importance of the industry in Canada. I do not care to make a speech on this subject, but I did want to tell the House how I felt about it, and I have been a stock man all my life. If there are other lines in which part of this money is to be spent, the minister has not told us about them; there is plenty of room in the stock business alone to use all that increase, if it is expended in the right way, and I am willing to support the government and give if a chance to make good on this item.


Oliver Robert Gould: It might be well to point out that this item of $1,525,000 which is credited under the Department of Agriculture is a sum to be spent on experimental farms, which in turn furnish opportunities to each and every individual throughout the whole Dominion. Usually a vote of this nature is supposed to be wholly and solely for the purposes of agriculture, .which represents, we will say, possibly fifty per cent of the people of Canada. But that is an absolutely erroneous view to take of the question.
I would also point out that I have great faith in the present Minister of Agriculture, as I had in the previous Minister of Agriculture, and I have always supported the esti-
IMr. Warner.]
mates brought down by both these hon. gentlemen simply because I have always felt that agriculture in Canada has been starved and has never received its fair proportion of the public moneys that was its right, and was necessary to establish the industry and give it a fair chance as compared with other governmental activities. One of the reasons why I say a complimentary word of the present Minister of Agriculture is because in my own province I had the pleasure of working for him in a small way for twelve years while he was Minister of Agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan, and I know whereof I speak. That is one of the reasons why I do not question his action when he comes to this House and asks for an increase of $200,000 in this vote, because I feel sure that it will be expended wisely.
As I stated before, a vote of this kind will benefit each and every individual in the Dominion if they like to accept the opportunities afforded through the experimental farm system. I do not approve of the idea that it would be economy to cut that off. There is such a thing as false economy, and if you put the number of people who are interested in agriculture at 48 or 50 per cent of the population, this amount is very, very small indeed to be allotted to agriculture. The sum of $200,000 is a mere bagatelle; it is not nearly enough. I stated to the minister last year that under his jurisdiction I would be prepared to stand in my place and ask for an increase of $1,000,000 for the purposes of agriculture this year. I would point to this fact in support of the statement I made when I first rose, that for about five years only the small sum of approximately $3,000,000 was voted in this large Dominion for the purposes of agriculture. I say it was a crying shame that governments in this country should have continued so long to pay so little attention to the merits of agriculture that they allowed it to get along with a paltry $3,000,000. We have protested, and our protests are now being heard At the same time we recognize the extreme importance of keeping down expenditure in this country. But there is wise and unwise expenditure, and I have no hesitation in passing my judgment at this time that this $200,000 is a very wise expenditure, and if any fault is to be found with it at all, it is that it is too small.
Mr. STEED8MAN: I was pleased to hear the minister this afternoon outline his policy of encouraging the live stock industry, particularly in the prairie provinces. I agree with him when he says that permanent agriculture requires the development of live stock. There

Supply-Experimental Farms
is one feature in the development of live stock which I hope the minister will not neglect. While I come from a grain-growing district, I am particularly interested in the development of live stock with the growing of grain. The minister spoke this afternoon about the development of fodder crops, but I would point out that in the territory that he mentioned this afternoon, particularly southern Manitoba, southern Saskatchewan, and southern Alberta, in order to go into the live stock industry we must have something more than the fodder crops that he mentioned. We have not got in that country up to the present time a grass or fodder crop suitable for pasture in the summer or for hay. I do not say that that question has been neglected, but I say that the progress has not been made that the case demands.


William Richard Motherwell: What county is
that?


Mr. STEEDSMAN:: I refer to southwestern Manitoba. I feel that it is absolutely necessary that some of the money expended on the experimental farms up there should be devoted to experiments along that line. I am convinced that stock raising must come to make agriculture permanent there. Not only do we want development of the live stock industry, but we must have those plants I spoke of in the interests of rotation. We must have a satisfactory rotation of crops that will restore the root fibre to our soil, and in that way prevent the drifting of the soil which is becoming prevalent in the older parts of that country. I would like to ask the minister if he will make a note of that, and see to it that experiments along the line of developing grasses, clovers, and fodder crops shall be continued in that part of the country.


Mr. MILLAR:: I shall vote with a great
deal of reluctance for any increase in national expenditure, and yet I do not feel inclined to oppose this particular outlay. It is some thirty years since we first commenced to agitate for the British embargo on Canadian cattle. Now when it is removed we find that the British farmer desires our store cattle provided they are of the right type. It is quite evident, I think, that there are great possibilities in this direction, and that we should be able to develop a very large trade if the matter is properly handled. For that reason, knowing so well the Minister of Agriculture, in whom I have, like the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), the very greatest confidence because of his administrative ability, having lived in the same province where he successfully handled the department of agriculture, I have decided to vote for this
item but I would like to make two or three comments about the experimental farms.
In the first place I would ask the minister if any plans have been laid down in connection with the raising of pure-bred stock at the farms for so distributing the different breeds that the purchasers will not be under the necessity of paying freight for a long distance. For example, we have two experimental farms, one at Brandon and the other at Indian Head, perhaps raising the same breed of stock-Shorthorns. I do not know that both are doing that, but I know that one is. Then if in another part of the Dominion two farms near together were raising Herefords and in another comer of Canada two farms were raising Aberdeen Angus it could be readily seen that it might be very awkward for those who wished to purchase this breeding stock. It would be better if they were more scattered.
One other comment, and this may seem very strange especially to those who have not been in the stock business, and that is that the cattle that are now being raised on our experimental farms, at least some of them, do not exactly fill the bill, if they are to be regarded as types for the ordinary farm, and for the reason, that they are too well cared for in their young days. We know that animals that have been raised in what I might term a pampered condition and not allowed to rustle for themselves, when placed side by side with cattle raised on the ordinary farm present a very poor appearance, a very sorry sight. I have seen them myself in very poor flesh compared with cattle raised on the ordinary farm under ordinary conditions, although the latter was in splendid condition, and that continues year after year. I remember quite well a conversation with that grand old stock man of Manitoba, Mr. Bedford, in which he stated that one of the great difficulties he had with his cattlemen on the farm was this: They were inclined to keep the windows of the barns always closed and the cattle never were allowed to be out in the cold very much. He said he was always at them to keep the windows open so as to allow the fresh air in, and permit the animals to rough it a little bit. I think every stock man knows that the young stock raised under such conditions when distributed throughout the country and kept under ordinary farm conditions will give very much better results.
These are the only comments I have to make. Perhaps the minister will answer the question I asked him, if there is any plan for the distribution of the various breeds of stock.
Supply-Experimental Farms


Mr. MILNE:: We have been asked for some criticisms with respect to our experimental farms. Let me say that I am glad to know that the government have undertaken a new policy. I used to be of the opinion, and still think, that the experimental farms have been following too closely an ancient plan that was laid down several years ago. I am now glad to learn that they are adopting new views, and are going to change the former policy.
The first criticism I would make is that the appropriation for this purpose does not seem to be so arranged that we can discuss it intelligently. What I mean by that is this: Coming from Manitoba I only know, in a general way, what the experimental farms are doing in that province. So far as the farms in the East are concerned I cannot say whether they are accomplishing the results expected of them or not. I appreciate the work that the experimental farms have done and have this to say in regard to the development of our Marquis wheat. The origination of that variety of wheat alone has probably meant more for the Dominion than would be required to carry on our experimental farms for the next hundred years or more. I realize that in experimental work an investigator may labour for practically a life time and finally, when he is almost giving up in the belief that he has accomplished nothing, he makes some discovery which may be productive of marvellous results. I repeat that I fully appreciate the work the farms have done in the past, and any suggestions I may make are advanced in the hope of aiding them to assist our farmers to a still greater degree in future.
In the next place I think there is overlapping between the federal department and the provincial departments. Personally I should like to see the experimental farms conduct their various experiments in the interest of the agricultural industry, and then continue those experiments further and demonstrate that work along these lines could be successfully undertaken on the average-sized farm. So far as I know, in Manitoba at any rate, the experimental farms have not been giving any demonstrations. I would suggest that demonstration stations should be established if at all possible. Perhaps the manager of an experimental farm might get in touch with some of the farmers in the country and persuade them to adopt methods that have been proven to be superior to the ones they are following. For example, he might select a farm that is overrun with weeds, or the soil of which has been impoverished, and there demonstrate some of the conclusions arrived at on the experimental 
farm. I believe this would be a good work to get before the people.
I want to say further that the experiments carried on at the experimental farms do not seem to be known to a sufficiently large number of people. I would suggest that the government by some means induce people to go to the experimental farms and see the work that is going on. So far as the reports are concerned, I do not know whose fault it is. I have no suggestion to offer as to how to get information to the people, but I should say that the information that has been obtained on the experimental farms to-day is not getting to the people, and what is the use of experimenting if the farmers do not know the results. Practically speaking that is the condition of the country. A few who are more energetic visit the farm occasionally, but I think if records were available of the number of people visiting the farm we would find a very small percentage of agricultural people among them. They are more likely to be townspeople, driving out to the farms to see the flower beds, the hedges, the shade trees and so on. I say that I appreciate the work the farm is doing, but I claim that there is an overlapping of the work of the experimental farms: that is the federal experimental farm and the provincial farms. I claim that the work that is being done on the farm should be communicated to more people. It will be of no use to carry on experiments, if the results are not known, except by a few townspeople and the people working on the farm.


Mr. GARDINER:: Did I understand the minister to say that a certain amount of this grant was for exhibition purposes?


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend will allow me, I will answer the question asked by my hon. friend under the gallery, who promised to support the vote if I would give him a reasonable justification for it, and tell him where the money is to be expended. I mil answer the last question first. The sum of $2,000 is to be used for the expenses in connection with the Imperial Exhibition in the Old Country in 1924, for grouping material together for that exhibition. I do not think I need go over all these items, Mr. Chairman, but just for the purpose of giving the House some idea of where the money is going, I may say that I will start down by the Atlantic ocean. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, is to receive an increase of $6,000 over last year for the purpose of carrying on experimental work on the area recently acquired for

Supply-Experimental Farms
this farm. We acquired 40 acres to supplement the farm that was too small. That has to be developed, fed, and drained. At Nap-pan, N.S., there is an increase of $2,000 for experimental work in marsh lands. This is one of the farms that requires taking care of. As a matter of fact, as I have intimated, they have all had temporary care during the last eight years. At Fredericton, N.B., there is an increase of $5,000 for experimental work in general; at Ste. Anne de Pocatiere, an increase of $2,000 for experimental work; Cap Rouge, an increase of $3,000 for dairy equipment, fertilizer work and work in horticulture; at Lennoxville an increase of $5,000 for experimental work; at La Ferme, Que., an increase of $4,000 for clearing and draining and increased work in horticulture; at Kapus-kasing, Ontario, an increase of $5,000 for experimental work and provision of a second assistant; at Morden, Manitoba, an increase of $4,000 for new roads and fences and additional planting in the orchard; and at Brandon, Manitoba, an increase of $15,000, $12,000 of which is for the purchase of new land, the remainder for an increase of the work in forage crop breeding. That was because of the flooding of the land in the valley of the Assiniboine. We cannot rely upon that district' any longer for experimental purposes. It is liable to break up at any time. Then at Indian Head, Saskatchewan, there is an increase of $5,000 for providing two additional assistants and clearing up the forestry and shelter belts; at Rosthern, Saskatchewan, an increase of $8,000 for expansion of the work in animal and field husbandry, and the appointment of an additional assistant; at Scott, Saskatchewan, an increase of $5,000 for the purchase of feed and appointment of an additional assistant; at Swift Current an increase of $9,000 to complete the work of the establishment of this new farm; and at Lethbridge an increase of $25,000, $20,000 of which is for the purchase of new land for irrigation experiments, the remainder for the carrying on of these irrigation experiments. They have not yet taken up to any great extent the matter of irrigation. They have done it only in a small way. At Lacombe there is an increase of $12,000 of which $10,000 is for the purchase of new land, and the remainder for increased feed for live stock experiments; at Summer-land an increase of $15,000, of which $10,000 is for the purchase of land, and the remainder for irrigation experiments. So it goes on through the list.
In reply to my hon. friend from Neepawa (Mr. Milne): the tall, fine-looking gentleman
who speaks of the necessity of more publicity-


Andrew Ross McMaster: There are very many
that answer that description.


William Richard Motherwell: I mean the tall one.
I am impressed with the fact that we know more about farming than we make known and carry out, and that there is a great deal of work done on the experimental farms that a great many of the people never hear anything about. I do not know how we are going to correct that. The reader of to-day is a headline reader rather than a serious reader, who will sit down and read a government bulletin. In spite of that we find some encouragement in the fact that a great many applications are made for bulletins or folders A little bulletin is sent out called Seasonable Hints, published quarterly, and in that will be found an invitation to all and sundry to send in an application for any bulletin that they might be interested in. If they do we will send it to them. The old way was to distribute these bulletins indiscriminately; if you were not in the right humour to read them you threw them into the waste paper basket, and if you were not an active supporter of the government you would not take any stock in them. Now, we send them out on application, and still, in spite of that, we feel that the information does not get to the people as much as we would like. If my hon. friend has any suggestions to make as to how we can make the work more popular, take more advantage of it, have the people read more about our experiments, we would be glad to receive them. I ran across a farmer in Saskatchewan at Christmas time who had put up a silo in my own district where I have live! for forty years. The silo was quite a joke even last year, after some people in other parts of the province had started to use them. After this gentleman had filled the silo with sunflowers he had some over, and he found his cattle ate them, standing in the field. I asked him how it came about that he started to build a silo and experiment with ensilage and feeding the cattle with this fodder that was never heard of before. He said that he had been reading some of the bulletins some guy from Ottawa had sent him, that he had beeome interested in them and that after reading about the matter in various publications he had come to the conclusion that there must be something in it and he tried it.


Mr. BUREAU:: Who was the "guy"?


William Richard Motherwell: He referred to all and sundry that wrote bulletins as " guys But the information he received made him a
Supply-Experimental Farms

convert to this silo method, and he went into it, in spite of the fact that his neighbours made fun of him, because the feeding of sunflower as ensilage was looked upon as a pretty good joke in a wheat territory. That is the way to get the information. It is just like any kind of missionary work; it takes a great deal of planting to get any harvesting; but nevertheless, the good work must go on. I hope that is sufficiently exhaustive for my hon. friend.


Joseph Henry Harris: Are there no savings at all anywhere throughout the country?


William Richard Motherwell: Does the hon.
member mean in the improvement of these farms?


Joseph Henry Harris: Were the budgets from any of these particular farms any less than they were last year, and how was the money allocated that came from such places?


William Richard Motherwell: I went over them all and they all called for additional expenditures. My hon. friend must realize that not only the experimental farms, but practically every provincial and federal Department of Agriculture in Canada, when the war broke out, simply sat tight and marked time. When that is done for four years and then followed up with a similar procedure during four more subsequent years, one can understand the need for expenditure to put those farms into proper shape.


Joseph Henry Harris: Does the minister not
remember that last session he told us in this House that he would keep the vote down?


William Richard Motherwell: No, that I would keep it down as low as true economy would permit; but good economy and the best kind of economy is sometimes wise expenditure. My hon. friend must have been out of the House before dinner, because he asked me if we were going to establish any new farms and where. I made it quite plain that we were not for the present, until we got the old ones into shape.


Mr. SPENCE:: The minister is establishing a new farm at Swift Current.


William Richard Motherwell: It is comparatively new. It is what we call our baby farm. We sometimes use that appellation in connection with people who are ten, twelve or twenty years old. It is the last farm to be established, it is, comparatively speaking, a new farm. The matter of freight rates and breeding, certain kinds of stock on certain farms is a difficult one. We find the tendency throughout Canada is to introduce too many breeds 
of sheep, too many breeds of swine, too many breeds of dairy cattle, and the more you do that, the greater is the tendency for crossbreeding. The result has been the encouragement by all governments of community stock breeding, to induce groups of farmers to engage in breeding along the same line and with the same breeds of animals. This is cheaper, but it is very difficult to bring it into effect. We shall have to keep, let us say, three standard breeds of dairy cattle in a dairy district. In the Indian Head district with which my hon. friend is more familiar, as I am, we have a dual purpose, Shorthorn breed of cattle. Some people are of opinion that there is no such thing. We have in Brandon, where there is a similar herd, a record of 11,000 pounds of milk annually, and that is pretty good for even a dairy breed. In this way we are doing what we can to encourage community breeding, but it is a hard matter, indeed, to say that we shall not take on, say -three breeds. We are pretty nearly compelled to do so inasmuch as there are three standard breeds of both beef and dairy cattle.	There are two outstanding breeds of bacon hog, if not three. If we could reduce that to one, I am satisfied that we would be further on; but you can hardly get the thing down so fine that you are going to be able to size up just where you are going to save on freight rates to the market from where the prospective demand will come. I have not, at least, been able to work out any policy. The main idea in a district like Indian Head, where the farmers have been exclusively wheat growers for forty years, is to encourage the variety and particular breed of live stock that will be most attractive to wheat growers. I think the average wheat grower would prefer to go into something that would make beef, rather than to breed dairy cattle, or, perhaps, go into hog raising, or poultry raising in preference to that. That is what we have in mind in developing a herd, or a flock as the case may be, at any particular station.
I think an hon. member from Manitoba spoke of the advisability of having more excursions. At Indian Head, that provided some of the best publicity that farm got in the early years. We had regularly organized excursions from all parts of the country. Not only was an excursion a social outing; but many practical lessons were learned, and hundreds and thousands of farmers went away to the open prairie filled with enthusiasm from seeing the homelike surroundings of that farm and what could be done in the direction of tree growing as well as crop growing. I do not know why these excursions have been abandoned.

Supply-Experimental Farms
unless it is because farmers have now become familiar with these farms and because we do a certain amount of illustration work. That is another thing of which my hon. friend spoke. There are a hundred illustration farms carrying on demonstrating what has been accomplished on the experimenal farms. In the province from which my hon. friend comes, I understand there is not one illustration station, and there are none in Ontario. These illustration stations are established on request; we do not force them on the public, because if we did, the farmer who would take the thing up under anything like persuasion, would not be very likely to make a success of it. But if my hon. friend has in view any man who is of an experimental turn of mind, who likes that kind of work, who is already dabbling in it, we shall be glad to do illustration work on his farm on the usual terms. That costs probably three to four hundred dollars per farm per year. We have one hundred of these illustration stations and they are doing a great deal of useful work. They will be accelerated in those districts I have spoken about that are waiting for experimental farms, out on the National Transcontinental between Prince Rupert and Prince George.
Some remarks were made by my hon. friend (Mr. Steedsman), I think, perhaps, as a result of misunderstanding my remarks with respect to the development of forage plants. I merely mentioned sunflower and sweet clover, as extremes, in the development of what was looked upon formerly as comparatively useless plants. That has been a feature in a sense; it has provided the unexpected source; but in addition to that a tremendous amount of experimental work has been done in developing fodders along the line of domesticated grasses. I am quite frank in admitting that I do not know, especially for the dry areas, any recognized grass that will give what we call a catch successfully by seeding down with a crop one year with another, particularly in the drier parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta. If we can develop a dry-land plant that will give us a catch of grass when sown with grain, then we shall certainly have brought about a revolution in the drier parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta and in some parts of Manitoba.
I do not know where we can get such a plant. The nearest approach to it possibly, i3 the sweet clover, and the annual variety is a very promising plant. Many people do not like either of them; but nevertheless live stock get quite accustomed to and fond of them. When stock eat sunflower, they will certainly come to eat sweet clover. A great
deal of work remains to be done in that connection still, I admit; but that only proves that the work of experimental farms is not anything like exhausted yet. I read articles written by young men about a proper rotation including grass, let us say, in Saskatchewan or the drier parts of southern Manitoba or Alberta. I have never seen one worked out successfully yet, although I do not say that that cannot be done. I think possibly some drought-resisting grass may be found; but I think if one is to look for the best results, seeding down of grass in those dry areas must be done alone. That is expensive, and that is the reason why grass-growing and stock-raising has not been as successful as it should be, and has not been tried out as much as it should have been in those districts. That is the reason we turned to ensilage such as I have described, namely, com and sunflowers, because these are annuals and they will grow a crop whether it is dry or wet, the crop being of course better when there is a reasonable amount of moisture. Now I think I have covered all the questions raised.


David Spence: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the explanation of the minister and to the remarks of different hon. members who have spoken. The minister has given us a long list of increased expenditures embracing various items from $3,000 up to $20,000 in connection with these experimental farms. I am willing to-night and at any time to support any reasonable expenditure for the maintenance of these farms, but I am not willing at this inopportune time to support any undertaking to go into the further development of them when the money market is so bad; and I think that the minister is extravagant in his tastes when he suggests that we ought to vote all this money. The minister made the statement to-night-I do not know whether he .meant it or not-that these farms were already in a high state of efficiency. That being the case, why does he suggest spending $200,000 more, especially after having received an increase last year of $150,000? There are more fads introduced into this department than are being introduced into the schools and colleges in the big cities of this country. And that is saying a great deal. My hon. friends to my left will never vote a dollar for anything in the line of industry, but they are all with one exception willing to vote millions for this particular purpose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


David Spence: Well, that attitude has been evident to-night. One hon. gentleman said
Supply-Experimental Farms

that it was a shame to reflect that at one time the department was run with $3,000,000 and he added that it should have been millions more. To-night I think the item calls for $6,000,000 odd. I think that when private individuals are trying their best to cut down overhead expenditures the government should set an example and economize, but how the minister expects the public debt to be kept down when he asks for such increased expenditures as this I cannot see. I have always been a supporter of the men who work on the farms, I am willing to vote money for the improvement of agriculture and I would willingly vote for the expenditure of this increase of $200,000 if the country were as prosperous as it should be. To-night I asked one of my colleagues why it was that we had not been given the details of the item of $1,600,000 and I was told that it would necessitate too much printing. Well, it would have saved the minister a great deal of explanation, and hours of the time of the Home, if he had given those details. So far as my friends to my left are concerned, I think the cheapest thing would be to establish sufficient experimental farms and place upon them all the genuine farmers of that group. At least it would save the time of the House.


Donald Sutherland: I was somewhat surprised at the remarks made by the minister before six o'clock and shortly after recess, in which he said that the department would practically revolutionize the experimental farm system. I have listened with much interest to the statements he has made, and he is now trying to impress upon the House that this increase in the expenditures is to be applied to various branches of work carried on in conection with the experimental farms. Some hon. gentlemen have taken the ground that some one has been criticizing these expenditures because the farms have not been self-sustaining. Now, I do not think that anyone has attempted to criticize the farm's on any such ground. No one expects an experimental farm to meet expenses or to pay profits, that is not what it is established for. The minister suggested a few moments ago that we had too many breeds of live stock in the country and it was necessary to standardize and reduce them. One would almost infer from his remarks that this was one idea which it was intended to put into practice in connection with the live stock depots that are to be established on these farms to supply stock to the farmers. I think he said that we have about three standard breeds of cattle. He mentioned dairy and beef cattle. He might tell us which one 
of the breeds he mentioned will be singled out by the department. I see a danger in connection with any undertaking of this kind. Individuals have invested a great deal of money in pure-bred animals of various breeds and their whole investments may be tied up in connection w?ith the breeds which the experimental farms will not specialize in. In that way there might be material damage done to legitimate and useful business in the country, and this was one of the things I had in mind when I was trying to show the danger that might attend any attempt on the part of the government to enter upon the breeding of animals on a commercial basis to supply the wants of the people. I consider that this is something that should be left to those engaged in the business. I have always encouraged the purchase by the government of the very best animals that could be procured to be kept on the farms as examples to breeders. I was at the Canadian Live Stock Show in Toronto last winter and was particularly pleased to note that the province of Manitoba exhibited the grand champion Clydesdale stallion of that show in competition with other exhibitors. I thought it was a great compliment to the good judgment of the agricultural department of that province in making such a wise selection. But that is an entirely different matter. That exhibition serves a useful purpose as an object lesson to students visiting the place. But it seems that the government in this case intend to specialize in two or three breeds, and I infer from the minister's remarks that he thinks that even three are too many. So far as bacon breeds of hogs are concerned he says that two ought to be sufficient. Well, that may be true, but possibly competition may serve a useful purpose. Competition is the life of trade, and the competition which we have in our exhibitions is one of the most useful things in connection with our agricultural industry. Those who had the privilege of visiting this exhibition in Toronto last winter as well as the great winter show at Chicago must have been favourably impressed with the resources of this country, for we had a magnificent display from every part of the Dominion.
As far as western Canada is concerned, I must say to their credit that many of their exhibitors at the winter show in Toronto secured a large share of the prizes. I think many breeders there of pure-bred live stock will object very strongly to the government entering into competition with them, particularly if one or two breeds are given the preference. I should like the minister to pay a

little more attention to this question and give the committee further light on what he proposes to do, and what particular breeds are to be singled out, because I would judge from his remarks that, like every other farmer, he has a personal preference for certain breeds as being the most useful.
Apparently from his remarks on the feeding of live stock, the sunflower is a new development that our friends from western Canada knew nothing about until a few'years ago, but I am inclined to be a little skeptical as to that.
The Seasonable Hints to which the minister referred, I have found them in banks and other public places through-
10 p.m. out our province in stacks for distribution, with an invitation to the reader to apply to the nearest experimental station for information with regard to agriculture. Unfortunately as far as we are concerned in Ontario, from Ottawa west for five hundred miles the only practical demonstration we can have in agricultural methods is in relation to the growing of tobacco, for we have no other Dominion operated farms. We have fruit growing stations in several parts of the province, but they are maintained and operated by the provincial government. And as far as tobacco growing is concerned, I am afraid that the present labour situation will deter those who might wish to go into that industry.
If the minister would briefly indicate the particular breeds that are to be developed and placed in competition by his department with other breeds raised by the breeders of this country, he will be rendering a service to them by way of warning as to what they are going to be up against in the near future.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought I had
already dealt with the question by pointing out to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) what we are doing at Indian Head. In that heretofore wheat growing district we thought that the dual purpose shorthorn cow would be taken more kindly to because she lends herself both to beef production and dairying. The same may be said with regard to Brandon. At Swift Current and Scott, too, it is generally thought that dairying cattle will be the line of stock developed, especially now that- the silo is a recognized institution in that territory. Quebec is a recognized dairy province, and on most of the farms the dairy breeds will be handled. The three standards I had in mind were the Holstein, the Ayrshire and the Jersey. There are other breeds, of course, but if we take up too many breeds
Supply-Experimental Farms
we are going to dissipate your activities too much to accomplish anything substantial. In the Eastern Townships territory, in the vicinity of Lennoxville, where a considerable number of beef animals are grown, we have the beef breeds established, and the dairy as well in the Ayrshire and the Jersey, giving the farmers their choice. We are not arbitrarily imposing these particular breeds on the farmers in any district-they happen to be the predisposition of the local farmers. We cannot go into a district and say:	Here, you
have been doing so and so in the past, but if you are going to get any benefit from our methods you must change your breed and adopt ours. So far as is consistent with good practice and good business we are trying to meet the wishes of the respective districts with regard to the particular breed they desire to develop. For instance take what is known as the Canadian Jersey or the Canadian cow at Cap Rouge. The people there are wedded to that particular breed and do not want any other. It is an exceedingly good dairy cow, with a certain amount of sentiment attached to it, and it is to-day a registered breed. What would be the use of talking any other breed there? While we do not want to be arbitrary, at the same time we desire to be sufficiently advanced in our policy as to lead in the direction that we think will most effectively meet the reasonable requirements of the people directly concerned.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I am not rising to criticise this vote involving a $200,000 increase, for if the money is well spent I think it will be a benefit to the Dominion as a whole. But I do think that when money is being spent to buy land for new farms the district I represent should get first consideration. The Cariboo district represents about a third of British Columbia. The Minister of Agriculture in the preceding government (Mr. Tolmie) I understand strongly recommended the establishment of an experimental farm along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Last summer I had the honour of accompanying the present Minister of Agriculture through there and we looked over several locations. Not only so, but his deputy, I understand, went through there last fall and definitely located where an experimental farm should be established. The money I might say was voted last year, and when other experimental farms are being purchased I think the least this committee could do would be to re-vote that item for the establishment of a farm in the Cariboo district. There are a great number of returned men in the vicinity of Prince George who
Supply-Experimental Farms

know very little about farming, and they want some one to give them a lead. Seeing that the last government recommended the establishment of a farm along the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and that this government approves of it, I think they are in honour bound to start operations this coming season.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I listened with a great deal of interest, Mr. Chairman, to what the hon. minister had to say before adjournment this evening with regard to the establishment of breeding depots in connection with our experimental farm system, and I am rather anxious to have a little more information on the point. Judging from the term, one would form the idea that it is the intention of the government to breed cattle and to sell them in competition with the live stock breeders of the country. The department has been doing that to a certain extent up to the present time, but as I understand the hon. minister this evening, it is intended to extend that work to a much greater degree. If so, I may say that we have had a little experience as breeders of pure bred live stock in British Columbia in competition with the government in the same line of work. The government, you will readily understand, has a great many advantages over the ordinary breeder. When it comes to attending exhibitions it can put on a large string, and can also stand a much heavier cost than the ordinary breeder would be able to bear. Then again, being a government institution, its advertising is far more extensive than that of the ordinary breeder. It is true that the work carried along these lines will bring buyers from outside points, but these buyers almost invariably go to the government establishments to secure what they want. It would be very unfortunate indeed if the breeders who have done a great deal of pioneer work in this country and spent large sums of money in importing first-class animals should be compelled to meet heavy government competition along these lines, and I would like to have a little more information from the minister on that point.
With regard to inducing people to maintain certain breeds of live stock in certain sections of the country, while I agree that that would be very nice if once it can be accomplished, I can assure the minister that in my opinion he has assumed a very heavy job indeed. In the first place, we have to leave a great deal in a matter of this kind to the intelligence of the breeder himself. The greatest breeding country in the world will probably muster more breeds of horses, cattle, sheep and swine at their public exhibitions than any other country in the world, and that 
is Great Britain. I visited the Royal Show in 1921, and I may say that I saw all the breeds that I had ever seen at exhibitions on this side of the water, and in addition, many breeds I had read of but never seen, and some that I had never even read of-some brand-new breeds that had been created only within the last few years. So that when moving along these lines, a great deal must be left to the intelligence of the individual.
There is another point that must not be overlooked. In a country like Canada where we have about three and one-half million dairy cows, averaging about four thousand pounds of milk a year each, we have a common enemy to compete with, and that is the scrub cow. It does not matter whether the cow we bring in competition with that scrub is a brown Swiss, or a Guernsey, a Jersey, a Holstein, or any other breed, if she will increase the average output of the cows of this country to an appreciable extent she is rendering very valuable service to Canada.
I must congratulate the hon. minister and his officials and also the superintendent of tha Agassiz farm on having produced there a cow with a world's record for the production of butter, a record in competition with all other countries in the world. That record is a very good one indeed, and I think that every tribute should be paid to Mr. Hicks, the superintendent of that farm, for the excellent work he has done in that connection. It only backs up what I have said in this House on previous occasions, that the Fraser river valley with its mild climate and ability to produce various kinds of fodder will be one of the greatest dairying sections of our Dominion.
I am pleased to note, too, that the minister still has in mind the placing of an experimental station in northern British Columbia. I looked over that territory when I was minister and I was astonished at its wonderful expanse and its adaptability for the development of the dairying and general live stock industry. These men are struggling along up there, and the advice which they could obtain through an establishment like a Dominion experimental farm would be exceedingly useful to them, and any money expended in that line would be bound to bring excellent results.
I am not one of those who believe that we can develop Canada by adhering strictly to economy regardless of other considerations. In addition to strict economy we must have an intelligent expenditure of money from one end of the country to the other along such lines as give the best promise of immediate and sure returns.
With regard to the Swift Current farm, I heard one hon. gentleman of the group to my

Supply-Experimental Farms
left complaining because the minister had established a farm at that point. I have very much pleasure indeed in exonerating the minister from all blame for that and in taking it on my own shoulders, where the responsibility rests for selecting that site. It wds chosen because it was a district just a little different from any other district where an experimental farm was situated, and I am very pleased indeed to learn that having gathered a crop or two from that land the minister has found it was a very good place to locate a farm.
In conclusion, no one has a greater appreciation of what has been done by the experimental farm system than I have. I think it is second to none in the world, as far as I have been able to gather the information, and I would be sorry indeed to see the minister do anything to radically change the most excellent work that has been carried on at these institutions. I would ask him to seriously consider before taking any such action.


Mr. LOVIE:: I would like to say a word or two in favour of the experimental farm system. It is quite a number of years since one experiment was carried on at the Brandon farm which added much to the knowledge of what pasture grasses could do in the western country. Dr. Bedford, as he is now, when he was superintendent of the Brandon experimental farm, about the time that brome grass was being introduced, sowed one acre, fenced it with wire netting, and for the whole summer pastured two full grown steers there, showing that it only took one acre to pasture two head of cattle during the summer, whereas on the ranges in southern Alberta thirty acres is required to run one head. A lot of people visited Brandon to see that experiment, and brome grass got a start at that time that it has never lost.
I would like to back up what the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Steedsman) said in regard to the necessity for having a grass in the western country that is suitable for rotation. That is something that is absolutely needed, and if agriculture is going to be permanent in our western country, it ought to be by crop rotation. That will have to be worked out.
As regards the experiments conducted on the experimental farms, a good many people have not very much confidence in them because they figure that it is government money that is keeping up those farms. It is just a year ago last January since a resolution was passed by the convention of Agricultural Societies, sitting at the Agricultural College in Winnipeg, asking the government to commence demonstration farms, if you like to call them that. What they wanted was a farm in each locality where the average man on an, average farm could show good returns at the end of the year, raise a crop and make the farm pay. That is what is wanted, and that is one of the reasons why farmers as a rule take more stock in experiments carried on by their neighbours than by the experimental farms. First and foremost, agriculture must-be made to pay. That is what the farmer is interested in.
As regards community breeding, the minister has said that the government were absolutely behind it. Personally I think the Department of Agriculture under this government and the past government has not stood behind community breeding as I should like to see them do. Take, for instance, the federal assistance to horse breeders. There is something that I have always considered an' injustice. Federal assistance is given to a horse breeder providing that one individual owns a stallion, but in a community where a number of farmers get together and purchase a high-class sire they get no assistance whatever. I consider that wrong, and it ought to be remedied. I would be very much in favour of the government doing all it can to improve all live stock, for goodness knows it needs to be improved, and if we are going to capture the British market we will certainly have to have our cattle up to a better standard than they are in the West at the present time. Every encouragement is needed from the government. I would ask the minister to remove the injustice that exists at the present time in that no federal assistance is given to farmers trying to carry on community breeding of high-class draught horses. This does not apply to any one particular breed; all high class draught horses suffer from the same handicap.


William Richard Motherwell: In reply to the hon. member who has just taken his seat I may say that the question he has raised with regard to horse breeding will come up more properly under the live stock vote when I will be very pleased to discuss it very fully. I recognize that he has brought up a question that will naturally arouse a certain amount of interest among the committee.
With respect to the development of grasses, it is to the credit of the experimental farms that brome grass was introduced into western Canada. Some people think it was an evil. It is hard, of course, to eradicate, but if you can get it free from quack grass there is no substantial difficulty that cannot be surmounted in the eradication of it when once
Supply-Experimental Farms

you know how. Like everything else it is easy when you know how. It is the best grass, in my estimation, that has yet been introduced into western Canada notwithstanding the difficulty of eradication. I have grown that grass for thirty years and at one time made lots of money out of it when many people were losing money growing wheat and hauling it the distance they had to. As a matter of fact that is one way I adopted to overcome the transportation difficulty. I could haul $300 worth of grass seed to Indian Head and market it with the same team and the same handling as I could seventeen or eighteen dollars worth of wheat. That was the result of observations I made as I passed the experimental farm at Indian Head. There is no doubt about it, these farms have been of inestimable value in the past.
With respect to the complaint-the very natural complaint-made by the hon. member sitting at the back-I think the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride)-I had the pleasure of travelling with that genial companion last summer. I did hope at that time that we would be able to start one, if not two, experimental farms in that vast territory which is capable of such tremendous development. The crops there, notwithstanding the drouth which prevailed at that time, were a marvel. But, Mr. Chairman, the time has come when, even in the matter of establishing experimental farms, we must cut our coat to suit the cloth; and I would advise my hon. friend to wait a year or two until we can start that institution properly, in the meantime taking care of the older farms in the way I have described. At present there is very good work being done at Fort George, Vanderhoof, and other points with respect to illustration stations -exceedingly good work. At the same time I recognize that that will not fill the bill indefinitely. I have intimated to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) who had tacitly, I think, with his officials concluded to establish a farm there while he was administering the affairs of the department that I feel we are committed to that place for the location of our next new farm.
With respect to some additions to the old farms to which I have referred, I may say. that from time to time as we get the opportunity to buy five, ten, fifteen or twenty acres at a good bargain we think it is good business to do that, under the old farm system, particularly where we have to buy feed. There is scarcely a farm under the old system where we do not have to buy feed. My hon. friends opposite who have been life long farmers know
(Mr. Motherwell.]
that is not good business on their individual farms. Some times it occurs inadvertently or is unavoidable, but as a general practice it is bad. It is just as bad for the experimental farms as it is for the individual farms, and it should be avoided as far as possible in both cases. ,
Now with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), I may say that I hope I did not leave the impression that we were simply going to turn these farms upside down and convert them into exclusive breeding farms, or that we were going to revolutionize them, or that there was going to be much change in respect to many of them. But there are certain farms in the Maritime provinces and in the prairie provinces as well, where we believe we would be neglecting our duty if we did not pay- considerably more attention to live stock at this time. The farmer that insists upon continuing in exclusive farming of any kind-whether it be fruit, grain, potatoes, or any other branch-has to take his chances; he is engaged in a very much more vulnerable business economically than the man who is devoting himself to diversified farming We believe in the good old practice of diversification or specialties if you like, whatever the district may be adapted to, so that when one particular branch falls down you will have something to keep the wolf from the door, or something to prevent you from raising money on a mortgage at the bank. This doctrine is as old as the hills and a great many people are practising it.
As regards the farms to which I have referred at which more attention will be paid to live stock, I may say that at the present time Mr. Archibald has gone to the United Kingdom in connection with that work. Although we have had exceedingly good directors of the experimental farms system since their inception by Professor Wiiliam Saunders, I do not think we have had a man more active, more alive, or more energetic, than the present director, Mr. Archibald. He is about arriving in the United Kingdom on an errand in connection with certain shipments of homes. While he is there he is going to buy thirty breeding boars of the best bacon type he can find in the United Kingdom, consisting perhaps of Yorkshires, Tamworths, and a few bacon type of Berk-shires. We hope to equip our experimental farms with these, distributing them to suit the requirements of the various districts. While at the Royal fair during the early winter I was discussing this matter with some of the breeders of Tamworths, and they told

Supply-Experimental Farms
mo we could not perform a better service than by introducing some new strains of Tarn-worths. Because of the inbreeding that had been practised in this breed by the various breeders it was found that an infusion of new blood was desirable. They were delighted to find that the government contemplated bringing in shipments of this particular breed to which 1 have referred. With the demand for the bacon type of hog, and with our grading system so recently introduced, and with so few breeds grading up to standard, this is one of the activities we will undertake at the various experimental farms throughout Canada.
I may say to the hon. member for Victoria City that I went into that matter very fully and I think I satisfied the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), so that he does not look half so savage as he did last year. If I succeeded in satisfying him I think my hon. friend from Victoria City, had he been here at the time, would have been satisfied also that we do not mean to enter upon any serious revolutionary process, nor into any field in a way calculated to disturb private enterprise, but rather to proceed in such a manner that if we act judiciously we shall encourage private enterprise. That was the extent of my argument and I think my explanations were generally accepted by the committee.


Mr. COOTE:: I think the minister very well stated the course that should be followed in regard to this particular item. He said we should make the suit to fit the cloth. Following up his own statement I think that he should cut off the increase of $200,000 asked for this year in connection with this vote. I want to protest very strongly against the way in which the estimates dealing with agriculture are presented to us, and I think that remark applies equally to the estimates of some of the departments. How can any man here vote intelligently to-night on the question of whether we shall spend the sum of $1,525,000 on experimental farms? I think we have spent something over three hours in discussion of the item, and I do not feel that we have had any reasonable explanation from the Minister of Agriculture as to what he is going to do with this money. I think the minister should have the items printed in detail in the estimates or at least state how much it is proposed to spend on each farm. There are a great many men in this House who do not know how many experimental farms there are in Canada, and I must admit that I am one of them. I think that we might very well put this information in the estimates. If
the minister would not consider doing that, I think we should adopt some new procedure for dealing with the estimates, so that we could deal with them intelligently.
I think they might very properly go to the Committee on Agriculture and there be discussed in detail by the members of that committee. Then I am sure when a recommendation came from that committee there would be very little opposition in this House to the passing of the estimates, and a lot of time might be saved. I for one am not prepared to vote for this large increase of expenditure in the Department of Agriculture with the explanation that we have had from the minister to-day. I do not say that he is to blame.


William Richard Motherwell: Will my hon. friend indicate any particular information he desires? I read out nearly all the twenty-two farms and indicated the amount we proposed to spend on each of them. I think we can supply pretty nearly any reasonable information he desires to ask for, and I will be delighted to do so.


George Gibson Coote: We have spent three hours and I do not think we have yet been told the total amount it is proposed to expend, say on the experimental farm at Ottawa, or on the farm at Indian Head or on the farm at Agassiz, and just what they would do with the money at any one of these particular farms. He stated, if I understood him correctly, that the period of experimentation in regard to grain growing on the prairie was practically over for these farms, and yet he asks for an increased vote of $200,000. To my mind he certainly is not justified in asking for that increase without any explanation. He says that he proposes to expend $5,000 on one farm and $3,000 on another but gave no real substantial reason for what is being done. I think the experimental farm is a necessity in Canada. There is one necessary work that the farm should perform, and that is research work, with regard to plant diseases and insect pests and such things. Those are matters that the average farmer cannot handle. In western Canada a great deal of the best experimental work has been done by individual farmers and not by experimental farms. I am not for a minute running down the work done on our experimental farms. Good work has been done on these farms but much of it has not been made use of by the individual fanner. We are trying to bring the individual farmer to the experimental farm, instead of taking the experimental farm to the individual farmer and it is a very hard thing to do. I think a lot of our money might be far better spent in employing agricultural agents to
4S0
Supply-Experimental Farms

travel round and visit the farms. I think the Minister of Agriculture might close up the Rosthern farm. He says it is going to be moved, and yet he is going to spend this year several thousand dollars more than was spent last year.
I do not want to weary the House with any more remarks, but I really have not been convinced that we are wise in voting the extra $200,000 for the experimental farms this year.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has made two or three suggestions that look good on the face of them, and are good, except that they do not come properly under this vote. The question of insect pests comes under the very next vote, and when we reach it we will deal with the part the experimental farms throughout the Dominion play in regard to this important question. That is a question rapidly growing in importance, but I do not think it advisable to mix up with this matter.
With respect to the agricultural agents, I say; yes, employ them, if you can get the right kind of men, but that is an up-to-date provincial matter. While that is so, the grant the Dominion has been giving for the last ten years under the Agricultural Instruction Acts has been devoted largely in the direction of paying the district representatives in the various provinces. In Ontario I do not know what percentage of the district representatives are paid out of the Dominion grant, but it is a very substantial number. So that if you take the questions in the consecutive order in which they appear in the estimates, you will find all that work will be covered before we are through. Furthermore, with respect to the meagre information outlined in the estimates, I must confess myself, Mr. Chairman, that when I saw the amount that was published last year as compared with provincial estimates with which I had been familiar, it did not look excessive, but I am accepting these matters just as I find them. This is the second estimate that I have had the responsibility of explaining, and my hon. friend's suggestion that more details might be given in connection with this vote is, I think, deserving of some consideration. I think my hon. friend will at least admit that just to the extent that this is lacking, I have endeavoured not to be lacking in explaining the votes for the various activities that we have undertaken in this department, I have been trying to avoid the very thing my hon. friend complains of-spending too much time. I took about three-quarters of an hour at the outset trying to give a bird's eye view, a

sort of skeleton, of the work, so that the committee might have a very intelligent grasp of the whole situation as to what was our objective and our plans with respect to the future in regard to new farms and all that sort of thing. I do not know whether that saved any time or not, but I do hope it gave members who are not intimately associated with, or who do not live in close proximity to the farms, some idea of the matter. The suggestion that we should give more particulars is a matter of general policy that might be taken up by the government, not only with regard to these estimates, but possibly all others.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. gentleman who
spoke a few minutes ago asked for particular information. The hon. minister (Mr. Motherwell) took five minutes in giving us a resume, but that does not give us the information we wanted. The question asked by the hon. gentleman from Macleod (Mr. Coote) was how much money was spent on the Central Experimental farm last year and how much it is proposed to spend on that farm this year. These are questions I would like to see answered.


William Richard Motherwell: I went over that
once already.


James Dew Chaplin: I have not been able
to get it.


William Richard Motherwell: I would like to
ask my hon. friend from Macleod whether he means the total or the increase? The amounts I have been reading out have to do with the increase.


James Dew Chaplin: If the minister will give us the total appropriation for last year and the- total appropriation for this year, we can see what the increase is.


William Richard Motherwell: While we are having the figures for the Central farm looked up, I might point out that all the questions formerly were directed towards the explanation of the increase, and I read them out farm by farm. I undertsand my hon. friend (Mr. Chaplin desires to know the total, including the increase, that is a different class of information. We have not been trying to overlook it at all; but at the very outset, the ex-Minister of Finance, (Sir Henry Drayton) asked for an explanation regarding the purposes to w'hich the increase of $200,000 was to be put, and the whole discussion the whole evening was with respect to that item. We can, however, start all over again. As regards the expenditure for the experimental farm at Indian Head, the total estimate for the year ending March 31, 1924, is $44,550.

Supply-Experimental Farms
The increase, I think, was $5,000. Therefore, by deducting $5,000 from $44,550, you will get what was spent last year, or, in round figures, $39,550.


George Gibson Coote: What is the figure for Ros-thern?


William Richard Motherwell: The total estimate for Rosthem is $34,859 for next year. If we deduct $8,000 from that, the figure for last year was $26,000 in round numbers. The total estimate for the Central Experimental farm for next year is $502,145, and the increase is roughly $60,000. This item of $502,145 includes, I am informed, the 110 illustration stations and also the tobacco farms. In the earlier part of the evening, I read a whole page of details with respect to the activities of the experimental farm at Ottawa.


Mr. McTAGGART:: What is the total estimate for the Swift Current Experimental farm?


William Richard Motherwell: It is-$39,350 for next year. The increase amounts to $9,000, so that by deducting $9,000 from $39,350, you get $30,350 as the expenditure for last year.


Mr. LEWIS:: Does that include the buildings?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, The building is done out of this appropriation for the first two or three years; after that, the building is done out of the Public Works appropriation.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister, in giving us the estimated expenditure for the Central farm for this year, said that it included some other experimental stations. Can he not tell us the expenditures in connection with those experimental stations, so that we can arrive at a positive idea of the cost of the central farm for this year?


William Richard Motherwell: It is pretty hard to state exactly the cost of the Central Experimental farm, because that is really the clearing house for the entire twenty-two branch farm system. Experiments in regard to grasses, grains, etc., are conducted there, and as soon as it is established that they are of sufficient importance to develop, they are sent to the various farms and planted there in what we call multiplier plots, where they are developed. Therefore, more or less of the work of the Central Experimental farm is really chargeable to the branch farms, because of this dovetailing. It is one entire layout, as it were. If my hon. friend wants any particular division of the Central Experimental farm system-


James Dew Chaplin: No, I want to know what the central farm is costing, and I think that
is a fair question. If the minister says that those smaller farms throughout the country cost certain sums and those certain sums all added together constitute the total cost of them, the balance must be the expenditure for the central farm. Surely, we should be able to arrive at a figure showing the cost of the central farm. The matter is only one of bookkeeping.


George Gibson Coote: The minister, in his remarks a few moments ago, seemed to insinuate that we might have asked for this information earlier. It is true, we might have asked for it earlier, and if I had had an opportunity I would have asked for it myself. But a number of members were asking questions and I did not have' an opportunity. There are only some twenty-two experimental farms, and the minister should give us a list of them and the expenditures in connection with each. If we had had that information earlier in the evening when this estimate was brought up, we might have disposed of the matter by this time.


William Richard Motherwell: I appeal to the committee if this information was ever asked for until now. The whole discussion was on the increase and the whole information was on the increase. If my hon. friend wants the other information with regard to the totals, I am just as willing to give the one as the other. I have reams of information here if the committee is willing to listen to it. As regards the central farm here and the different divisions of it, I can give the totals. Because of the joint relationship between the parent farm and the branch farms, the total I have given of $502,145 does not give anything like the information that could be given with respect to the branches. The Central Experimental farm is the clearing house for the rest of the farms. It is the experimental centre, while the others serve the various districts in which they are situated. The following are the details in connection with the central farm. I shall give the round figures:
Animal husbandry	
Bacteriology	
Bee division	
Botany, economic	
Plant pathology	
Cereals	
Chemistry	
Director's office	
Extension and publicity	
Farm superintendent	
Fibre division in connection with flax experimentation	
Field husbandry	
Forage plants	
Horticultural	
Illustration stations



$44,000 5,600 6,000 8,715 22,000 33.000 11.000 3,100 34.000 29.000 43.000 30.000 21.000 53,000 65.00A REVISED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Experimental Farms
[Stage Direction]
With regard to these, you cannot administer the illustration stations without some centre. We have 110 of them scattered all over the' country, and with the exception of Ontario and Manitoba they .cost on an average between $300 and $400 each. The government enters into a contract with the individual farmer, leasing 40 acres of land at $5 per acre. That amounts to $200. Then certain seeds are supplied him and certain activities are carried on in the way of demonstration. There is no clerical work at these stations, which are directed from the central farm at Ottawa. There is therefore nothing for it but to charge the cost up to the central farm. That is one reason why these activities help to swell the vote for that farm. The
other items are:
Poultry division	 $31,000
Tobacco division	 44,000
General expenditures	 11,000
We have the necessary information giving a minute analysis of each sub-division, but I do not think that that is wanted at this time of night. I will now give the totals at each point, quoting the round figures:
Charlottetown	 $36,000
Kentvillc	 46,000
Nappan	 43,000
Fredericton	 44,000
Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere	 43,000
Cap Rouge	 16,000
St Joachim	 16,000
Lennoxville	 44,000
La Ferine	 37,000
Kapuskasing	 39,000
Morden	 36,000
Brandon	   46,000
Indian Head	 44.000
Rosthern	 34,000
Scott	 34,000
Swift Current	    39,000
Lethbridge	 46,000
Lacombe	 44,000
Summerland	 44,000
Invermere	 27,000
Agassiz	 40.000
Sidney	 32,000
There are nine sub-stations, one of which is in Grand Prairie. At these sub-stations they do a certain amount of experimental, demonstration and extension work, such as holding public meetings, etc. The sub-stations amount to $18,000 with a general expenditure of $4,000. I understand that the special details in regard to each one of these items can be found in another formidable looking book.
Donald Sutherland: I hope the minister will not think that we are asking questions with a view to making it more difficult for him to get his estimates through. The more information we get the easier it will be to have the item passed, providing it is reasonfMr. Motherwell.]
able. I was pleased to hear the minister admit at last that the central farm at Ottawa is really the clearing house for the twenty-two farms throughout the country, and that much of the expenditure for that farm is entailed in connection with those various branch farms. An admission of that kind is something we have not had for some time. On the contrary, last year Ontario was credited with all the money that was spent on the Central farm. It is quite apparent to every one that that farm must be the clearing house, as the minister states it is, for all these others. There are 110 illustration stations the expenditures in connection with which were charged up against this farm, and as usual the province of Ontario has not even an illustration station.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, no one has
yet applied for one.	-


Donald Sutherland: I am afraid that is
hardly correct. Possibly no one has done so recently, but I dm inclined to think that they probably got tired making applications. I notice that the expenditures in connection with this Central farm, which amounted to $383,000 during the past year, according to the Auditor General's report, include an item of $148,636 for ordinary farm labour, in addition to $33,780 for foremen. This does not take into account the highly qualified men who are employed to administer the farms throughout the Dominion. So that on this farm of 465 acres there is spent $182,366 for labour. I have expressed my views on this question in the past, and I repeat to-night that this is altogether too large an expenditure for the work that is done on this farm. In the face of that you are not able to demonstrate to the people on any farm adjacent to the Central Experimental farm what the cost of farming is. You cannot show that the people are or are not justified in their complaints with regard to the condition of agriculture. Notwithstanding the fact that for ordinary farm labour you are spending no less than $182,365 at the Central Experimental farm, you are unable to show what is the actual cost of farm operations. I think the figures I have given are correct, and I cannot conceive how such a large sum can be expended for farm labour alone, particularly when I remember that a large part of this farm is laid out as a beautiful public park. In addition to that expenditure about $160,000 is paid annually by the Dominion government for the beautification of the city of Ottawa; in fact I think I am understating the amount. So on the whole the Capital is receiving very generous

Supply-Experimental Farms
treatment at the hands of the government.
I	am mentioning this to show that the money expended on the Central Experimental farm has not always been for the benefit of the province of Ontario as we have been told on previous occasions; on the contrary, a good deal of the administrative work performed there relates to the management of the various experimental farms throughout the Dominion. I should like the minister to express his views as to whether he thinks it possible for the ordinary farmer engaged in the breeding of live stock to compete with the breeders who will be stationed at this farm to supply stock.
A little further down in the estimates there is another item which is really connected with this one, for I perceive the minister's main
reform in connection with the experi-
II	p.m. mental farm system is the live stock
business. In item 48 it will be seen that there is another increase of $170,000. So there is really a total increase of $370,000 in connection with the matter now under discussion. It will be readily understood that those who are now engaged in the breeding of live stock are going to be very badly handicapped w'hen the minister enters into this scheme, in fact it will be impossible for them to compete against so generous an expenditure for labour. Is it the intention of the government to continue this lavish expenditure for ordinary farm labour on this small Central Experimental farm?


Mr. BRETHEN:: The item under discussion has a bearing on an item further down, namely, the decrease in the Health of Animals branch. I think it can be readily shown that experimental farms are well worth all the money that is expended on them. To realize this -we have only to remember the provincial experimental farm at Guelph and the introduction there of Mandecheuria barley by Dr. Zavitz, which it is estimated has already benefited our farmers to the extent of 830,000,000. The introduction of Marquis wheat has been referred to this evening, and I suppose that has meant hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of the farmers of Canada. Only recently we noticed in the newspapers an announcement of the discovery of another variety of wheat, Marquis III, which is expected to play a very important part in our agriculture. Now, hon. members, will understand that in experimental farm work where the grain has to be set out in little plots, much of it has to be hand picked, and great care taken to keep it separate from other grains, that the work is costly, and that
viewed from that restricted standpoint an experimental farm cannot be made to show a profit; but viewed generally by the results to the people of Canada, why, such a farm pays about as well as anything with which Canada has to do. For that reason I should like very much to support this increase of $200,000, but when I find that we have a decrease of $285,000 suggested in the Health of Animals branch, I find myself unable to endorse the former. What is the use of spending $200,000 to introduce better live stock if we neglect the health of animals? As the minister said to-night, they have been standing pat at these experimental farms for eight years, and they can stand pat for another year in regard to the introduction of live stock and get along all right with what they have already; but we cannot stand pat when it comes to a question of disease or health. If we neglect the health of a human being or an animal for a single year, we cannot mark time, we are bound to go back. Nov/, this country has established a system which has held in check to some extent the plague of tuberculosis, and last year more than ever before in our cities waged a very active campaign in the same direction. But notwithstanding the progress made we find that this important work is to all go by the board. As I say, I should like to see this increase go through. I believe it is a good investment for Canada, but if it is to be at the sacrifice of the other item I have referred to, I cannot support it.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, this is going to entail a discussion of another vote altogether, but I think it should be permitted because the hon. gentleman's remarks are reasonable enough, unless I can show a valid explanation for the reduction. Our intention is to take care of that work for another year just as effectually as we did last year.


George Arthur Brethen: If I may be permitted to interrupt the minister? When I was down at the office where this work is conducted I was informed that if this vote goes through as reduced there will be no new work carried on this year.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the source from which to get information is here, not in the office. I should be glad to get the source of my hon. friend's information.


Harry Leader: Did the minister not give the information to the House a few hours ago that he intended to bring in a bill reducing compensation for the slaughter of diseased animals?
Supply-Experimental Farms


William Richard Motherwell: If you will permit this digression, Mr. Chairman, I shall be very pleased to enter into the question, for the hon. member for Portage la Prairie appears to be quite exercised over it.


Harry Leader: Not at all.


William Richard Motherwell: I suppose my hon. friends are aware of the fact that there is what is called follow-up work in regard to accredited herds, that you have to give a second examination, that that examination invariably finds very much fewer reactors than the first examination; but if we are to keep the accredited herds clean there must be a second examination given in a reasonable time. That is what we are engaged on now. That will keep our staff busy, at very much less expense, and enable us to get through this current year reasonably well. We are not taking on any new accredited herds. We had to do the same thing last year. What we are doing now is to take care of the herds already accredited, and unless you engage in that follow-up work your original work is of no value in a very few years. I may say for the benefit of my hon. friends that I-lost an entire herd through tuberculosis before there was any compensation, so I know exactly what the loss means to the individual. But the compensation to-day is so high that it frustrates the very object it has in view. A compensation of S200 for many animals that I know of will buy the animals, and the man who gets that figure or two-thirds of it will be getting a much better figure than he would on the market to-day in a lot of cases. *The original framers of this scheme of compensation never had the idea in mind of giving more compensation than the animal was worth.


Donald Sutherland: Are not the animals valued by the officials of the department at their actual worth?


William Richard Motherwell: I know they are, but the maximum valuation is $200, and two-thirds of that is $133, and I know plenty of animals that are not worth that.


Arthur Meighen: Is not the minister misinterpreting the act? I am no specialist on this, but as I understand the minister's own explanation, it is this:	The animal is valued
but no valuation is allowed beyond $200, and though the animal may be valued by his own officers at $200, there cannot be paid more than two-thirds of that. The owner is never paid more than two-thirds of the value fixed by the minister's own officers. How does he

rqake that consistent with the assertion that more money is paid than the animal is worth?


William Richard Motherwell: So it is; $133 is more than many of them are worth.


Mr. CALDWELL:: That is the maximum
value. There is nothing to prevent a man from valuing them down as low as he likes. If this subject is open for discussion-I do not want to be out of order-


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not open for discussion. Item 39 is being left to discuss another item, but I shall not object at this stage.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am perfectly satisfied to bow to your ruling.


William Richard Motherwell: Might I say, Mr. Chairman, that in what is called a restricted area in Manitoba we are cleaning up tuberculosis in all animals regardless of whether they are grade or pure-bred. That is costing some $75,000, and we are doing it as a try-out for the purpose of finding out what it is going to cost. That will not be required in next year's vote, and accounts for $75,000. The second examination, which will take up the time of the staff but will not require nearly so much money, will account for a little more, and I hope that the reduction that will be provided with respect to compensation for certain animals will account for some more. So we shall be able to carry on the work just as effectively as last year.
The reason we are trying out this restricted area of three municipalities in Manitoba is this, and I am sure my predecessor understands the situation:	If this work is
going to run into a large sum of money we want to be able to go to the provinces and to the municipalities and ask for their cooperation in cleaning up the herds regardless of whether they are grade or pure bred. In the United States they have adopted a plan whereby the federal government, state legislatures and municipalities unite in this work. We hope to get some information from the work in this restricted area that we can place before the provinces and the municipalities, and possibly at some conference suggest to them, are you prepared to enter into cooperation with the federal authorities with a view to taking care of this very heavy and very necessary and important work? That is the method adopted in the United States, and it has been found to work out effectively. I do not know whether it will work out effectively here, but I must have the information as to the cost before I can hope to have the

Supply-Experimental Farms
co-operation of the provinces and municipalities. That sum will not be required next year and that accounts for a very large portion of that reduction.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is it not a fact that the maximum valuation of an animal is $200, that only two-thirds of that is paid, and that it is strictly the duty of the official carrying out that work to fix the actual market value of the animal before entering up his compensation papers? That actual market value might be only twenty or thirty or fifty dollars, and you are only entitled by law to pay two-thirds of that amount. I am sure the minister would not want the statement to go abroad that his officials were fixing these papers or preparing false papers. I have known the men doing this work in the Health of Animals branch for many years, and they are gentlemen of repute and high standing in their profession, and I would hate to see the statement go out imputing wrong statements to these men in the preparation of their papers.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend knows perfectly well the difficulty. If you put the compensation high, you are going to have the valuation high; there is no question about that. This is one of the most difficult features of our whole compensation business, to get a proper valuation that will compensate the owner partially. It is similar to the indemnity that is paid to members; it is an indemnity, not a salary, and similarly the compensation is paid to the man to indemnify him for his loss, so that with the salvage of the animal and the compensation, he can start over again. It may be sound theoretically to say that if we put the compensation up to $1,000 the appraisers would value the animals at their actual value, but would not the tendency be to appraise the animal higher than if the maximum compensation was $200? There is no question in my mind that that would be the tendency. That has been my experience, and it is no reflection on the staff at all. If we are going to have a successful administration of this Vote we shall have to give reasonable satisfaction and secure the active and sympathetic co-operation of the owners of the stock. The desire of the breeders to have their herds accredited goes to show that they are being well compensated for their stock now. I do not believe that the intention of the framers of the act is being carried out if no part of the loss falls on the owner of the animal. It is true that a lot of the loss falls on breeders of first-class
stock, but with regard to inferior animals the present compensation means that you are buying the animal.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have had a number of years' experience in the actual administration of the act, first as inspector in the employ of the federal government, and also as chief inspector for the province of British Columbia, and I say that if you are paying more money than these cattle are worth to-day the act is not being carried out, and anybody that does that should be fired immediately.
In the first place an inspector makes his valuation in the field. That valuation certificate is submitted to the chief inspector of the province, who looks over it carefully, and if he requires more information secures it from the inspector in the field. Finally those documents are forwarded to the head office in Ottawa, where they are submitted to further scrutiny. There is no man who is doing his duty who will value the animal higher than its actual worth. It is his business to base the valuation on the regular market price, and if he wishes further information on this particular subject he can easily obtain it by applying to those who keep in close touch with the market reports. As I said before, anybody valuing these animals at a greater value than they are worth on the market is certainly not fulfilling his duties and should be looked after and reprimanded.


William Richard Motherwell: Then, it does not make any difference what the maximum valuation is, whether it is $200 or $2,000. The appraiser will come along and give the real value.


John Millar: A few days ago I had occasion to read in the House a paragraph from a journal making certain allegations. That excerpt is already on Hansard and it it not necessary to repeat it. I will, however, give the substance of the charges. They were to the effect that men were carrying on a considerable business through the west in buying old cows and animals that were likely to react when tested for tuberculosis; they were buying them, it was said, for the purpose of having them re-act, because they were getting them at about $8 apiece, the article stated, and when they re-acted the purchasers claimed $30 apiece from the government. It was stated that this practice was carried on on quite a large scale around the stockyards at Winnipeg.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I absolutely do not believe that statement for one minute. I know these men in the Health of Animals branch. I know their reputation and I know they are
4S6
Supply-Experimental Farms

good square fellows as far as I have been able to discover. I certainly think it is the duty of the minister to take up the statement of the hon. member and investigate it to the bottom, and ascertain whether the allegation is true or not. If it is true the minister could remedy it at the earliest possible moment.


Donald Sutherland: I think the admission the minister has made is one of the most severe reflections upon this branch of the department that has ever been made by a member of the government in this House. I think it goes to confirm certain charges that I brought against that very branch on several occasions last session. I may say further that the remark just made by the minister that you might as well not have a maximum compensation but let it run up to 12,000 might just as well apply.


Robert Gardiner: I rise to a point of order. The question the hon. member is discussing is not relevant to the item under discussion.


Donald Sutherland: Before giving your
ruling, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the minister asked for discussion on this matter, and I think it would be most unfortunate for the officials of his department not to have the allegations cleared up now that we have so nearly approached the hour of adjournment. I cannot conceive it possible for men who understand their work to fix so excessive a valuation on these animals.


Robert Gardiner: I ask for your ruling,
Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. gentleman wish to debate the point?


Donald Sutherland: With reference to
the point of order, I would say that the matter has been under discussion and considerable latitude has been allowed. The minister himself asked for the discussion. That was my reason for wishing to make a few remarks. I think an injustice will be done if the discussion is terminated at this stage.


George Newcombe Gordon: The minister, in answer to a comparison that was made by one hon. member, briefly entered into a discussion of the question of the health of animals. I must rule the point of order is well taken, and that this question cannot be discussed on the item relating to experimental farms which we arc now considering. I rule that the discussion must be limited to the item under consideration.


Harry Leader: I must say we all appreciate the information that the minister, has given us to-night. Hon. members will concede

that he is actuated by the desire to do the best he can in his department. I feel that way myself, and recognize that the minister is perfectly competent for the position which he holds. But I maintain that in asking for $200,000 more than was voted for this purpose last year the minister is calling for too much under present conditions. I protest against a vote for such an amount, and would therefore move, seconded by Mr. Coote that the item be reduced by $200,000.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not taken any part in the debate and I do not profess to any special knowledge of farming, but if you are going to move for reductions I do not think it is wise to select the agricultural interest for the beginning. The Minister of Agriculture has been very profuse in his information, he has given all possible explanation, and if there is any more required, I have no doubt he will bring the information tomorrow. I would earnestly plead with the committee not to make any reduction in this item. I know the minister's most zealous and earnest to promote the agricultural interest of the country. I know he has most strenuously asked this increase, and possibly some have unwillingly granted it to him under his strong recommendations. Therefore I think it would be a mistake for the committee now to reduce this item.
Amendment (Mr. Leader) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Wednesday, February 21, 1923